Also, I do understand what you’re saying, there are several inaccuracies in the movie adaptations that really should have been handled better But hey, at least it’s not like Desolation of Smaug
I was actually referencing his story more than anything. The transformation from river-folk to creepy, twisted thing was my favorite aspect of Smeagol/Gollum. After watching the movies, I began to really grow on the idea of split personalities as a side effect of too much exposure to the ring. Both the movie and the book give fantastic versions of the character.
To this effect, I do believe Jackson tried to make the Ents as very leisurely, gradual creatures. Again, I do love both versions presented in the books and movies.
I feel as though I’m going to continue to say this, but both versions were good. You’re right though, the Elves really shouldn’t be there.
This is also true. I myself didn’t feel it necessary for the ghosts to be such… a bad word I cannot say on these forums. But, I suppose it was a cool sequence, and Aragorn screaming “WHAT SAY YOU?!” into the emptying cave makes for great quoting. =P
This actually is something I’ve been conflicted with myself. I agree, Sam and Frodo share a hard-earned brotherly bond, and no slinky, filthy liar (whom Frodo has been warned of previously) could break that bond like that. But, I think Jackson wanted that in there to show how the Ring was changing Frodo. After all, there are some hints to Frodo’s transformation, but they’re very subtle and I think a general audience would have needed something bigger than “This is my burden Sam,” To show the extent to which Frodo had fallen. Although, I doubt Gollum, even if he is a sneaksy tricksy fiend, could have taken this opportunity as well as he did in the movie.
Merry and Pippin. Always and forever the best hobbits.
Well, yeah, the LotR movies are orders of magnitude better than the Hobbit ones (especially DoS). I would say that the LotR movies are probably the best adventure/blockbuster movies out there, taken on their own merits. I just don’t think they live up to their enormous potential, which they could have if they’d been truer to the books in certain regards. Also, note that I’m not saying “They changed it, therefore it sucks;” I’m saying “A lot of the changes they made suck.” To adapt something as ridiculously long and complex as LotR into a movie, you’re gonna have to make changes. And many of the changes they made are fine or don’t matter. For instance, I don’t give a darn about the old debate about whether or not the Balrog should have wings; it looks cool, and doesn’t really undermine anything.
Oh, yeah, the transformation into such a wretched thing is important; it shows, in multiple ways, how evil the Ring is. But I think the split-personalities thing is a huge oversimplification of his soul. In the book, he seems to vacillate between wanting to redeem himself and still being evil. It’s clearly a fight with his inner demons, caused by the Ring. But in the movies, his split personalities get rid of 90% of that. Instead of struggling constantly with temptation, he just tells his bad side to go away. Then later he tells his bad side to come back, and he’s bad from that point onward. There’s no depth to it; he’s a cartoon version of himself (and I’m not referring to the CGI).
Honestly, I don’t remember enough of either the book or the movie version to comment much more. It’s been way too long.
Yeah, it as a good, even great, battle scene; I just don’t think it belongs in LotR.
That is a cool scene. Thinking about it more, though, they probably could have just written that whole subplot out, ala Tom Bombadil. It’s not super-important.
The Ring definitely is a corrupting influence on Frodo, but at that point in the story he’s not so far gone that he’ll essentially betray his only real friend. (Well, only friend he wasn’t cut off from.) That doesn’t happen until he’s inside Mount Doom. So, basically, Jackson showed how the Ring was changing Frodo by changing Frodo into a jerk. Completely messes up the character IMO. He’s the Ring-bearer largely because he’s innocent and can resist it more than anyone.
Thing is, they were hardly in the movie. They get maybe half an hour at most, probably not even that. It’s good that they were in there, but the Hobbit-whimsicality was severely overshadowed by the rest of the movie.
That article. I’d heard about it, but wow. That is one comprehensive piece of literature.
As for my perspective, I almost consider them the be like G1 and G2 of a franchise. There’s a lot of similarities, and both have accrued large fanbases of geeks and nerds. Tolkien’s work is nothing short of a brilliant mastery over words (One he clearly has a passion for) and I enjoy the books greatly. Then I’ll sit down and watch the movie, and I don’t treat it as an equal, but I treat it separately from the books when I’m watching them. Peter Jackson had created his own little world, and he did a great job of attempting to replicate Tolkien’s world, but he still made it his own.
The Hobbit movies however, I grew up on There and Back Again, so this was kinda atrocious to see…
Yeah, he’s too harsh on it I think. I agree with him that the movies missed the point of the books, but I still think they’re good movies (and I know plenty of people with pretty refined tastes who are older than 25 who liked the movies). And keep in mind, he’s very a old-fashioned sort, even by the standards of his generation, so he’s not likely to be receptive to any film with much violence. But, on the whole, I think he does raise a point worth thinking about.
That’s probably a good ay to look at it. There are so many great things about the movies (especially the cinematography and production values) that they definitely can stand on their on merit. I keep saying this–I think they would have been much better if they’d stuck closer to the books (especially with regard to the characters and their growth–Jackson turned most of them into stereotypes), but they’re still good as they are (especially the extended versions).
With the Hobbit movies, I suspect it’s more than just the fact you grew up with the book–I grew up with both it and LotR, but I still like the LotR movies and despise the Hobbit adaptation(s). From what I gather, Jackson didn’t really want to direct them, and when he had to, he basically decided he might as well milk them for as much cash as possible. Thus, we get three over-long, largely dull movies that have tons of additions worthy of bad fan fiction that completely lose the spirit of the original. Here’s a funny satire of it.
Asked if he had any other regrets, Jackson said, “The actors. They weren’t in on the joke. Their faces when they saw the lines they were were supposed to deliver– it was like seeing puppies being tortured. And they tried so darned hard, we were almost afraid they were going to make the films watchable.
Oh, well. Perhaps we’ll make a real Hobbit movie one of these days.”
This right here made me squirt my coke out my nose (Very painful by the way, I don’t recommend it)
That reminds me of yet another thing that annoyed me about the Hobbit movies: Almost none of the dialogue came from Tolkien, or even sounded like it could have. Most of it just sounded like ordinary modern parlance. As a result, the few parts that did come from Tolkien (like the scene where Bilbo and Smaug talk) feel out-of-place. In LotR they did a much better job of sticking with his style.
I guess I’ll post here since I enjoy the LotR/Hobbit Book(s)/movies…
I think it’s important to note that if movies were made exactly like books, many of them lose their focus, become too long and boring, and by extension not make a lot of money for the filmakers. For example, I thought that a scene with Tom Bombadil would have been great in the Fellowship of the Ring. However, by including him in the movie, it would derail the opening of the movie, cause anyone who hadn’t read the books to be confused, and not add much to the plot.
I know how easy it is to say “That wasn’t in the book!” or “Why wasn’t this included!” when watching movies based on books, but you have to understand the reasoning behind them. That’s why I’m doing something special for The Hobbit movies. I read The Hobbit once when I was younger, but forgot about 95% of the plot. So when I heard that it was going to be released in movie form, I had the idea to read it before I watched the movie. However, I used my better judgement I decided to watch the first movie before reading the book. When I saw the movie, my judgement on it was not clouded, and I thought it was a pretty good movie. After watching it, I read the book up to where the first movie ends. I found that it made for a pretty enjoyable experience, as you say things like “Oh hey, the movie took reference from this scene!” instead of “The movie didn’t get this scene right. There should have been X Y and Z!”
tl;dr version:
movies based on books are better if you watch the movies first
I think that sometimes you’re right, watching to movie first will probably yield a better viewing experience, but sometimes there are books that should have been better adapted no matter what. (cough Dr. Seuss’ Cat in the Hat cough)
For me, it’s all circumstantial whether or not you read the book first. The last four-five series I got involved in have been turned into movies, and I read them years before I even knew people liked them. (See Maze Runner, TFiOS (not a bad read, just overrated) Paper Towns, Hunger Games, Ender’s Game, Mortal Instruments (I’ll admit, I stopped liking this after reading the second book) and so many others)
I simply read LoTR and The Hobbit (and later the Silmorillion) as a part of my childhood. Granted, I didn’t understand a lot of the stuff in the books until I was like, 9, but there’s nothing I can really do about that. Blame my folks for getting me invested in those stories so heavily =P.
However, to your point Slime, I saw The Great Gatsby as a movie first, and went to read the book, and I had a greater appreciation for both mediums.
So, what I’m saying is that it’s not necissarily always an avoidable bias for people, but you are right.
I want to say, though, that my problem with Peter Jackson’s movies isn’t that he made changes, but that I think a lot of the changes he made lessened the impact and quality of the story.
An illustration: I agree with your example that cutting out Tom Bombadil was probably a good idea; it’s not really relevant to anything. But look at what Jackson did to, say, Frodo. In the book, Frodo doesn’t want to leave the Shire, and he’s not very mature or mentally strong. That makes it really impressive when he goes on the journey anyway, and we get to see him grow into the role of Ring-bearer. It’s also what makes his decision to strike out on his own at the end of Fellowship so powerful–it’s the moment he finally accepts his responsibility fully, but we, the readers, aren’t necessarily sure he’s up to the task.
Compare that to the movie. Frodo gets turned into a standard Hollywood cliché: the sort-of-kind-of-not-really-reluctant hero. When he professes not to want the responsibility, the implication in the film is that this shows him to be mature and ready for adventure, and he ends up volunteering without much hesitation. Due to that, there’s never a moment where he grows up. There’s never any real doubt that he’ll continue on after Rivendell. There’s almost no motive for him to leave the group at Amon Hen, except that Boromir made him think his companions were a danger to him and the quest (which really isn’t so–at one place in the book, Aragorn points out that if he wanted the Ring, he would have taken it already, and with ease). And when the Nazgûl come after him, it’s not that intense since he seems capable enough to survive.
The changes in the movie rob Frodo of character growth, and rob the overall story of uncertainty and emotion. One of the themes of the book is that the least likely people can be the most important ones. The movie undermines that because Frodo is portrayed from the start as someone special who’s up to any task. This lessens his victories and reduces the drama of the decisions he makes.
Good grief, I can’t write about LotR without going on a rant! Let me say two more things, and then I’m done.
This is only one example of why I don’t think the movies are as good, but I don’t want to write a book on it.
Despite that, I do still enjoy the LotR movies, don’t get me wrong. They have great acting and visuals, and all things considered they’re probably the best fantasy action movies out there. I just don’t think they’re anywhere near as good as they could have been if the screenwriters had understood the story better. (But don’t get me started on the Hobbit movies, especially the second one. )
Edit: I forgot this is the same topic where I’ve already posted a bunch of similar rants in an astoundingly long discussion with @BioRaiders532. Oh well, I might as well leave this. facepalm
Also, I’m curious what a Troper would think about this. I hereby summon @Nyran!
I enjoy the movies, I enjoy the books.The books are rather dry and slow going without a lot of detail in some areas and some scenes, so I don’t fault the movie for including them or changing things for a different depiction of the story. I don’t really care what movies do anymore so long as they’re enjoyable enough on their own. (I’m figuring if you want to get into canonical details, then anything in the books would trump what’s in the movies, if you want to get that pedantic about it). The movies are someone else’s vision and version, the books are Tolkien’s.
Or maybe it’s my weakness for Orlando Bloom as Legolas. Or my weakness for Thranduil. Or for various other male characters that make me want to defend the movies. Probably.
Regardless of how accurate they are to the books, they provide a different experience when I watch the movies versus reading the books and I can live with that. They’re also leagues better than the shoddy animated movies.
)
