The Films

[lord0thief]

Hello TATW Fans!
Over my time here on this forum, I've encountered a lot of eh... (for lack of a better word) "unhappiness" with the Lord of the Rings film series.
I believe the films were considerably true to the novels (of course there were accuracies that the Director ignored), but is it true that book films need to be completely accurate to the books to be good?
I also believe that the films were masterpieces, the music, atmosphere, and action in the film conveyed a good representation of the novels to the general public. (Plus I think the actors in the film were quite good!)
Like I mentioned, I have witnessed a lot of discontent with the film so I guess my main question would be "why is that?"

Ehh, just as a side note here are some sources for film reviews.

Rottentomatoes
had all three movies with an approval rating of over 90%

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/lord...p_of_the_ring/

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/lord...he_two_towers/

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/lord...n_of_the_king/

And IMDB has all three films listed in its top 250 greatest films of all time:

http://www.imdb.com/chart/top

So what's all of your opinions? I happen to be a pretty devoted Tolkien fan but I feel like a lot of Tolkien fans bash the film because it wasn't exactly like the books were. (Which imho isn't fair :/).

[Russian Gondor]

I have a feeling of a IBTL moment. I saw threads about movies being shut down lately. But hey, they might let it survive.

[lord0thief]

I have a feeling of a IBTL moment. I saw threads about movies being shut down lately. But hey, they might let it survive.

Lul hopefully, I just feel like there's so much bashing and I don't really understand why

[Russian Gondor]

I agree.

[trueblaze]

Meh, the bashing comes in waves. Someone sugests something that's not lore friendly, those who've studied the lore front to back come out, then those who haven't studied the lore come out, the bashing starts, someone sugests sub-mod, both sides ignor that someone and continue bashing, a few days pass, everyone forgets what happened.

I've seen it a couple of times and this is typically the pattern that is followed .

As for the movies, no movie can be 100% lore accurate, so I say be happy with what they came out with and thank God it wasn't like Battlefield Earth, or Dragonball Evolution.

[ashenhigh]

The movies are the greatest thing since Star Wars.

Viggo Mortensen's portrayal of Aragorn is most definitely my favorite character from any movie I have ever seen. Thank the lord for the films.

[Eldarion]

The movies are the greatest thing since Star Wars.

Viggo Mortensen's portrayal of Aragorn is most definitely my favorite character from any movie I have ever seen. Thank the lord for the films.

I agree completely.

Even though the movies weren't 100% by the book, the changes made certainly weren't a detriment to them.

[Tom Bombadil]

I concur the movies are great, I'm a bit of a lore fiend but to be honest the movies did a great job of reprensenting the books, it really annoys me when people complain, what did they expect? It also annoys me people moan about the so called "plate armor", Im sorry but of the things the film did wrong this is one of the least important, its jst friggin armor and doesnt add or remove anything from the story.

[Leonidas X]

This is like criticizing Braveheart because they wore outfits that were not quite historically accurate for the time period, or because the Battle of Sterling was fought in a field in the movie, while in reality, it was fought on Sterling Bridge.

I agree a bridge battle would've been much cooler, but in reality, who cares? Movies always have some inaccuracies, but it's not like they molest and pervert everything just for kicks. They have good reasons, like adding more emotion (the princess in Braveheart was not alive when the real William Wallace was). Unless it completely makes a mockery of history, or, in this case, the LotR books, then it's fine. The movies were excellent.

[Killswitch]

This is like criticizing Braveheart because they wore outfits that were not quite historically accurate for the time period, or because the Battle of Sterling was fought in a field in the movie, while in reality, it was fought on Sterling Bridge.

I agree a bridge battle would've been much cooler, but in reality, who cares? Movies always have some inaccuracies, but it's not like they molest and pervert everything just for kicks. They have good reasons, like adding more emotion (the princess in Braveheart was not alive when the real William Wallace was). Unless it completely makes a mockery of history, or, in this case, the LotR books, then it's fine. The movies were excellent.

Stirling bridge was more of a causeway . My main problem with Braveheart was it made a great leader and guerilla general look like a thug - let's just line up and charge or flank them and i'll meet you in the middle . Stirling bridge was a clever use of terrain and the weakness of armoured troops when shoved of firm ground into marsh.
I do enjoy Braveheart , i just treat it as a film where as LOTR films i can immerse myself in as they are great films and portray the books well ( you'd need about 6 films to do the books accurately ).

[Hermes Trismegistos]

I liked the movies very much (though the first more than the second and the second more than the third), but somehow I'm becoming tired of the movie designs that you see everywere and the more often I watch them the more I see the flaws.

With the books I never experienced that feeling of tiredness, with every rereading I discover new interesting details.

But in general the movies were better than you could expect and I still like them - it's only that I will always value the books more. There are only two things in the movies I really can't accept, both in Return of the King: 1. The depiction of the Army of the Death and 2. The stupid "Frodo-sending-Sam-away-because-of-Gullums-intrigue"-scene.

[Seleukos_I.]

The films were really great. Remember that without the films we would certainly not have this mod. Though there were some unnecessary things, they are still some of my favourites.

[trance]

The films were great, yeah, and Peter Jackson did a wonderfull job with the lore. Sure he added some extra features and ignored others for dramatic effect. But he did fail big-time with the Battle of Pelennor Fields. Instead of a truly epic field battle, he added the army of the dead, which was just bad for all intents and purposes.

The end results were good, but the book was much better. It's that simple. And I guess it pains us purists to see so many who've just seen the movie and not read the books, especially when they start making propositions starting with "in the movies...".

[HunGeneral]

Well I have seen the films before I began reading the books and found them to be great - I still think the same after having read most of the books (I'm still reading "The Return of the King"). I always said that most novels can't be made into movies very well and I usually don't expect such films to be good or fit to the novel. Films have limitations not like our Imagination - however I think Peter Jacksons interpretation is rather good for a book based film and most of the characters are depicted quite well. (Especially Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn)

[Lordinquisitor]

The Films were great, despite the fact that they weren`t true to the lore.

[Maverock]

Well I have seen the films before I began reading the books and found them to be great - I still think the same after having read most of the books (I'm still reading "The Return of the King"). I always said that most novels can't be made into movies very well and I usually don't expect such films to be good or fit to the novel. Films have limitations not like our Imagination - however I think Peter Jacksons interpretation is rather good for a book based film and most of the characters are depicted quite well. (Especially Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn)

Wait 'till you have read The Silmarillion after a heavy start you will see through Tokien's genius made up world.

[HunGeneral]

Wait 'till you have read The Silmarillion after a heavy start you will see through Tokien's genius made up world.

Hmmm. Sound like I should put in on my "Meant to be read" list....although it's quite long already

By the way: does it take place after or before LOTR? Oh yes I'v heard about "Sons of Hurin" aswell, is that really as good as they say?

Believe me, reading TTT and ROTK without having any idea how it would turn out was amazing.

I sure believe it... The best would have been if the Book had recieved the tittle Tolkien later intended to give the third book: "War of the Ring" - now that leaves no idea how it could end.

The Gondorians wasn't portrayed in any favourable light either, untrained fools in expensive, shiny plate armour. I suspect Tolkien would give PJ a smack on the cheek for that.

Well I don't know, but as far as I have gotten in the book (Muster of Rohan - I quess) the gondorian military seems quite like a militia type of force led by nobles - atleast so far.... (No doubt of there bravery however)

I have not read the books yet, I just started The Hobbit, but a friend has told me that Bombadil was as powerful as Gandalf. Is that right?

I'm not sure, but even in the books Bombadil had a minor role - he seemed to have some power (magic of some sort), but as I see it he was anything but really serious about it and he didn't care much for the rest of the world either. If I remember right then someone even suggested at the council that Tom should quard the Ring, but it was dismissed because they were sure he would not care about it and just loose it earlier or later.

[RyuAzai]

To be honest, as amazing as a book is, sometimes you have to change things for the movie. Sometimes thinks just won't translate well from paper to screen.

Peter Jackson was an incredible enough director to see what wouldn't translate and what he could do to handle that. And I think the movies were some of the greatest ever produced.

I actually had no idea what Lord of the Rings was until I saw them, and right after I quickly read through the series, then hit the hobbit, and then went after all the other notes and lore. I prefer the events that happened in the book and how they happened, but I know why the movie changed them and I think it is better for it.

The movies were amazing. And the books, at least that is my two cents

[Lordinquisitor]

To be honest, as amazing as a book is, sometimes you have to change things for the movie. Sometimes thinks just won't translate well from paper to screen.

The Undeads at the Pellenor fields? Why didn`t he just show how they killed the corsairs?

[baz44331]

the films where class. but what happend to Rohan after. who becomes king?