Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
In terms of the Fantasy Genre yes.

I specifically said earlier that it was probably the most important fantasy book.

Ah yee did.

huh.

A great discussion point is that what is the most important book in the past a hundred years.

Anyway back on topic. The Silmarillion is one of my favorite books. God damn i love all the history in it. Its why I want George RR Martin to write all the history and mythology of his world down. I mean I am writing my own books history down FIRST then I will write down my book.

I love it because while admittedly dry, Tolkien managed to write a creation story that puts to shame all others written previously, Greek, Christian, possibly even the epics of Hinduism.

When your story involves a boat flying through the air carrying the brightest holy light on Middle-Earth and spearing through the breast of a dragon the size of British Isles or bigger, I think you've reached the level upon which nothing can ever be more awesome.

Ironically, a highly action orientated film like the Hobbit series would have actually far better suited the First Age of the Silmarillion then the Hobbit. It would have also probably made a lot more money as well.

Please don't tempt my brother and I into making the films.

I've tried to with my writing too, but eh. Tolkien is on a whole other level than where I am on. I am on the bottom of the barrel in terms of writing and the best stuff is on the top of the barrel.

I think the parts where tolkien made some of the best mythology. But I don't think it is the greatest. I mean my favorites will always be The Celtic and Anglo Saxon Creation Myths. Or the norse Mythologies are all quite wonderful.

I am also a sucker for the King Arthur Tales which is why most oy my stories involve knights or something equalivent to a knight.

But when I protray a knight in my book I make them quite rude and often an a jerk. Because thats how most knights were.

I think Bahamut though is my favorite dragon. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahamut)

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
In terms of the Fantasy Genre yes.

I specifically said earlier that it was probably the most important fantasy book.

Ah yee did.

huh.

A great discussion point is that what is the most important book in the past a hundred years.

Anyway back on topic. The Silmarillion is one of my favorite books. God damn i love all the history in it. Its why I want George RR Martin to write all the history and mythology of his world down. I mean I am writing my own books history down FIRST then I will write down my book.

I love it because while admittedly dry, Tolkien managed to write a creation story that puts to shame all others written previously, Greek, Christian, possibly even the epics of Hinduism.

When your story involves a boat flying through the air carrying the brightest holy light on Middle-Earth and spearing through the breast of a dragon the size of British Isles or bigger, I think you've reached the level upon which nothing can ever be more awesome.

Ironically, a highly action orientated film like the Hobbit series would have actually far better suited the First Age of the Silmarillion then the Hobbit. It would have also probably made a lot more money as well.

Please don't tempt my brother and I into making the films.

I've tried to with my writing too, but eh. Tolkien is on a whole other level than where I am on. I am on the bottom of the barrel in terms of writing and the best stuff is on the top of the barrel.

I think the parts where tolkien made some of the best mythology. But I don't think it is the greatest. I mean my favorites will always be The Celtic and Anglo Saxon Creation Myths. Or the norse Mythologies are all quite wonderful.

I am also a sucker for the King Arthur Tales which is why most oy my stories involve knights or something equalivent to a knight.

But when I protray a knight in my book I make them quite rude and often an a jerk. Because thats how most knights were.

I think Bahamut though is my favorite dragon. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahamut)

Well there is Götz von Berlichingen. While still a Merc, he's pretty much a hero for the disabled due to building a fully funcitonal prosthetic arm in the 15th century after losing his right arm to a cannon, yet continued to fight and lived to the long lived age of 80.

Well there is Götz von Berlichingen. While still a Merc, he's pretty much a hero for the disabled due to building a fully funcitonal prosthetic arm in the 15th century after losing his right arm to a cannon, yet continued to fight and lived to the long lived age of 80.

There is also the greatest knight in history Sir Godfrey the man who took Jersualem from the Arabs and became its king. And died of old age. If I remember correctly.

We are getting off topic though.

I think its interesting that the LOTR movies outright ignore the other Dundain.

 Asherian Command wrote:

Well there is Götz von Berlichingen. While still a Merc, he's pretty much a hero for the disabled due to building a fully funcitonal prosthetic arm in the 15th century after losing his right arm to a cannon, yet continued to fight and lived to the long lived age of 80.

There is also the greatest knight in history Sir Godfrey the man who took Jersualem from the Arabs and became its king. And died of old age. If I remember correctly.

We are getting off topic though.

I think its interesting that the LOTR movies outright ignore the other Dundain.

To be fair, during the events of LOTR, the Dunedain did drop off the face of the planet practically until Aragorn united them at the Fourth Age under his banner.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Well there is Götz von Berlichingen. While still a Merc, he's pretty much a hero for the disabled due to building a fully funcitonal prosthetic arm in the 15th century after losing his right arm to a cannon, yet continued to fight and lived to the long lived age of 80.

There is also the greatest knight in history Sir Godfrey the man who took Jersualem from the Arabs and became its king. And died of old age. If I remember correctly.

We are getting off topic though.

I think its interesting that the LOTR movies outright ignore the other Dundain.

To be fair, during the events of LOTR, the Dunedain did drop off the face of the planet practically until Aragorn united them at the Fourth Age under his banner.

Yeah but it was they who fought at the battle of pelenor fields along with Elrond's two sons, not the Ghost Army of (Forgot their names)

They had such a minor part I actually forgot their name in the books.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Well there is Götz von Berlichingen. While still a Merc, he's pretty much a hero for the disabled due to building a fully funcitonal prosthetic arm in the 15th century after losing his right arm to a cannon, yet continued to fight and lived to the long lived age of 80.

There is also the greatest knight in history Sir Godfrey the man who took Jersualem from the Arabs and became its king. And died of old age. If I remember correctly.

We are getting off topic though.

I think its interesting that the LOTR movies outright ignore the other Dundain.

To be fair, during the events of LOTR, the Dunedain did drop off the face of the planet practically until Aragorn united them at the Fourth Age under his banner.

Yeah but it was they who fought at the battle of pelenor fields along with Elrond's two sons, not the Ghost Army of (Forgot their names)

They had such a minor part I actually forgot their name in the books.

You mean the Ghosts of the Dunharrow/Oathbreakers?

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Well there is Götz von Berlichingen. While still a Merc, he's pretty much a hero for the disabled due to building a fully funcitonal prosthetic arm in the 15th century after losing his right arm to a cannon, yet continued to fight and lived to the long lived age of 80.

There is also the greatest knight in history Sir Godfrey the man who took Jersualem from the Arabs and became its king. And died of old age. If I remember correctly.

We are getting off topic though.

I think its interesting that the LOTR movies outright ignore the other Dundain.

To be fair, during the events of LOTR, the Dunedain did drop off the face of the planet practically until Aragorn united them at the Fourth Age under his banner.

Yeah but it was they who fought at the battle of pelenor fields along with Elrond's two sons, not the Ghost Army of (Forgot their names)

They had such a minor part I actually forgot their name in the books.

You mean the Ghosts of the Dunharrow/Oathbreakers?

Yes that Army. Though I can see why they wanted to show a really bad ass army of ghosts vs giant elephants.Its still probably one of the best scenes in the whole film. Minus the bit with the mouth of sauron and the entire ending.

I feel like we should start a thread about this.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Well there is Götz von Berlichingen. While still a Merc, he's pretty much a hero for the disabled due to building a fully funcitonal prosthetic arm in the 15th century after losing his right arm to a cannon, yet continued to fight and lived to the long lived age of 80.

There is also the greatest knight in history Sir Godfrey the man who took Jersualem from the Arabs and became its king. And died of old age. If I remember correctly.

We are getting off topic though.

I think its interesting that the LOTR movies outright ignore the other Dundain.

To be fair, during the events of LOTR, the Dunedain did drop off the face of the planet practically until Aragorn united them at the Fourth Age under his banner.

Yeah but it was they who fought at the battle of pelenor fields along with Elrond's two sons, not the Ghost Army of (Forgot their names)

They had such a minor part I actually forgot their name in the books.

The Mouth of Sauron scene had Tolkien spinning in his grave so fast that he could have powered New York City for a week.
You mean the Ghosts of the Dunharrow/Oathbreakers?

Yes that Army. Though I can see why they wanted to show a really bad ass army of ghosts vs giant elephants.Its still probably one of the best scenes in the whole film. Minus the bit with the mouth of sauron and the entire ending.

I feel like we should start a thread about this.

 Wyzilla wrote:


To be fair, during the events of LOTR, the Dunedain did drop off the face of the planet practically until Aragorn united them at the Fourth Age under his banner.

They fought at both Dol Amroth and Pelennor Field.

 Asherian Command wrote:


Yes that Army. Though I can see why they wanted to show a really bad ass army of ghosts vs giant elephants.Its still probably one of the best scenes in the whole film. Minus the bit with the mouth of sauron and the entire ending.

I feel like we should start a thread about this.

This is literally the worst scene in the entire series. It makes the entire effort of Rohan at the Pelennor completely irrelevant. It makes all of the time watching Rohan fight pointless. It makes Aragorn an inconstant leader at best - he is willing to murder under a parley flag but keeping the magic ghost army that can kill everything in a second for an extra week to make sure that the greatest evil in the world is defeated is dishonorable.


Frankly all of Pelennor Fields is a terrible scene that was written by someone who doesn't either doesn't know or doesn't care to show how actual battles work delivered unto people who don't care or care to know how actual battles work.

 Bromsy wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:


To be fair, during the events of LOTR, the Dunedain did drop off the face of the planet practically until Aragorn united them at the Fourth Age under his banner.

They fought at both Dol Amroth and Pelennor Field.

 Asherian Command wrote:


Yes that Army. Though I can see why they wanted to show a really bad ass army of ghosts vs giant elephants.Its still probably one of the best scenes in the whole film. Minus the bit with the mouth of sauron and the entire ending.

I feel like we should start a thread about this.

This is literally the worst scene in the entire series. It makes the entire effort of Rohan at the Pelennor completely irrelevant. It makes all of the time watching Rohan fight pointless. It makes Aragorn an inconstant leader at best - he is willing to murder under a parley flag but keeping the magic ghost army that can kill everything in a second for an extra week to make sure that the greatest evil in the world is defeated is dishonorable.


Frankly all of Pelennor Fields is a terrible scene that was written by someone who doesn't either doesn't know or doesn't care to show how actual battles work delivered unto people who don't care or care to know how actual battles work.

Eh I think that is just a nitpick in all honesty.

Considering I could nitpick the fact everyone is using swords instead of axes, maces, or spears. But hey I am not one that put that stuff in. In fact Most of the soldiers on horse back should have maces and axes and spears. And the Gondor Knights should have lances. But eh whatever.

 Bromsy wrote:
And all the time he spent on the warg fight and Haldir & co chatting it at the Hornburg up could have been used to quickly introduce Imrahil and Dol Amroth and the fact that Gondor in fact consisted of more than Minas Tirith, which as far as I remember isn't brought up at all in the movies.

Yes. 'Cause the movies needed more characters and nations to confuse general movie-going audiences.

The dunedain aren't exactly that hard to establish, in fact they already did, with one sentence from a bartender, 'he's one of them rangers...'

They're even (and to bring it back on topic) expanded on in the hobbit with Thandruil bit at the end now.

So, have a few sentences of character introduction in FOTR of Halbarad.

Get rid of random Elrond showing up with anduril. Halbarad and mates show up with Gandalf and Eomer.

There was already talk in ROTK about Denethor not sending for Gondor's armies. Namedrop a few of them. Eg Swan Prince.

Army of the dead come out of hill. Establishing shot of a large Gondor army (we already know what Gondor armour looks like by now), surrounded by pirates, have a large banner showing the swans. AOTD swarm, then cut away.

Back to hobbits etc for a while as normal. Return to aftermath of battle. Aragorn releases AOTD as before. Tweak some dialogue a bit.

Add in some lines about "Denethor waited too long, gondor is in flame, how can we ever reach minas tirith before its too late"

Have intact ships in background of that line.

----------

It seems to me that it could be done with adding a few seconds to the films over all, with most of the scenes just outright replacing others.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
IAhem

Yes it is.

No, it really isn't. If they had said one of the most important fantasy works then I would probably agree but it was said that it was "the most important, well known and detailed fictional work of the past hundred years". When looking at the whole of literate in the last one hundred years it isn't even in the top five.

Out of interest, which books would be in the top 5 then? Seeing as both the Hobbit and the LotR trilogy have sold over 100 million copies each (counting LotR as one book split into three volumes).

Wyzilla wrote:I love it because while admittedly dry, Tolkien managed to write a creation story that puts to shame all others written previously, Greek, Christian, possibly even the epics of Hinduism.

When your story involves a boat flying through the air carrying the brightest holy light on Middle-Earth and spearing through the breast of a dragon the size of British Isles or bigger, I think you've reached the level upon which nothing can ever be more awesome.

Ironically, a highly action orientated film like the Hobbit series would have actually far better suited the First Age of the Silmarillion then the Hobbit. It would have also probably made a lot more money as well.

I think the Silmarillion (admittedly I've not even read all of it, man that book is tough to get through) would be better made as a sort of miniseries, like Band of Brothers, Sharpe or Sherlock. Much less worry over how to connect the various stories and battles.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
And all the time he spent on the warg fight and Haldir & co chatting it at the Hornburg up could have been used to quickly introduce Imrahil and Dol Amroth and the fact that Gondor in fact consisted of more than Minas Tirith, which as far as I remember isn't brought up at all in the movies.

Yes. 'Cause the movies needed more characters and nations to confuse general movie-going audiences.

Exactly the reason that though I was (and still am) annoyed about that, I can understand why it was simply more practical to have the Army of Dunharrow rock up to the Pelennor instead. Couldn't really stretch out a 4 hour long movie (extended edition) any more.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

Anyway, like the first film, the movie is in serious need of some fan-editing. I already did my own cut of An Unexpected Journey and there's enough issues here that I know I will do one here as well (and then probably do a one or two movie cut of the trilogy as well for fun).

Want to try your hand at a 2 hour cut of the whole series so it can be one movie, LIKE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN?

2 frakkin' hours? I'm actually a proponent of the "2 movies, 3 hours each" idea to really do the book justice. A single 2 hour movie would have to cut all lot of material from the book and suffer from much weaker characterization of everyone but Bilbo.

 shrike wrote:
It's overly harsh to portray Jackson as some arrogant slimeball who thought he knew better than Tolkien. He had a lot more pressure on him this time around, from an older age, attempting to mix together several source materials into one cohesive story, with more control from meddling producers, trying to simultaneously appeal to the target audience of the book (kids), the hardcore fans of the original trilogy and books, and casual watchers (adults).
He tried to add in all sorts of imaginative ideas to try and appeal to the much more visually-stimulated audiences of film, and that unfortunately just didn't work. PJ didn't write the universe or lore, but the imagery was pretty vague, whether from Tolkien's own hand or of the countless pieces of art from the likes of Dan Hennah and Alan Lee. He wasn't "riding on Tolkien's masterwork" with the Lord of the Rings, he directed an incredibly difficult and ambitious film adaptation of a Goliath of a book which many had deemed to be far to great an undertaking to even consider - and he did it well.

As for "his films worked best when they sticked to the story", it really wasn't the case for the Lord of the Rings. For instance, excluding Tom Bombadil was a very good decision and Boromir's rewritten death was easily one of my favourite scenes in the entire trilogy. The ending of the Return of the King, much-criticised for its length, was even longer in the book.

Amen. I was thinking about this the other day, and (in the extended editions anyway) the Boromir/Faramir/Denethor dynamic was actually an improvement on the book. And excising the Scouring of the Shire and Tom Bombadil, while often complained about by book readers, was much needed.

Finally saw it. Jackson has truly jumped the Lucas shark. The movie was just terrible. I won't see another Jackson film unless that reviews are like the second coming of Cecil B.

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

2 frakkin' hours? I'm actually a proponent of the "2 movies, 3 hours each" idea to really do the book justice. A single 2 hour movie would have to cut all lot of material from the book and suffer from much weaker characterization of everyone but Bilbo.

Have you read the hobbit recently? The book is very short, simple, and straight forward. It is Bilbo's story, about how he transforms into a hobbit unsure of himself and wishing he was back home to the unofficial leader of the company. It is not, I repeat NOT, a story about how Biblo is a part of much larger story. No one other than him really gets any real characterization or background. The only real memorable thing about Fili and Kili for example. Bard is just some guy who is introduced in the same paragraph that he kills the dragon.

A 2 hour movie that focused almost entirely on Biblo and how he evolves would have given the book justice.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

2 frakkin' hours? I'm actually a proponent of the "2 movies, 3 hours each" idea to really do the book justice. A single 2 hour movie would have to cut all lot of material from the book and suffer from much weaker characterization of everyone but Bilbo.

Have you read the hobbit recently? The book is very short, simple, and straight forward. It is Bilbo's story, about how he transforms into a hobbit unsure of himself and wishing he was back home to the unofficial leader of the company. It is not, I repeat NOT, a story about how Biblo is a part of much larger story. No one other than him really gets any real characterization or background. The only real memorable thing about Fili and Kili for example

Spoiler:

is that they die

. Bard is just some guy who is introduced in the same paragraph that he kills the dragon.

A 2 hour movie that focused almost entirely on Biblo and how he evolves would have given the book justice.

And at the same time, been a collossal waste of the chance to do more with the setting and follow the majesty of LotR. Bilbo's journey is perfectly well represented (and excellently performed by Freeman), but we also have the backstory for LotR established, a ton of depth added to the faceless and flat characters in the book (in the novel, Thranduil is more a plot point than character, Thorin is just there to lead the quest and the Necromancer is simply an excuse for Gandalf to vanish so the Dwarves can get into trouble in Mirkwood), and a story that is far more varied and compelling than the frankly rather one-dimensional novel.

And as I have said time and time again, almost every major 'change' to the plot is taken from or at least based on Tolkien's writing (the only exceptions being Tauriel and Azog surviving Moria). There is a wealth of information and story behind The Hobbit that has been drawn on here, and you can bet that, had Hobbit been written after LotR, would have been included.

 shrike wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
And all the time he spent on the warg fight and Haldir & co chatting it at the Hornburg up could have been used to quickly introduce Imrahil and Dol Amroth and the fact that Gondor in fact consisted of more than Minas Tirith, which as far as I remember isn't brought up at all in the movies.

Yes. 'Cause the movies needed more characters and nations to confuse general movie-going audiences.

Exactly the reason that though I was (and still am) annoyed about that, I can understand why it was simply more practical to have the Army of Dunharrow rock up to the Pelennor instead. Couldn't really stretch out a 4 hour long movie (extended edition) any more.

Don't get me wrong, I think the Wave'o'Ghosts super-weapon was a supreme let down, basically making everything the people of Gondor and Rohan did over the previous couple of days completely pointless, but I'll take that over introducing the Army of the Dead just so they can use them to introduce more forces no one's heard of (Dol Amroth, the Rangers, etc.).

Except people had already heard of them, there already was a subplot of 'where are Gondor's armies?' And Aragorn had already been referred to as leader of the rangers.

So that really doesn't hold water with me.

 Paradigm wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

2 frakkin' hours? I'm actually a proponent of the "2 movies, 3 hours each" idea to really do the book justice. A single 2 hour movie would have to cut all lot of material from the book and suffer from much weaker characterization of everyone but Bilbo.

Have you read the hobbit recently? The book is very short, simple, and straight forward. It is Bilbo's story, about how he transforms into a hobbit unsure of himself and wishing he was back home to the unofficial leader of the company. It is not, I repeat NOT, a story about how Biblo is a part of much larger story. No one other than him really gets any real characterization or background. The only real memorable thing about Fili and Kili for example

Spoiler:

is that they die

. Bard is just some guy who is introduced in the same paragraph that he kills the dragon.

A 2 hour movie that focused almost entirely on Biblo and how he evolves would have given the book justice.

And at the same time, been a collossal waste of the chance to do more with the setting and follow the majesty of LotR. Bilbo's journey is perfectly well represented (and excellently performed by Freeman), but we also have the backstory for LotR established, a ton of depth added to the faceless and flat characters in the book (in the novel, Thranduil is more a plot point than character, Thorin is just there to lead the quest and the Necromancer is simply an excuse for Gandalf to vanish so the Dwarves can get into trouble in Mirkwood), and a story that is far more varied and compelling than the frankly rather one-dimensional novel.

And as I have said time and time again, almost every major 'change' to the plot is taken from or at least based on Tolkien's writing (the only exceptions being Tauriel and Azog surviving Moria). There is a wealth of information and story behind The Hobbit that has been drawn on here, and you can bet that, had Hobbit been written after LotR, would have been included.

This. The Hobbit films are far from flawless, but their main issues seem to be excessive bloat, insufficient characterization and tonal inconsistency with LOTR. A 2 hour version deals with the bloat well enough (and perhaps excessively even - you wouldn't have a lot of time for world building, riddles, etc), but the characterization will still be insufficient... perhaps even moreso (aside from Bilbo of course) and the tone will still be different. People would still be complaining, because adapting a book without making structural changes is difficult.

This may not be the best example, but think of the Clash of the Titans remake. The focus is entirely on... Pericles... or whoever the hell the lead is in that crappy film. Anyway, he gets all the focus, and while we get introduced to a bunch of secondary characters when they go out on their quest, none of them get anything beyond an introduction. Like, they don't even get any real moments to shine and are basically just background noise the whole time. I remember thinking "who the hell are these and why should I even care about them?"

Basically, in a book you can get away with undeveloped background characters because they're not going to be focused on all that much, whereas in a movie they're going to be on-screen and in the action all the time (plus they have to get cast, paid, made-up, etc). As a result, a 2 hour film is probably just too little if you're looking to make the most of the material... IMHO anyway.

Compel wrote:Except people had already heard of them, there already was a subplot of 'where are Gondor's armies?' And Aragorn had already been referred to as leader of the rangers.

So that really doesn't hold water with me.

The Rangers are mentioned as existing - that doesn't mean that they don't need to be introduced. They're almost halfway across middle earth from Minas Tirith (over 1000 miles), so they'd have to have one hell of a lot of advance warning (which, though I haven't seen RotK for a while, they only had when the Mordor armies began marching from Minas Morgul, about 50 miles away). Who is Halbarad, Elladan, and Elrohir? How did they get to the Pelennor Fields? How did they gather all the Rangers, what with them being constantly on the run, spread out, few in number and possibly the most elusive folk in middle-earth?

Dol Amroth is another 400 miles away, how did they get there so fast? Who are they? Who is Imrahil? Is there a beacon system in place over there too?

So many new characters, new locations, and new factions to be introduced into an already very long film, it'd be too much. I much prefer the idea of several good armies of middle earth uniting (Rivendell, Minas Tirith, Dol Amroth, Rohan, the Men of Dunharrow, all those coastal settlements, and even the remnants of the lost kingdom of Arnor), but the time it would take to bring them all together would be too long to fit in, as well as the fact that the battle would become a visual clusterfeth with too many characters and factions to focus on.

 Paradigm wrote:

And at the same time, been a collossal waste of the chance to do more with the setting and follow the majesty of LotR. Bilbo's journey is perfectly well represented (and excellently performed by Freeman), but we also have the backstory for LotR established, a ton of depth added to the faceless and flat characters in the book (in the novel, Thranduil is more a plot point than character, Thorin is just there to lead the quest and the Necromancer is simply an excuse for Gandalf to vanish so the Dwarves can get into trouble in Mirkwood), and a story that is far more varied and compelling than the frankly rather one-dimensional novel.

And as I have said time and time again, almost every major 'change' to the plot is taken from or at least based on Tolkien's writing (the only exceptions being Tauriel and Azog surviving Moria). There is a wealth of information and story behind The Hobbit that has been drawn on here, and you can bet that, had Hobbit been written after LotR, would have been included.

Yea we have to agree to disagree. I didn't want background info on the setting, I wanted to see probably my favorite book that I read when I was a kid made into a cool movie that gave the book justice and honestly this series overall didn't do it for me.

My favorite parts of the trilogy was a dinner party at the very beginning, the riddles in the dark and scenes with Biblo and Smaug. All the added stuff was a best something I tolerated.

When you take a simple straight forward story and try to put all this extra stuff in it, it just doesn't work. I would have rather just had more scenes with Freeman, which I also agree did a good job, and less about the white council and the love triangle.

Edit: Also if you just add things in an attempt to fill out the settings for people then what you get is the scene with Legolous and tameril at Angmar. I know Angmar is important to the setting but what real purpose did it serve for the movie?

I'm not a "book purist", though I am a big fan of the books. Some of the changes made to the LOTR movies were good changes- like leaving out Bombadil, and condensing several Rohan leaders into Eomer. These changes helped with the translation from book to film.

Other changes were fairly neutral, like cutting the wolf battle at the mountain and adding a wolf rider battle into the Two Towers.

Still other changes were negative. The changes to the Entmoot, the Elves at Helm's Deep and the changes to the character of Faramir are negatives in my view, as is Aragorns murder of the Mouth of Sauron under parley, and the ghost army at Pelanor. A big annoyance for me was cutting Shelob out of the Two Towers, when the cliffhanger ending from the books is so awesome. Overall though, the adaptions are really good, and I rewatch them regularly. I am a big fan of the movies. I especially liked Fellowship, which has some pretty huge changes but I feel stays true to the spirit of the book and the characters and is better for it.

The Hobbit films also had a lot of changes. Some of these were good changes too- I was initially against the addition of Azog as an antagonist throughout the series, but with a bit of distance I can see it is actually a good choice. Likewise, making Bard a bit more of a character is a good choice in principle, even if I didn't like the execution much.

But lots of the changes make a worse film by far in my opinion. I've gone into them enough at this point.

If you are sick of "book purists", I'm sick of valid criticism being shouted down by people yelling "ADAPTION!" . I'm aware that it's an adaption, but that doesn't automatically mean it's a GOOD adaption.

 Da Boss wrote:
I'm not a "book purist", though I am a big fan of the books. Some of the changes made to the LOTR movies were good changes- like leaving out Bombadil, and condensing several Rohan leaders into Eomer. These changes helped with the translation from book to film.

Other changes were fairly neutral, like cutting the wolf battle at the mountain and adding a wolf rider battle into the Two Towers.

Still other changes were negative. The changes to the Entmoot, the Elves at Helm's Deep and the changes to the character of Faramir are negatives in my view, as is Aragorns murder of the Mouth of Sauron under parley, and the ghost army at Pelanor. A big annoyance for me was cutting Shelob out of the Two Towers, when the cliffhanger ending from the books is so awesome. Overall though, the adaptions are really good, and I rewatch them regularly. I am a big fan of the movies. I especially liked Fellowship, which has some pretty huge changes but I feel stays true to the spirit of the book and the characters and is better for it.

The Hobbit films also had a lot of changes. Some of these were good changes too- I was initially against the addition of Azog as an antagonist throughout the series, but with a bit of distance I can see it is actually a good choice. Likewise, making Bard a bit more of a character is a good choice in principle, even if I didn't like the execution much.

But lots of the changes make a worse film by far in my opinion. I've gone into them enough at this point.

If you are sick of "book purists", I'm sick of valid criticism being shouted down by people yelling "ADAPTION!" . I'm aware that it's an adaption, but that doesn't automatically mean it's a GOOD adaption.

I agree with everything here.

 shrike wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
I'm not a "book purist", though I am a big fan of the books. Some of the changes made to the LOTR movies were good changes- like leaving out Bombadil, and condensing several Rohan leaders into Eomer. These changes helped with the translation from book to film.

Other changes were fairly neutral, like cutting the wolf battle at the mountain and adding a wolf rider battle into the Two Towers.

Still other changes were negative. The changes to the Entmoot, the Elves at Helm's Deep and the changes to the character of Faramir are negatives in my view, as is Aragorns murder of the Mouth of Sauron under parley, and the ghost army at Pelanor. A big annoyance for me was cutting Shelob out of the Two Towers, when the cliffhanger ending from the books is so awesome. Overall though, the adaptions are really good, and I rewatch them regularly. I am a big fan of the movies. I especially liked Fellowship, which has some pretty huge changes but I feel stays true to the spirit of the book and the characters and is better for it.

The Hobbit films also had a lot of changes. Some of these were good changes too- I was initially against the addition of Azog as an antagonist throughout the series, but with a bit of distance I can see it is actually a good choice. Likewise, making Bard a bit more of a character is a good choice in principle, even if I didn't like the execution much.

But lots of the changes make a worse film by far in my opinion. I've gone into them enough at this point.

If you are sick of "book purists", I'm sick of valid criticism being shouted down by people yelling "ADAPTION!" . I'm aware that it's an adaption, but that doesn't automatically mean it's a GOOD adaption.

I agree with everything here.

Actually I liked the bit with the mouth of saruon getting his head chopped off. It reminds me of Game of Thrones in a way.

I really enjoyed the first half, which was a surprise. As others have mentioned, probably the coolest old man fight ever.

The second half was pretty boring, punctuated with stupid lackey comic relief and the exposition king strolling around saying obvious things dragging it down.


Regarding the "book purist" vs. adaptation argument, gotta agree with shrike that there's a big difference between an adaptation and a good one.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 shrike wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
I'm not a "book purist", though I am a big fan of the books. Some of the changes made to the LOTR movies were good changes- like leaving out Bombadil, and condensing several Rohan leaders into Eomer. These changes helped with the translation from book to film.

Other changes were fairly neutral, like cutting the wolf battle at the mountain and adding a wolf rider battle into the Two Towers.

Still other changes were negative. The changes to the Entmoot, the Elves at Helm's Deep and the changes to the character of Faramir are negatives in my view, as is Aragorns murder of the Mouth of Sauron under parley, and the ghost army at Pelanor. A big annoyance for me was cutting Shelob out of the Two Towers, when the cliffhanger ending from the books is so awesome. Overall though, the adaptions are really good, and I rewatch them regularly. I am a big fan of the movies. I especially liked Fellowship, which has some pretty huge changes but I feel stays true to the spirit of the book and the characters and is better for it.

The Hobbit films also had a lot of changes. Some of these were good changes too- I was initially against the addition of Azog as an antagonist throughout the series, but with a bit of distance I can see it is actually a good choice. Likewise, making Bard a bit more of a character is a good choice in principle, even if I didn't like the execution much.

But lots of the changes make a worse film by far in my opinion. I've gone into them enough at this point.

If you are sick of "book purists", I'm sick of valid criticism being shouted down by people yelling "ADAPTION!" . I'm aware that it's an adaption, but that doesn't automatically mean it's a GOOD adaption.

I agree with everything here.

Actually I liked the bit with the mouth of saruon getting his head chopped off. It reminds me of Game of Thrones in a way.

Why is that a good thing in a series with a tone that is diametrically opposed to Game of Thrones? Not to mention that just before that event the character that does that throws away a world beating advantage in the name of honor.

I enjoyed the LOTR films a lot - I thought like a lot of modern films they are overely long - to me it seems that directors just keep adding and adding and then add more so they can stick them for sale in the Extedned cut.

re the Hobbit especially - there was lots that could have been cut and made it as good a movie - the bit at Bilbos House at the start went on to long
Rabbit Chariot races - really............just no
Seemingly endless lets chase the dwarfs round the Dwarf hold
Dwarf King goes mad and witters on for ages

Keep the new stuff:
Tauriel was great - drop the "love" story (which was not very convincing) and just have her being sympathetic
Gladriel and the White Council was ace

 Bromsy wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:


Actually I liked the bit with the mouth of saruon getting his head chopped off. It reminds me of Game of Thrones in a way.

Why is that a good thing in a series with a tone that is diametrically opposed to Game of Thrones? Not to mention that just before that event the character that does that throws away a world beating advantage in the name of honor.

The thing is, though, The Mouth of Sauron is Evil. One of the most interesting parts of LotR is a very black and white take on Good and Evil, so basically, if the other guy is working for Sauron, then anything goes. You could walk into an orc camp, kill the lot of them, and no one from Bree to Dol Amroth is really going to condemn you. Servants of the Enemy get no representation whatsoever; they are an evil to be destroyed. The one break from this is Faramir's 'I wonder who he was, and where he came from' speech in TTT, which I also like because it sets Faramir apart as far more canny and observant that most. The TT extended edition does wonders for the whole Faramir/Boromir/Denethor relationship, both over the 'normal' version and the book.

But back to the original point, Aragorn just beheading The Mouth is good as a) The MoS is representative of Sauron, so it represents Aragorn triumphing over him, b) it shows that, for the first time in the trilogy, Aragorn actually acts out of pure anger, so the weakness of men is not entirely hidden in him. It's also very cool.

The only change in all 6 films I don't like is the ommission of the Scouring of the Shire, other than that I think every change is either not important or an improvement.