# Lord of the Rings Film Trilogy



## myrddin173 (May 10, 2011)

Some of you may know how obsessed I am with the Lord of the Rings.  I know that for many of the fans of the books the movies were horrible.  I however disagree, I think that the changes that were made were necessary in adapting them to film.  What are your thoughts on the subject? Are you a fan of the movies or not?

Also I am incredibly excited to share that this june in America the movies will be returning  to the big screen with several additional hours of footage and introductions by Peter Jackson about the upcoming Hobbit movies.

Lord of the Rings films return to the big screen with almost three extra hours of footage | Herald Sun


----------



## Black Dragon (May 10, 2011)

I adore the film adaptations.  I don't see them as replacing or even competing with the books.  They are their own artistic interpretation of Tolkien's world.  And for what they are, they are marvelous.


----------



## Neunzehn (May 10, 2011)

It isn't whether the movie can match the book, but how closely they do. In this the LOTR movies were actually much closer than most adaptations.


----------



## Kate (May 10, 2011)

Yep, I agree with all of the above.

I love the books.  I love the films.  The films are not the books and never pretended to be anything but interpretations.  Even if someone has issues with how they've adapted the source material, I think anyone would have a hard time arguing they aren't remarkable pieces of cinema


----------



## Chris Conley (May 13, 2011)

The Lord of the Rings trilogy tops my list of favorite movies.  
I'm not nearly as big a fan of the novels.  It's not that I didn't enjoy them, but I've read a lot of books I enjoyed more.


----------



## Digital_Fey (May 13, 2011)

As far as I'm concerned - and I realize I'm in the minority here - the best thing to come out of the movie trilogy was _The Lord of the Rings Sketchbook_ spin-off by Alan Lee. Seriously, I tried to watch FotR, and I tried to like it, but I couldn't. The scenery was spectacular, the costumes and actors were (mostly) excellent, but it lacked all of the subtlety and old-world charm of the books, which was what made me a fan of LOTR in the first place. I know the movies were aimed at a wider, more modern audience and I think they succeeded in grabbing the attention of a lot of people who wouldn't have been interested in the books otherwise, but for me they fell flat.


----------



## Behelit (May 18, 2011)

I heard the initial blu ray release of the trilogy was not well received due to the lack of bonus material and extended footage.

That's why they're rereleasing it. If anyone is looking to scoop up a copy and DEFINITELY wants to pay for that extended material, be sure to double check the edition. (Its not released as of yet, but will be June 28th!)

The Lord of the Rings Trilogy Extended

I loved the trilogy. All of them. Even FotR. I very much look forward to The Hobbit as well.


----------



## AvengerofOsiris (Jun 5, 2011)

I think a couple of things were "off" about the movies.  

1) No Tom Bombadil.  He was the one real BIG mystery of the novels.

2) The Council of Elrond should have been longer and they should have discussed more things.

3) Legolas surfing on a shield down a staircase.

4) A Nazgul breaking Gandalf's staff.  

5) Legolas killing the Oliphant.  

6) Aragon killing the Mouth of Sauron.  That scene just bothered me.  

7) They misrepresented how many orcs were at the Battle of Morannon.   This may seem a rather minor point, but in the books it really showed how hopeless their cause was if Frodo did not succeed.  

Now, those are pretty small criticisms compared to what they really could have done to mess up the films.  And I'll also say, these are my 3 favorite films of all time (now the Star Wars has been ruined for me for all time), but they are about 1/10th as good as the books.

The only thing I liked better about the movies was that the scourging of the shire wasn't in them.  I never really cared for that in the books.


----------



## Digital_Fey (Jun 5, 2011)

I probably would've forgiven the movies everything if they included number 3, Osiris


----------



## Elder the Dwarf (Oct 26, 2011)

This thread is ancient, and sorry to bring it up again but I absolutely love the movies, so... deal with it .  To Osiris: yeah, but how awesome were those Legolas scenes?  They are the main reason he is my favorite character.  To be fair and honest, I saw the movies first (sorry I was born like 40 years after the books were published) but they served to introduce me and many others to the books.  I do like the books better, but those movies are among my favorite of all time.  They probably do battle scenes better than any fantasy movie, the acting is great, and the scenery is absolutely gorgeous.

And to those above who didn't like the Fellowship... what the hell?  The battle at Amon Hen might be my favorite fight scene in the movies.  It's definitely Aragorn's best moment, and he had a few really great ones.  And I honestly don't know how Boromir could have been better casted or acted.

The only real problem I have with the movies (or at least the biggest) is that they made me hate Frodo with a passion.  He's such a tool in the later ones!


----------



## Seth son of Tom (Oct 27, 2011)

i actually have yet to finish reading the series, but based on what i have read i thought the movies were some of the greatest film adaptations ever. can't wait for the hobbit!


----------



## J.P. Reedman (Jul 11, 2012)

I love the movies and I was prepared to hate them when it was first announced they would be made!
I always viewed it as Jackson's interpretation, rather than Tolkien's own.
There are a few spots where I think 'why did they do that?' --Aragorn falling over the cliff and  being licked by his horse, Elrond bring him the reforged Anduril, Haldir at Helm's Deep. Generally if the scene drifted away too far from Tolkien's words, or too much dialogue that wasn't in the book was inserted, it was generally less successful than those that didn't stray from the book.
 I see why they cut out Bombadil, but hey, would it have been great if they had filmed it and  then put it in as an EXTRA on the extended versions of the dvds? What a unique selling point!


----------



## Ireth (Jul 11, 2012)

The only things I really had issue with were Arwen bringing Frodo to Rivendell (and that weird nonsensical plotline with her fate being bound to the Ring or whatever), and Haldir at Helm's Deep.

One, Arwen had all of one line in the book. The romance plot was enough for the adaptation. I get that they wanted to show her being badass, and it was better than their (mercifully scrapped) plan to bring her to Helm's Deep, but it still irks me that she stole the role of not only Glorfindel, but of Elrond as well. Elrond is the one who summoned the river to wash away the wraiths, not Arwen. And her life being bound to the fate of the Ring made NO SENSE. Her (im)mortality is dependent on her love for Aragorn and her choice between him and Valinor, no more and no less. It's even worse that they did it to her after her badass role in the first movie, turning her from a strong warrior lady to a damsel in distress waiting for her prince.

Two, the elves at Helm's Deep did NOTHING to help the heroes or advance the plot. In the book they were all off fighting battles in their own realms; they didn't have the time or the resources available to aid the humans, Last Alliance or not. In the movie, they showed up and were promptly slaughtered without once doing anything of help to the heroes, not even making much of a dent in the enemy army. It seems like basically an excuse to give Haldir a cameo in TTT.


----------



## Mindfire (Jul 11, 2012)

AvengerofOsiris said:


> I think a couple of things were "off" about the movies.
> 
> 1) No Tom Bombadil.  He was the one real BIG mystery of the novels.
> 
> ...



1. The mystery of Tom Bombadil is the reason he wasn't included. If he had just popped up in the middle of the movie, done what he does, and vanished, it would have been a huge non sequitur and the audience would have felt like "WTF did I just witness" and miss the point of the story. Novels can get away with that. Movies not so much.

2. A bunch of people sitting around and talking? Sounds riveting. Again, books can do things movies cannot. Movies generally have to be more action oriented than books because of the nature of the medium.

3, 5, 6. These don't bother me at all. I can see how they might seem over the top or tonally dissonant, but I kinda liked them. As for Aragorn killing the Mouth of Sauron... I would have done it.

4. This is the only one I can really agree on. The Witch-King simply wouldn't be able to do that. They played him up as Gandalf's match when we all know that's not the case. I'm glad that scene didn't make the cut.

7. I'm indifferent to this, but I see your point.


Also, I still think Star Wars is awesome. Probably because I grew up with the prequels and Episode 1 was the first Star Wars I saw. lol


----------



## Mindfire (Jul 11, 2012)

Ireth said:


> The only things I really had issue with were Arwen bringing Frodo to Rivendell (and that weird nonsensical plotline with her fate being bound to the Ring or whatever), and Haldir at Helm's Deep.
> 
> One, Arwen had all of one line in the book. The romance plot was enough for the adaptation. I get that they wanted to show her being badass, and it was better than their (mercifully scrapped) plan to bring her to Helm's Deep, but it still irks me that she stole the role of not only Glorfindel, but of Elrond as well. Elrond is the one who summoned the river to wash away the wraiths, not Arwen. And her life being bound to the fate of the Ring made NO SENSE. Her (im)mortality is dependent on her love for Aragorn and her choice between him and Valinor, no more and no less. It's even worse that they did it to her after her badass role in the first movie, turning her from a strong warrior lady to a damsel in distress waiting for her prince.
> 
> Two, the elves at Helm's Deep did NOTHING to help the heroes or advance the plot. In the book they were all off fighting battles in their own realms; they didn't have the time or the resources available to aid the humans, Last Alliance or not. In the movie, they showed up and were promptly slaughtered without once doing anything of help to the heroes, not even making much of a dent in the enemy army. It seems like basically an excuse to give Haldir a cameo in TTT.



I don't really remember Glorfindel all that much from the books, so he's no big loss. And I think giving those scenes to Arwen helped establish her. I'm having a hard time thinking of a way it could be done better. Also, I remember nothing about her fate being bound to the ring. I think you misinterpreted some dialogue or something. I also cannot sympathize with your damsel gripe. Sorry. :/ I disagree about the elves doing nothing. Without them, the Battle of Helm's Deep would have been an even greater mismatch. Plus their arrival had this wonderful feeling of camaraderie between the two races. It was as if the elves said, "The world's ending and our species is fading. We could just ship off to the Undying Lands and leave you Men holding the bag, but let's fight together one more time. For old time's sake."


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 11, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> 2. A bunch of people sitting around and talking? Sounds riveting. Again, books can do things movies cannot. Movies generally have to be more action oriented than books because of the nature of the medium.



Ever see _Twelve Angry Men_? Great film. You can do a lot with people sitting around talking.


----------



## Ireth (Jul 11, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> Also, I remember nothing about her fate being bound to the ring. I think you misinterpreted some dialogue or something.



Elrond said so explicitly right before he gave Aragorn the newly-reforged Anduril. "Arwen is dying. She will not long survive the evil that now spreads from Mordor. As Sauron's power grows, her strength wanes. *Arwen's life is now tied to the fate of the Ring.*" Can't put it much clearer than that.

I agree about the camaraderie between the elves and men, but they still did nothing to turn the tide of the battle at all. Even with the elves' help, Helm's Deep still fell. They should have accomplished more, otherwise their presence is kinda pointless outside of a fleeting hope.


----------



## Mindfire (Jul 11, 2012)

Ireth said:


> Elrond said so explicitly right before he gave Aragorn the newly-reforged Anduril. "Arwen is dying. She will not long survive the evil that now spreads from Mordor. As Sauron's power grows, her strength wanes. *Arwen's life is now tied to the fate of the Ring.*" Can't put it much clearer than that.
> 
> I agree about the camaraderie between the elves and men, but they still did nothing to turn the tide of the battle at all. Even with the elves' help, Helm's Deep still fell. They should have accomplished more, otherwise their presence is kinda pointless outside of a fleeting hope.



I don't think he meant literally. I think what he meant was that Arwen's love for Aragorn had caused her to give up immortality and that if the war was lost, it would not be long before she died either from grief for Aragorn or at the hands of Sauron's hordes. And with the Elf-life gone from her, she may not have been able to fight for long.


----------



## Ireth (Jul 11, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> I don't think he meant literally. I think what he meant was that Arwen's love for Aragorn had caused her to give up immortality and that if the war was lost, it would not be long before she died either from grief for Aragorn or at the hands of Sauron's hordes. And with the Elf-life gone from her, she may not have been able to fight for long.



Aaah, that does make more sense.


----------



## Reaver (Jul 13, 2012)

AvengerofOsiris said:


> I think a couple of things were "off" about the movies.
> 
> 
> 5) Legolas killing the Olyphant.



Legolas killed Timothy Olyphant? I don't even remember him being in the movie. Man, I guess I have to pay closer attention the next time I watch it.


----------



## David (Jul 18, 2012)

Ireth said:


> Elrond said so explicitly right before he gave Aragorn the newly-reforged Anduril. "Arwen is dying. She will not long survive the evil that now spreads from Mordor. As Sauron's power grows, her strength wanes. *Arwen's life is now tied to the fate of the Ring.*" Can't put it much clearer than that.
> 
> I agree about the camaraderie between the elves and men, but they still did nothing to turn the tide of the battle at all. Even with the elves' help, Helm's Deep still fell. They should have accomplished more, otherwise their presence is kinda pointless outside of a fleeting hope.



It was a bit strange seeing all those elves fall and perish, yet seeing all those old men and young lads survive! Not only pointless  it's also how a mystery they got there in time in the timeset implied in the film- they would have never gotten there in time from Rivendell- which is where its implied they marched from. To make the whole sequence even stupider is the fact the elf at the head is actually from Lothlorien!


----------

