Log In

That's pretty much it -- you can't by any standard call Jackson's films "literary" which, for someone who appreciates Tolkien's works for their literary value, is obviously less than appealing. But, they're certainly "successful". Whether or not they're "good" remains individually subjective.

Even then, though, it's the ridiculous plot holes and hilarious geographical impossibilities his changes introduced that annoyed me more than any deviations from the book. They show the maps in the films -- we know the geography is the same as in the book, and yet... there are multiple instances where the sets are in blatant contradiction of what's shown on the maps, the paramount being the location of the Barad-dur and Orodruin within Mordor. And apparently Jackson's Morannon is a brisk walk across the Anduin, rather than a thousand-mile-trek northward along the spine of Ephel Duath.

...nevermind! Hyper-literate obsessive nerds are not Jackson's audience. Besides, he gets my money anyway just so I can analyze the films to complain about them. :p

At least the movies didn't have the same location issues as the Harry Potter ones.. I think Hagrids hut changed location at least 3 times, not to mention the womping willow and Hogwarts itself xD

I can watch the lord of the rings movies without thinking to much on the books, and enjoy them.

oh my goodness yes that bit in the HP films annoyed me tremendously. As for Lotr, i did watch the films first XP and after reading the books it almost seemed like a different story entirely at parts. It's been a long time since i read them though, so i dont remember exactly which parts. I definitely think the films were "good" though. I really didnt want to see Aragorn and co taking weeks and weeks walking to that rock of Erech place, which is how long it seemed when i read that part in the book.

Funny thing is a lot of Harry Potter was filmed around where I live. Seeing places you know in movies kind of destroys the immersion for me.

yeah, I rally don't need the travelling for mile and miles across bland scenery just to stick to a book. I can respect alterations to the geography like that.

I'm honestly not sure if I'd prefer a more introspective, slower-paced film more in line with the books, I'd have to see something like that to judge it. I think I might fall in with Tolkien in thinking that truly capturing the books on film is a futile effort.

That said, you know that travel sequence right after they leave Rivendell? All of like 5 minutes, maybe 10? I checked my map once, it's in excess of 800 miles traveled. I'm not saying they should have dragged that out with long travelogue scenes, but I do think they could have conveyed, somehow, the immense distances being covered by the fellowship.

I guess it boils down the films lacking the scale of the books, in my opinion, for all their sweeping epic visuals. Everything feels more condensed and less real to me.

Oh, and don't get me started on Haldir at Helm's Deep. I think I talked about it earlier in this thread, actually. That moment just annihilates the geographical plausibility of the films. :p

(I'm not trying to convince you guys not to like the films or anything, by the way. I just really like talking about this subject. :))

I don't feel like you're trying to force your opinions onto us, so it's fine :) I can entirely understand your reasoning there, and if i loved the books, as much as you obviously do, then i would probably feel the same to some degree. It simply boils down to me not remember the book well enough to have such strong opinions.

now i really think i should reread the books then (this thread is really interesting btw, i love reading about opinions on lotr, even if negative towards the films) because I know I completely hated several of the Harry Potter films, after reading and loving each book several times each. And regarding the distances, i actually play the lotr online game XD and while they usually stick to the original maps, they condensed it as well, which im fine with. especially since it still takes at least five minutes of straight riding a horse from Bree to Weathertop, instead of a days journey.

I hadn't intended on such an in depth discussion of this sort, but it's proving rather interesting xD

I'm not sure how much more I actually have to say on the matter. :p I did have a thread in which I was dissecting the movies scene by scene, somewhere in this forum, but I didn't get very far with it unfortunately.

And, kind of ironically, Tolkien isn't even in my top 5 or so authors (he's probably #6 :p), it's just that none of those guys have had their work "adapted" to cinema yet. :p

A fair few of my childhood/teen favourite authors have had their books butchered, that's why the LoTR movies seem faithful, in comparison.

I am excited exciiited for this movie, I cannot wait x3 I loved the Hobbit when I read it in sixth grade, always a favorite. And I actually like the films, goes 1, 3, 2 in order of like for me...although the 3rd one didn't need fifteen endings, really but for something that took that long to film I can give them wanting to make the ending feel epic lol.
I admit, I enjoy the films better than the books -- I've been almost violently attacked for stating that xDD
But the books are a reaaal slog for me. I mean I like them, but they're just written in a way that for me is hard to get through. I'm on Return of the King now, as a matter of fact...and I started reading the series seriously (not just flipping through) uh...
3 years ago xDD yerp

Rem, I take it you've never read any of Tolkien's other Middle-Earth work? They make LotR look positively thrifty in comparison. :p

Farmer Giles of Ham is obviously his greatest work. Ever.

I actually haven't read that. I've read the trilogy, the Hobbit, the Silmarillion, the Book of Unfinished Tales, both Books of Lost Tales, and The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrun. Truth be told, even I can make it through his son's History of Middle-Earth series, not to mention getting the whole thing is expensive, even if there is some good stuff hidden away in the ~9 or so books to it.

I think the Dwarves were very well done. I was shocked at Armstrong playing one of the leads. oO It's pretty hard to make them not look comical due to past experiences and culture (circuses, stereotypes, cartoons and so on) but they came out looking pretty badass,but they still retained some of the silliness they had in the book.

But they were more hapless/bumbling in the book, a very English sort of silliness, which seems to be utterly absent now. If anything, the thing missing most from Jackson's works is the English-ness of the world, story, and characters. I suspect that alone would upset Tolkien greatly if he had lived to see it.

I may be wrong, though. We'll see.