Lord of the rings movies

[Cinuz]

Hello everyone!

I've red that a lot of you guys complain about the "fails" in the LOTR movies if compared with the books..

I've never red the books (meh, I know, most of you guys'll hate me, but I've never been willing of read the books, even tough I've red other things from tolkien) so I'm not sure what about the most of you are complaining about.

I only know some differences about the movies and the books, and here they are:

- Saruman killed by Vermilinguo (I don't know if this is the italian translation of his name, anyway I mean thte Saruman human servant), that is then killed by the hobbits in the shire, when this one was invaded by Isengard's forces.
- In the books the crossbows are not used, even though they appear very often in the movies, especially in uruk-hai hands.
- Also, in the movies the Uruk-hai appears to be a "Saruman's invention" while they were instead another breed of orcs present also in the Mordor's armies.

What are the other differences?

[Revelo]

Hello everyone!

I've red that a lot of you guys complain about the "fails" in the LOTR movies if compared with the books..

I've never red the books (meh, I know, most of you guys'll hate me, but I've never been willing of read the books, even tough I've red other things from tolkien) so I'm not sure what about the most of you are complaining about.

I only know some differences about the movies and the books, and here they are:

- Saruman killed by Vermilinguo (I don't know if this is the italian translation of his name, anyway I mean thte Saruman human servant), that is then killed by the hobbits in the shire, when this one was invaded by Isengard's forces.
- In the books the crossbows are not used, even though they appear very often in the movies, especially in uruk-hai hands.
- Also, in the movies the Uruk-hai appears to be a "Saruman's invention" while they were instead another breed of orcs present also in the Mordor's armies.

What are the other differences?

Here are a few more major ones for you.

- There were no Elves at Helms Deep and more Rohirrim as well as Eomer too. Haldir and the Galadrim were fighting to defend Lorien.
- An Elf-lord known as Glorfindel encountered the Hobbits and Aragon on the way to Rivendell rather then Arwen
- Gandalf was summed to Orthanc by another member of his order known as Radagast rather then him going straight there.
- Frodo sets off years after Bilbo's party rather then what seems like a few weeks or months.
- Aragon left to face Sauron's army at the black gates with many more men
- He also dismissed the army of the dead after capturing the Corsair ships rather then leading them to Minas Tirith, he was also accompanied by some of the Rangers of the North and Elronds sons. he also recieved Anduril much sooner in the book
- Frodo and the hobbits encountered Tom Bombadil on the way to Bree as well as some undead spirits called Barrow-wights.
- Sauron is explained to be a servant of Morgoth who had been active much longer rather then just simply a Dark Lord who forged some rings.
- Denethor was much saner in the books then in the film, although he still dispaired and went mad. It was also explained he used a palantir housed in Minas Tirth which led to his dispair.

Personally I also enjoyed the movies a lot even if I prefer the books. The point to remember is Tolkien put so much detail in his books that a lot had to be taken out just to do the films. Sometimes this works for it's benefit and other times not. There was a cracked.com article reecently which claimed Sauron was doing the right thing although it was clearly only researched from the film, so we just get a generic evil lord who wanted to dominate all life rather then a powerful godlike being serving the equvilient of the devil and who had been manipulating and troubling and conquering everyone in Middle-earth for several thousands of years. So you can see why we all think the film does have shortcomings

[Wambat]

As a student of both literature and the dramatic arts, I know exactly what the root problem was with Peter Jackson's films: Money.

A dramatic production has a very specific framework which it must follow in order to be successful. It must build, steadily, to a climax, followed shortly by a conclusion. This is because so much of the work of a dramatic production is carried out outside of the viewers' mind, the imperative for the production to retain the viewers' attention is much greater than if the action of the story were taking place in the mind of a reader.

Now this, in itself, did not have to spoil things. Works of literature, for the most part, also have similar structure, the difference being that the interest of the reader is strong enough, due to the investment of his mind on bringing to life the events and characters of the work, that the structure in literature can be considerably more relaxed. In the case of The Lord Of The Rings, this relaxed structure allows for SIX distinct periods of building, climax, and conclusion, conforming neatly to the SIX books that compose the story of The Lord Of The Rings. One must remember that each of the three TOMBS is divided into TWO books.

Here is where the money comes in: It was an absolute miracle that Peter Jackson was able to secure enough funding to complete all three films. There is simply no way that he, or anyone else, would have been able to secure funding for a series of six films, which would have been necessary to treat the work accurately in a dramatization. Consider that the people he was borrowing moneys from had very likely never read the books themselves, and even most people who have read the books forget the divisions within the tombs. Such investors would only see three books which should be translatable into three motion pictures.

The result is that each individual movie is the result of two long movies' worth of content being shoehorned into one movie, which, to anyone who has studied the dramatic arts, is ungainly and struggles to hold the viewers interest, or control the viewers emotional reaction as a well formed dramatic production should. And to those knowledgeable in lore would be noticed the myriad changes to the mythology that were required to preserve the continuity of a story that essentially had to work with half the given information.

[CountMRVHS]

Wambat is right here - while I agree there were "mistakes" made in the crossover from book to movie, it's incredible that the leap was made at all, and that it is as faithful as it is. If you've seen/heard any of the stories of the early production, you'll remember how Jackson was originally told it needed to be TWO movies, not three.

And, for all the discrepancies and differences, the film versions in no way affect Tolkien's vision. We'll always have the books.

I'm not so sure that a 6-movie series would have been the answer, but I haven't studied drama or film.

I can say that Fellowship is my favorite of the 3 movies. It seems to match the books the closest, and the scene where Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas dash off into the woods to hunt the Orcs that have captured Merry & Pippin, with the epic rising music, was beautifully done. Sure, that scene "actually" took place in the Two Towers, but why quibble? It had a great feeling to it, as did much of that film.

The next 2 movies seemed to get progressively further from Tolkien's vision, and the storyline was weaker. My wife was (is) pretty much disgusted with how Faramir actually hauls Frodo & Sam all the way back to Osgiliath (!!!) with the intention of turning the Ring over to Denethor. I can forgive that (somewhat) because, in the movie, Faramir didn't know the circumstances of Boromir's betrayal & death until Sam told him in Osgiliath; once he found out, he did the right thing. Still, the storyline was a little skewed.

The 3rd film has some of the best moments in the film trilogy, but also some of the worst (imo). When Theoden and the Riders of Rohan crest that rise overlooking besieged Minas Tirith, and Theoden rallies his men, shouting "Death! Death! Death!" - that scene still gives me goosebumps. It's pure epic heroism, with the music and the voices and the meanings done just right. On the other hand, you've got scenes like the above-mentioned "skull-valanche" and the decapitation of the Mouth of Sauron which leave me cold.

One of the biggest problems with the film trilogy is the ending - it's like 45 minutes of non-stop denoument, and it just drags. In Jackson's defense, I'm not sure how he could have improved this... except by retaining the Scouring of the Shire. But that would have practically required a fourth movie.

[Revelo]

Wambat is right here - while I agree there were "mistakes" made in the crossover from book to movie, it's incredible that the leap was made at all, and that it is as faithful as it is. If you've seen/heard any of the stories of the early production, you'll remember how Jackson was originally told it needed to be TWO movies, not three.

I heard about that as well, didn't Jackson insist it had to be three films?

And, for all the discrepancies and differences, the film versions in no way affect Tolkien's vision. We'll always have the books.

I'm not so sure that a 6-movie series would have been the answer, but I haven't studied drama or film.

Depends how you look at it. As I recall from the extra's in the DVD the reason we have Boromir dying at the end of Fellowship or Frodo not at Cirith Ungol was because they didn't want to leave a cliffhanger and to make the narrative better. I could understand the Borormir part as that was a brilliant climax and very well done. Although as I also recall Jackson needed something to delay Frodo, as I recall when Helms Deep was beseiged Frodo was nowhere near Minas Morgul. But it doesn't make sense, why not have the Shelob battle as the climax like before and end on Sam rushing off to save Frodo after he was captured similiar to how they ended Fellowship. Also done worse for how they treated Faramir. then again while we would appreciate the way the books ended a lot of film audiences would have complained about how the films didn't end by wrapping things up, typical really.

I can say that Fellowship is my favorite of the 3 movies. It seems to match the books the closest, and the scene where Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas dash off into the woods to hunt the Orcs that have captured Merry & Pippin, with the epic rising music, was beautifully done. Sure, that scene "actually" took place in the Two Towers, but why quibble? It had a great feeling to it, as did much of that film.

Won't argue there, the persuit of the Hobbit's by the Nazgul or the journey under Moria were some of my favourite parts as they were very scary and atmospheric and the films captured that perfectly. Plus the ending, despite being the opening to Two Towers was a logical choice to end, we get to see Boromir's very heroic and awesome last stand and we don't end with only knowing what happened to Frodo and Sam. It wrapped things up rather well.

One of the biggest problems with the film trilogy is the ending - it's like 45 minutes of non-stop denoument, and it just drags. In Jackson's defense, I'm not sure how he could have improved this... except by retaining the Scouring of the Shire. But that would have practically required a fourth movie.

Again I recall from the extra's they omitted parts like Scouring of the Shire and the trek home because it felt like there were too many endings and it would have dragged things out much more. I don't think the ending drags myself although it did feel like they got it over with a bit too quickly. They also removed the sequences with Bombadil because they felt it didn't advance the plot at all and just added more time, which I can understand really. Film audiences expect things to make sense and be wrapped up as well and having Bombadil in may work in the books when a lot of mystery and speculation is in them, but in a film the game changes, think of how the 2nd and 3rd Matrix films suffered due to needless exposition and trying to explain things which really make little sense.

As I said before, I like the films although they fact they dumbed down or changed parts that wouldn't have hurt the narrative. Would it have killed them to at least have one line mentioning Sauron served Morgoth for example? Or one saying how he brought the downfall of Numenor and had worked with the Elves in disguise to forge the rings of power? As a result of not mentioning that we got a lot of stuff mentioned with little to no context which doesn't make sense, a bad guy who isn't menacing and who we only see how powerful he is when he brutally destroys dozens of Elves and Men in the prologue! We also get little context on the rings themselves aside from the 9 rings of men.

Or another one, why have Elves at Helms Deep? Yes the films pimp out the Elves as very awesome, but it really doesn't make any more sense when one major sub-plot was the fact the Elves were leaving for Valinor and would not be able to play much part in the campaign's against Men. The original cut had Arwen fighting there too, thats how ridiculous it would have been

Despite that, I can't really fault the films for trying, they had to remove a lot of material to fit 3 hour films and they did the best they could although they added a few needless parts. But the acting was fantastic, they did make the setting very epic like the books required, it was well paced and didn't feel like it dragged on at all. Howard Shore's score was breathtaking (Just watch the lighting the beacons sequence for example). They did well considering and I will still watch them every now and again.

[CountMRVHS]

Good points about Sauron. In the books, of course, you see Sauron represented far less than in the movies - which I think adds to his menace. I mean, when you see him as a 500-foot-high giant eyeball/lighthouse, it loses something...

[Thangaror]

Here are a few more major ones for you.

- There were no Elves at Helms Deep and more Rohirrim as well as Eomer too. Haldir and the Galadrim were fighting to defend Lorien.
- An Elf-lord known as Glorfindel encountered the Hobbits and Aragon on the way to Rivendell rather then Arwen
- Gandalf was summed to Orthanc by another member of his order known as Radagast rather then him going straight there.
- Frodo sets off years after Bilbo's party rather then what seems like a few weeks or months.
- Aragon left to face Sauron's army at the black gates with many more men
- He also dismissed the army of the dead after capturing the Corsair ships rather then leading them to Minas Tirith, he was also accompanied by some of the Rangers of the North and Elronds sons. he also recieved Anduril much sooner in the book
- Frodo and the hobbits encountered Tom Bombadil on the way to Bree as well as some undead spirits called Barrow-wights.
- Sauron is explained to be a servant of Morgoth who had been active much longer rather then just simply a Dark Lord who forged some rings.
- Denethor was much saner in the books then in the film, although he still dispaired and went mad. It was also explained he used a palantir housed in Minas Tirth which led to his dispair.

Here is where the money comes in: It was an absolute miracle that Peter Jackson was able to secure enough funding to complete all three films. There is simply no way that he, or anyone else, would have been able to secure funding for a series of six films, which would have been necessary to treat the work accurately in a dramatization. Consider that the people he was borrowing moneys from had very likely never read the books themselves, and even most people who have read the books forget the divisions within the tombs. Such investors would only see three books which should be translatable into three motion pictures.

I agree with Wambat.
The dramaturgic changes are ok to a degree. Elves in Helm's Deep, well it's stupid and impossible (due to the huuuuge distance) but ok, granted. It's ok they left Imrahil and the Knights of Dol Amroth. It's ok Arwens character is expanded.

What upsets me, are the changes in character.

Above Glorfindel is mentioned. The scene at the Ford is much more powerful in the books: Frodo flees alone and, though already failing in power, he still despises the Ringwraiths crying: "By Elbereth and Lúthien the Fair, you shall neither the Ring nor me!"
I repeat myself saying: What a powerful scene! This small hobbit, wounded to death despises the most terrible enemies he ever met! The most terrible enemies there are in the world, apart from the Balrog and the One in the Dark Tower. But noooooo, PJ had to have this stupid She-Elf and Frodo is already in this scene the snivelling wimp that he remains until the trilogy's end.

Also Aragorn is such a laughing stock! Remember that stern, hard, proud man in the books. Really uncanny in the beginning and dangerous. And so proud it's almost uppish. He, the dispossesed stands in front of Meduseld and is unwilling to bow before the law of Théoden King to leave Andúril at the Gate, claiming his lineage proudly.
There's never a doubt that he is heading right for the throne of Gondor AND Arnor, that he indeed is the heir of Isildur and Elendil.
And last but not least this terrible scenes where he is reluctant to release the Wraiths from their curse (he's a heir of Kings, he had given his word!) and then slaying an EMISSARY!!! I almost vomitted. How hilarious, a tyrant would do this upon hearing bad news.
Film-Aragorn is no better than a dirty Orc-chieftain and barely better than the king of the oath breakers.

Another terrible thing is the uttermost stupidity of Men. War is brooding since quite some time in Rohan and Gondor. Erkenbrand, a lord of Rohan, had fortified Helm's Deep and repaired the stonework in the books.
When in the film the gate is broken I wondered: "Huh, that's supposed to be a castle gate? My grandpa's barn gate is more massive!" Also did you ever recognize that Helm's Deep does have a second wall, but in this wall there's not gate? That's so insanely stupid, it almost hurts.

Or this scene in the siege of Minas Tirith. The gate is broken and Gandalf cries, that women and children should be brought in the second ring. WHAT? You didn't do this before?! Hey, there are huge boulders being hurled through the air, buildings collapse and you didn't bring the old and weak to the TOPMOST! level? In the books, they had evacuated!!! the city long before the assault!
In the SEE there's also a great scene. The Orcs cross the Anduin at Osgiliath and one of the Gondorian soldiers sees them. He leans out and watches and watches and watches, and leans further out aaaaaaaaand is shot! D'oh! There you see evolution at work.

Treebeard's stupidity. "Oh my god, Saruman hew down the trees! You bastards!" Well, I could've told you! That's again so dumb.

Also the dramaturgization is sometimes way too extreme. Orcs, even Uruk-hai, are in general weaker than men. Aragorn never went with 500 men to the Black Gate (it were roughly 6,000) and there hadn't been a chance to defend the Hornburg with 300 men (in the books it were about 2000 IIRC). Still those 2000 had to fight 10,000 Uruks. 2000 or 300, does it make a difference in this case? No, but it wouldn't seem as hilarious. Also the Gondorians contributed to the Battle of the Pelennor and joined the charging Rohirrim (in the films they are really cowards) and number of Mûmakil is plainly stupid.

Also some 'crookings' of the storyline are simply superfluos. Saruman making a snowstorm? Heck, why? Saruman inventing Uruks. Nay, he didn't invent them. The Uruks chasing the Fellowship from Lórien down to Rauros? Lol, wanna see 'em runnin'! The Army of the Dead liberating Minas Tirith? It's the same as with Frodo at the Ford: I wanted to see the Free People winning this battle on their own! With their own power they had.
Buhuhuuuu, Arwen's gonna leave, and than the "Surprise, surprise!" wedding! Gotta vomit.

[Thangaror]

Sorry, another Wall of Text I fear, but I will write also some positive things about the films.

FotR is simply great! There are some minor things which are odd. For example Gandalfs sudden suspicion against the Ring (he doesn't like since Bilbo found it!) and Frodo leaving but half a year or such after Bilbo's birthday is to fast and sort of helter-skelter. Gandalf saying: "I'm off, need to investigate something" and a "10 years later" seem right. Hilarious are the Orcs in Moria crawling like spiders down the hall's roof. Sure, they are insects!
Moria, the flight from the Nazgûl are really great. Best I think is the prologue, though I despise Elves with curved swords and would've liked to see Gil-galad (he doesn't even show up in the SEE).

TTT is probably the weakest part. It basically has the same weaknesses as RotK (Faramir! urgh!) but lacks the awesome battles. Again the scenery is great, I love the Rohirrim. The Ents storming Isengard is so great, especially seeing them marching out of the forest down into the dale with hearing Treebeard saying something about the last march of the Ents. The Warg attack is great, as is the Hornburg battle.
I hate those superfluous Arwen scenes. They are no good for nothing! Neither contribute to the plot nor to drama. Complete rubbish (yeah, it has been implemented for the ladies. My sis hates them, too! Sob stuff, she says and she doesn't watch LotR for sob stuff but action!).

RotK has the awesomest scenes. Théoden riding up to the Pelennor is just, well, I can't find words. The marching out of the Morgul host. The hopelessness within Minas Tirith, personalized as this small Hobbit. Still so many fails that I won't list up.

Best thing in the movies is the music!
Howard Shore rulez!

[Revelo]

Sorry, another Wall of Text I fear, but I will write also some positive things about the films.

FotR is simply great! There are some minor things which are odd. For example Gandalfs sudden suspicion against the Ring (he doesn't like since Bilbo found it!) and Frodo leaving but half a year or such after Bilbo's birthday is to fast and sort of helter-skelter. Gandalf saying: "I'm off, need to investigate something" and a "10 years later" seem right. Hilarious are the Orcs in Moria crawling like spiders down the hall's roof. Sure, they are insects!
Moria, the flight from the Nazgûl are really great. Best I think is the prologue, though I despise Elves with curved swords and would've liked to see Gil-galad (he doesn't even show up in the SEE).

TTT is probably the weakest part. It basically has the same weaknesses as RotK (Faramir! urgh!) but lacks the awesome battles. Again the scenery is great, I love the Rohirrim. The Ents storming Isengard is so great, especially seeing them marching out of the forest down into the dale with hearing Treebeard saying something about the last march of the Ents. The Warg attack is great, as is the Hornburg battle.
I hate those superfluous Arwen scenes. They are no good for nothing! Neither contribute to the plot nor to drama. Complete rubbish (yeah, it has been implemented for the ladies. My sis hates them, too! Sob stuff, she says and she doesn't watch LotR for sob stuff but action!).

RotK has the awesomest scenes. Théoden riding up to the Pelennor is just, well, I can't find words. The marching out of the Morgul host. The hopelessness within Minas Tirith, personalized as this small Hobbit. Still so many fails that I won't list up.

Best thing in the movies is the music!
Howard Shore rulez!

What about the ending of the Battle of the Hornburg in the film? When Theoden and Aragorn charge out to meet the Uruk-hai and then Gandalf arrives with Eomer and 2000 Riders of Rohan? It may not have been entirely true to the book but that was still a very epic scene, once again partially down to Shore's music. Although the charge of the Rohirrim at Pelennor tops that easily.

[Dark Lord's Heir]

I agree with Wambat.
The dramaturgic changes are ok to a degree. Elves in Helm's Deep, well it's stupid and impossible (due to the huuuuge distance) but ok, granted. It's ok they left Imrahil and the Knights of Dol Amroth. It's ok Arwens character is expanded.

What upsets me, are the changes in character.

Above Glorfindel is mentioned. The scene at the Ford is much more powerful in the books: Frodo flees alone and, though already failing in power, he still despises the Ringwraiths crying: "By Elbereth and Lúthien the Fair, you shall neither the Ring nor me!"
I repeat myself saying: What a powerful scene! This small hobbit, wounded to death despises the most terrible enemies he ever met! The most terrible enemies there are in the world, apart from the Balrog and the One in the Dark Tower. But noooooo, PJ had to have this stupid She-Elf and Frodo is already in this scene the snivelling wimp that he remains until the trilogy's end.

Also Aragorn is such a laughing stock! Remember that stern, hard, proud man in the books. Really uncanny in the beginning and dangerous. And so proud it's almost uppish. He, the dispossesed stands in front of Meduseld and is unwilling to bow before the law of Théoden King to leave Andúril at the Gate, claiming his lineage proudly.
There's never a doubt that he is heading right for the throne of Gondor AND Arnor, that he indeed is the heir of Isildur and Elendil.
And last but not least this terrible scenes where he is reluctant to release the Wraiths from their curse (he's a heir of Kings, he had given his word!) and then slaying an EMISSARY!!! I almost vomitted. How hilarious, a tyrant would do this upon hearing bad news.
Film-Aragorn is no better than a dirty Orc-chieftain and barely better than the king of the oath breakers.

Another terrible thing is the uttermost stupidity of Men. War is brooding since quite some time in Rohan and Gondor. Erkenbrand, a lord of Rohan, had fortified Helm's Deep and repaired the stonework in the books.
When in the film the gate is broken I wondered: "Huh, that's supposed to be a castle gate? My grandpa's barn gate is more massive!" Also did you ever recognize that Helm's Deep does have a second wall, but in this wall there's not gate? That's so insanely stupid, it almost hurts.

Or this scene in the siege of Minas Tirith. The gate is broken and Gandalf cries, that women and children should be brought in the second ring. WHAT? You didn't do this before?! Hey, there are huge boulders being hurled through the air, buildings collapse and you didn't bring the old and weak to the TOPMOST! level? In the books, they had evacuated!!! the city long before the assault!
In the SEE there's also a great scene. The Orcs cross the Anduin at Osgiliath and one of the Gondorian soldiers sees them. He leans out and watches and watches and watches, and leans further out aaaaaaaaand is shot! D'oh! There you see evolution at work.

Treebeard's stupidity. "Oh my god, Saruman hew down the trees! You bastards!" Well, I could've told you! That's again so dumb.

Also the dramaturgization is sometimes way too extreme. Orcs, even Uruk-hai, are in general weaker than men. Aragorn never went with 500 men to the Black Gate (it were roughly 6,000) and there hadn't been a chance to defend the Hornburg with 300 men (in the books it were about 2000 IIRC). Still those 2000 had to fight 10,000 Uruks. 2000 or 300, does it make a difference in this case? No, but it wouldn't seem as hilarious. Also the Gondorians contributed to the Battle of the Pelennor and joined the charging Rohirrim (in the films they are really cowards) and number of Mûmakil is plainly stupid.

Also some 'crookings' of the storyline are simply superfluos. Saruman making a snowstorm? Heck, why? Saruman inventing Uruks. Nay, he didn't invent them. The Uruks chasing the Fellowship from Lórien down to Rauros? Lol, wanna see 'em runnin'! The Army of the Dead liberating Minas Tirith? It's the same as with Frodo at the Ford: I wanted to see the Free People winning this battle on their own! With their own power they had.
Buhuhuuuu, Arwen's gonna leave, and than the "Surprise, surprise!" wedding! Gotta vomit.

Calm down, some of these points are nitpicking. The part with the Mouth of Sauron was in the extended edition there was a reason it was removed, and placed into the edition for anyone curious to see what it was. Plus the Mouth of Sauron was evil, emissary or not. I would've been fine either way if Aragorn left him alive or not. You would be damn angry if someone told you that a person you were friends with was dead and laughed in your face about it. Also he wasn't reluctant to release them, I understand why you said that but in my opinion he wasn't. I guess its a matter of opinion on how you interpret the scene.

During the charge of the Rohirrim, how could the men of Gondor come and aid the Riders? They were being pushed back up to their final levels. When the charge was happening huge numbers of Mordor's forces were already inside the city so they couldn't do anything. Also the number of Mumakil is stupid? If you were a dark lord, you would want to get as much of those beasts as possible. And Saruman created that storm to slow down the Fellowship/kill them if he could. And it was said by Gandalf that Saruman was creating his own army of orcs and wargs. So he probably created his own versions. So ya he didn't invent Uruks, but he made his own versions. Plus in the third movie you saw mordor uruks during the Cirith Ungol scene. The other things I didn't counter were just nitpickings and the comment about Frodo

Seriously just watch the films as FILMS, they succede greatly as them. I believe they are good book adaptions as well but I understand if you could go either way. But still all these reasons you put down, I just had to say something about it

Also consider the fact that making a movie is different from a book. A book can be written for as long as you want, a movie has to have a time limit because audiences can't stay all day long and a REAL ADAPTION of Tolkien's books would be over 40 HOURS LONG or MORE. Plus they put a lot of hard work into these movies and had fun with them. Also appreciate these movies as they were the things that caused the modern day Tolkein fandom. If these movies never happened then that whole fandom would've been restricted to a bookworm thing and not as many people would know about it.

[Thangaror]

Calm down, some of these points are nitpicking.

Also consider the fact that making a movie is different from a book. A book can be written for as long as you want, a movie has to have a time limit because audiences can't stay all day long and a REAL ADAPTION of Tolkien's books would be over 40 HOURS LONG or MORE. Plus they put a lot of hard work into these movies and had fun with them.

The one who's nitpicking is actually you. Nowhere I demanded a real adaption.
I say, I'm far from nitpicking!
Adding or removing scenes is ok. Changing parts of the plot is ok. But changing characters is FAR from ok and that's what has been done to great extend throughout the film. Frodo and Aragorn are but the most prominent. Boromir, Faramir, Théoden, Denethor, Treebeard, even Gandalf and Sam, all these characters have been altered seriously (and for none of these characters in a positive manner).
And some other things are simply way too hyperbolic (skull avalanche!).

During the charge of the Rohirrim, how could the men of Gondor come and aid the Riders? They were being pushed back up to their final levels. When the charge was happening huge numbers of Mordor's forces were already inside the city so they couldn't do anything.

You don't get it, do you? You are right and that's what I'm talking about! The Gondorians were basically cowards who ride amazingly stupid attacks against Osgiliath, and later simply throw away there weapons and run from battle, hiding behind gates and walls.
In the books they were able to stem the tide, until the Rohirrim arrived and then the Gondorians sallied forth to join their allies.

Right, I forgot to mention that stupid cavalry attack. Sam deserting Frodo. And Gandalf's staff being broken by the Witchking and he himself paralyzed by fear.
Killing a Balrog and (after becoming even more powerful) being defeated by an Undead. What an epic fail.

Some of the changes in the films were nessasary and others were not.

True. But those changes that drive me mad (e.g. this Gandalf-Witchking thingy), were far from necessary. At least in my eyes.


Concerning the Bakshi movies.
Has been some time when I watched them. They were pretty, ehm, funny. Combining animation and 'real' film probably was revolutionary, I regard it as a really really terrible idea (and other people too, since I only saw it in this film). Also the films are pretty childish, in contrast to PJ's films who are really "grown-up".
The storyline is adapted far better (though IIRC it's sometimes really confusing) as are the characters. Atmosphere and the graphical adapation unfortunately fail.

[Dark Lord's Heir]

The one who's nitpicking is actually you. Nowhere I demanded a real adaption.
I say, I'm far from nitpicking!
Adding or removing scenes is ok. Changing parts of the plot is ok. But changing characters is FAR from ok and that's what has been done to great extend throughout the film. Frodo and Aragorn are but the most prominent. Boromir, Faramir, Théoden, Denethor, Treebeard, even Gandalf and Sam, all these characters have been altered seriously (and for none of these characters in a positive manner).
And some other things are simply way too hyperbolic (skull avalanche!).



You don't get it, do you? You are right and that's what I'm talking about! The Gondorians were basically cowards who ride amazingly stupid attacks against Osgiliath, and later simply throw away there weapons and run from battle, hiding behind gates and walls.
In the books they were able to stem the tide, until the Rohirrim arrived and then the Gondorians sallied forth to join their allies.

Right, I forgot to mention that stupid cavalry attack. Sam deserting Frodo. And Gandalf's staff being broken by the Witchking and he himself paralyzed by fear.
Killing a Balrog and (after becoming even more powerful) being defeated by an Undead. What an epic fail.



True. But those changes that drive me mad (e.g. this Gandalf-Witchking thingy), were far from necessary. At least in my eyes.


Concerning the Bakshi movies.
Has been some time when I watched them. They were pretty, ehm, funny. Combining animation and 'real' film probably was revolutionary, I regard it as a really really terrible idea (and other people too, since I only saw it in this film). Also the films are pretty childish, in contrast to PJ's films who are really "grown-up".
The storyline is adapted far better (though IIRC it's sometimes really confusing) as are the characters. Atmosphere and the graphical adapation unfortunately fail.

The whole thing with Gondor trying to retake Osgiliath was put into film to show Denethor's madness. Also the whole Gandalf -Witch-king thing is IN THE EXTENDED EDITION, it was removed from the theatrical release because Peter probably knew fans would be angry and since they filmed the whole scene already, decided to put it into the Extended Edition for those curious. Also as I've said just enjoy the film as a FILM if you don't like it as a book adaption. And the Gondorians weren't so hugely cowardly as you spoke, I know that they aren't as ''courageous'' as the ones in the book but for crap's sake they were being overrun as the movie portrayed them and if they are being overrun then by god they're going to have to retreat to the higher levels So they aren't able to help their Rohirrim allies. And they never did throw down their weapons.

As I've said the Bakshi films have the exactly the same story except with more book dialogue and a not as good fleshed out story. Peter had money and time to be able to flesh the story out better with 3 films instead of 1 incomplete one. So characters are better than Peters? I can understand only Aragorn and Frodo, but other characters? I don't think so. Gandalf was on par with Peter's Gandalf but his horrendous acting moments ruined the character for me. Merry and Pippin hardly have much screen time or lines to say so I don't know bout them. Sam... my god, he is not the Sam I know in the books. Peter was so much better at portraying Sam.

And if you think Bakshi's movie was childish (I don't think it was, action seemed slightly grittier than Peter's. Also it had somewhat dark atomsphere) then see the Rankin Bass film adaption of the Return of The King. Now that is childish.

[athanaric]

Calm down, some of these points are nitpicking.

No. The movies are rubbish and we've had this discussion a hundred times.

The part with the Mouth of Sauron was in the extended edition there was a reason it was removed, and placed into the edition for anyone curious to see what it was. Plus the Mouth of Sauron was evil, emissary or not.

Except it directly contradicts the book. Like most of the PJ movies where characters or action is concerned. It's like a film about WWII where the Americans are the ones gassing Jews.

I would've been fine either way if Aragorn left him alive or not. You would be damn angry if someone told you that a person you were friends with was dead and laughed in your face about it. Also he wasn't reluctant to release them, I understand why you said that but in my opinion he wasn't. I guess its a matter of opinion on how you interpret the scene.

Except Aragorn is not just somebody like you and me. It is made abundantly clear that he has a very strong will and self-control, plus eighty years of experience and wisdom.

During the charge of the Rohirrim, how could the men of Gondor come and aid the Riders? They were being pushed back up to their final levels. When the charge was happening huge numbers of Mordor's forces were already inside the city so they couldn't do anything.

No. That's not in the original.

Also the number of Mumakil is stupid?

Yes.

If you were a dark lord, you would want to get as much of those beasts as possible.

And how do you feed them? This isn't Harry Potter where you can conjure stuff out of thin air.

And Saruman created that storm to slow down the Fellowship/kill them if he could.

It isn't known who created that storm. Could have been Hitler doing time travel for all we know.

Also consider the fact that making a movie is different from a book.

So is it common to place stories in Antarctica that are supposed to be played out in the Mediterranean? Because that's what PJ did, basically. "New Zealand is Middle Earth" my arse. Only for those who can't read.

If these movies never happened then that whole fandom would've been restricted to a bookworm thing and not as many people would know about it.

Or maybe we would have been treated to a better version instead, even if only some years later.

It's ok Arwens character is expanded.

Nö. Das einzig Gute an Liv Tyler sind ihre Möpse. Schauspielern kann die nicht besonders.

modfoldered ? can you explain a little more .

It means that this mod works like a regular expansion of the original game. It won't interfere with the original, or with other mods.

and when u say that this iss after the lord of the rings is that mean that none of the charecters in the movie are present ?that would be lame I'm a fan of the movie so I realy want to play a mod which is focust on the time of the movie , having the nine riders will be very awesome I'm sure you think the same way

Almost all characters in the movies are from the book, so you would have them in the mod - if not for the fact that this mod is set in a time after all the book and movie characters are already dead or departed.

TATW (mod for M2TW) features the book/movie time period though, and all the characters.

[Dark Lord's Heir]

No. The movies are rubbish and we've had this discussion a hundred times.


Except it directly contradicts the book. Like most of the PJ movies where characters or action is concerned. It's like a film about WWII where the Americans are the ones gassing Jews.


Except Aragorn is not just somebody like you and me. It is made abundantly clear that he has a very strong will and self-control, plus eighty years of experience and wisdom.


No. That's not in the original.

Yes.


And how do you feed them? This isn't Harry Potter where you can conjure stuff out of thin air.


It isn't known who created that storm. Could have been Hitler doing time travel for all we know.


So is it common to place stories in Antarctica that are supposed to be played out in the Mediterranean? Because that's what PJ did, basically. "New Zealand is Middle Earth" my arse. Only for those who can't read.


Or maybe we would have been treated to a better version instead, even if only some years later.



Nö. Das einzig Gute an Liv Tyler sind ihre Möpse. Schauspielern kann die nicht besonders.



It means that this mod works like a regular expansion of the original game. It won't interfere with the original, or with other mods.


Almost all characters in the movies are from the book, so you would have them in the mod - if not for the fact that this mod is set in a time after all the book and movie characters are already dead or departed.

TATW (mod for M2TW) features the book/movie time period though, and all the characters.

*sigh* Gee thanks for making my blood boil, something I don't want to feel again. I can do movie vs. movie discussions like a Peter vs. Bakshi version but this is just tiring me out at this point.

[Wambat]

Almost all characters in the movies are from the book, so you would have them in the mod - if not for the fact that this mod is set in a time after all the book and movie characters are already dead or departed.

This reminds me; there are two characters from the Third Age that could plausibly still reside in Middle-Earth in the Fourth Age: Elrond's two sons. I do not remember if they are mentioned in LotRs, but they certainly did not join Elrond on his ship back to the undieing lands. At the time of this mod's setting, assuming they were still on Middle-Earth, they would make natural leaders/generals of the Elves. They would also be the last Elves on Middle-Earth with human ancestors. Perhaps this could be expressed by a special trail inheritable by their blood descendants. Maybe +1 to moral, or +1 to influence when dealing with human factions.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Also the dramaturgization is sometimes way too extreme. Orcs, even Uruk-hai, are in general weaker than men. Aragorn never went with 500 men to the Black Gate (it were roughly 6,000) and there hadn't been a chance to defend the Hornburg with 300 men (in the books it were about 2000 IIRC). Still those 2000 had to fight 10,000 Uruks. 2000 or 300, does it make a difference in this case? No, but it wouldn't seem as hilarious. Also the Gondorians contributed to the Battle of the Pelennor and joined the charging Rohirrim (in the films they are really cowards) and number of Mûmakil is plainly stupid.

Weren't uruk-hai taller and stronger than men???

[Thangaror]

Weren't uruk-hai taller and stronger than men???

Nope. They were almost as tall and almost as strong. In general. Guys like Ugluk and Grishnakh are probably exceptional (like are Aragorn and the other 'heroes'). Also there were differences amongst the Uruks, those of Mordor, notably Grishnakh, were shorter but broader than the Isengarders.

Rohirrim are shown better, but they still run for the Helm Deep that is defended by 300 men and then charge directly into orc spear wall and Mumaki.
In books Eomers column destroys orcs who captured Merry and Pippin almost without casulties (showing some deadly horse archer skills), Theodred defends crossings of Isen for a long time against superior forces, Erkenbrand fortifies Helm's Deep and leaves a garrison of 2000 men there (too old and too young but still much better than measly 300 kids and grandpas PJ gave them) and Theoden goes to reinforce the crossings of Isen not to hide in Helm's Deep.

Right. It somehow draws the picutre of the corrupted and decadent race of noble origing (the Romans) overtrumped by the "savage nobles" of fresh blood (the Germans).
Reminds me of german nationalism around 1880 gloryfying the germanic leader Arminius who defeated the legions led by Varus in 9 AD.

I'm really happy to see that this topic has quite some success...

Since I have not red the books, I can't make a comparison between those and the movies, but I have to say that the second movie is my favourite. I really like the kingdom of Rohan and the Rohirrim warriors. As the second, I would choose The Fellowship of the Ring...I don't dislike the third movie anyway.

What about the armours? Seeing the movie, it seems like the plate armours were widely used, but in this mod, that is based on LOTR's lore, plate armours does not appear (at least, in the Gondor armies for example).

Meaning no offense, but the simple past of "to read" is also spelled "read" (though pronounced as "red". English pronuncation and spelling sometimes is really stupid).

Tolkien never described plate armour. Usually 'mail' is worn. The Haradrim are depicted as wearing brozen scale armour and elements of plate are already in use to protect arms and legs (vambrace, cuisse and greaves). Still a complete harness like in the movies is used by no race.
Perhaps things like a Coat of Plates, Jack of Plates or Brigantine were already developed which sorta represent the early trials to produce plate, but Tolkien nowhere mentiones it.

Remark: There is some sort of plate armour in the game. The Uruk-hai units and some other Orcs wear some sort of plate armour. They're but some bigger metal pieces linked together. Not sure why the team didn't develop something similar (but more neat) for Elves and Dwarves at least. According to Tolkien the Haradrim wear scale. But according to the models this also could be lamellar armour, which has considerable advantages over mail and is probably the best armour besides plate.

[Stark1]

The worst thing in movies for me is depiction of Gondor. In books the army of Gondor fights in the south against the corsairs, defends the crossings of Anduin in Cair Andros and Osgiliath, defends Rammas Echor and Minas Tirith, ambushes Haradrim column in Ithilien, sallies out of Minas Tirith and fights on Pellenor together with Rohirrim and sends an army of several thousand men to Morranon while garrisoning Minas Tirith.

In movies the south is completely abandoned, they get slaughtered in Osgiliath and in Minas Tirith, hides behind walls while Rohirrim and Army of Dead destroy the enemy at Pellenor and then sends some tiny army to distract Sauron at Black gate. And every time they face orcs they get slaughtered like cattle.

Rohirrim are shown better, but they still run for the Helm Deep that is defended by 300 men and then charge directly into orc spear wall and Mumaki.
In books Eomers column destroys orcs who captured Merry and Pippin almost without casulties (showing some deadly horse archer skills), Theodred defends crossings of Isen for a long time against superior forces, Erkenbrand fortifies Helm's Deep and leaves a garrison of 2000 men there (too old and too young but still much better than measly 300 kids and grandpas PJ gave them) and Theoden goes to reinforce the crossings of Isen not to hide in Helm's Deep.

First movie is great, second is also quite good, but third is awfull.

[Cinuz]

I'm really happy to see that this topic has quite some success...

Since I have not red the books, I can't make a comparison between those and the movies, but I have to say that the second movie is my favourite. I really like the kingdom of Rohan and the Rohirrim warriors. As the second, I would choose The Fellowship of the Ring...I don't dislike the third movie anyway.

What about the armours? Seeing the movie, it seems like the plate armours were widely used, but in this mod, that is based on LOTR's lore, plate armours does not appear (at least, in the Gondor armies for example).

[Stark1]

Well, I don't know what would be the most accurate armor according to lore, but I'm sure using full plate armor on archers would be quite redundant. I wonder how can army of Gondor suck so much if they equiped even the archers with best possible armor.