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.

The hobbit is one of my favourite books, I've read it at least three times now, though I was disappointed by the films.

The LoTR book: I wasn't keen on. I just found it overly long, and it lacked the adventure and magic of the Hobbit. A lot of it was depressing. The films were amazing though! I saw the Two Towers in the cinema, and I was amazed by how closely everything matched how I had imagined it while reading the book. I honestly couldn't remember if there were elves at Helms Deep or not. The bit in the movies where Gandalf turns up is so awesome though, I think I might have actually looked like this as the sun comes out->

I think the only bit that niggled me a little is that Faramir isn't quite as 'wise' in the films. In the book he refuses the ring from the beginning. I'm not really sure why that was changed?

Faramir was changed, I think, to contrast to Boromir a little more obviously. Both follow the same arc until the pivotal moment, in which Boromir succumbs but Faramir resists the power of the ring.

Also, the extended cut of RotK and, to a lesser extent TT, do a lot for Faramir as a character.

Orlanth wrote:Also there was no elf army at Helms Deep at all

As was barely hinted at earlier, Lothlorien had to deal with three two-pronged assaults from Moria and Dol Guldur.

An estranged, isolationist elf land, under siege, sending along a handful of elves, over miles of enemy-patrolled open country, to probably die in a last stand against ravening hordes, sounds more stupid and a slap in the face, than a point of honour.

Bromsy wrote:It was when I realized Jackson was talking completely out of his ass about being a serious Tolkien fan.

Isn't there a quote about how he threw the book out before starting the films?

Grey Templar wrote:Yeah, most of the changes Jackson made were good changes.

No.

Remember that Tolkien was never satisfied with how the books turned out

He was even less satisfied with how others, from movie producers to book cover illustrators, mucked about with his characters and themes.

Da Boss wrote:I stand with Bromsy on this one.

Ditto.

Elves at Helm's Deep and the Entmoot both fall into the latter, stinky, category to me. Whereas stuff like cutting out chunks of the start of Fellowship (and the entire character of Tom Bombadil) just makes sense to keep the movie flowing at the appropriate pace, and get it over and done with in a reasonable time.

Faramir got much the same treatment as Treebeard, I think. Turned into some kind of jobsworth hindering the effort, until given a stern talking-to by some naive hobbit, as if they were incapable of making reasoned leadership decisions by themselves.

After LotR, King Kong, The Hobbit trilogy (?!), and his earlier stuff*, I also think that Jackson is incapable of nuance or subtlety in his films. That's the root of his more hackle-raising decisions, IMO. You get Arwen ambushing the party and taking over as if merely doing Glorfindel's old job doesn't make her enough of an action grrrl. Frodo's changed perception of Bilbo as a grasping little creature gets turned into a cheap horror-movie jump moment. The Watcher turns from some creeping lovecraftian horror into a randomly flailing movie monster squid with a dumb face. Theoden goes from a man who has Saruman's magical influences heaping psychological pressures onto him for a long time, to a man who's been turned into Saruman's frickin' zombie puppet. Gimli gets short and dwarf-tossing jokes. Legolas surfs shields. And so on, and so on, ad infinitum.
(And in one of those others, you have half-hour brontosaurs stampedes, those magnificent V. rexes on their flying trapeze, and interludes to bring you a 25' tall ice-skating ape. It was more of a cheap sensation and spectacle than Kong's exhibition. Jack Black pointing at Kong and squealing 'lookit the big monkey!' and then having everything descend into chaos was a pretty appropriate if unintended metaphor, IMO.)

*With that kind of back catalogue, I have a feeling Jackson's success is more down to adapting stories that are already popular classics, and having stellar concept and effects artists backing him up, than any inherent ability of his own. It was like he had to string the Hobbit out into three movies, so he could have regular work for the next few years.

Jackson does know how to make a movie visually stunning though the LOTR movies had excellent views and King Kong looked amazing environment wise

I guess I'm one of the only ones who immensely enjoys both the books and the movies (as long as they are the Extended Versions). All five movies so far have not in the least left me feeling like something from my childhood was raped for money. While I think some parts are somewhat dumb (Elves, while the epitome of grace, are NOT experts at parkour- only Harry Dresden is that).

Every one of those movies has provided such visual enjoyment that I can overlook any of the "off the rails" portions. Especially when using the Extended Versions for a basis, as they make several things so much better that I can;t believe they were left from the movies (Faramir's character, and the Fangorn forest at Helms Deep, as the largest two).

Yeah, I missed the Scouring of the Shire, and the killing of Saruman instead, but at the same time I didn't miss them meeting the High Lord (Tom Bombadil) either. Leaving in a character that is completely ageless and immune to the ring would have raised more questions than answers if put in the movies. Plus, it was (very nearly) a completely irrelevant scene in the book.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I guess I'm one of the only ones who immensely enjoys both the books and the movies (as long as they are the Extended Versions). All five movies so far have not in the least left me feeling like something from my childhood was raped for money. While I think some parts are somewhat dumb (Elves, while the epitome of grace, are NOT experts at parkour- only Harry Dresden is that).

Every one of those movies has provided such visual enjoyment that I can overlook any of the "off the rails" portions. Especially when using the Extended Versions for a basis, as they make several things so much better that I can;t believe they were left from the movies (Faramir's character, and the Fangorn forest at Helms Deep, as the largest two).

Yeah, I missed the Scouring of the Shire, and the killing of Saruman instead, but at the same time I didn't miss them meeting the High Lord (Tom Bombadil) either. Leaving in a character that is completely ageless and immune to the ring would have raised more questions than answers if put in the movies. Plus, it was (very nearly) a completely irrelevant scene in the book.

In very much in the same camp. I love both the books and the films for what they are, don't try and choose one over the other, and (with a couple of exceptions) think the Hobbit movies are every bit as good, entertaining and visually stunning as LotR.