Lord of the Rings Discussion Thread

[dwellerINTHEdark]

Watched Battle of the Five Armies again last night. It was decent but The Hobbit in general was a whole lot of suck in comparison to The Lord of the Rings. Still cool to see though.

 

[EspaDa]

That's right!
Eats light, right?

Indeed, man! I like your knowledge already!

Yeah, exactly, The Hobbit saga in comparison with LotR is shit. It doesn't even give me the goosebumps which LotR films always deliver.

 

[Omni]

I didn't enjoy the film adaptations in general, but The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings remain my favorite stories sonce childhood. I thought that they had some good moments and a lot of the casting was good, but there were a few questionable changes that I didn't really like. I guess that they're better than a lot of other book movies.

 

[rms]

What changes in the LOTR trilogy?

 

[Matt]

And I hated that snake Grima. I suppose it's the character I despise the most next to Gollum.

Yeah, it's a shame that Tolkien never really explained Bombadil's being. He would have been a great asset to the fellowship, although I'm not entirely convinced he would ever agree to fight.

Grima was portrayed too poorly in my opinion in the movies. Whether it was bad acting or writing I'm not sure, but it was obvious that we were supposed to hate him. No complexity at all.

Tom's power was apparently limitless within his set boundaries, but it isn't clear what happens outside of them.

What changes in the LOTR trilogy?

A few but honestly nothing terrible. One that comes to mind is Sarumans death. It didn't occur as portrayed in the extended edition.

 

[rms]

That's what I always heard, I thought she was referring to a major change

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

Time is a massive difference in the books
Years and years go by after Frodo gets the ring.

 

[Matt]

The only discrepancy was the time between Bilbo's 111th birthday party and Gandalf's return. 17 years go by, as the birthday party was in 3001 and Gandalf returns to the Shire in 3017. A detail that isn't extremely important for a movie, imo

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

Yeah doesn't matter for the movie at all.
Damn I want to watch those now

 

[Omni]

*Saruman's death being totally altered.
*Complete omission of Tom Bombadil.
*Narsil is in Elrond's possession rather than with Aragorn. He shows it to the Hobbits in the book to prove his identity, but he doesn't in the movie because Elrond has it since film Aragorn has a weird complex about becoming a King.
*Arwen saves the Hobbits instead of Glorfindel because she is a more marketable character.
*Wrong towers named in The Two Towers film as basis of the story.
*Elrond only attempts to discourage Arwen from marrying Aragorn in the film. He actually approves of it under specific circumstances in the book.

You can read a lot more here:
http://www.theonering.com/complete-list-of-film-changes

There are more than just a few changes. I think some of them are good, but a lot of them totally misrepresent the story and alter the characters in a significant way.

 

[Matt]

Yeah, but those are semi minor details and when you hear Jackson explain why he did those things they make total sense. The story itself wasn't changed much at all.

 

[rms]

That website says Aragorn isn't a King in the books either. Why isn't he King in the books if his reasoning in the films is weird? I also don't find it weird

 

[Omni]

You can keep the major part of a story intact while still severely changing nuances of it and altering the personality of the characters. That's what happened in these films. I don't think that Tolkien himself would have appreciated a lot of what was altered.

Also, in the case of The Two Towers naming the wrong towers, I'm certain that he would have considered Peter Jackson an incompetent idiot since he took his work very seriously.

As I stated earlier, I still think that they're a lot better than most movie adaptations of books.

@rms Aragorn wasn't a King until later. In the books, he isn't shown to have a weird self-esteem issue about being the rightful King of Men as he repeatedly is throughout the films. In general, he is a drastically different character.

 

[rms]

That's my question, why wasn't he born King? Why in the books is he not King?

What themes did Jackson change? The quote from Tolkien's son on that page is kind of ridiculous, especially in refernce to Art. McKellan's is spot on, quite honestly.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

Has to do with Sauron, right? Sword gets passed down until Sauron comes back or something.

 

[Matt]

"When Aragorn was only two years old, his father Arathorn was killed while pursuing orcs. Aragorn was afterwards fostered in Rivendell by Elrond. At the request of his mother, his lineage was kept secret, as she feared he would be killed like his father and grandfather if his true identity as the descendant of Elendil and Heir of Isildur became known. Aragorn was renamed Estel and was not told about his heritage until 2951"

So basically the Royal line was kept hidden for a long time to protect it.

 

[EspaDa]

I quite liked Aragon, but Boromir was an asshole. He had a nice funeral though.

 

[The Butt]

I haven't read the books in years. I will have to rectify this when I finish my Voyager novel.

 

[Matt]

Boromir was just corrupted by the ring. He also redeemed himself quite well.

 

[rms]

"When Aragorn was only two years old, his father Arathorn was killed while pursuing orcs. Aragorn was afterwards fostered in Rivendell by Elrond. At the request of his mother, his lineage was kept secret, as she feared he would be killed like his father and grandfather if his true identity as the descendant of Elendil and Heir of Isildur became known. Aragorn was renamed Estel and was not told about his heritage until 2951"

So basically the Royal line was kept hidden for a long time to protect it.

Seems weird, since that page says that Elrond wouldn't allow Aragorn to marry Arwen unless he was the King of the Kingdoms of Men..which he already was, if he wanted to, right?