Lord of the Rings Trilogy (movies)

[Kosmic]

Friends loaned me these movies as a set, so I was able to view them all on 3 consecutive evenings. 

 

Having first read the novels in the early 1970s and a couple of times since I was fairly familiar with the outline of the story, though I haven't read them for 20 years or more. A great effort by film maker, Peter Jackson, and his team. The most glaring issue for me, was the divergence of the films from the original story-line. I do not know what prompted PJ to do this, as it was apparent to me, that being faithful to the books wouldn't have resulted in any real loss of impact. Sure, leave out whole chapters like Tom Bombadil. etc, which doesn't really progress the plot, but why introduce romance and why change other aspects of the story-line......such as in the 'Flight to the Ford' sequence, where (in the book) Aragorn (Strider) saves Frodo from 'The Nine' , while the film substitutes a female character (Arwen) as  Frodo's rescuer. This is just one of many such examples and I'm afraid I'm at a loss to understand why Jackson does this.

 

Other than that, the overemphasis on the battle scenes is another disappointment. Naturally, they (the battles) are dealt with quite comprehensively in the books, but I guess PJ just couldn't resist throwing in a bit of 'Hollywood', just for effect.

 

I read somewhere that a Chinese consortium is planing a television series based on Tolkien's epic trilogy. Apparently, they intend to remain as faithful to the books as is possible. Let's hope so.

[Guest Muon N']

This is why I enjoyed the movies so much, I never read the books.

 

Loved every aspect.

 

Might watch again down the track, though I have watched them twice already.

[Kosmic]

Just now, Muon N' said:

This is why I enjoyed the movies so much, I never read the books.

 

Loved every aspect.

 

Might watch again down the track, though I have watched them twice already.

 

Agreed, they are very entertaining and the casting is excellent. Perhaps you might like to tackle the books at some point, they are well worth it.

[Ittaku]

The books as is would have made terrible films IMO. I think PJ did a spectacular job of altering them for the screen. It's a different medium and being "faithful" to the books just would have made it boring and a laborious watch. I love them to death and rewatch them yearly. It didn't diminish the books for me either; quote the opposite - I've reread them twice since.

Edited October 27, 2019 by Ittaku

[Guest Muon N']

Just now, Kosmic said:

 

Agreed, they are very entertaining and the casting is excellent. Perhaps you might like to tackle the books at some point, they are well worth it.

Maybe not, as the books would be to myself like the movies were to yourself.

[Kosmic]

Just now, Muon N' said:

Maybe not, as the books would be to myself like the movies were to yourself.

 

That's one way to look at it I guess. Trust me, you will enjoy the books immensely.

[GregWormald]

I read the books many years ago--I found them somewhat boring and over-long, although in general I like long novels.

As for the films--too long, too much 'galuphing' on horses, and battle scenes, so really boring in places. 

I know I'm probably in the minority but that's how they affected me. I wouldn't recommend either the books or the movies to anyone else.

[Guest Muon N']

2 minutes ago, Kosmic said:

 

That's one way to look at it I guess. Trust me, you will enjoy the books immensely.

I laugh when anyone says "trust me" sorry, you may not get the humour there

 

I know what I like, so I trust what I know I like.

 

Reading these days puts me to sleep, and it is now rare for myself to come across an author/story that negates this, for myself.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Kosmic said:

Friends loaned me these movies as a set, so I was able to view them all on 3 consecutive evenings. 

Did you watch the extended version or the standard versions?  The extended versions add a lot more to the movie experience especially for those who have read the books.

 

There was lots of debate among LOTR fans on whether the divergence of the movie from the books were good or not.  I like what Peter Jackson did in the movies and he does talk in some of the extras about the reasons why he diverged and left out characters such as Tom Bombadil.  

4 minutes ago, Muon N' said:

Might watch again down the track, though I have watched them twice already.

Only twice!     I did the fifth viewing of the extended versions a few weeks ago.   

2 minutes ago, Ittaku said:

It didn't diminish the books for me either; quote the opposite - I've reread them twice since.

  Agreed.  For example,  the opening of Fellowship did a fantastic job of summarising what the Appendices covered on the early history.  Those Appendices are hard going and I do wonder how many people actually read them.

[Kosmic]

1 minute ago, Snoopy8 said:

Did you watch the extended version or the standard versions?  The extended versions add a lot more to the movie experience especially for those who have read the books.

 

There was lots of debate among LOTR fans on whether the divergence of the movie from the books were good or not.  I like what Peter Jackson did in the movies and he does talk in some of the extras about the reasons why he diverged and left out characters such as Tom Bombadil.  

Only twice!     I did the fifth viewing of the extended versions a few weeks ago.   

  Agreed.  For example,  the opening of Fellowship did a fantastic job of summarising what the Appendices covered on the early history.  Those Appendices are hard going and I do wonder how many people actually read them.

 

Yes, watched the extended version, but not yet viewed the other material, such as the interviews with PJ etc.

 

Have never read the appendices.

[warweary]

I've owned both the theatrical release and the extended editions of LOTR, so yeh, i loved them and the books.  Making the films was a remarkable achievement for PJ.

[Kosmic]

When I first read Tolkien's trilogy, it struck me that I was reading narrative history. I did a lot of history reading while at Uni and Tolkien's works have the sense (or feeling) of actual history. Weird I know, but there you are.

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, Kosmic said:

Yes, watched the extended version, but not yet viewed the other material, such as the interviews with PJ etc.

 

Have never read the appendices.

You do realise that this debate is 9 years too late, debate started before Fellowship came out!    Suggest looking at some the extras where  Peter Jackson and others (can't remember names, seen extras only once!) explained how the movie storyline was constructed.

Worth reading  wikipedia.  For example for Fellowship

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings:_The_Fellowship_of_the_Ring

39 minutes ago, Ittaku said:

... and being "faithful" to the books just would have made it boring and a laborious watch. 

 

16 minutes ago, Kosmic said:

When I first read Tolkien's trilogy, it struck me that I was reading narrative history. I did a lot of history reading while at Uni and Tolkien's works have the sense (or feeling) of actual history. Weird I know, but there you are.

Faithful to the books, as Con mentioned above, and following the history would have killed the movie.  

Edited October 27, 2019 by Snoopy8
Typo

[Kosmic]

1 minute ago, Snoopy8 said:

You do realise that this debate is 9 tears too late, debate started before Fellowship came out!    Suggest looking at some the extras where  Peter Jackson and others (can't remember names, seen extras only once!) explained how the movie storyline was constructed.

Worth reading  wikipedia.  For example for Fellowship

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings:_The_Fellowship_of_the_Ring

 

Faithful to the books, as Con mentioned above, and following the history would have killed the movie.  

 

I can't agree with you there. Sorry about the 'lateness', but I've only just got around the viewing them.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Kosmic said:

I can't agree with you there. Sorry about the 'lateness', but I've only just got around the viewing them.

No need to apologise.   You do bring back memories of the huge, raging debates which I read but largely stayed out of.  Not intending to revive any of that here...

 

Please do read the wiki pages which contain a good synopsis of the divergent points and the debates.  

[Guest Muon N']

Better late than never.....well, maybe it applies to only some things

 

I was late to my wedding, I was late to the interview, I was late to the ticket box....hmm...

 

So how about The Hobbit, see that?

 

Again, loved those movies, should watch again.

[Guest]

Just now, Muon N' said:

So how about The Hobbit, see that?

 

Again, loved those movies, should watch again.

I rave about LOTR but dislike The  Hobbit. They made a BIG mistake of wringing 3 movies out of a short children's story.  I only saw it at home and only once.  To me, Peter Jackson used up all his creativity in LOTR and this was a cynical ploy to get more money... 

[JukKluk2]

When they first came out I was delighted, even if it was spread over three years. And when the extended versions became available I was pretty chuffed as well. However, now that we're almost 20 years past the release of the first film's release I have to say that, after watching them again recently, I am beginning to think that some of the changes to the sequence of the story telling weren't necessary and that the changes of who did what to whomever, and when, weren't always to the benefit of the story.

I understand that film and the written word tell stories in a completely different way and that when translating a book to the visual medium things get lost/changed, it's unavoidable. The more intricate the book, the harder it is to make into a movie, especially where the book delved deeply into characterisation. It's harder to develop intimate and nuanced character portraits on the big screen with a small cast, let alone with a cast of LOTR's numbers. Stangely, I think we learned more of Saruman's character than we did of Gandalf's, in the movies.

Ultimately though, in my observation, the films spent too much time telling the story and not enough time explaining the story. I have read the books a number of times, my next time will be reading #11 I think, but even so I found that the narrative was all over the place. Cutting Tom Bombadil was perhaps the best move that he made, even in the book it's an unnecessary detour in terms of the plot. The rest, however, was a disjointed series of events that didn't hold together. Individually many scenes were faithful to the book in their outcome, they simply failed at the macro level, they just didn't gel.

That's how I see it. YMMV.

[Ittaku]

Watching the hobbit just makes me crave for LOTR. The hobbit wasn't PJ's idea and the original director trying to make it gave up after a while when he realised it was beyond him and then they approached PJ in desperation by driving a dump truck full of money up to his house and dumped it on his lawn and he eventually gave in and did it. It unfortunately shows. They're a pale shadow of what the LOTR films were which started with far more material than they could film, and by comparison the hobbit films were far too many movies created out of far too little material they could film. They're good  demonstrations of the two extremes.

[Guest Muon N']

6 minutes ago, Snoopy8 said:

I rave about LOTR but dislike The  Hobbit. They made a BIG mistake of wringing 3 movies out of a short children's story.  I only saw it at home and only once.  To me, Peter Jackson used up all his creativity in LOTR and this was a cynical ploy to get more money... 

It didn't have the impact that LOTR's had with me, though I still enjoyed it.

[groovem]

I tried to read the books again after watching the extended editions. I found the books to be boring and i couldn't finish them.

 

I don't think the plot deviated too much from the books. If you want to watch movies that deviate drastically from the book try watching the new movie version of Stephen King's It. The first movie was so different and debased the story that I couldn't watch the second one.

[Mobe1969]

Alas, poor Tom Bombadil...

 

I read the books as a teenager, and by the time I saw the films, the only thing about reading them that had stuck with my was that I had enjoyed it, but was still irritated by the constant injection of poetry...  And Tom Bombadil. The movies fixed both those annoyances...

 

The Hobbit movie series though I found OK but way too long. And whenever I rewatch them (and I did earlier this year), but the time I get the the third film, I just can't remember what the hell the story was about, what they had set out to achieve at the start. Even now I can't actually recall...

[Kosmic]

@JukKluk2 Excellent and very thoughtful post. Thank you.

 

Those who find the books too long or even boring, would no doubt find the movies much more acceptable. For me (and for millions of other readers), the books weren't long enough. When starting to read The Fellowship of the Ring.....even from the first page.....I was instantly transported to the land of Middle Earth.

 

Totally magic.

[Luc]

18 hours ago, Kosmic said:

Friends loaned me these movies as a set, so I was able to view them all on 3 consecutive evenings. 

 

Having first read the novels in the early 1970s and a couple of times since I was fairly familiar with the outline of the story, though I haven't read them for 20 years or more. A great effort by film maker, Peter Jackson, and his team. The most glaring issue for me, was the divergence of the films from the original story-line. I do not know what prompted PJ to do this, as it was apparent to me, that being faithful to the books wouldn't have resulted in any real loss of impact. Sure, leave out whole chapters like Tom Bombadil. etc, which doesn't really progress the plot, but why introduce romance and why change other aspects of the story-line......such as in the 'Flight to the Ford' sequence, where (in the book) Aragorn (Strider) saves Frodo from 'The Nine' , while the film substitutes a female character (Arwen) as  Frodo's rescuer. This is just one of many such examples and I'm afraid I'm at a loss to understand why Jackson does this.

 

Other than that, the overemphasis on the battle scenes is another disappointment. Naturally, they (the battles) are dealt with quite comprehensively in the books, but I guess PJ just couldn't resist throwing in a bit of 'Hollywood', just for effect.

 

I read somewhere that a Chinese consortium is planing a television series based on Tolkien's epic trilogy. Apparently, they intend to remain as faithful to the books as is possible. Let's hope so.

 

 

Agree with you a hundred percent but you'll find we're in the minority. If you call the movies an 'adaptation' then I think you can gloss over the glaring departures from the book. PJ made schlock horror slasher movies and it shows. Like dwarf tossing at Helms deep, elves arriving there, Arwen(as you've pointed out), no scouring of the Shire, Faramir turned into the opposite of what he is in the books and there's a long list if you love the books like I do.

The poetry, someone above found it boring, well some of it is not first rate but Tolkien admitted that but the 'lays' he wrote needed to be in the books to fill out some background.

A classically trained scholar and a philologist to boot and a product of Edwardian England...it helps to know a little bit about an author sometimes so that you know where they're coming from.

 

The crying shame is that they spent the millions upon millions to get the setting right and to inject authenticity into the telling of the tale and it was so well done and then Mr Jackson bought his ideas into it which for me, wrecked the movies.

 

*Amazon is doing a series but I think it's going to be stories just set in Middle Earth. Can only hope your right and the Chinese make a series that actually follows the book closer.

The fact the Tolkien Foundation withdrew any support for the project and Tolkien's son and executor  Christopher lambasted it says a lot. But again, it's a minority view.