Support NeoGAF

[zoodoo]

As a big fan of the movies (I rewatch them yearly) I never read the books before. So for the last few weeks, I decided to correct that. I slowly went through them in the commute on my way to work.

I really enjoyed making the comparison with both interpretations. But one thing strikes me: the whole Arwin and Aragorn love story in the movies. What was the point?

Was is made to attrack a certain crowd?

Also I wish they gave the spider(shelob) a longer screen time. I really enjoyed reading the part of her encounter with frodo and sam and her lore.

One issue I have with both movies and books is the fact that they never gave enough focus to the bad guys. Sauron doesnt do shit besides scaring people. I wanted to know more about the ringwraiths.

In the coming weekends I'll be watching the movies again. And I am exited for shadow of war game. I enjoyed the first one and dont care if they dont follow the lore. Sticking to what was just written would have been too limited.

 

[sphagnum]

I really enjoyed making the comparison with both interpretations. But one thing strikes me: the whole Arwin and Aragorn love story in the movies. What was the point?

Was is made to attrack a certain crowd?

LotR is a sausage fest so they wanted some more female representation. They also just wanted to expand on that element since it's important to Aragorn's story but was kind of treated as an afterthought in the books.

 

[Veelk]

I really enjoyed making the comparison with both interpretations. But one thing strikes me: the whole Arwin and Aragorn love story in the movies. What was the point?

Was is made to attrack a certain crowd?

To give some romantic pathos to the story, yeah, but also just to increase diversity by giving women some roles of importance. The only real woman who did anything in the books was Eowyn. Plus, in the books, Glorfindel is just this random ass elf. Making it Arwin also adds a sense of continuity because there is a reason she'd be involved in the adventure beyond political.

It was a good move.

 

[DOWN]

Liv Tyler is underrated beauty. Her expanded movie role made sense and since she was good casting it worked.

 

[Parahan]

In before the Tom Bombadil Supporters who swear he was some stealth sinister villain and not a random annoying character who was thankfully forgotten soon after his appearance.

And agreed, Arwen's story was way better in the movies.

 

[ponpo]

Whoever it was made for, it was infinitely better than the Hobbit films' love story lol.

 

[HStallion]

Whoever it was made for, it was infinitely better than the Hobbit films' love story lol.

You could say this about most aspects of the Hobbit films compared to the LOTR trilogy.

 

[Shaanyboi]

In before the Tom Bombadil Supporters who swear he was some stealth sinister villain and not a random annoying character who was thankfully forgotten soon after his appearance.

And agreed, Arwen's story was way better in the movies.

Is it even comparable when her total mentions in the book are probably not even a full page?

 

[.JayZii]

I thought it was really well handled, especially in comparison to what those Hobbit movies did.

The cynical interpretation would be that it was only added to appeal to a female audience with a love story, but I thought her expanded role worked very well, and condensing some characters together made the story more filmic.

 

[m3k]

mum read them in uni and saw the first two..
said they lost the lighthearted feeling of books but were alright

 

[smurfx]

just finished the first book. i understand why they cut out tom bombadil as he would not have really added much. also there is so much singing and the movies hardly ever show any of it.

 

[KernelPanic]

Considering the books were said to be impossible to adapt into a movie I thought they did a fantastic job.

 

[Random17]

The lack of focus on the villains, especially Sauron was intentional. He's supposed to be the godlike evil mysterious force - and both the movies and books focused on the heroes for that reason.

 

[B-Dubs]

To give some romantic pathos to the story, yeah, but also just to increase diversity by giving women some roles of importance. The only real woman who did anything in the books was Eowyn. Plus, in the books, Glorfindel is just this random ass elf. Making it Arwin also adds a sense of continuity because there is a reason she'd be involved in the adventure beyond political.

It was a good move.

Glorfindel is far from a random ass elf. Dude was a living legend and was able to fight off a Balrog before being brought back with powers nearly equal to a Maiar (aka guys on Gandalf's level).

LotR is a sausage fest so they wanted some more female representation. They also just wanted to expand on that element since it's important to Aragorn's story but was kind of treated as an afterthought in the books.

Pretty much. Hell at one point they considered adding her to the fellowship, but decided it was too big a change to make.

 

[emag]

I read the books many years before the Peter Jackson movies came to be and have no non-trivial complaints about the adaption, apart from the pacing of the ending(s). I don't even mind that the Scouring of the Shire was entirely cut.

Then again, I love how Boromir's death is the conclusion of the first movie instead of being relegated to an almost off stage occurrence at the start of the second volume, so I may be biased.

 

[Ogodei]

I read the books many years before the Peter Jackson movies came to be and have no non-trivial complaints about the adaption, apart from the pacing of the ending(s). I don't even mind that the Scouring of the Shire was entirely cut.

Then again, I love how Boromir's death is the conclusion of the first movie instead of being relegated to an almost off stage occurrence at the start of the second volume, so I may be biased.

The story cuts for the movie are definitely superior, though i'd argue that's about it.

 

[Veelk]

Glorfindel is far from a random ass elf. Dude was a living legend and was able to fight off a Balrog before being brought back with powers nearly equal to a Maiar (aka guys on Gandalf's level).

I said he was a random ass elf, not a weak ass elf.

He isn't really involved in anyone's story aside from a chance meeting at the beginning and then the rescue. So he very much comes out of nowhere and then fucks off wherever. From someone who is just reading the LotR books without diving into the lore, or atleast riding alongside Frodo's perspective, his appearance is pretty random.

Which I thought was clear since that was my point about Arwen, that she brings continuity by being involved with one of the main characters.

 

[Syder]

In before the Tom Bombadil Supporters who swear he was some stealth sinister villain and not a random annoying character who was thankfully forgotten soon after his appearance.

I'm surprised Bombadil wasn't forced into The Hobbit movies, there was plenty of things in those films that didn't need to be there.

 

[Xero]

Glorfindel is far from a random ass elf. Dude was a living legend and was able to fight off a Balrog before being brought back with powers nearly equal to a Maiar (aka guys on Gandalf's level).

anyone referring to glorfindel as a random ass elf doesnt know what they are talking about.

In the coming weekends I'll be watching the movies again. And I am exited for shadow of war game. I enjoyed the first one and dont care if they dont follow the lore. Sticking to what was just written would have been too limited.

Im perfectly fine with the way it was kinda doing its own thing with the lore in the interest of something new. However them doing fuck all with it I was not ok with.

 

[Windam]

In before the Tom Bombadil Supporters who swear he was some stealth sinister villain and not a random annoying character who was thankfully forgotten soon after his appearance.

Get out, you old wight! Vanish in the sunlight!
Shrivel like the cold mist, like the winds go wailing,
Out into the barren lands far beyond the mountains!
Come never here again! Leave your barrow empty!
Lost and forgotten be, darker than the darkness,
Where gates stand for ever shut, till the world is mended.

 

[Loxley]

LotR is a sausage fest so they wanted some more female representation. They also just wanted to expand on that element since it's important to Aragorn's story but was kind of treated as an afterthought in the books.

To give some romantic pathos to the story, yeah, but also just to increase diversity by giving women some roles of importance. The only real woman who did anything in the books was Eowyn. Plus, in the books, Glorfindel is just this random ass elf. Making it Arwin also adds a sense of continuity because there is a reason she'd be involved in the adventure beyond political.

It was a good move.

Yep. I'm a Glorfindel fanboy but even then I think it was the right decision to just excise him from the film's completely - one less character the audience has to keep track of and it gives Arwen more to do.

I'm surprised Bombadil wasn't forced into The Hobbit movies, there was plenty of things in those films that didn't need to be there.

I don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Jacob]

The movies, especially TTT and ROTK, put Aragorn much more front and center than he was in the book. The book is told almost entirely from a Hobbitish perspective, and when events not involving Hobbits take place, they're generally not revealed to the reader until recounted to one of the Hobbit characters. I think changing this was a reasonable decision for adapting the story to a visual medium; you can do flashbacks like they did to show Gandalf's escape from Isengard, but you can only rely on that for so long. I think making Aragorn the co-main character was less of a necessary change but I can understand why it was done and think that Aragorn's portrayal in the movies was very effective for what he was (helped greatly by Viggo Mortensen's performance of course).

Since Aragorn had a much more prominent role, it became necessary to explore his backstory and motivations much more deeply than the book did. Adapting his romance with Arwen as recounted in the Appendices and moving it into the main story (whcih also involved changing the timeline) made sense. I don't think the execution here was as good as it could have been - Arwen's character is fairly inconsistent (largely a result of them backtracking from the idea of her going to Helm's Deep due to fan backlash after they'd already shot those scenes) and the whole thing about her dying because of the Ring didn't really make any sense - but all in all I think it worked out alright. That it meant having another prominent female character was a plus too.

anyone referring to glorfindel as a random ass elf doesnt know what they are talking about.

Eh, I can see where Veelk is coming from. In the context of LOTR, Glorfindel's appearance is pretty incidental and we don't learn anything abut his backstory. You have to read The Silmarillion to get that, and even then it wasn't definitively confirmed that it was the same character in both works until the publication of the final volume of The History of Middle-earth. (I should mention that some people still insist that the matter is unsettled, but I don't agree with this viewpoint.)

 

[Venture]

I haven't read the books but I did flip through The Two Towers once to check on one scene I hated from the film. It's when Aragorn suddenly turns into a hippie peacenik and stops Théoden from killing Wormtongue. "There's already been too much blood shed." or some crap like that. It seemed out of place and out of character to me.

If I remember correctly it was Théoden's decision in the book. Not sure why they felt the need to change it.

 

[Calamari41]

I have my quibbling complaints with the adaptation, but the one difference that really bothered me was the ghosts at Pelennor.

In the book Aragorn uses them to disperse the corsairs down the river and shows up at the battle with living, human reinforcements, just enough to turn the battle eventually in their favor. In the movie, it's just a pure "win button" deus ex machina. In the book there are still days of grueling battle left after they show up... but in the movie, well, if they had just held out for one more day at Minas Tirith then zero people would have had to die.

I understand that it looked cool and it gets to a point in a movie where you have to wrap things up already, but I just thought it made the end of the battle too easy and cheapened the sacrifices made before the ghosts showed up.

 

[Htown]

I have my quibbling complaints with the adaptation, but the one difference that really bothered me was the ghosts at Pelennor.

In the book Aragorn uses them to disperse the corsairs down the river and shows up at the battle with living, human reinforcements, just enough to turn the battle eventually in their favor. In the movie, it's just a pure "win button" deus ex machina. In the book there are still days of grueling battle left after they show up... but in the movie, well, if they had just held out for one more day at Minas Tirith then zero people would have had to die.

I understand that it looked cool and it gets to a point in a movie where you have to wrap things up already, but I just thought it made the end of the battle too easy and cheapened the sacrifices made before the ghosts showed up.

I mean, if you're cutting down this huge saga, and you have a point where Aragorn rescues some ghosts so he can rescue some other dudes to fight an army, just cutting out the literal middle men makes a lot of sense, especially since you're not leaving out any important characters by doing so.

 

[Calamari41]

I mean, if you're cutting down this huge saga, and you have a point where Aragorn rescues some ghosts so he can rescue some other dudes to fight an army, just cutting out the literal middle men makes a lot of sense, especially since you're not leaving out any important characters by doing so.

Right, I understand exactly why they did it and why it had to be done, my point is just that it changes the tenor of the battle significantly compared to the book and makes it far too easily won.

Like, Legolas didn't need to go through all of those acrobatics to take down the oliphaunt when he could have just waited eight seconds for the tidal wave to bring it down instead.

 

[Ogodei]

The movies, especially TTT and ROTK, put Aragorn much more front and center than he was in the book. The book is told almost entirely from a Hobbitish perspective, and when events not involving Hobbits take place, they're generally not revealed to the reader until recounted to one of the Hobbit characters. I think changing this was a reasonable decision for adapting the story to a visual medium; you can do flashbacks like they did to show Gandalf's escape from Isengard, but you can only rely on that for so long. I think making Aragorn the co-main character was less of a necessary change but I can understand why it was done and think that Aragorn's portrayal in the movies was very effective for what he was (helped greatly by Viggo Mortensen's performance of course).

Since Aragorn had a much more prominent role, it became necessary to explore his backstory and motivations much more deeply than the book did. Adapting his romance with Arwen as recounted in the Appendices and moving it into the main story (whcih also involved changing the timeline) made sense. I don't think the execution here was as good as it could have been - Arwen's character is fairly inconsistent (largely a result of them backtracking from the idea of her going to Helm's Deep due to fan backlash after they'd already shot those scenes) and the whole thing about her dying because of the Ring didn't really make any sense - but all in all I think it worked out alright. That it meant having another prominent female character was a plus too.



Eh, I can see where Veelk is coming from. In the context of LOTR, Glorfindel's appearance is pretty incidental and we don't learn anything abut his backstory. You have to read The Silmarillion to get that, and even then it wasn't definitively confirmed that it was the same character in both works until the publication of the final volume of The History of Middle-earth. (I should mention that some people still insist that the matter is unsettled, but I don't agree with this viewpoint.)

I thought it was pretty clear that Glorfindel of Gondolin died and Glorfindel of Rivendell was just a guy with the same name. Didn't know that they later said he elected to return to Middle Earth after his death (or why the Valar would have allowed that, since none of the other Noldor who died in the first age got to come back. Nobody but Beren did).

 

[Earthbound64]

Loved the books.
Never watched the movies.

While there's certain to be a decent intersection between those who enjoyed the books and those who enjoyed the movies, books and movies are really two separate forms of media, aimed at different audiences.

 

[Omadahl]

This is the one series I have read multiple times throughout my life. The books are incredible not only because of the story and its scope but because it is entirely original. Tolkien was a genius in world building and language. Hell, he basically wrote his own fantasy Bible in languages he created.

I know there are purists who may not like the films for leaving out or changing some of the books (Tom Bombadil), but I think they did the books justice in terms of overall story and character growth. The cg holds up for the most part and the acting is first class.

Read the books and then rewatch the movies with more appreciation.

 

[zoodoo]

I have my quibbling complaints with the adaptation, but the one difference that really bothered me was the ghosts at Pelennor.

In the book Aragorn uses them to disperse the corsairs down the river and shows up at the battle with living, human reinforcements, just enough to turn the battle eventually in their favor. In the movie, it's just a pure "win button" deus ex machina. In the book there are still days of grueling battle left after they show up... but in the movie, well, if they had just held out for one more day at Minas Tirith then zero people would have had to die.

I understand that it looked cool and it gets to a point in a movie where you have to wrap things up already, but I just thought it made the end of the battle too easy and cheapened the sacrifices made before the ghosts showed up.

I actually like that part in the movie but i agree it cheapens the battle.

 

[Jacob]

I thought it was pretty clear that Glorfindel of Gondolin died and Glorfindel of Rivendell was just a guy with the same name. Didn't know that they later said he elected to return to Middle Earth after his death (or why the Valar would have allowed that, since none of the other Noldor who died in the first age got to come back. Nobody but Beren did).

I don't have most of my books with me so I can't give you an exact quote, but the gist of it is that Tolkien's concluded late in his life (in a pair of essays included in the "Last Writings" section of The Peoples of Middle-earth) that because of Glorfindel's sacrifice when fighting the Balrog, the Valar granted him re-embodiment more quickly than they did most of the deceased Noldorin Exiles and that he came back even stronger than before. Him being sent back to Middle-earth was a one-off thing. Tolkien suggested it occurred in the mid-Second Age along with the Blue Wizards (though elsewhere, for example in the fragments published in Unfinished Tales, he entertained different ideas regarding the Blue Wizards). Obviously it's impossible to say what Tolkien may or may not have gone with had he ever finished "The Silmarillion" (though I think it's doubtful he would have even if he'd lived another 10-20 years), but the single Glorfindel idea seems to have been his last comment on the matter, and it explains his abilities as glimpsed in FOTR.

Edit: Tolkien Gateway has a couple brief quotations from the "Last Writings" essays on Glorfindel which I believe are correct though I can't personally verify them right now.

. . . At any rate what at first sight may seem the simplest solution must be abandoned: sc. that we have merely a reduplication of names, and that Glorfindel of Gondolin and Glorfindel of Rivendell were different persons. This repetition of so striking a name, though possible, would not be credible… Also it may be found that acceptance of the identity of Glorfindel of old and of the Third Age will actually explain what is said of him and improve the story. . .

 

[III-V]

As a big fan of the movies (I rewatch them yearly) I never read the books before. So for the last few weeks, I decided to correct that. I slowly went through them in the commute on my way to work.

I really enjoyed making the comparison with both interpretations. But one thing strikes me: the whole Arwin and Aragorn love story in the movies. What was the point?

Was is made to attrack a certain crowd?

Also I wish they gave the spider(shelob) a longer screen time. I really enjoyed reading the part of her encounter with frodo and sam and her lore.

One issue I have with both movies and books is the fact that they never gave enough focus to the bad guys. Sauron doesnt do shit besides scaring people. I wanted to know more about the ringwraiths.

In the coming weekends I'll be watching the movies again. And I am exited for shadow of war game. I enjoyed the first one and dont care if they dont follow the lore. Sticking to what was just written would have been too limited.

So you read all the books, OP, including hobbit/silmarillion?

 

[GamerJM]

For me it's books, all day. The movies did an immensely good job of capturing the world the books take place in and adapting them to screen, but reading the books slowly over a long period of time just allowed me to get immersed in the world in a way a film that only lasts a few hours can't. The LotR stories are exactly the kind of stories I prefer to experience in book format.

Oddly enough I kind of enjoyed the Hobbit movies more than the book, at least the first two (the last one didn't feel like it needed to be a full movie). I can't really say why, though.....I just did. It's a much smaller scale story that seems more adaptable to me.