Pericles said:

Most of the Aragorn/Arwyn stuff is from the Tolkien. It's in the appendices at the back of Return of the King.

As an avid fan of the movies I still cannot stand the way in which Faramir was portrayed in the films. Granted, it would have taken up so much more time in order to flesh out his character the way that Tolkien does over the course of TT and ROTK, so I understand why Jackson and crew may have chose to portray him more of as a "younger Boramir" for lack of a better expression. He seems more concerned with impressing his father by presenting him a trophy (the ring). He seemed so much more intelligent and… softer of heart, if that makes sense. More of a leader and less of a young man.

Overall though I really do love the films, but of course the books are by far much more magical.

Troymk1 said:

I guess some people have more trouble than others suspending belief. I can understand where he was coming from though, because as a firefighter/paramedic I always shake my head when I watch the film Backdraft and see firefighters walking through burning buildings with no air packs on. Or when on many shows, someone does CPR for a couple of seconds and brings back someone from the brink as if nothing had happened.

To be completely off topic, I found Gladiator did have some subtle nods, though. For example, the emperor Commodus(Joaquin Phoenix) actually did fight as a gladiator, in what is suspected were "fixed" contests. Or in the opening battle, when the barbarians fire their arrows at the oncoming romans, and you see them using their shields in a particular way to cover in front and above themselves, a roman battle technique knows as "testudo" (turtle).

Titan said:

To further this tangent…

I recall after Gladiator came out and people were asking (or sometimes assuming!) that Commodus was really killed in the arena and that Russel's character was a historical figure.

To come back to the Elves at Helm's Deep. That scene bothers me the most perhaps. And it is not solely for the fact the Elves were there but much more for the fact they were unable to stand in sword-fight aginst the Uruk-hai. That for me was perhaps the dumbest thing mr Jackson did with the trilogy. An elite Elven warrior was of course far superior to an Uruk. Of course they could still die against them (when highly outnumbered) but to see in one shot Legolas and Gimli killing 40+ of them each and on the other the Elves being slaughtered is just against the lore completely.

If Elrond ever sent troops to aid in battle, they would rank among the best fighters in Middle-earth I would think.

yes i agree on that, i mean take the examples from the silmarillion….how many great warriors are there who are elves in that tale? warrriors who pretty much took down entire armies single handedly

I have enjoyed both the books and the movies and I do try to reconcile things often. I don't consider myself to be an expert on either, however, the Tom Bobadil thing was always important to me, when reading the book, because he was a carefree man who was immune to the ring. He picked it up and handed it back and just shrugged it off. How many others would get all gnarled up over it? It just seemed profound, deep, and significant for me and it somehow should have made it into the movie.

The other part I found funny is that the hobbits, Merry and Pippin, in particular are bumbling fools yet the movie portrayed them as bumbling fools in areas where they weren't in the book and then made them out to be heroes in areas where they were bumbling fools in the book.

From a pure disgust point of view, the movie really bothers me when Legolas does that contortion where he mounts a horse while running and defies physics and looks like he snapped his back in half while doing so. It is visually distasteful and so not necessary.

Now for the praise from the move.'

The books have three parts to them that are annoying for me, as a reader, and I'm so very pleased the movies cut them out.

1) All of the eating…eat, eat, eat…everything is about a meal, and cooking. The movie did incorporate it, but it didn't dwell on it obsessively like the books do.

2) THe singing. The songs are awful…I'm sorry, they don't do it for me. I'm very happy it was "Lord of the Rings" and not "Lord of the Rings - the musical"

3) The books are notorious for characters being missing for long periods of time, then they finally meet and spend a large length of time "catching up". One great example is that when Frodo fled from the shire, Gandalf wasn't there in the book, yet in the movie he was. Frodo actually took months from the time Gandalf asked him to leave to the time he actually left. ANd all of that time, Gandalf was away…and, of course, you learn nothing about it until they meet up again…so the book focuses 100% on Frodo all the time and then everything is "fireside catchup". So very happy the movie diverted and showed other characters rather than keeping the point of view the book had.

Other minor things. I liked how the movie provided more urgency to Frodo's exodus from Hobbiton. The book really doesn't have any sense of urgency…as mentioned already, months have passed since Gandalf urged him to leave. Even after he left, it was very nonchalont and he was simply going to his newly purchased home (He wasn't really leaving).

I found it interesting that Frodo stole from Farmer Maggot when he was a child and in the book, when they came to Farmer Maggot's house, he actually made them dinner (They ate again…note the obsession with food) and were quite friendly. Pippin was with them by happenstance and Merry didn't meet them until after that scene…yet the movie portrayed Merry and Pippin as stealing from Farmer Maggot (the way Frodo did as a child) and catapulted the story forward that way.

Also, there were significant dialogue between Gandalf and Frodo regarding the ring in Frodo's home that the movie skipped…then, much later on, while in Moria, Gandalf stops so he could remember where to go next and starts to recite and say the things that the book had way in the beginning. I picked up on the difference, I noticed it, however, I thought the movie integrated it wonderfully.

Lastly, I felt that Galadriel's gifts were more significant in the book than portrayed in the movie.

schmoo34- those are all valid points and i can see why you would say them, i just thought id better say that before i say the next part

i couldnt disagree more. (sorry )

all the parts that you addressed above were areas i loved in the books- in fact they made the books for me. i love all the descriptive parts, the presents at te party, the meals, the hobbit names, the landscape, the weather. i love it all

the singing…now i agree that it would have been very strange in a 21st century movie, but remember LOTR was wrote in the time around the 2nd world war. now while this isnt all that long ago, many of the songs and poems were infact from even longer ago, pieces that tolkien adapted and inserted in

what really adds to the charm is the very language used. it just fits. perhaps its because im english (im sorry if you are too as that point will have little meaning).

but in any case, different people, different tastes

rich

richsabre said:

richsabre said:

Yes, that part made it seem like Legolas was the only surviving Elven warrior of some skill (well with Haldir not far behind but still). The prologue did much better job in showing Elven superior fighting skills.

Khaden said:

Khaden said:

You have practically stolen the words out of my mouth. Yes, the elves at Helms Deep are a major annoyance. However, the single thing that GRATES on me is the slaughtering of Faramir's character. As much as I agree with Rich on the viewability of the films on their own merit (and I own them all in multiple formats and sets), I absolutley HATE that Jackson absolutely destroyed my favorite person in the trilogy. A lot of my fellow Tolkien friends find it odd that my favorite character is a 2nd-tier man (important, sure, but hardly one of the fellowship, etc). My reason is that he and Eomer (another personal fav) represent the FUTURE and hope of Middle-Earth. Even Gandalf and Elrond acknowledge that the future belongs to man (as opposed to elves, dwarves, etc). And while the Numenoreans of old have their bloodlines running out, Faramir and Eomer stand out as a change from the corrupted men of previous generations.

Specifically, I feel that Faramir is even MORE important as a specific counterpoint to his brother. Tolkien quite clearly paints the picture that Boromir was the stronger son, the leader, the one favored by his father, while Faramir is disdained and practially hated by Denethor. The very inclusion of Faramir is to lead to the point where he is able to make a VERY conscious decision to withstand the draw of the ring, allowing the quest to continue and succeed. This stands in direct contrast to his own "superior" brother who gave in to the ring's seduction for power and led to the breaking of the fellowship. Faramir exists to be the anti-Boromir!

… and then Jackson completely @*#*'s this up and destroys his character in the movie. **** you, Peter. **** you.

I believe the urgency made sense in the movie but I think the lack of it made total sense in the book. For my part at least, I really loved how the book was slowly getting "darker and more dangerous." Whilst I was reading it first I had no idea what it was going to turn into. So that "revelation" was really my favourite part of the book one.

The book also took enough time to portray the lovely easy-going life of the Hobbits which was best to show when the danger was not yet as immediate, I feel.

benhanses said:

i feel this way everytime i look at the preview of thorin and co. - people say that its good to break out of the 'dwarf cliche' ….but seriously, is any among us going to argue that when tolkien wrote the hobbit, he had anything but the stereotypical dwarf in mind. i would be strongly inclined that he did have a stocky, bearded fellow with a rough attitude in mind. i may be wrong, but i doubt it

PS - im finding all this anti-jackson support here very strange indeed- ive been basically ran off forums for speaking out against the films….

richsabre said:

I am reading the Lord of the Rings, and have read The Hobbit a long time ago, but this Silmarillion, is that in the same universe as the others? So three tales? Does the Silmarillion take place prior to the Hobbit in the timeline and deal mostly with Elves? Thanks.

lleimmoen said:

This was done intentionally by JRRT. After The Hobbit was published and became a big success, his publishers wanted more material from him. As we are all aware, he had a wealth of back-story (thousands of years) already on paper and in mind. But as we all know the history of Middle-Earth is MUCH darker than what the small snap-shot of The Hobbit portrays. So when he presented the material he wanted to publish (the stories that would make up the Silmarillion, etc), the publishers basically said ,"Ummmm holy crap, that's WAY too dark. Don't you have any more cute Hobbit stories?!?!?"

So Tolkien basically said, "Well, they don't want my back-story, which I'm NOT rewriting to be more kid-friendly… so I guess I'll write what happens after the Hobbit"….

Now that very fictional conversation paints WHY the LOTR trilogy (I know, I know, forgive me purists who insist on thinking of it as nine books… it's just easier saying "trilogy" than "novemology", which is a completely made up word I just thought of…) has that progression of getting darker. He started it off with the Hobbits at a birthday party for Bilbo, and built it from there. His goal was to slowly take the reader from The Hobbit to his darker stuff, and BRILLIANTLY used the Trilogy as his vehicle to do so. By the time you finish the LOTR cycle, you are fully immersed in the dark world that Middle-Earth has become, and going back to read his darker stories (such as The Children of Hurin or The Fall of Gondolin, two of my personal favorites… and make Greek/Shakespearian tragedy look like the Smurfs) isn't so much of a shock. Now if only Christopher hadn't muddled it all up… lol

hey….prepare for some spoilers as theres no way to explain without these

yes they all happen in the same universe, which is our universe just long long ago ….however its slightly more tricky..

the silmarillion happens from the creating of the world arda - which includes middle earth and valinor, by eru, through its several major wars between the elves and melkor, to its splitting and removal of valinor from middle earth so it cannot be reached by physical means…so it cannot be sailed to unless by magic. numenor, though found within modern versions of the silmarillion is actually a different book called akallabeth

be warned though, the silmarillion, though a wonderful and enchanting tale, is nothing like the hobbit or LOTR. its much heavier (and i dont mean weight haha). what i mean is that its sort of like reading bible text ie …and on this day eru did this and that, and the valar did this and that, and so on…..this puts ALOT of people off it, but it is definitly worth reading

benhanses said:

have you read the history series ie the discarded drafts- if not i think you would find them very interesting, but in any case it sounds as if you have.

its interesting to note from the history series that tolkien

1. did not think he could top the hobbit (in a letter to Unwin)

2. cut out ALOT of the 'daftness' of the hobbit way of life to get to the 'darker' parts- so what we read would have been much lighter if he hadnt made that choice

its also interesting to note that he had two firm critics - his son and his publishers son! both of whom would hardly want dark parts

richsabre said:

Don't get me wrong, it's definitely a Love-Hate relationship for me and Jackson. I very much appreciate that he has worked very hard for over a decade to bring these to the screen, and honestly, as with ANY adaptaion there will be differences. ***And at least it wasn't James Effing Cameron violating our beloved lore***…. That's why there are some things about the film that I consider "forgiveable", in so-much as they don't change the overall weight and importance of the storyline and lore: For example, sorry Tom Bombadil-lovers (Brownmantle, who is a RL friend, will take GREAT umbrage with me here), I can see why that particular "scene" wasn't in the film. It IS a bit lengthy and doesn't hold massive influence on the rest of the story (again, this is only talking about the differences in making a movie… in the book, it is an enjoyable section and helps flesh out personalities, etc). Compare this to the VICIOUS ASSAULT ON FARAMIR's CHARACTER…. (so I am slightly enraged about that particular point… lol). But I do feel that at a critical point in the book, Faramir's character completely influenced the outcome of the quest. And therefore, to drastically CHANGE that (versus being excluded) make s a significant change to an important figure…

Anyway, I do truly appreciate Jackon's efforts, and whatever my issues are with his interpretations, at least he has provided me something to watch with my kids as an alternatvie to the freaking Twilight travesty (books AND movies), or whatever abomination Justin Bieber will be eventually starring in… lol

indeed- all good points. i guess only time will tell with the hobbit. i have not yet decided whether to go to the cinema to see it or not. i know i could see it, hate it, then go 'meh whatever' but that just isnt me. it will annoy me a great deal

perhaps ill wait until it gets some reviews

richsabre said:

lol… I think you and I have the same outlook on these things, just with a different response! I will definitely see The Hobbit (at least the first one), despite what reviews it gets. I have to know for myself how true it holds. Unless I was getting reviews from folk like yourself or my Tolkien-loving friends, there's no amount of E! entertainment or Siskel and Roeper that can form an opinion for me.

But for all of that, with what issues I have with the film LOTR adaptations, and as much of a pessimistic stance as I can seem to take, I truly am an optimist at heart. I WANT them to be gret films… and definitely hope that they are! I would love nothing more than for my kids to grow up loving the same world and stories that I did :-)

richsabre said:

As a quick plug- thanks for the series you've got going on the lore, Rich. I've just had time to amble my way through the first couple, but I enjoy not only the concise intro to to Middle-Earth you are providing the forum, but possibly even more the way you are able to "narrate" your way through questions in your own mind and how they relate to Tolkiens writings… well done, Mate!

yes, i can see your reasoning, and perhaps i will visit the cinema when its on, but if you hear of a guy in nothern england thrown out of the pictures for screaming and kicking….then you know its not good

and thank you. that means alot, though if you seen any gaps or mistakes whilst reading them i would be grateful if you could point them out to me….my lore only goes so far haha

benhanses said:

This Thread is because of The Lord of the Rings LCG. This LCG is because of Popular Interest. Popular Interest is because of the Movies. The Movies… Peter Jackson.
The H-M, leather-bound, 50th anniversary edition “Lord of the Rings” was considered commercially viable thanks to Popular interest. There is Popular Interest because of the Movies. The Movies… Peter Jackson.
The Lord of the Rings Online was considered a viable Investment because of Popular Interest…P.J.
Washington College offers a credited course on The Lord of the Rings…P.J.
Elves and not elfs…P.J.
Middle Earth cookbooks…P.J.
Bookends…P.J.
Etsy…P.J.
Google…Zuckerberg
I love that Star-Wars/Star-Trek no longer dominates the massive swag machine that is American merchandising. Whom do I have to thank? P.J.
I love that friends and family now get the self depreciating Hobbit reference when I walk around barefoot. Whom do I have to thank? P.J.
I love that inquisitive minds now want to understand the lore behind the game popularized by the movie created by…P.J.
I agree with most criticism of the movies. I don’t actually enjoy much of the Two Towers and have some serious misgivings when it comes to the (and would even add one that I haven’t heard yet, Gandalf was not cast well). But, underlying the legitimate critique is an attitude that “things would have been better if he hadn’t messed it up.” They would not. We would be alone!!! Separated!!! Doomed to the unvaried art of Ted Nansmith being included in the anthology of “fan-art” produced by John Howe and Alan Lee!!!

Ben has heard all this before…sorry Ben…

Brownmantle said:

Edit: Complete Post!!!!

Since I suppose that I’m mostly writing for Ben and Rich at this point, please take into account that these are my only friends in the whole world (as evidenced by my profile) and if I seem strident it’s because I know where you both live, and feel confident that any attempt on my life will be subject to swift retribution by my pen –pal Christopher “uncle Chris” Tolkien.

Peter Jackson was THE best thing that has ever, could ever, or will ever happen to Tolkien’s works.

This Thread is because of The Lord of the Rings LCG. This LCG is because of Popular Interest. Popular Interest is because of the Movies. The Movies… Peter Jackson.
The H-M, leather-bound, 50th anniversary edition “Lord of the Rings” was considered commercially viable thanks to Popular interest. There is Popular Interest because of the Movies. The Movies… Peter Jackson.
The Lord of the Rings Online was considered a viable Investment because of Popular Interest…P.J.
Washington College offers a credited course on The Lord of the Rings…P.J.
Elves and not elfs…P.J.
Middle Earth cookbooks…P.J.
Bookends…P.J.
Etsy…P.J.
Google…Zuckerberg
I love that Star-Wars/Star-Trek no longer dominates the massive swag machine that is American merchandising. Whom do I have to thank? P.J.
I love that friends and family now get the self depreciating Hobbit reference when I walk around barefoot. Whom do I have to thank? P.J.
I love that inquisitive minds now want to understand the lore behind the game popularized by the movie created by…P.J.
I agree with most criticism of the movies. I don’t actually enjoy much of the Two Towers and have some serious misgivings when it comes to the (and would even add one that I haven’t heard yet, Gandalf was not cast well). But, underlying the legitimate critique is an attitude that “things would have been better if he hadn’t messed it up.” They would not. We would be alone!!! Separated!!! Doomed to the unvaried art of Ted Nansmith being included in the anthology of “fan-art” produced by John Howe and Alan Lee!!!

Ben has heard all this before…sorry Ben…

do not worry mate- your life is safe with me

i do agree, in fact your points are the only things which keeps me from hating jackson full stop- whether or not he did the films justice he had given us (indirectly) some awesome aspects of middle earth, both this and the MMORPG

rich

Brownmantle said:

Sellout… lol.

(oh, and Zuckerburg was responsible for Facebook… not Google… I blame Peter Jackson for your slip-up…)