Welcome Guest 

Register

Forum Home » Movies Discussion » Discuss the Movies » An article on LotR - movie differences
Author Topic:
GreenhillFox
Council Member
Posts: 66
Send Message
Post An article on LotR - movie differences
on: January 13, 2017 05:11
Hi all,

The liberties taken in the movies on LotR have been discussed often before.

This article gives a fair description of some of the main issues:

http://www.looper.com/33552/false-facts-lord-rings-always-thought-true/?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_1334216&utm_content=3

I thought I'd share this link here in case someone is interested.

[Edited on 01/13/2017 by GreenhillFox]
'There’s something mighty queer behind this.'
Gandolorin
Council Member
Posts: 24040
Send Message
Post
on: January 14, 2017 12:51
Hi, GreenhillFox,

the article does give a description of a few issues, but my own "gripe list" would be several times as long. I've mentioned this in my early (2013/2014) posts on CoE, that my wife and I went to a second viewing of FoTR three days after our first viewing, because I had made such a huge mental list of "what-was-wrong" that I could hardly have given anyone a description of what actually happened in the movie. As I have stated far more often, though, with all his faults, PJ was probably still the best director for LoTR to be had at the time, as he is a knowledgeable fan of the book. By now, tens of millions of additional people have read the book due to the movies (guesses about totals are currently around 250 million readers), so after a while, a totally CGI movie (assuming advances in CGI making it possible to produce the movies with a budget that does not need blockbuster receipts at the box-office to survive financially) might lead to a production closer to JRRT's canon. Even then, I do not expect to see Tom Bombadil, he will always remain the anachronism he is even in the books (having in ultimate origin nothing to do with Middle-earth).
Image
GreenhillFox
Council Member
Posts: 66
Send Message
Post
on: January 15, 2017 04:36
I agree that PJ's LotR movies caused a huge increase in public interest for the book, so that is very positive indeed.

My only observation about your appreciated reply is that 10 years later he did a lot worse with his movies on The Hobbit. Think of abominations like his awful Tauriel (elven kungfu lady in love with dwarf Kili) or his giant earthworms (he must have confused Tolkien with Herbert a moment!), just to mention only two of them. Yet, some parts in The Hobbit are brilliant in creating that genuine, perfect atmosphere (like the discussion between Gandalf and Thorin at the Prancing Pony). I think he could have done better.

Anyway - PJ was probably indeed the best available director and no movie has ever been made from a book without taking liberties, but PJ really took a lot...! Hopefully you are right about a future more canonic version, preferably within the rest of my lifespan, but I am not a Numenorean.

Thank you for your answer Gandolorin.
'There’s something mighty queer behind this.'
tarcolan
Movies Moderator and General Dogsbody
Posts: 6046
Send Message
Post
on: January 15, 2017 05:33
There are a number of errors in that article GreenhillFox, almost ironic really.
Page 2: At least the writer acknowledges that including the scouring would have been an ending too many, but I think the films show enough of hobbit bravery and resilience. They fought the goblins in Moria and Merry and Pippin deliberately distracted the orcs at Amon Hen so that Frodo could get away, and tried to defend Boromir.

Page 3: Sam is quite funny in the books as well so I have no complaints. He more than makes up for it elsewhere. As to his giving up the Ring it is worth listening to the commentary on the extended version, or it might be in the extras discs. The first edit had Sam reluctant to give Frodo the Ring as he was seeing Frodo as a grasping, ugly thing much like Gollum. That isn't in the book and they thought they'd done the Frodo as addict thing enough. So the final edit had Sam's reluctance due to the effect the Ring was having on him, a pretty neat trick as they didn't do any retakes. In the book it's made clear that Sam was too slow and stupid for the Ring to have much affect on him, almost as though it knew how useless he would be as a keeper. Either that or it was his plain, down-to-earth hobbity good sense.

Now it is a curious fact that in the film Frodo has no problem handing over the Ring to Gandalf at Bag End, and at the Council has only mild misgivings when putting it on the table. This is down to the squashed timeline. Frodo hadn't had the Ring for long enough for it to affect him. Fair enough.

Page 4: Ah yes, the eagles. Chris says that the fell beasts would've spotted and attacked the eagles if they had helped. But they would've been asked right at the beginning, and the fell beasts weren't airborne then. The eagles were quite capable of slipping over the mountains without being spotted. But that's by the by. Tolkien explains why the eagles didn't help. They are the messengers of Manwë and aren't supposed to get involved, although they do. Anyway they obviously were not part of the Great Plan.

Page 5: It would take far too much exposition to explain why they all went off in a boat. Chris also makes the mistake of supposing that anyone who can build a boat gets in to Valinor, completely missing the point. Leggy and Gimli were the last of the Ringbearers, given special permission (somehow). Nice to see that Chris accidentally clears up their sexuality though; "and he takes his hetero life-partner Gimli."

Page 6: Gollum is not as old as he should be. I am sure Tolkien addressed this point somewhere but I can't find it or remember the reason. Was it something to do with how long he had the Ring? Elthir has probably explained it in the Book Forum somewhere.

Page 7: Not entirely true. The Elves and Dwarves were too busy fighting Sauron's forces elsewhere. The idea that they were no longer interested in Men comes mainly from the film. Elrond sent his sons to fight at least.

Page 7: Giant eyeball. Fair enough it was a bit silly and led to many parodies. But let's not forget that the original book covers had the stylised eye on the front (my avatar). I'm sure they tried all sorts of things but finally had to settle for that. Cinematic necessity. Even the lighthouse beam is wrong, Frodo sees a shadow sweeping across the landscape, not feasible in the dark of Mordor.

Page 8: Oh dear, not another one. The Aragorn portrayed in the film is quite in keeping with someone who lives twice as long as normal. At 80 he would look 40. He is rather too hansome though. It's Frodo who is too young.

Page 11: Again, explaining the importance of Merry's ancient blade would require too much exposition. And again, I'm sure they tried to get it in somewhere.

Phew!
Hangman Helper program
Gandolorin
Council Member
Posts: 24040
Send Message
Post
on: January 19, 2017 07:41
As far as The Hobbit goes, I very quickly came to the conclusion that it being a children's book, the movie would not be close to the source - that it would resemble the LoTR movies far more (same target audience). Of course there is - post publication of The Hobbit in 1937 - quite a lot that JRRT wrote about it which also was included in the movie. But how many people having read The Hobbit had also read these additional sources? Radagast, Tauriel - the former more, the latter less - were OK. Azog alive, the supposed prisons of the Nazgûl - near Mount Gundabad? - Gandalf being captured in Dol Guldur - *snarl*.

The Battle of the Five Armies (or for that matter Erebor compared to Moria!) - in some ways the attackers are more fearsome than those in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields in RoTK. I guess what we have here is PJ's love for baddies, not surprising considering the movies he directed pre LoTR, and also considering his brain-damaged twisting of scenes in favor of baddie power. The scene just previous to the Witch-king''s destruction by Merry and Éowyn has Wk, on a Fell Beast (the flying thingies) confronting Gandalf somewhere on an upper level of Minas Tirith; WRONG, they meet at the shattered gate, Wk is riding a horse ... anyway, Gandalf the GREY held off (if just barely) all nine Nazgûl at Weathertop. Gandalf the WHITE would have slam-dunked all nine (never mind the Wk wimp by himself) without breaking a sweat - and Shadowfax would have given any "steed" of any sort of the Nazgûl that he would have faced an equine equivalent of "make my day". There was only one being who could have stood up to GtW in RoTK - Sauron.
Image
Members Online
Print Friendly, PDF & Email