LOTR Discussion[Recently split]

Posted: Sun Apr 11, 2004 6:19 pm

I was just discussing with some clanmates the other day as to whether the LOTR films are better than the books. Anyone here got an opinion on that?

Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2004 4:12 am

you must love em Very Happy

siryawn:
never read the books, so i wont know Smile

Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2004 8:32 am

personally i think the books are better... but they each have their own appeal to different people.

I like the movies because when i'm talking to someone about LOTR i can now refer to a certain part in the movie without them looking at me like i should be in a mental institution :/

but i also dont like the movies because they left out some very important parts that i feel shoulda been in there... but they did do a very good job of telling the story...

Crazed Fan Joined: 12 Feb 2004 Posts: 268 Location: RC MI

Me thinks we should plit these two movies into their own threads!!

Revolutions was good in an "Action Movie' sense and the FX were great, but when y ou stand the last two movies up next to the first one, I'd have to agree with SirYawnalot completely. Personally I could have thought of a bout a half-dozen endings that could have done better than the one they chose. It would be hard for me to put into words what made the first one so much better, and maybe it was nothing more than the fact that the concept was so mindblowing, and the effects so much better than most anything else at that time, coupled with the philisophical (sp) mumbo jumbo that really made you kind of think. Or something Wink

As far as the LOTR movies, I'd have to say I still prefer the books just because the writing is superb and it would be impossible to translate the writing into a movie with complete accuracy. Also, even though the movies are very long, they still left out major portions of the books (Tolkein was very good at putting lots of information into few words) and though most were not critical to the main storyline, they were very imaginative.

The worst parts of the movies were when they added on or changed parts without needing to. No, I take that back, the worst parts of the movies were when Legolas does his extreme stunts like he's some kind of fantastical Tony Hawk!! I mean, those scenes just seemed to take me out of the movie and were very distracting. I mean, COME ON!

They would have had to have made at t least twice as many movies in order to get all of the book on film, and even then could not have portrayed Middle Earth, it's origins, peoples, and background information sufficiently to convey the books. It is just too deep.

If you like the movies, then I recommend reading the books, but start with The Hobbit, as it does a good job of introducing some of the characters and is a fun little story on it's own. After reading the LOTR, then try The Silmarillion for more background information, though it's not a linear story as much as a compilation of smaller stories and is somewhat less exciting. After that, if you still want more, there are a few other books with bits and peices which provide even more information on certain characters. Even after all of that, you may still not understand the entire world of Middle Earth (It is an unfinished story IMHO) LOTR is but a small part of the history of Middle Earth.

Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2004 3:13 pm

lucky me that splitting is one of the functions that a mod can do Wink

btw i did the split Smile

Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2004 9:52 am

what split? huh?
raven uses confusion ray
cheetah is now confused
-20HP

UO Noob Joined: 02 Apr 2004 Posts: 7

books way better, movies left out saruman getting his throat slit. 'nuff said.

Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2004 1:49 pm

yah

the whole "hobbits return to the shire and have to rebuild it" part was left out Confused

i was kinda ticked by that....

two words:

DIRECTORS CUT Wink

Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2004 3:06 pm

3 better words for ya....

Apples and Oranges

Comparing the movie and the books is rather like comparing these 2 fruits. Both have qualities that make them special, and both share a common thread.

Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2004 9:51 am

no, hobbits do go back, and frodo leaves in a boat. to peter pan land.
the rest stays behind. i got no clue why frodo has to go, but he does.. lamer..
bet hes on his way to camp on the never ending fary hills..

Crazed Fan Joined: 12 Feb 2004 Posts: 268 Location: RC MI

Two words: The part where the Hobbits go back and kick butt in The Shire will NOT be in the Extended version.

Hate to burst your bubble like that, but it has been noted numerous times that PJ didn't care much for that part of the books, and since it has little to do with much in the story (really) it was never filmed.

Personally I liked that part of the story, which shows that the evil which began in Mordor had actually spread as far as the Shire and had actually impacted the Hobbits home, just as they were warned. However, like many of my favorite book scenes, it was not crucial to the story of Frodo destroying the ring and so choices must be made of what exactly to film and what can be left out without changing the storyline.

Also, Frodo has to leave Middle Earth and sail to the West with the Elves on the Last Boat because he had been changed too much by the ring and his wound from the sword of Angmar would never heal in Middle Earth.

You must read the Silmarillion to even begin to understand why there is a Middle Earth and a West, and how each were created and how each place affects the races and blah, blah, blah. It goes back to the beginning of the creation of the world and the fight over who's vision dominates the world.

The Silmarillion is a fascinating peice of literature which provides a nearly complete history of the world in which Middle Earth is part of. Obviously there isn't a complete list of events, but the creation of the world, and some history of some of the characters of LOTR is there.

Ask yourself, "Why is there a Lothlorien"? Why do Galadriel and Celeborn live there and not across the seas in the West where they yearn to be? Why do the Elves have to leave Middle Earth just because the Ring of Power is destroyed? If Sauron is the Ultimate Evil, then what happens how that he is utterly destroyed? Why is Gandalf's time done now that Sauron is destroyed?

Lots of questions. Most of these answers are not found in the LOTR books, but in the Silmarillion and other unfinished tales.

Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2004 11:31 am

I never liked that part of the book (Scouring of the Shire), I understand why it was there but it seemed like a piss-poor anticlimax so shortly after the earth-shattering finale. The only other really major part I can think of that was left out of the movies was Tom Bombadil, and imho, he was a boring, irritating prick. Good riddance. What I don't like in the movies is the way the dead army was portrayed... in the books, if I remember rightly, the dead left shortly after they took care of the dudes in ships. In the films they do most of the fighting, and it just makes all the fighting that the folks at Minas Tirith did beforehand seem fairly pointless.

What does happen after Sauron's destroyed anyway Homercidal? I don't remember the Silmarillion giving much info on what happens after the events of LotR.

(btw, great post Homercidal Smile

I'd give you some Karma if the forum allowed it Razz

)

Rabid Poster Joined: 09 Feb 2004 Posts: 225

JEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ MAN!!! WORST PARTS MY @55!!!
LEGOLAS ROCKSSSSSSSS 4 EVA!!!!
ELFS ROCK 4 EVA!!!!!!!!
AND HE IS FANTASTIC
BTW: my fav part is when legolas killes that mûmak. Twisted Evil

Crazed Fan Joined: 12 Feb 2004 Posts: 268 Location: RC MI

Well, I hate to disagree with you, Legolas, but Legolas was already cool in the book and I don't think that PJ had to make an MTV Superhero out of him to make the movie cool. I suppose it helps to draw in all of those 10 year olds out there, though. I thought the Mumakil were pretty cool, especially the cool-looking riders controlling them.

Actually, from what I remember of the books I've read, the end of LOTR is basically the last we really know of Middle Earth. Anything else is just surmised.

I've read LOTR and Hobbit a couple of times and Silmarillion once or twice and the unfinished tales is cool too, but I still feel like a nitwit when reading some of the threads in the Tolkein forums. Now those guys are NERDS!! HAHA.

One thing I thought was cool was when Gimli was ashamed to go into the paths of the Dead because Legolas had gone in. He makes the statement that He was ashamed because an Elf would go underground while a Dwarf would not. So, he had to go in anyway. That was actually in the book, to my surprise. I thought it sounded like a movie one-liner, but is almost verbatim from the book.

The Army of the Dead suffered a bit from the Magic of Hollywood and I too felt they seemed to make all of the other efforts look like a waste of time. And, yes, there is discrepancy between the book and the movie with them, but they are such a cool effect!

One other thing that's different: When King Theoden dies on the battlefield, he doesn't know that Eowen is right next to him and dies thinking that she is nowhere near the battle (She's supposed to be back at home.). I did think the last meeting between the two of them was very touching though. They also downplayed the importance of the affection bewteen Eowen and Faramir. Both of them were very hurt, Eowen, by losing some family members who were very close to her, and Faramir because of the love lost of his father Denethor. Eowen and Faramir actually grow in love while recuperating and become a couple in the book and this also helps to bring the two countries of Gondor and Rohan because of there respective renown.

Tom Bombadil was one other major removal and though I still liked his character (quite unique) in the book, he really didn't play into the main plot line. However, while in Tom's area, the Hobbits come across the Barrow-Wights and that is soemthing that does play into the plot line, though in a fairly obscure way.

That is where the Hobbits get their swords (except Frodo) and one of them is actually a blade from Numenor which has the power to deal injury to a ringwraith, in this case it was Angmar, the Witch-king who was destroyed by Eowen, who was protecting her father. Angmar was stabbed in the back of the knee by a Hobbit which gave Eowen time to strike Angmar in the face. Both Hobbit and Eowen were injured in some strange fashion by the shock of the blows, in addition to Eowen's broken arm from Angmar's mace.

Anyway, the sword was found at the Barrow-wights and is a coincidence of great proportion.

Oh, yeah, and the Hobbits who got swallowed by the tree, were'nt resuced by Treebeard in the book. It was Tom B. who sang to Old Man Willow and got him to let the Hobbits loose again.

Oooops rambling again...

Rabid Poster Joined: 09 Feb 2004 Posts: 225

yea they left much out...
they should have maked 4 or 5 movies instead of 3 so they had more time for the little things...