Lord of the Rings *Spoiler Alert*

[Dreadful Scathe]

So, if anyones seen it...what did you think?

As a big fan of the books, theres a lot to criticise in The Return of the King due to it not sticking very closely to the book at points.

Namely:

No Saruman speech at Orthanc, and no 'Sharkey' in the Shire at the end.

Sam NOT wearing the ring to rescue Frodo, felt that this somewhat lessened his heroism. The big thing in the book was the ring had much less of a hold on him then his loyalty to Frodo even though it gained power the closer to their goal they got.

Sams fight with Shelob changes from the 'hobbit with no hope who heroically fights and survives' to 'hobbit becomes John McLean from Die Hard who faces down big spider and kills it heroically'. A subtle difference perhaps, but its not quite the same thing.

Eowyn on a horse hamstringing an Oliphant, a bit too Luke Skywalker in 'Empire Strikes Back' for me :(.

Collapsing volcanic islands at the end ? collapsing ground that stops just in front of the good guys. sheesh. Very hollywood and really not necessary, the fact that they could not escape at the end of the book and expected to die was enough, having everything collapse was a bit over the top.

......

Still, all minor things, there are many more but its mostly nitpicking. Brilliant series, all things considered I doubt if it could have been done better.

[Boomer]

Originally posted by Dreadful Scathe
...
Still, all minor things, there are many more but its mostly nitpicking. Brilliant series, all things considered I doubt if it could have been done better.

Will agree with this comment but I have to moan :grin: You can call me an anorak/purist or both for that matter :grin: but I’m not impressed by a) the whole ‘Mills and Arwen’ development in the film, this to me just reeks of ‘We’ve gotta have a love interest in this ya know!’ phtuey. And secondly, what’s with turning Gimili into the comic-relief? There was nothing humorous about the character in the book (unless I’m mistaken),,in fact he was quite a serious and dour character. IMHO he also has gives the most poetic speech in the book which has been dropped (unless it’s in the third one).

[Boomer]

Originally posted by Dreadful Scathe
...
Namely:

No Saruman speech at Orthanc, and no 'Sharkey' in the Shire at the end.

Sam NOT wearing the ring to rescue Frodo, felt that this somewhat lessened his heroism. The big thing in the book was the ring had much less of a hold on him then his loyalty to Frodo even though it gained power the closer to their goal they got.
...
Reeks of 'Special collectors's edition', soon to be followed by 'extra special collectors edition trilogy box-set with special extra footage not contained in any previous special edition with more coming out every Xmas with even more previously unseen footage...and if you're lucky we'll put some stuff about the Barrows in'.

Full marks for making the films, but I thing the marketing stinks. That's the biz I guess.

[TheTramp]

Totally agree with you Mr Scathe.

I did enjoy the film, but it was definitely tempered with a feeling of 'Why'.

They seemed to make a lot of changes that were just for 'Hollywood'. And while in the first film, I did think that most of the changes were justified (cutting out Tom Bombadil, shortening the whole escape from the Shire etc.) although, some that were not (replacing the elf Lord (Glorfindal) with Arwen at the ford of Rivendell).

The second one was worse. More changes, just for (it seems) the sake of them (Ents at first not agreeing to help, Faramir taking Frodo along with him, and not just releasing him at the waterfall etc.).

And the 3rd one even worse I feel. Lots of niggling little things that I was waiting for, and they didn't happen (not so bad - I'm realistic enough to realise that they had to cut a lot for the time), or things that were just changed for the sake of it (didn't shorten the film, just made it more 'Hollywood').

I think that if I was someone who hadn't read the books many times, I'd come out thinking that the film was fantastic. As someone who has read the books many times, I was a little disappointed, but still think that all 3 were great.

Steve

[Dreadful Scathe]

Originally posted by TheTramp


I did enjoy the film, but it was definitely tempered with a feeling of 'Why'.


yeah - as you say. First film was pretty good, only the Arwen saves Frodo bit was annoying. 2nd one much more was different to the book and 3rd one even more again. I suppose they cant be expected to completely appeal to the fans but I do disagree with the changes in Return of the King because occasionally they seemed to go for 'visual drama' when the drama of the situation itself should have been enough. At least they didnt make the Star Wars mistake of seeing the visuals as more important than the story.

Another bit that annoyed me slightly was Aragron - in the book he comes across as Kingly through strength of character and his actions - his statements of 'I am Aragron son of Arathron, heir of Isildur etc...' were regular and demonstarted he knew his place in the world - this was a bit weak in the film, his sheer strength of character didnt quite come through so much. Even walking the paths of the dead, i felt he was asking them politely to help, rather than demanding they fulfil their original bargain.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Dreadful Scathe
No Saruman speech at Orthanc, and no 'Sharkey' in the Shire at the end. The film was over 3 hours - to include the journey home and the Sharkey stuff properly would have required at least 20-30 minutes. If you were going to leave out a sub-plot I think this one was a fair enough one to omit. I guess they felt they didn't need the Saruman speech because of this, but I felt that the Orthanc scene was a bit of a waste of time as a result.
Originally posted by Dreadful Scathe
Sam NOT wearing the ring to rescue Frodo, felt that this somewhat lessened his heroism. The big thing in the book was the ring had much less of a hold on him then his loyalty to Frodo even though it gained power the closer to their goal they got.I agree - not sure why they did this, especially since I felt they overplayed most of the loyalty scenes (lingering emotional looks etc).
Originally posted by Dreadful Scathe
Sams fight with Shelob changes from the 'hobbit with no hope who heroically fights and survives' to 'hobbit becomes John McLean from Die Hard who faces down big spider and kills it heroically'. A subtle difference perhaps, but its not quite the same thing.I agree, and again not sure why they felt this was necessary.
Originally posted by Dreadful Scathe
Eowyn on a horse hamstringing an Oliphant, a bit too Luke Skywalker in 'Empire Strikes Back' for me :(. I think this is allowable dramatic realisation of a battle scene.
Originally posted by Dreadful Scathe
Collapsing volcanic islands at the end ? collapsing ground that stops just in front of the good guys. sheesh. Very hollywood and really not necessary, the fact that they could not escape at the end of the book and expected to die was enough, having everything collapse was a bit over the top. I thought the volcanic island thing was okay - in the book it was much clearer that the physical distance back from the mountain was simply impossible for them to contemplate. Collapsing of edifices generally is described in the book if I recall, but I agree the collapsing ground scene was ridiculous.

[Lynn]

Haven't seen the third film yet, but agree about all the comments so far on this thread (the radio version also cut out Bombadil and the Barrow downs - I suppose it is a section that is possible to remove and still tell the story well, though the barrow was an important moment of bravery for Frodo). Perhaps Aragorn was miscast in the film, I don't think he was either rough enough at the start or kingly enough as things progressed but maybe a difficult character to portray. And being female, I usually like a love story, and it is there in the book but it is made more of in the films, I agree, to appeal to the filmgoing audience. (Tolkien's real 'love story' was Beren and Luthien, he called Edith his Luthien.)

But all in all, I feel they haven't compromised the story too much - certainly a lot less than they could have and if someone had only read the books once or twice or not at all, the details that are omitted or changed are not too noticeable. Its more likely to be those of us who have read them many times that notice the changes. I really enjoyed the first two and am looking forward to seeing the third. I wonder what Tolkien would have made of it...

[TheTramp]

Okie. Add in also:

The total changing of the part where Aragorn takes to the Paths of the Dead. In the book, Elronds sons bring the news, not Elrond (and they accompany him - along with the Rangers). The bids farewell to Eomer, and promises to meet him again - which I think leads to one of the best 're-unions' in the book, and they just left this out. They missed out the skeleton that they find at the door - my feeling is that this is Arathorn, Aragorn's father - another poignant scene. And I also agree with DS about the way that the dead join him.

I was looking forward to the part where total despair strikes Minas Tirith and the Rohirrim, when they see the black ships sailing up the river - 'The Corsairs of Umbar are coming'. Which turns to hope a moment later when Aragorn unfurls his standard. Would have thought that this was very 'Hollywood'.

Minor point - Merry doesn't recognise Eowyn when she offers him a lift, and she tells him to call her Durnhelm (or something similar).

The whole section about Aragorn being recognised as King. One minute, he's arrived, the next he's making all the decisions. I liked the bit in the book about 'The hands of a king are the hands of a healer'.

In the book, Merry doesn't go with the army to the gates of Mordor, still being in recovery from stabbing the Nazgul. And I was looking forward to seeing the 'Mouth of Sauron'. What was the point of taking Frodo's stuff, if they weren't going to use it then to cast more despair??

Finally, agree with Graham about the whole Sharky and the Shire episode. Shame it had to be cut. But understandable. The only point of going to Isenguard was to get the Palatir. But since Aragorn didn't use it in the film (he did in the book), it was a little worthless. I did agree with DS also. I thought that Aragorn was played very well as a ranger. But there wasn't really any transition into King for me either....

Lots of other little bits. Too numerous to mention

Steve

[Stuart M]

Originally posted by Dreadful Scathe
No Saruman speech at Orthanc, and no 'Sharkey' in the Shire at the end.

The "Scouring of the Shire" is a definite loss - the rest of it I could live with. Without it the Shire becomes a "Merry Olde Englande" utopia where nothing bad ever happens, and the sense that evil's hand can reach everywhere is lost. And it means we lose Christopher Lee, who could have shown his (underrated) acting range to become Sharkey.

Also, Tolkien describes the section as an essential part of the plot in his foreword, so losing it robs the film of a serious lump of authenticity.

Personally I think the real problem was in holding over the Shelob sequence from where it should have been, in the second film. It could have been accomodated there easily enough with some judicious editing (e.g. ditching the spurious fight with the wolfriders, and its aftermath).

That said, and despite the many other things others noted, I still feel Jackson improved on the books in several areas, like giving the women half-decent roles (still tokenish but he tried his best with the material) and cutting down a bit on the elvish singing...and some of his direction is magnificent. Juxtaposing Pippin's song to Denethor with the futile attempt to retake Osgiliath was stunning.

[Lynn]

Originally posted by Stuart M
The "Scouring of the Shire" is a definite loss - the rest of it I could live with. Without it the Shire becomes a "Merry Olde Englande" utopia where nothing bad ever happens, and the sense that evil's hand can reach everywhere is lost.
Yes, a significant part to Tolkien, reflecting perhaps the encroachment on the English countryside he loved.

Haven't seen the third film yet, sounds like even more changes than in the first two?

[ChrisA]

Originally posted by TheTramp
Finally, agree with Graham about the whole Sharky and the Shire episode. Shame it had to be cut. But understandable.

Wonder if it'll be in the eventual extended edition DVD set. The 4-DVD version of LOTR1 was 30 mins or so longer than the cinema version and seemed to hang together better IIRC.

Chris

[Dance Demon]

Has anyone ever seen a movie that sticks rigidly to the book ?
Most films tend to change a bit., and with a book like LOTR, there is so much in it, that to make a series that is totally correct, would make each film 4 or5 hours long. In the book, almost entire chapters are dedicated to explaining historical points. changes have probably been made to make it easier for those who have not read the book to understand. I haven't been to see Return of The King yet, but I'm sure I'll enjoy it loads, even with the changes....

[TheTramp]

Originally posted by Dance Demon
Has anyone ever seen a movie that sticks rigidly to the book ?
Most films tend to change a bit., and with a book like LOTR, there is so much in it, that to make a series that is totally correct, would make each film 4 or5 hours long. In the book, almost entire chapters are dedicated to explaining historical points. changes have probably been made to make it easier for those who have not read the book to understand. I haven't been to see Return of The King yet, but I'm sure I'll enjoy it loads, even with the changes.... Nope. But then, there's never been another book like the LOTR.

I think that most people I've talked to, and who have posted an opinion on here, agree that some things had to go, for the sake of time, if nothing else. The things that perturbe me though, are the changes that seem to be made, just for change (or Hollywood's) sake.

But yes, I still enjoyed it, and I'm sure that you will too.

Steve