Reverse LOTR Gripes

[suncrafter]

Most gripes that LOTR fans seem to have with the movies seem to be the same sort of gripe that people have whenever a book is made into a movie - namely that over half the book was edited out. There are many good reasons for why film makers are forced to edit out content - but it sure seems to cause a lot of heart-ache for the fans.

So I was wondering - do any of you have any "Reverse Gripes"? That is, was there anything in the movies that was BETTER then the book? Was there any change that the film makers made that IMPROVED the story?

No "gripes", please. I'm looking for "reverse gripes" only.

[Jon S.]

Personally, I prefer the way the movie version inserted more Arwen scenes into the film itself instead of in an Appendix (or extra DVD). She's an important part of the story and of the motivations, actions, and thoughts of at least 2 primary characters.

P.S. Thanks for posing the question, it's a very good one.

[tolkienfan]

I agree about Arwen to some extent. I liked how Sam didn't call Frodo "Master" in the movie. For some reason that bugged me in the book.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by tolkienfan

I agree about Arwen to some extent. I liked how Sam didn't call Frodo "Master" in the movie. For some reason that bugged me in the book.

*barf*

[brownjenkins]

In general, I found the movie characters to be a bit more "real". Don't get me wrong, I love Tolkien, but he is somewhat idealistic in the way he portrays his characters.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

In general, I found the movie characters to be a bit more "real". Don't get me wrong, I love Tolkien, but he is somewhat idealistic in the way he portrays his characters.

How do you mean? I actually remembered the hobbits, particularly, as more "real" in the book. The dwarves, too.

[Jon S.]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

In general, I found the movie characters to be a bit more "real". Don't get me wrong, I love Tolkien, but he is somewhat idealistic in the way he portrays his characters.

Agree completely. The movie characters are real-er to me in that they're more human. This is particularly true with Aragorn who I found unbelievable in the book but much more real (and hence believable) in the movie.

BTW, no need to follow this statement up with barf comments, I know I'm the minority here on this point, can't we disagree respectfully and maturely?

I actually have a theory about Aragorn in the book. As we know, the LOTR book is an adaptation of the Red Book of Westmarch which was conceived and written by Hobbits. So, in those books, we get a highly Hobbit-centric view of the situations and people.

There's no doubt that Bilbo and Frodo adored Aragorn. That being so, it's hardly surprising that, when they wrote their version of the events, they whitewashed his foibles and made him certain and sure.

Personally - again, admittedly a minority view but it's mine - the Aragorn of the book didn't strike me as how a real human being thinks and responds. The Aragorn of the movies does.

[Thehoundsofdeath]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

In general, I found the movie characters to be a bit more "real". Don't get me wrong, I love Tolkien, but he is somewhat idealistic in the way he portrays his characters.

I agree, but that is one of the reasons why I don't like the film.

In a work of fantasy, inner turmoil is usually represented through the external events of the fantasy world and its characters. Fantasy is generally loaded with Jungian symbolism. The main characters each have an evil opposite, ie Frodo/Gollum, Saruman/Gandalf, Aragorn/Sauron and so on, rendering the need for explicit inner turmoil in these characters both unneccessary and damaging to the structure of the story. The dark side of the heroes manifests itself through the actions of their dopplegangers.

Further, fantasy landscapes and its creatures serve as a mirror of the psychology of the individual. Much is being said about the characters less than directly, crudely and explicitly in the linear narratives. This is one of the reasons why fantasy has such broad appeal-it speaks to the human heart on a very visceral level.

Before I hijack this thread, things I actually liked that were not in the book: the closing credits were enjoyable.

[tolkienfan]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

*barf*

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

*barf*

Oh wow Gwai, you're taking classes in PR too at college?

*blows compensation to Tolkienfan*

[Rosie Gamgee]

Just to be the voice of opposition: I do not agree about Arwen's 'enlarged' role in the films.

And as for reverse commentary: I am glad they took adil out. I don't think Tolkien knew exactly where he was going with the story at that point, and adil is kind of superfluous and bogs the story down.

Also... (wracks brain) I guess I kind of like that Frodo is younger in the movies. It makes him more accessible. In the books he is fifty-ish (which is not old for a hobbit, but people have a way of translating him into the equivalent of a fifty-year-old human). In the movie his age is more comparable to a twenty-five-year-old.

You know, now that I'm thinking about that, I do wish they would have made him a little older in the film.

[Rían]

I think a lot of the props were really beautiful. This will come across better in the films, because when a person walks into a room, the author doesn't describe everything in the room, but in a film when a person walks in a room, your eyes go around the room and notice things. And I think they made a lot of beautiful things for the films.