A question for Tolkien Purists...

[lerb21]

Do you feel that the Peter Jackson Trilogy was 'worth it'?

Was it worth getting all of these new fans and interest in exchange for some of the lore aspects?

(Sorry if I put this in the wrong place mods. I figured that since we talk about how much the books vs. the movies should influence the mod, it'd be appropriate to ask here)

[chriswhite]

It was definitely worth it I think. It would be impossible to create a movie thats completely true to the books while still being a good movie

[Phier]

Since I don't think of it as a cult it really doesn't matter to me.

The movies were in some ways nicely done and in others complete abominations.

If anything I think the movies did work better for the mod since it gave a 'face' to the elves which were all behind the scenes in the books when it came to any major combat.

[Caml3]

Completely. For every few people that (frustratingly) can't even remember the order of the movies, there is a person or two that really got inspired to read the books and retained some interest in the lore. However, you said "was it worth getting all of these new fans" like more fellow fans are a bad thing; Lord of the Rings isn't like a local band that only you knew about before it got "big". It's been around for over half a century and had an expansive cult following for decades before the movies came out. They just introduced the Middle-Earth to a younger and larger generation. I'd be willing to make a wager than most of our younger members saw the films before they read the books.

[lerb21]

However, you said "was it worth getting all of these new fans" like more fellow fans are a bad thing;...

Nay sir, I was trying convey something different.

I said, "Was it worth getting all of these new fans and interest in exchange for some of the lore aspects?"

In that the "new fans and interest" was upside and the "(compromization of the) lore aspects" was the downside.

There we go!

[Caml3]

Nay sir, I was trying convey something different.

I said, "Was it worth getting all of these new fans and interest in exchange for some of the lore aspects?"

In that the "new fans and interest" was upside and the "(compromization of the) lore aspects" was the downside.

There we go!

Gotcha, sorry for the misread.

Having said all of that, it could have been much, MUCH worse. When you watch the DVD documentaries, its obvious that PJ was under MASSIVE pressure from the studios to Hollywoodise the story - Arwen at Helms Deep, Sauron fighting Aragorn and more besides - so we should at least be grateful that all that crap was rightfully left out.

Yeah, I watched that stuff on the extra discs, too. I wonder how Lee and Howe felt when they had to do concept art for the Aragorn/Sauron showdown...

[Skeleton Of The West]

Although there were many incorrections in the movies Jackson created, I still loved them. They didnt follow Tolkien's lore but still it was a good movie, and it made much more people to become fans of LOTR. Maybe the movies inspired some modders to make LOTR mods, which im greatful for that .

[George Maniaces]

I think the movies were totally worth the inconsistencies in the lore. Unfortunately, in a movie, even a trilogy, you just don't have the time on-screen to show everything from the book, so you have to improvise sometimes. But compared to how much the movies got *right* (Gandalf facing the Balrog, the March of the Ents, the Battle of Helm's Deep), what they got wrong is secondary, for me. Yeah, I would have loved to see Tom Bombadil on the big screen, but I wasn't surprised that he wasn't included, because it would have been 10-15 minutes that would have gotten cut elsewhere, and he's not really *essential* to the overall story.

One thing I didn't like was that when they came out with previews and ads for the The Two Towers, they gave it away that Gandalf comes back. Yeah, everyone who's read the book knows it, but what a moment it would have been for new fans if they thought he was gone for good. The first time I read the book I think I cheered when Gandalf returned.

[Delta228]

Completely. For every few people that (frustratingly) can't even remember the order of the movies, there is a person or two that really got inspired to read the books and retained some interest in the lore. However, you said "was it worth getting all of these new fans" like more fellow fans are a bad thing; Lord of the Rings isn't like a local band that only you knew about before it got "big". It's been around for over half a century and had an expansive cult following for decades before the movies came out. They just introduced the Middle-Earth to a younger and larger generation. I'd be willing to make a wager than most of our younger members saw the films before they read the books.

exactly. without the movies, which I love, i never would have read the trilogy. It made me want to explore the Tolkien universe.

[Beorn]

Well, if there weren't the movies, this forum wouldn't have so many members, and possiblly some of the Devs wouldn't have the idea of a LOTR mod...

[X_maniac_X]

Well the Movies Inspired many new fans to go read the books which, should lead them to having a greater respect for the lore and looking deeper into the Tolkien world. So it was worth it.

[SigniferOne]

Jackson also made heroic some things which Tolkien was wishy-washy about. For instance Gondor is all-infantry in the movies, a Romanesque "noble infantry" country, with an arched architecture to boot, while in the books Gondor is a washed out, unimpressive state, with a fuzzy/unclear military ideology, and no real pro-infantry bias (correct me if I'm wrong).

[Magicana]

Jackson also made heroic some things which Tolkien was wishy-washy about. For instance Gondor is all-infantry in the movies, a Romanesque "noble infantry" country, with an arched architecture to boot, while in the books Gondor is a washed out, unimpressive state, with a fuzzy/unclear military ideology, and no real pro-infantry bias (correct me if I'm wrong).

Partly true.

They were losing due to low numbers, but there were other facets to military life than infantry. Prince Imrahil for example led several hundred cavalry at the battle of the Pelennor fields (From memory).

[OfficerJohn]

Jackson also made heroic some things which Tolkien was wishy-washy about. For instance Gondor is all-infantry in the movies, a Romanesque "noble infantry" country, with an arched architecture to boot, while in the books Gondor is a washed out, unimpressive state, with a fuzzy/unclear military ideology, and no real pro-infantry bias (correct me if I'm wrong).

Yeah, because Gondor at it's weakest in the entire Second Age, Third Age and the beginning of the Fourth Age is not a washed out, unimpressive state at all. No, naturally it's as powerful as it was when it was more powerful than it is.

[Ringeck]

While I loved the movies, there were a number of things I found Jackson and his crew overdid. One of these was a given from the get-go: there was going to be a heavy emphasis on the monsters. This is because Jackson loves his monsters. So they conjure up a Cave Troll in Moria and make the Mûmakil truly garguantan mega-elephants that you sort of wonder how the goodies manage to defeat at all. The same applies for the army of the dead: in the books the Grey Company used the army of the dead to clear out the corsair presence that was preventing Gondor's southern provinces from coming to the aid of Minas Tirith. In the movie the army of the dead is an autowin feature at the battle of the Pelennor fields.

Ok, let me once again point out that I loved the movie.

Next issue. Denethor and Gondor.
Gondor is actually very well fleshed out in the background of the LotR (far better than Rohan). A lot of it comes from Tolkien's other works, but the fading civilization is the bastion of Men, the shield against Mordor, ruled by a steward who, while misguided, is still recognized by Pippin as a close equal in nobility and strength of mind to even Gandalf. Denethor's madness is the result of many years of struggling with the Enemy, attempting to use the Palantír of Minas Anor to discern his plans. Denethor is actually superior to Saruman in willpower: Sauron could not turn him, but instead showed him images that increased his despair. Denethor is a tragic but noble figure in the books. In the movie he is an utterly crazy idiotic loonie who refuses to light the beacons, eats tomatoes like a mentally retarded toddler and whom Jackson seems to want the audience to cheer the death of, when Gandalf flips him into his own funeral pyre. Classy.

I realize Jackson did not have the time to go into the full story of the Númenoreans and their culture, and I can even stomach Minas Tirith being more the "pale city" than the "white city", but why did he have to make the Gondorian military such an assembly of useless wimps? In the books, they are the finest human soldiers in middle-earth, far superior to Sauron's orcish rabble. In the movie, they run about ineffectively more often than not, panics at the drop of a hat, and can barely hold a defensive line, let alone take the offensive...

Ok. I loved the movie, again. I really did. This is just a second confirmation of that in the midst of all the negativity.

Last issue: Dwarves.
In The Hobbit, being a children's book, the dwarves are rather humorous characters. Fair enough. But the dwarves of the other works are a far cry from humorous. Of the good-aligned races, I've always had a soft spot for them. Many Men are weak, easily falling under the Shadow unless aligned directly with the elves and/or the Númenoreans. Elves are incorruptible fellows and possess a very special kind of nobility, but the elves are the favored children of the Valar. The Dwarves, now...

The dwarves were created before the elves by Aulë the smith and taught the language Khúzdul, but Ilúvatar had him entomb them to be awakened after the elves, who were to have the right of being Firstborn. When they eventually were released, they created their own civilization and became the greatest artificers in middle earth. While they were aided by Aulë, it was nothing like the elves, who were showered with gifts by the Valar. The dwarves, while cantankarous and quick to take offense, never fell under the Shadow. As Denethor, the Seven Kings who received rings from Sauron's hand when he was still regarded as fine and dandy could not be turned or made into wraiths. He might have made them even less agreeable than before, the the dwarves spent most of the First Age in opposition to the forces of Morgoth: fighting against him from the start and braving dragon-fire, which neither elves nor men could resist, at the battle of Nírnaeth Arnoediad, driving the dragon Glaurung from the field.
In the Second Age, they aided the elves against Morgoth again, despite a lot of bad blood having come between them. In the Third Age, the dwarves were hit by repeated catastrophes, and after weathering these as well as they could, spent six years wiping out the entire goblin presence in the misty mountains, which was not fully recovered a full 150 years later. The dwarves are rock-hard little buggers who fight their own battles, speak plainly and finish what they start. Gimli the dwarf, unlike the rest of the softies in the Fellowship, walks the whole way to Rohan fully armoured.

In the movies, Gimli is subjected to dwarf-tossing, absurdly frequent jokes about his height (although he is taller than the whole hobbit menangerie) and falls of horses for cheap laughts. That is, when he is not providing comic relief lines for the amusement of the audience - more and more frequently as Pippin and Merry go through character development.

I really didn't like that.

But I did like the movie!

[Beorn]

Roght. They got powned by orcs, on the contrary of the books, where they were losing only due to low numbers...

[Muffer Nl]

Partly true.

They were losing due to low numbers, but there were other facets to military life than infantry. Prince Imrahil for example led several hundred cavalry at the battle of the Pelennor fields (From memory).

He said exactly the same:
In the movies they had all Infantry, in the books there was no military preferance.

[evinmulligan]

The movies didn't give the impression of a fading state. Togh I love the movies and think they are fantastic, they made some unnecessary changes.

[Aenima]

I don't think the movies gave the impression of an 'all infantry' state. We only see Gondor fight at the battle of the last alliance where there is no cavalry at all, the battle of Osgiliath and Minas Tirith, both of which are city battles and as such were filmed without cavalry (would have been a task and a half to get horses fighting in those sets) and the battle of the black gate, at which even Rohan brings no cavalry IIRC.

What you see isn't always what you get

[Muffer Nl]

Well they did send out a cav. charge towards Osg. in the movies...