Why didn't you like The Lord of the Rings Movie(s)

Bierschneeman

Journeyed there and back again
#1
ok before I get a bunch of messages stating this isn't in the right category (really outside of Fantasy is a bit barren on posting) I do not mean if you didn't like the movie(s) in plain, but specifically if you didn't like the movies and are dejected by some of the changes from the book too that end, as in relevence*sp to the BOOK. What changes are so horrific that they would merit you to dislike the movie?

Ok background, I run into people all the time who are so put off by the changes in the movie(s) from the book they won't even stomach watching it a second time (even Danica on her recent blog post guarded herself against attack from people who think thus) . I want to know why and figured a bunch of even minded people with the ability to form coherent thoughts like on this blog can help shed some light.

Now that said Im going to defend myself against the two detractions I here most often. firstly absence of Tom Bombadil... The movie (i see it as one, just like it is intended one book) is already 12 hours long on the extended version, just merely adding Tom Bombadil would add 30-60 minutes in order to do him any kind of justice and he adds absolutely no plot advancement in the book. He is like a passing fancy like the ten pages Hawthorne dedicated to plucking a rose by the prison in Scarlet Letter (I think is beautiful, but not for cinema) thats a big price with no gain. Second the walking montages, I timed them out, they are standard cinema length scene wipes with the same frequency as most movies just seems like more since they fill 12 hours rather than 2.5 (but thats a cinematography argument not a book argument.

please tell me why I really want to know.
 

Jon Snow

No Power in the Verse can stop me
Staff member
#2
There would have been no point putting Tom Bombadil in it, would only confuse the viewers who haven't read any Tolkien.

I hated that there was no Scouring of the Shire/The Battle of Bywater. It's my favourite part of the whole LOTR books.
 

afa

Journeyed there and back again
#3
Well, I don't know how to answer the question, as I absolutely love the movies. In fact, The Lord of the Rings is my favorite movie of all-time (I see them as one, too).

For the most part, I felt that the changes Jackson made in the movies were logical. He made changes that he felt either didn't have a place in the movie (like Tom Bombadil) or if he simply felt that the changes were required to appeal to moviegoers, rather than book-lovers.

Look at Aragorn, for instance. In the movies, he is very much the likeable and somewhat tragic hero, a well of honor and wisdom. The Aragorn of the books, however, was really not a very likeable person. (Disclaimer: I haven't read the books in a while, so don't quite remember very accurately. But my sister, who is also a fan of the movies, attempted to read the books recently and remarked to me that book-Aragorn seemed like a jerk compared to movie-Aragorn.)

Perhaps it's easier for me to ignore the 'errors' in the movies by virtue of the fact that I hadn't read the books when I saw Fellowship. Even though I had read them all by the time TTT came out, my initiation into Middle-Earth was via Peter Jackson. Also, since I tend to be a visual person, the movies (which I have seen multiple times, and as recently as a couple of months ago) stick in my head far clearer than the books (which I haven't read in years).

In a strange way, Jackson's LotR is the one that feels 'right' to me, even though I know it's Tolkien's creation.
 

João Ribeiro

Journeyed there and back again
#4
Overall I think Jackson did a terrific job with the movies. I understand and like the exclusion of Tom Bombadil since I didn't really feel for the character in the books. My biggest grievance is the way he finishes of Saruman. I know he had to tie him off since he wasn't doing the Scourge of the Shire but still it looked less than it should even though it's done the same way.
 

Derk of Derkholm

Journeyed there and back again
#5
I found the movies not so bad, but I personally found the focus on battles overdone. The Battle for Helms Deep was, what? half of the second movie, an hour and a half or so ?
It was something like 10 pages in the book.

And the end was too tearsome.

Best regards,
Andy
 

Bierschneeman

Journeyed there and back again
#6
Good responses I love them all, I was alright with the length of battle scenes, Tolkien wasn't writing epic battle lines, more plot summaries of the battles as they progressed. So I think it would be natural that it would take longer to film than to write (although he did seem to sprinkle more length here or there) everything in Helmdeep (in the movie) was at least mentioned even if it was one line.
 

Amaryllis

Journeyed there and back again
#7
Lord of the Rings is supposed to read like the retelling of a myth. But it's the movies that look like the epic battle between ultimate good and ultimate evil. I was never particularly intimidated by the Sauron from the books, who just seemed like some bad dude who was hanging around in a tower, giving bad people orders. More of an outlaw king kind of vibe from him. The Sauron from the movie is like the devil incarnate, but stuck in his wheelchair, which is what I imagine he's supposed to be. Not to mention, the good guys in the movie are more clear-cut good than they are in the books (I wasn't fond of the 'rascally' Aragorn from the books). The whole thing makes the dichotomy more appealing. I get that the books may not have necessarily been going for that, but in the context of a movie, I like it better. And I thought it made the 'myth' thing feel more mythical.

And yeah, the battles. I thought they were amazing.
 

yobtaf

A farm boy with a sword
#8
I personally am a big fan of the movies and I appreciate both the books movies in different ways.
I'm not bothered by the exclusion of Bombadil as, well, admittedly the section of walking from the shire to bree was one of the most boring parts of the book for me. Cutting it out in the movie made it more exciting, I guess.
The main bother I have with the movie (which in itself is minor) is the portrayal of the elves. In the movie they are all so serious and sappy at the same time. Did anyone see Haldir die at Helm's Deep? lol...slow motion... I think the character of Legolas was also a little too serious and badass when in the book he was more cheerful and mischievous. And in essence, all the male elves except for Elrond looked like girls :S

As for the Hobbit (moving a little out of topic here) the additions were terrible and ruined the movie for me. The Azog/Thorin subplot made me cringe. The Radagast part was an uneeded inclusion. And parts such as the clearing of dishes would probably have been better left out, but all this crap was added to stretch the damn thing into some mega epic story (which it fails at being).
 
#9
I actually loved the movies, but if I had to pick a bone with the director it's that the setting is wrong.
-I have always seen the middle earth very dangerous and dark place, and a wild one too. A bit like canadian evergreen forests and mountains. To me the NZ nature is just wrong backdrop for the story. They should've filmed in canada. Or siberia!
But apart from that I think the actor choises and the monsters were very good. Especially the uruks. Brilliant creatures!