Reasons for Movies to be Different

[Glorfindel_of_Gondolin]

When one considers the grand scope the PJ is attempting to grasp while undertaking this trilogy, it is easy to see the reasons for the omissions of various scenes and characters from the book.

I have heard nothing but calls for this scene to have been included, and this character to have gotten into the final cut, and it seems to me that some are just are not considering what the transferring of a work of such size and scope to a new medium actually entails, from a literary standpoint.

Tom Bombadil, Glorfindel, Erkenbrand, Prince Imrahil, and many besides, have all gotten the cut, as well as pj taking huge liberties with his screenplay (Elves at Helms Deep?). But he still left the work true to it's essence, and under ten hours.

It still has the heart of the story, and this it never has abandoned.

I am not sure what else people want?

[MasterMothra]

I think PJ made some really good movies and I personally enjoy watching them. But and undertaking of that magnitude will almost certainly draw the ire of fans. There are millions of people that have read and enjoyed Tolkien's work for a long time, so it should not come as a surprise that these same people have differeing opinions regarding the books/movies.

Another example would be bringing the Bible to film. Say the director keeps true to the whole good vs evil plot, but takes liberties regarding specific content and the placement of that content(ie elves at helms deep). You would'nt be surprised by the outrage of the religious figures regarding those changes would you?

Look at the all the fuss being made over Mel Gibson's film.

[Melko Belcha]

Originally posted by Glorfindel_of_Gondolin
When one considers the grand scope the PJ is attempting to grasp while undertaking this trilogy, it is easy to see the reasons for the omissions of various scenes and characters from the book.

I have heard nothing but calls for this scene to have been included, and this character to have gotten into the final cut, and it seems to me that some are just are not considering what the transferring of a work of such size and scope to a new medium actually entails, from a literary standpoint.

Tom Bombadil, Glorfindel, Erkenbrand, Prince Imrahil, and many besides, have all gotten the cut, as well as pj taking huge liberties with his screenplay (Elves at Helms Deep?). But he still left the work true to it's essence, and under ten hours.

It still has the heart of the story, and this it never has abandoned.

I am not sure what else people want?

It all depends on what the heart of the story is to you. For me it is the characters. The characters are who take you through the story, and if there good characters you get attached to them. The characters in the book are my favorite part of the book and the character changes are the most hated changes in the films for me. Three of my favorite characters in the book I despise in the films, Aragorn, Theoden, and Faramir. When bringing books to film the number one most important thing for me is capturing the characters from the book, to me it is more important then plot, storyline, sets, costums or special effects. If the films would have been low budget with costums from K-Mart and the swords nothing more then cardboard covered with aluminum foil, but brought to life the characters as they are writen in the book I would probably love the films. But as soon as I heard Aragorn tell Arwen that he never wanted anything to do with his destiny in Rivendell no amount of special effects, sets, or costum detail could save the films for me, the character changes are, in my opinion are the worst and most disrespectfull things in the films, but atleast the screenwriters admit that Tolkien himself would also have hated the changes, just as he said in one of his letters.

[Lalaith_Elf]

I can see where you're coming from. I understand why some characters and places had to be cut. But that doesn't mean that I have to like it. And I have to agree with Melko Belcha, the characters are a large part of the film, and if you don't get them right then the whole movie sucks. Don't get me wrong I do like the movies - but I don't see them as LotR. At least not Tolkien's LotR.

[The Gaffer]

The other aspect to this question is what you have to add when translating a story to film.

Personally, I think they should have cut or changed more, not less. All three films have a sense of being a disconnected series of events; the director hasn't taken the time to insert material which makes the story flow, or establishes the themes properly. The only way to do this would be to take more out from the original story or shorten the (e.g.) battle sequences.

This is worst in ROTK, I think. One of the many consequences of this is that the actors don't get any lines, and their characters come off as one-dimensional.

[Glorfindel_of_Gondolin]

In ROTK, the battle scenes are a culmination of the first two movies. It is a gradual building, and one that pj and crew do exceptionally well, in my humble opinion.

What one must consider is that ROTK is very much the third part of the same 10 hour movie, hence the no exposition in the opening of either of the last two films.

The Lord of the Rings is an epic tale of the triumph of good over evil, and indeed, the nature of evil itself. The great sweeping battle scenes in both TTT and ROTK are justified as they ad substance to this afore mention strife. It is important to see Aragorn charge the Orcs at the finale, and it is important to show Theoden leading the Riders of Rohan across the Fields of Pellenor. It adds a human impact to each of these sequences, and demonstrates the great sacrifices involved in defeating an evil so strong.

[Katie of the Golden Wood]

Originally posted by Glorfindel_of_Gondolin
In ROTK, the battle scenes are a culmination of the first two movies. It is a gradual building, and one that pj and crew do exceptionally well, in my humble opinion.

What one must consider is that ROTK is very much the third part of the same 10 hour movie, hence the no exposition in the opening of either of the last two films.

The Lord of the Rings is an epic tale of the triumph of good over evil, and indeed, the nature of evil itself. The great sweeping battle scenes in both TTT and ROTK are justified as they ad substance to this afore mention strife. It is important to see Aragorn charge the Orcs at the finale, and it is important to show Theoden leading the Riders of Rohan across the Fields of Pellenor. It adds a human impact to each of these sequences, and demonstrates the great sacrifices involved in defeating an evil so strong.

I agree. Also, Lord of the Rings is a story not only about the nature of evil, but the nature of good as well, and PJ kept that in their, as well as the themes of loss and sadness that were so central to the story. People complain about the "multiple endings" but I don't really think they get the reason for it all, and why the Elves are leaving, and never to return. PJ got that right too, and in my opinion, that is the most important theme in the whole story.

And as to what The Gaffer said, about how lack of dialogue made characters one dimensional, I have to disagree, in most cases (I'll give you Denethor though)

All of the hobbits: Merry and Pippin, once seperated are able to develop into their own characters instead of the comic relief duo of the first two movies. Sam becomes the hero of the movie instead of the sidekick. You can't expect Frodo to be talkative on the way to Mount Doom, but I thought personally that Elijah Wood did a great job showing the depth of his suffering, especially toward the end (Line about strawberries)

As for Aragorn and Faramir, though they don't have many lines, you see their character development through actions. You see Aragorn accept his fate as King by receiving Andruil and by braving the Paths of the Dead. You see Faramir's desperation for his fathers acceptance on his suicide mission to Osgilioth.

Lord of the Rings is different for everyone. If PJ made the movies the way critics describe them, I would not have liked them. Peter Jackson made the movies out the books he loved. Lord of the Rings, at least for me, is quite personal. Everyone loves it for different reasons, and what you love it for will depend on how you rate the movies, in my opinion.

Katie

[dawningoftime]

I think that the lack of dialouge adds to the movie. You can't just watch you have to engage in the movie and watch what is going on. Actions speak louder than words and one thing Peter Jackson wanted to focus on conveying were the actions and the emotions of the characters. You can say a lot more through that than through words.

[Glorfindel_of_Gondolin]

This is also true when one considers the cutting of characters from the Movies. To try and include so many characters and heroes makes it impossible in the timeframe to give them all what heroes on screen need, time on screen.

Dialogue or no, we cannot appreciate the depth and courage of any character if they gain only fleeting mention.

Thus Imrahil, Erkenbrand and others are not put in, for they would be destroyed as characters by getting petty moments. It is better to give the existing heroes more, so as to strengthen them and their own place in the film, then to have a heap of unexplained people fighting and dying when we don't care about them, because we don't know them.

[The Gaffer]

In ROTK, the battle scenes are a culmination of the first two movies. It is a gradual building, and one that pj and crew do exceptionally well, in my humble opinion.

I agree, or at least they ought to have been, though that didn't stop the film of TTT, the book which really establishes the broad scheme of the plot, being a battle-fest with little plot development. In this respect, the films were caught between two stools: making three individual movies which could stand on their own or making three instalments of a larger movie. By trying to do both I don't think they succeeded in doing either well.

To try and include so many characters and heroes makes it impossible in the timeframe to give them all what heroes on screen need, time on screen

This, I think, is the root of the problem. Frodo and Sam have enough screen time to do the job (which only Sean Astin manages to do well, IMO), but no-one else does. We have to make do with one-liners standing in for the major themes (profound tragedy of the elves, the noble lineage of Aragorn, etc). It just doesn't work for me.

It was interesting, and bold, that they tried to introduce new elements to signify these sub-plots more clearly: Arwen's enhanced role, Aragorn's doubts, Frodo's rejection of Sam, etc. However, none of them were really followed through to be convincing and effective.

For example, Aragorn's eventual acceptance of his lineage is incredibly perfunctory given the amount of screen time he spent doubting it in FOTR and TTT. And they had the perfect dramatic device right there in the text (his confrontation with Sauron via the palantir) which could not only have explained it logically, but demonstrated it visually while at the same time showing why Sauron attacks too soon, why Aragorn has to take the Paths of the Dead, etc etc etc.

[Glorfindel_of_Gondolin]

Yeah, I agree Gaff.

The Frodo and Sam story IS the story, but of course, they must make it worth watching. This is the excuse given for the half-movie battle of Helms Deep, to make it user freindly.


Most unfortunately, most characters, characters that could have their own movies, must be subservient to the central tale.

[Kalimac]

I don't think that you can look at these movies unless you consider how Jackson chose to adapt the screenplay. He did not opt for a script treatment that followed the novel word for word or scene for scene. Instead he chose to view the books as a historical account . . very different than Tolkien's approach. Jackson deliberately focused on Frodo's journey as being the most important element running through the films, followed by Aragorn's acceptance of his destiny. And, yes this is different from the novels . . where Tolkien chose to be hobbit eccentric. Jackson brilliantly reaches not only into the novels for inspiration but freely uses the appendices and, I believe bits of the HOME series in order to tell a familiar story from a 'historical' perspective. This was a clever way to convey these books, and the fact that Jackson and company went on to be recognized by the film industry for this accomplishment is a remarkable achievement.

[The Gaffer]

He did make good use of material from the Appendices, and also from the back story. I'm not sure that he did it brilliantly... why do you think so, Kalimac?

One thing which IS captured is the DETAIL. Having watched the EE of FOTR at least 3 times and TTT twice, I'm still seeing new stuff and picking out little details that it must have taken ages, and really careful planning, to fit in.

Wanting to see a film again so soon after seeing it for the first time is a new experience for me.

[Thorin II]

There's no way PJ could've pleased everyone with this project. LOTR has an incredibly dedicated fan base, and every fan has his own view of the story. In addition, PJ wanted to make a movie that would work for both fans of the books and to those new to the story. I certainly don't agree with every decision he made, but I think PJ deserves all the credit he has received. He made three terrfic movies that are entertaining to new audiences and are still true to the spirit (in my opinion) of the books. Nobody's perfect, but I think PJ did as good a job as could be hoped for.