Gripes with the Peter Jackson LotR and Hobbit films

[Zimmy]

I think my main complaint with the films are stuff that was changed for the sake of romance and action, when it didn't need to be. Hell, all the battle scenes were way more epic in the book.

[Redgrave]

I think my main complaint with the films are stuff that was changed for the sake of romance and action, when it didn't need to be. Hell, all the battle scenes were way more epic in the book.

Yeah, the Pelennor Fields (the battle there, not the fields themselves) scenes were a lot worse in the film, IMO. In the book, we had all sorts of great men from Gondor fighting: Forlong of Lossarnach and his axemen, Dervorin and the men of Ringló Vale, Duinhir the tall with 500 bowmen from the Blackroot Vale, Hirluin the fair, and, of course, Prince Imrahil of Dol Amroth and the swan knights, plus 700 of his foot soldiers. In the books, Rohan had more riders than it did in the films. And the Army of the Dead didn't suddenly appear to save the day in the books; it was the Grey Company, Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, and lots of men from Gondor (Pelargir, which the AotD liberated). The battle was about the courage and valour of men overcoming unlikely odds, not about a mystical invincible force coming to save the day.

The Battle of Helm's Deep was different in the films than it was in the books, but I'd hesitate to say it was better. The Battle of the Fords of Isen wasn't really portrayed in the films, apart from Eomer finding Theodred, so there's not much of a contest there. IMO the scene 'The Black Gate Opens' wasn't necessarily better in the films than it was in the books, and vice versa- I can't really decide between the two. The Scouring of the Shire wasn't included in the films (which made me angry).

Overall, I'd definitely say that the battles in the books are better than they were in the films, but I think a lot of things needed to be changed in the films to make them appeal to a wider audience and to make the books fit into 3 films. Personally, I wouldn't have minded more, but I can see how a 4th film would be hard to fit in.

[McCauley95]

I enjoyed the films but can list gripes like above if I decide to think about it, which is why I choose not to and just enjoy.

I am glad that they left out Tom Bombadil though because that part of the book stood out like a sore thumb to me. Just as the mood was being set along he comes out of nowhere singing "Hi Jo!" etc. then after the old forest scene he disappears back into obscurity having no effect on the storyline and little to no reference before or after. I feel the book would have been better with the Old forest part removed completely, if it had been noone would have even noticed.. that's how much effect it had on the storyline.

I could not more completely and utterly disagree with you.

[athanaric]

I could not more completely and utterly disagree with you.

He has a point though. While the Old Forest episode as a whole establishes an interesting and very "Tolkien-esque" part of ME and is excellent for setting a mood, Bombadil himself is an oddity and I don't know how he could be put in a serious LotR film. He seems like Tolkien's idea of trolling the world, and does little to advance the plot. That omission was the most understandable one in the movie trilogy. The others, such as leaving out the Scouring of the Shire (and adding some meaningless crap instead), are much worse, because they derail the whole story.

[Macilrille]

http://web.archive.org/web/200607141...ises_kept.html

[conon394]

Bombadil himself is an oddity and I don't know how he could be put in a serious LotR film. He seems like Tolkien's idea of trolling the world, and does little to advance the plot.

Oh I disagree. Tom is very important to the plot. Frodo stumbles across all manor of folk and Tom is clearly one of the most powerful. As we see from the ring's non effect on him however Tom is if you Content - he has no desire for dominion or control, not even to set things right or fix the world (he presumably could eliminate all undead barrows or old man willow). He is a sort of opposite of Sauron. In that way in his self contained disinterest of anything Sauron or his minions can understand he is both ignored by them and available to help the hobbits enormously and make the hobbits seem like something they are not even close to being yet - scary entities that can cross the old forest and destroy the undead and something to feared and handled with caution - thus helping to explain the relative tentativeness of the Nazgul

I would also say Tom is important is changing the hobbits mood - even with the Barrow episode they enter Bree happy and if you will besotted by fairy interlude which makes their mistakes in Bree all the more realistic. Compare PJ Bree/Inn (scary and dark and full of only 'big folk' may PJ and company one blundered into a really bad biker bar/dive or something and then shot their mouths off) and the fact the Hobbits will have only been hunted the whole way - its hard to believe they would even stay at the inn let alone make any blunders.

[Mikail Mengsk]

Tom is important in a very subtle way; if Tolkien never spoke of him we never felt the need for a character that exemplifies everything Sauron is not. He has a role, but not a key one.

With the "fast" narrative technique of the movies it would be impossible to translate all the reasons because he is imporant, so 99,99% of the audience would have seen him as a strange and maybe slightly mad random guy.

[Ngugi]

To leave Tom Bombadil out is a most proper choice, and one that Tolkien acknowledge by pointing out what his perception is in letter 144:

Tom Bombadil is not an important person – to the narrative. I suppose he has some importance as a 'comment'. I mean, I do not really write like that: he is just an invention (who first appeared in the Oxford Magazine about 1933), and he represents something that I feel important, though I would not be prepared to analyze the feeling precisely. I would not, however, have left him in, if he did not have some kind of function.I might put it this way. The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom with consent against compulsion that has long lost any object save mere power, and so on; but both sides in some degree, conservative or destructive, want a measure of control. but if you have, as it were taken 'a vow of poverty', renounced control, and take your delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the question of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless. It is a natural pacifist view, which always arises in the mind when there is a war. But the view of Rivendell seems to be that it is an excellent thing to have represented, but that there are in fact things with which it cannot cope; and upon which its existence nonetheless depends. Ultimately only the victory of the West will allow Bombadil to continue, or even to survive. Nothing would be left for him in the world of Sauron.

His thematical importance for Tolkien is not the same as that he carry weight for the plot(s) and the story, and at least this theme is not best expressed trough adding Tom Bombadil into a limited script [whatever critisism is raised for other additions or misinterpetations that could been removed].

[Araval]

[RuleBritannia]

I think Jackson and Tolkien are two professionals in their own aspects, and their works show that. Tolkien is regarded as one of the best contemporary authors, Jackson is regarded as one of the best contemporary film directors. I love the books, and I love the movies, and I think Jackson did them more justice than anyone else could; the movies and the books are indeed different. I'm a strong fan of Tolkien and his works, but I would hate to see the LOTR series portrayed in full, with no streamlining or cuts, in film form. I would also hate to see Jackson's films novelized. My point is, both the books and the movies have their own merits, qualities, and roles, be it literary entertainment or film entertainment. I appreciate both.

[k/t]

"Jackson is regarded as one of the best contemporary film directors" By who?

[Flinn]

To leave Tom Bombadil out is a most proper choice.

[athanaric]

"Jackson is regarded as one of the best contemporary film directors" By who?

But yeah, I have the same question. Jackson is undoubtedly relatively popular and well known, but I've never seen him considered as one of the best of his trade by any critic or other film geek. Not even those who have a high opinion of his LotR version. He certainly has his strengths, but IMO he's overrated and has that childish tendency that makes some parts of the LotR/Hobbit films so cringeworthy. Just like Tarantino, except the latter could actually be a great director if he grew up and started making watchable films.

[k/t]

I don't know...Jackson sounds more like the object in that sentence.

And in any case...http://www.merriam-webster.com/video...?&t=1379039426

[conon394]

His thematical importance for Tolkien is not the same as that he carry weight for the plot(s) and the story, and at least this theme is not best expressed trough adding Tom Bombadil into a limited script [whatever critisism is raised for other additions or misinterpetations that could been removed].

The problem is however without Tom the whole carefully crafted Hunt for the ring falls apart ... there is really no reason for the Nazgul not just to catch a few hobbits they only just missed.

In many ways JRRT wrote from the hip thus his problems with Glorfindel and the way Farmir walked into the story. His letters in my opinion are much the same - the Author I would say is wrong Tom is important, Very Important. He gives Frodo his first different view of how to consider the Ring and its powers, He allows the Hobbits who should be dead twice over a method of surviving and surprising their foes, and the means to create a credible threat to the undead.

Now I would argue that most of that could have been in the movie sort of - but it would have required forgoing the BS PJ and company wanted to make up...

Mary could simply have been elevated to being able to get through the old forest - a route nobody would take. The barrows could have happened and simply allowed Frodo to play hero and slay the wright with a picked up sword (and finding more) - foreshadowing Mary's actions later and explain the caution of the Nazgul in their attack. Better yet having just had a dark episode, the actual warm friendliness of Bree would better explain the Hobbits loss of caution and their mistrust of Strider.

[Feanaro Curufinwe]

The problem is however without Tom the whole carefully crafted Hunt for the ring falls apart ... there is really no reason for the Nazgul not just to catch a few hobbits they only just missed. In many ways JRRT wrote from the hip thus his problems with Glorfindel and the way Farmir walked into the story. His letters in my opinion are much the same - the Author I would say is wrong Tom is important, Very Important. He gives Frodo his first different view of how to consider the Ring and its powers, He allows the Hobbits who should be dead twice over a method of surviving and surprising their foes, and the means to create a credible threat to the undead. Now I would argue that could that could have been in the movie sort of but it would have required forgoing the BS PJ and company wanted to make up... Mary could simply have been elevated to being able to get through the old forest - a route nobody would take. The barrows could have happened and simply allowed Frodo to play hero and slay the wright with a picked up sword - foreshadowing Mary's actions later and explain the caution of the Nazgul in their attack. Better yet having just had a dark episode, the actuial warm friendliness of Bree would better explain the Hobbits loss of caution and their mistrust of Strider.

Although PJ's Bree rather lacked warmth or friendliness.

[conon394]

Although PJ's Bree rather lacked warmth or friendliness.

Which of course was kind of my point actual and seeming friendliness (and safety) of Bree makes the Hobbits mistakes kind of you make sense in the book. PJ's Bree is so creepy you have to wonder why they even stopped and stayed.

[Ngugi]

Because beer come in pints!

[Lortano]

Yeah, Tom Bombadil didn't really fit into the dark and disturbing sequence that Jackson was going with. It would've been strange to go from those evil and creepy Nazgul chase scenes to ' Bright blue is his jacket and his boots are yellow' It would've been like having a funfair scene in the middle of the Expendables, it just wouldn't have worked in the film.

Though I do wonder who they would've cast...

[conon394]

Yeah, Tom Bombadil didn't really fit into the dark and disturbing sequence that Jackson was going with. It would've been strange to go from those evil and creepy Nazgul chase scenes to ' Bright blue is his jacket and his boots are yellow' It would've been like having a funfair scene in the middle of the Expendables, it just wouldn't have worked in the film.

Though I do wonder who they would've cast...

But that the thing was was everything up to Bree so dark? Toned down and modified Tom could have been a Seelie type event with viable action sequences available in either Barrow or the Old Forest (before he saved the hobbits).

Honestly everyone always says cut Tom - but really good director would have found a way to get the episodes in and make them work rather than adding Aragorn falling of a cliff with his incredible floating boots.