For those who read the books LOTR?

Question

Did you think the movies were good if you saw them? Did you think they left out any important parts? Did you like or dislike any changes they had made from the book to transition into the movie (i.e.- the "importance of Arwen"). Just want to see what others think out there. thanx.

Answer 1

Here's my full review from 2001 over Fellowship Of The Ring:

I started rereading the book after seeing the movie because I had to clear my brain of the foolish changes made. First of all I didn't much like the forced perspective and special effects necessary to make the hobbits and dwarves look 3-4 feet tall. I think they would've have saved tons of money, time, and &c. in having actual children play the 30-111 year old hobbits. Simply using make-up to make them look aged, hairy or whatever. Is Elijah Wood, Sean Astin, et al. acting so unparalleled that one of

those pretentious children like Frankie Muniz from Malcolm in the Middle couldn't have done just as well. And this thing they did forced the movie into this binocular of extreme close-ups and extreme far off shots where the hobbits were just blurry CGI.

Other than that, you have to ask yourself who is this movie being made for? If we are to believe Peter Jackson then it is for fans of the books. Not some mass audience of illiterate lovers of action adventure. Why take out things people remember and love in order to add expensive fight scenes that were just hinted at in the books? Such as Gandalf being taken prisoner by Saruman. The book says Gandalf threatened but really he knew he was no match for Saruman and his staff. Or to expand other fight scenes that when left out provided a mysterious wondering at what could've happened?

Critics complained there were too many characters. But the real problem was that they created so much extraneous dialogue for everyone they left out the important connections. They met so many people because they were traveling, seeking allies, spreading the news that the ring was going to be destroyed, bringing hope to the people.

Can anyone tell me what was the point of having anyone speak in Elfish with subtitles except as an exercise? In the book sometimes someone will say a thing or two in Elfish but a translation almost immediately follows from their lips. The hobbits don't understand Elfish so neither do we. The only thing we might've heard is the far off sound of elves singing in Elfish And then when they change it to common like they did in Rivendell (Maybe?), that would've been so cool.

I don't care about leaving out Tom Bombadil but the barrow wights and the old forest is where they got their swords. Where we got to know the hobbits before they met the men and elves. We never really got to meet Frodo. Instead of showing him as fearless, brave, &c. We see nothing. In the Mines of Moria Frodo leaped to the attack before anyone else acted and stabbed the cave troll in the foot, ending its involvement! But in the movie he did nothing but run from it.

Frodo senses the kraken in the lake too, and kept noticing Gollum all the time because of being stabbed by the black rider's sword. (And sometimes I've read it's from the ring so I'm not sure?) When Boromir tossed a rock into the pond Frodo yelled at him. And they made it seem like Frodo was a big chicken with the ring, trying to give it away all the time, but really he only tried to give it to the people who had the Elven rings. And even Galadriel knew it was some sort of test. It was some thing he couldn't control.

The worst error was putting Arwen in place of Glorfindel. Instead of a wounded but still fighting Frodo racing on the Elf's horse to the ford, we have him being carried like a sack. And instead of Frodo defiantly daring the Black Riders to cross the ford and get him, we have Arwen saying it. And instead of the flood being a magical trap created by Elrond (who has the water ring, hello?) and Gandalf (with the fire ring), we have Arwen casting a Harry Potter spell. The whole point of that scene was lost. The riders balked at the ford, not the horses, not because they're scared of water, but because they sensed the magical trap! Glorfindel with a light spell and Aragorn with torches came up behind the riders and scared the riders across the ford and into the trap. Do they even know what a ford is? It's the really wide, crossable area of a river that's otherwise too big, fast and strong to swim. It's not a creek.

There are just so many wrong things and wasted parts and missed steps for no particular reason. Saruman didn't tear down the whole Isenguard in a few days, he'd been keeping orcs there for years, hollowing it out from underneath like a disease. He didn't create half-orcs in the mud like golems, he bred them with Southroners to make half-orcs. Gandalf didn't notice the fiery holes in Isenguard until he was put on the tower outcropping.

And they messed up by putting the tale of Isildur at the beginning of the story instead of letting all the stories be told at the Council of Elrond. They could've had Frodo be amazed that Elrond was there, thousands of years ago, but they didn't go into the whole thing of elves living forever, being ancient, &c. As though we couldn't understand or something? Aragorn (half-elf) is 88 years old! He dies when he's near 250. And Gimli and Legolas are still around after that.

And I really think they should've started with The Hobbit. Why leave out the prequel? Unless they just left it open for future production, for some reason. They should've seen what they could've done with Hobbit and then gone on to make LotR if they pulled it off. Which they didn't.

Too long. Yeah because of all the extended fight scenes and additional useless dialogue. This is the first movie I ever got up to pee because I knew I wouldn't miss anything and I didn't! They didn't even show Narsil being reforged. And it wasn't supposed to be in 20 pieces but two! Broken a foot from the hilt. Did Aragorn carry two swords before? Or did he fight with the broken one?

And they left out all the names and events that make Middle Earth so rich. We'd never know from the movie who was related to the Old Took who took on the Winter Wolves in the Fell Winter of a hundred years ago... &c. Who wrote this script because to me it was all crap. The only thing I remember was Galadriel's speech which was pretty darn close to the book. I'm assuming most of it was made up and all crap but I could be wrong. Even if some things were weird for a modern audience he should've just left it in. It's an institution. You can't just change things. It's as bad as Spielberg going back and "fixing" E.T. for modern sensibilities. Come on!

Arwen. They have the perfectly wonderful thing about how Aragorn met Arwen in the appendix. Aragorn was wandering around the forest of Rivendell singing about an ancient Elven queen of great beauty when suddenly he sees Arwen and thinking it's an apparition he calls to her, Tinuviel, Tinuviel! And she's like what the heck? And he asks her who she really is and she says she's Elrond's daughter and Aragorn's like what the heck? I've lived in Elrond's house my whole life and I've never seen you. Has he kept you in his treasure horde? (An actually funny line, hello?) And when she said how she lived in Lorien with her grandmother for many years he realized she's like 200 (or more?) even though she still looked hot. And he fell in love with her right then and there.

But Elrond wasn't happy at all with the arrangement and he said she could never be with him until he was king of Gondor and the Dark Lord was sent packing. So Aragorn spent years and years in the woods fighting monsters and preparing for the day when he would go to Gondor and fight Sauron's army. And at the end they came together even though Eowin wanted to marry him. And Arwen had to give up her Elven immortality for some reason to stay with Aragorn, I think because when the third age ended all the elves left so there was no way for her to ever get to the West (Heaven). And that's the only way she could stay immortal for some reason? So finally after everyone died she went back to Lorien and died on a mound. Elrond was half-elven but he lived long because he had the water ring (one of the three Elven rings.)

They got the birds thing wrong. Why not have Radagast (the only other wizard in the books) do his thing? They got the mountain thing wrong. It was either Sauron or a combination of his bad weather and giants sending down rocks. Nothing to do with Saruman sending lighting bolts all the way from his tower.

They made the Mines of Moria too long. The whole thing with the broken staircase was scary but it wasn't in the book? Neither orcs nor goblins climb down pillars like spiders. Though Gollum does! They left out the wonder of it all. How some of the great dwarven halls had windows peaking out of the mountain tops. They didn't explain how Balin had gone there 30 years ago with a great force, after the retaking of Lonely Mountain in The Hobbit, and tried to retake the Mines. And the fellowship didn't get that Balin had failed until they reached the tomb and found the journal. He had only lasted 5 years before orcs and the Balrog killed them all, &c.

A few times in the book they killed the captains of the orcs and the others fled, saving Tolkien from having to go on and on with explanations of battles. First in the mines, and on their way out as well. And probably at the ending battle too. Mordor orcs held the east side of the Great River but the west side had Saurman's orcs? Aragorn said maybe Gollum was communicating with the enemies, warning them somehow? But I have my doubts of Gollum popping up in the orc camp and them not just killing him for fun or whatever? They left out the cool part where the black rider returned on the flying creature (Nazgul) and Legolas shot it down in the dark!

And what happened to subtlety? Gandalf, Bilbo, and Galadriel all went psycho on Frodo in the movie. In the book it was just hinted at. Actually it was Boromir whose face changed but they didn't show that? Gandalf rose to his full height. Galadriel's speech was close but I think wrong. She was talking to herself, not Frodo. Thinking out loud, not threatening him. Bilbo's words, not his whole face changing into Gollum for a second. And if Frodo did see those things shouldn't he have been confused and scared out of his mind. Not knowing who his allies were and weren't?

And why'd they have to let everyone in on the battles, like otherwise they wouldn't get experience points or something? At the end Aragorn didn't fight any orcs at all. The whole time Boromir was protecting Merry and Pippin, Aragorn was tracking Frodo to the top of the hill. While Sam realized Frodo had gone down the the river to run away. Though Gimli and Legolas were off in the woods fighting orcs. By the time they heard the horn and rushed down the hill Boromir had killed 20 orcs and still Merry and Pippin had been captured.

And Boromir was wasted. Twice in the book he blew the Horn Of Gondor. Once when leaving Rivendell because he said he might be hiding after this but he would not hide his leaving as he always blew it before a journey. And the second time he blew it to full power when he was being overwhelmed by the orcs at the falls, making them hesitate for a bit but when no help came they pressed the attack. In the book when he blew it the mountains shook and the horn was heard in Gondor! But in the movie it went "toot" and that was it. And you could see it had a trumpet mouthpiece shoved on it. Not an ornate something from ages past. Only Aragorn heard him confess he tried to take the ring as in the end he repented. Aragorn never told anyone about that until years later.

Oh, and finally putting on the ring. Please oh, please oh, please. There is no freaking way putting on the ring could've been so windy, noisy, blurry, and scary! The only thing that happened with the ring was that Frodo could see the ring wraiths ghostly faces. See through their magical disguise. That's it! He couldn't see Sauron or the Eye. And everything else was fine. If anything he could sense more clearly. His detect evil ability came from the effect of the Ringwraith's sword nearly turning him into a shadow. (And/or the ring maybe too?) If the ring was like that then no one would ever put it on. Bilbo and Frodo's problem was that the ring was so much fun, so easy, they found themselves putting it on when maybe they shouldn't have. And every time they did its hold on them grew stronger.

After he died in in FotR Gandalf returned twice as Gandalf The White! First in the Mirror Of Galadriel and second when Frodo was looking into the eye on the Seat of Seeing. Gandalf said "Take off the ring, you fool." Like Obi Wan's ghost.

And in conclusion I swear I could've done this movie right: used every line, added nothing, and included everything and a little more, from Tolkien, not from myself.

At least that's how I see it. I could be wrong.

And Two Towers in 2002:

The Two Towers (2002) T

In the book, Gollum did seem to have a split personality. But mostly he was faking and biding his time because he couldn't take out both of them, even in their sleep. If they got to know him better and spared his life it was just because they felt sorry for him. We all know what he does at the end and it wasn't heroic at all. BTW could they have combined Jar Jar Binks and Yoda into one annoying character any more poorly? They tried to make him funny, cute and heroic and all those are just wrong.

Faramir did not take Frodo, Sam and Gollum to Osgilliath where they encountered a Nazgul. Where did they get that crap? What was the point of that except to set up a location for the huge battles in the next film. Faramir let them go from the waterfall cave. He came to trust them pretty quickly even though he wanted the ring himself to take to Gondor. He knew what they were doing was right.

Fangorn Forest was wasted. I guess they did the Ents okay? They were bipedal, though slow and stiff. They were the tree herders. They looked like huge friendly trolls with bark-like skin, moss-like beards and hair, and whatnot. Trolls were made in parody of them. The time spent there is where Merry and Pippin grew up, drank the Ent juice, and learned a thing or two. What they left out was the huge force of the Hurons (The black forest of semi-sentient/angry trees) that did most of the killing of orcs both at Isenguard and later at Helms Deep. They didn't even show them blocking Helm's Deep in the final battle.

The Nazgul looked lame. I had a calendar with a painting of a Nazgul and rider and it looked better as more like a giant nasty vulture thing than some wormy dragon thing. Boring. In the book it's compared to a giant bat and Sam says it's like a giant "carrion bird."

Legolas did not 'board down any stairs shooting arrows. That was dumb. Same goes for Gimli's pathetic jokes about being short, the dwarf tossing thing, and how dwarven women have beards. Ugh.

The Grima and Theodin thing was too drawn out. Showdowfax wasn't explained at all. Gandalf was dubbed the White Rider, not because of his silver/white horse, but because he was now "The White" (Head of Wizards) and he rode the best horse in the Mark.

They ended the movie before the book ended. Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli rode into Isengard only to find it destroyed and Merry and Pippin sitting around smoking Saruman's stash. Then Galdalf broke Saruman's staff and took the Palantir which later one of the hobbit's foolishly looked into.

On the other side Frodo and Sam fell into Gollum's trap, Frodo was poisoned, captured and imprisoned by orcs and Sam had to take The Ring, Sting, and the elven mail suit and decide what to do next...

All in all it was less annoying than the last one. Still I wanted more.

I didn't write a review for ROTK.

Answer 2

I love the books and the movies, and although they did leave out important parts, most notably things like Tom Bombadil and the scouring of the Shire, the omissions that were made make sense. The movies are already almost ridiculously long; there's really no way more of the books could have been put in. As for Arwen being inserted into the story and having the actions of other characters attributed to her, I was a little annoyed at first, but without her there is not really any major female character excepting Eowyn, who doesn't come in until late in the series. All in all I love Peter Jackson for making the movies, and I'm a bit peeved that, from what I've heard, he is no longer directing The Hobbit.

Answer 3

I thought they did a really good job with the time they had in the films. Most of the "important" things they cut out for the regular film of the movie they included in the extended versions, and those things were more for the fans than for people who knew nothing about the books. I even liked some of the changes, like getting rid of the Scourging of the Shire, and including Arwen in the story, even though I kind of wanted to see Glorfindel in the beginning of Fellowship. Anyway, I don't think movies based on books should be exactly the same as their books, even if that were possible. It makes it more interesting if the books have things the movie doesn't and vice versa (although all changes should stay true to the characters). It makes both experiences more exciting, since you don't know exactly what's going to happen.

Answer 4

It is rather ironic that I am now answering this question considering I just got done watching, for the millionth time, all three extended editions with some friends. I love the movies because they are as close to the books as LOTR fans could ever hope for in the world of making movies to sell movies. While I do not approve of Jackson's manipulation of the story of Arwen, I must applaud him for all of the things he did right. Of course the movies are not as good as the books, but would you really want them to be? And let's face it: While we may have wanted to see the Scouring of the Shire, even the most ardent fan can admit that it would have caused entirely too much confusion for a general movie audience. Though it may be exciting to find that you still have a few chapters to go when the book has clearly just had its grand finale, it would not be too exciting for movie-goers who have just sat through three and a half intense hours. So, boo for the Arwen thing, but yay for everything else. Well, almost everything. Ok, mostly everything!

Answer 5

The books are my favorite books to read. I enjoyed the movies. They were pretty good for movies but there were a few things I didnt like. I have the extended versions because of extra scenes so those are the versions I am refering to. I was disappointed to see the cleansing of the Shire was left out. I realize it would have made the movie about an hour longer but that part of the book was really important. Arwen is a big part of the story line.

Answer 6

The films were very, very, good, but the second and third each fell in quality from the one before. Overall, that which was left out had to be. Tom Bombadil was an obvious episode in that category, being part of Tolkien's rich world which was much broader than the plot-line. (I will never know what lies beyond the closed door in the Paths of the Dead...)
Things which irritated included:
the handling of Gimli, largely reducing him to comic light relief.
The simplistic rendering of King Theoden's condition. It was much more a web of words (Saruman's strength !) passed via Grima Wormtongue than a magic spell.
Similarly the awful treatment of the Steward, Denethor. A much more complex character than the one portrayed in the film.
Odd things, like the stupid suicidal cavalry charge, and the peculiar weakness of the walls of Minas Tirith (bult by Gondor at its strongest: as strong as Orthanc, which the Ents could not tear down) when the books provided perfectly filmable, visual accounts to move the story along.
And then there were the slips down to the level of pure Hollywood hokum. Legolas surfing down the steps on a shield at Helms' Deep, the transformation of Galadriel in Lothlorien, and the stone bridges collapsing one by one behind Sam and Frodo at Mt. Doom, for three examples.

But overall, wonders, and some things the books could not do as well as the films as they were so visual. The panoramic views of The Shire. The lighting of the chain of beacons north from Minas Tirith. Bilbo seeing the ring for the last time, for three balancing examples.

Answer 7

The movies were excelent. Not as good as the books but at the same time, to tell the full story each movie would've needed to be about 8 hour long.

Over all I think they picked the most important parts and stayed pretty true to the books

Answer 8

"Gregor The Overlander" by Suzanne Collins is a simple fantasy story geared for teens, but I enjoyed it as an adult. Gregor is a 12-year-old in NYC. While doing the laundry in his apartment building with his baby sister, Boots, she slips inside a heat vent. Quickly following, the two fall for miles and end up in an underground world filled with giant animals and a colony of humans who went below in the 1700's. The best way to describe this series is Harry Potter meets Alice In Wonderland in New York.

Answer 9

one thing that really made quite a lot of people mad was that they never included Tom in the first one. i thought the movie was very good and the books were good too. arwen never played THAT big of a part in the book but i can't really comment on her in the movie. i would have liked it better if gandolf and elrond did the river thing instead of arwin.

Answer 10

i havent read all of "Return of the king" but what i've read of all 3 yes i think they did very good.