sell "lord of the rings" to me

[Johnny Novgorod]

The movies? Don't bother. The only thing they come close to getting accurate is a visual representation of Middle Earth. However, they're travesties as adaptations, faithful only on a basic plot level.
Tom Bombadil, Glorfindel, Anduril, Gifts from the Galadhrim, Aragorn's coma, Elves at Hornburg, the voice of Saruman, Faramir taking Frodo and Sam to the Osgiliath, and the final fucking battle in the War of the Ring.


Just read the books.

Change is necessary when adapting from one medium to another. Tom Bombadil doesn't push the plot forward, so he got sidestepped; Glorfindel is a menial character and you might as well use his spot to introduce a character you actually want to develop. Things like Aragorn's fall or Haldir's stint at Helm's Deep are put there to raise the stakes and create dramatic beats that are otherwise nonexistent in the original book, while the last two instances you mentioned - Osgiliath and the final battle - are set up as climaxes for their respective movies (and Faramir gets a little on the way of development while they're at it). There's a good reason for every change and every substraction. If we're just gonna complain about stuff that's missing we might as well throw in the Barrow Wights, Bill Ferny, the troll statues, Beregond, Bergil, Imrahil and what's her name the old healer. You can't have it all.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

The movies? Don't bother. The only thing they come close to getting accurate is a visual representation of Middle Earth. However, they're travesties as adaptations, faithful only on a basic plot level.
Tom Bombadil, Glorfindel, Anduril, Gifts from the Galadhrim, Aragorn's coma, Elves at Hornburg, the voice of Saruman, Faramir taking Frodo and Sam to the Osgiliath, and the final fucking battle in the War of the Ring.


Just read the books.

Change is necessary when adapting from one medium to another. Tom Bombadil doesn't push the plot forward, so he got sidestepped; Glorfindel is a menial character and you might as well use his spot to introduce a character you actually want to develop. Things like Aragorn's fall or Haldir's stint at Helm's Deep are put there to raise the stakes and create dramatic beats that are otherwise nonexistent in the original book, while the last two instances you mentioned - Osgiliath and the final battle - are set up as climaxes for their respective movies (and Faramir gets a little on the way of development while they're at it). There's a good reason for every change and every substraction. If we're just gonna complain about stuff that's missing we might as well throw in the Barrow Wights, Bill Ferny, the troll statues, Beregond, Bergil, Imrahil and what's her name the old healer. You can't have it all.

But Faramir gets the wrong development. The whole point of Faramir in the book is that he is not like his brother. That's the reason his father doesn't send Faramir to Rivendell to get Elrond's opinions on the dreams both sons were having even though Boromir only had the dream once and Faramir multiple times - because Faramir's affinity for the ways of Gandalf came into conflict with Denethor's habit of putting Gondor first and foremost in all considerations. What the movies did to Faramir by making him greedy for the power of the Ring to give to Gondor was - in my mind - completely a betrayal of the character as he was written and the whole spirit of the encounter suffers, not to mention the tone of that leg of Frodo's journey, as a result.

 

[madwarper]

Tom Bombadil doesn't push the plot forward, so he got sidestepped;

Yes, he does. Gandalf only told Frodo to go to Elrond Halfelven, not how.
It was months after the encounter, after Frodo sold Bag End to Lobelia and moved to the country side, that he planned on leaving on the journey with Sam, ran into Merry and Pippin, then into the Old Forest, where they got into trouble with the Old Willow, got saved, then ran into the Barrow Wights, save again, then were told to head towards Bree-town.

So, no Tom? No Bree-town, and no chance meeting with Strider.

Glorfindel is a menial character and you might as well use his spot to introduce a character you actually want to develop. Things like Aragorn's fall or Haldir's stint at Helm's Deep are put there to raise the stakes and create dramatic beats that are otherwise nonexistent in the original book,

Both of which try to make Arawen a thing that's more important that she actually was.

while the last two instances you mentioned - Osgiliath and the final battle - are set up as climaxes for their respective movies (and Faramir gets a little on the way of development while they're at it).

Faramir had plenty of character development in the book, without turning into his brother or having to parade Frodo and Sam in front of the Witch King.

I'm not sure what you mean by "set up as climaxes for their respective movies", because the final battle of the War of the Ring wasn't even in the movies.

There's a good reason for every change and every substraction.

Then, I'd certainly like to see these "good" reasons, because so far I have only seen the halfarsed apologist reasoning.

You can't have it all.

No. It's not that this couldn't have been included, it's that Peter Jackson didn't bother to try. There's a difference.

 

[Albino Boo]

To be honest I didn't think the films were that great. Viggo Mortensen has just given an interview where he said the subtlety and nuance of the first film was lost in the next ones.

What's your Zip/Postal code and your credit card info? I can have it shipped in 5-10 business days.

My name is Joe Soap

My address is:
123
bubble street
Bath

My card no. Is 12345678910

Is this some kind of elaborate wash joke? or is shootthebandit being a bit rude???

As has been said, Bath is real place and just to add to confusion the road in runs through Pennsylvania.

 

[Silvanus]

Yes, he does. Gandalf only told Frodo to go to Elrond Halfelven, not how.
It was months after the encounter, after Frodo sold Bag End to Lobelia and moved to the country side, that he planned on leaving on the journey with Sam, ran into Merry and Pippin, then into the Old Forest, where they got into trouble with the Old Willow, got saved, then ran into the Barrow Wights, save again, then were told to head towards Bree-town.

So, no Tom? No Bree-town, and no chance meeting with Strider.

Those do seem to be developments that could quite credibly have come about in other ways (such as that depicted in the film).

 

[Captain Kips]

A grey creature tries to get at a small man's ring and is consistenly turned down.

Waitaminute.

 

[madwarper]

Those do seem to be developments that could quite credibly have come about in other ways (such as that depicted in the film).

But, that IS the way it happened.

Regardless, I'm sure Han Solo could have been tracked to Cloud City, then delivered to Jabba by someone other than Boba Fett, but that doesn't change the fact that he has a fan base and cutting him out would piss some people off.

 

[Silvanus]

But, that IS the way it happened.

Regardless, I'm sure Han Solo could have been tracked to Cloud City, then delivered to Jabba by someone other than Boba Fett, but that doesn't change the fact that he has a fan base and cutting him out would piss some people off.

That's certainly true.

That said, Boba Fett is at least in keeping with the tone of the films. Tom Bombadillo, on the other hand, is a hilarious dancing moss-gatherer who inexplicably speaks only in nonsense rhyme. I can't help but think that the films would be a lot harder to take seriously with his presence.

 

[madwarper]

That said, Han Solo is at least in keeping with the tone of the films. Tom Bombadillo, on the other hand, is a hilarious dancing moss-gatherer who inexplicably speaks only in nonsense rhyme. I can't help but think that the films would be a lot harder to take seriously with his presence.

I disagree. Tom, as a being so old that his origin is unknown to even Gandalf of the Istari, and is not swayed by the power of the Ring draws attention to the fact that there is a long history to Arda, prior to the forging of the rings. And, that Peter Jackson bent over backwards to gut all manner of lore from his "interpretation".

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

People that moan about the movie compared to the book, if you listen to the commentary by Peter Jackson and the writers they explain why the made certain changes. Like Tom adds nothing to move the plot and slows the movie down. Giving Faramir more of a character arc as him saying "i would not pick up that ring if i saw it by the wayside" takes away all power from the ring as an evil and dangerous object. Alot of other stuff about adding new characters that would only be on screen for a moment like Elronds sons fighting with Arragorn and that guy with the spear (sorry, i forget the name). New characters would have to be explained which is a waste of time if they are gone again one scene later. Other stuff thats explained in the book like Arragorn staying outside the city in a tent and why he does it is irrelevant and holds the film up - you can explain these in a book, but in a movie its just wastes time. End of the day the core story is about the hobbits taking the ring to Mordor and everything from the book was judged on whether it added or detracted from that story. Its why i love the extended versions as they add way more character moments like the gift giving.

Thing is people that love the books have got a great movie based on it and far better love and attention was done on it than any one could ever have expected. If someone else had directed it it could have been like the prequel star wars trilogy with cgi overload etc Personally you now have both even JRRT said his books are just a small part of an epic tapestry of books, art and music. He intended for Middle Earth to be bigger than just the books and that people would continue to add things and write new stories etc to expand the world (said in documentaries on extended editions). The movie is just one interpretation of this. Peter put so much effort in those movies, real love and passion, that he was constantly rewriting and improving the scripts the whole time to make it as close to the books and Tolkiens writings as possible. For me one book i enjoy reading is WWZ, and look at what crappy movie they made out of that - writers/directers with zero respect for the source material. Regardless of what people think of the movies, atleast it led more people to read the original books and that can only be a good thing.

 

[shootthebandit]

Thanks for your input guys. Theres a lot of movie versus book stuff going on here. If i really like the movies i may consider getting into the books if i want a bit of extra detail. Im not a big reader anyway but if i enjoy it enough it may be worth a read

From the sounds of things it seems to have a good story with good characters. Good cinematography in an excellent landscape and I like how some of you guys have said CGI is minimal. I prefer "real" analogue effects

It seems like they are worth checking out. Probably wont get the chance this weekend but when i do get the chance i'll let you guys know what i think (hopefully it will be positive)

 

[Lilani]

Ive never really got into LoTR. I tried watching it as a kid and just lost interest (possibly due to the length) and fell asleep. Ever since ive always associated it with that moment however now that im older i think im a lot more patient and probably able to understand whats going on

I know most of you are LoTR fans (I would assume) and I thought it would be a good challenge to overcome my childhood association with the series and try and sell it to me and convince me to watch them all and possibly even the hobbit ones too.

If I do watch them all ill let you guys know what I think

Please go easy on me

I think you should try to watch the movies again. Maybe even turn on the audio commentaries, there are four of them I know on the extended edition DVDs: the director and writers, set/costume design and conceptual art (with Alan Lee and and John Howe!), post-production (visual effects, editing, music, etc), and the actors themselves. The actor's commentary is probably the most entertaining, but every one of them is very interesting and gives a lot of insight into both how they made the movie and all the thought they put into adapting Tolkien's world to film. They talk about lots of aspects of Middle Earth that didn't make it into the film, at least not explicitly. And hearing them talk about what they did and why they did it really helped frame a lot of the major themes and cultures of the world (like how it's autumn in Rivendell because the elves are slowly on their way out of Middle Earth, or all the horse-related details in the Rohan set because of how horse-centered Rohan is, those sorts of things).

I'm saying this because it might do you well to see the culture and breadth of the world separated from the story of Frodo and the ring.

 

[San Martin]

That said, Han Solo is at least in keeping with the tone of the films. Tom Bombadillo, on the other hand, is a hilarious dancing moss-gatherer who inexplicably speaks only in nonsense rhyme. I can't help but think that the films would be a lot harder to take seriously with his presence.

I disagree. Tom, as a being so old that his origin is unknown to even Gandalf of the Istari, and is not swayed by the power of the Ring draws attention to the fact that there is a long history to Arda, prior to the forging of the rings. And, that Peter Jackson bent over backwards to gut all manner of lore from his "interpretation".

Personally I agree that the films are fine as they are. But hypothetically, how would you include Tom Bombadil and all of those other things without making the films far too long?

I´m not saying it's impossible, but I'd be interested to know what you have in mind.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

The movies? Don't bother. The only thing they come close to getting accurate is a visual representation of Middle Earth. However, they're travesties as adaptations, faithful only on a basic plot level.
Tom Bombadil, Glorfindel, Anduril, Gifts from the Galadhrim, Aragorn's coma, Elves at Hornburg, the voice of Saruman, Faramir taking Frodo and Sam to the Osgiliath, and the final fucking battle in the War of the Ring.


Just read the books.

Change is necessary when adapting from one medium to another. Tom Bombadil doesn't push the plot forward, so he got sidestepped; Glorfindel is a menial character and you might as well use his spot to introduce a character you actually want to develop. Things like Aragorn's fall or Haldir's stint at Helm's Deep are put there to raise the stakes and create dramatic beats that are otherwise nonexistent in the original book, while the last two instances you mentioned - Osgiliath and the final battle - are set up as climaxes for their respective movies (and Faramir gets a little on the way of development while they're at it). There's a good reason for every change and every substraction. If we're just gonna complain about stuff that's missing we might as well throw in the Barrow Wights, Bill Ferny, the troll statues, Beregond, Bergil, Imrahil and what's her name the old healer. You can't have it all.

But Faramir gets the wrong development. The whole point of Faramir in the book is that he is not like his brother. That's the reason his father doesn't send Faramir to Rivendell to get Elrond's opinions on the dreams both sons were having even though Boromir only had the dream once and Faramir multiple times - because Faramir's affinity for the ways of Gandalf came into conflict with Denethor's habit of putting Gondor first and foremost in all considerations. What the movies did to Faramir by making him greedy for the power of the Ring to give to Gondor was - in my mind - completely a betrayal of the character as he was written and the whole spirit of the encounter suffers, not to mention the tone of that leg of Frodo's journey, as a result.

I said it before, the Osgiliath sequence allows the movie to end on a climax. The ring almost gets lost to a Nazgul, Sam saves Frodo, Frodo's state of corruption is shown when he's about to kill Sam and Faramir accepts their quest rather than hold them any longer. I think Faramir's difference from his brother is underlined even more by having him closer to temptation but bringing him back nonetheless. If Faramir had just let them go we'd have none of these and the ending wouldn't pack much punch on an action or character level.

I'd certainly like to see these "good" reasons, because so far I have only seen the halfarsed apologist reasoning.

All Bombadil does is provide another checkpoint for the Hobbits, nothing that happens while they're staying matters, nothing he says matters and he's never brought up in the books ever again save when he's mentioned some chapters later at Elrond's. As valuable myth-building as it is in the book, the movie doesn't suffer from its lack of inclusion. Same deal with Glorfindel. Characters in movies should have a reason for being there, building up and paying off. There might be a way of including either of them appropriately but the important thing is the movie doesn't feel incomplete or dysfunctional without them. I assure you not of what I'm saying is halfarsed and as educated an answer as you can get on the subject.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

Well, okay.

The movies all feel as if they part of a really large story, which I think, is a faithful recreation of the books: this sense of grandness and an epic atmosphere of undertaking an impossible task have transitioned rather well into the movies.

The fight scenes are also pretty cool, as are the effects: the clever mix of both practical FX and CGI has allowed for the movies to age rather well.

In addition, I think that the pacing is magnificent. Yes, the movies are 12 hours long in total(about 14 for the extended editions), but each movie is so full of events that you don't get bored, and it immediately satiates your wanting for progression. Simply put, it simultaneously satisfies you in between movies, and leaves you wanting to watch the next part, and it does it so well that I haven't seen another movie(or series of movies) rival it in that regard.

Apart from that, the story itself is pretty cool. It's a tale of togetherness, camaraderie, bravery, unity; it's a really nice story that simultaneously depicts the horrors of War and the unity of mankind in the face of adversity. It doesn't have some sort of ulterior motive, and for all the claims of racism, the across-the-board whiteness of the cast(and in the book) wasn't deliberate, it was more of an afterthought for both writers to diversify the cast(besides, it only became a problem when actors of other ethnicities were actively rejected for the roles like in The Hobbit, which is close-minded of the casting directors, but I won't go into that territory here).

And to me, at least, its a cultural touchstone. It was the early 21st century's Star Wars(original trilogy), and it is immensely popular.

It's not going to be the greatest movie you will ever see, I won't fanboy about it that much, because that can ruin the experience for people, but I will say that its a solid story well told, and you should see it because of that.

 

[Mahorfeus]

I'll be frank (Hi, Frank) and just say that I absolutely could not stand Tolkien's writing style, at least for his Lord of the Rings series. That might be some kind of blasphemy, but it is how it is. The Hobbit on the other hand, was great. That's just a disclaimer.

As far as the movies - I absolutely loved them. Yes, I am a bit of a sucker for blockbuster hits, especially high fantasy ones. But to be completely honest, I think that Jackson took the world Tolkien crafted and ran away with it. Again, blasphemy, but whatever. The visuals are superb, the action is great, the acting is great... I could talk about them all day. Which is just as well, since it'd probably take all day to watch all of them. I actually approve of the numerous omissions. Especially Tom Bombadil. Seriously Tolkien, what the hell. (But then again Jackson realized Radagast the Brown, so I guess the two of them are about even in that regard.)

 

[madwarper]

Personally I agree that the films are fine as they are. But hypothetically, how would you include Tom Bombadil and all of those other things without making the films far too long?

I´m not saying it's impossible, but I'd be interested to know what you have in mind.

Well, the first way to reduce length would have been to cut all the crap that Jackson had invented.

Though, I personally would have preferred they having been at least 5 movies.

Books 1, 2, 3 and 6 most certainly have enough content to each warrant their own movie.
I'm not sure whether Book 4 and 5 could each carry their own movie, so combined them might not be bad. Considering that, as is, it seems that half of Jackson's third movie were the last chapters of Books 3 and 4.

As valuable myth-building as it is in the book, the movie doesn't suffer from its lack of inclusion. Same deal with Glorfindel.

But, they do. The movies lack accuracy and authenticity.

Characters in movies should have a reason for being there, building up and paying off.

And, the reason they promoted Arwen from a footnote in the appendix to replace Glorfindel is... ?

I assure you not of what I'm saying is halfarsed and as educated an answer as you can get on the subject.

If this is the best "educated" answer you can provide, then there's no point in continuing this conversation. I was told there was a "good" answer, and I have yet to see it.

 

[jademunky]

If I do watch them all ill let you guys know what I think

Please go easy on me

Ever read "Huckleberry Fin" and think to yourself "needs more unintentional homoeroticism"? The Lord of the Rings books are exactly what you are looking for.

Kidding (kinda)

Oh the movies? yeah they're pretty good, helped along by female characters in Middle Earth (all 3) getting more than 10 minutes worth of screen time.

 

[DalekJaas]

It shouldn't have to be sold to you, it is that good that if you haven't seen it, it is purely your loss.