What are your impressions of this movie? What do you think are the positives/negatives of the way Peter Jackson adapted this book for film? I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, although not without niggles here and there. I’ve seen it twice already and am going to see it again tonight, so I’ll put any other points that I can think of when I’ve refreshed my memory. Here are a few that come to mind:
Positives:
The ending. I thought it was extremely well done, and emotional. It was true to the book as well as it showed the bond between Frodo and Sam extremely well.
The Cracks of Doom. Although changed to make the scene more dramatic, I think the effect worked well and it was great to see Frodo saved by Sam at the end. He had to choose between the ring and his servant so it showed his true willpower (and character).
Eoywn vs the Lord of the Nazgul. This was revletively well done, and I liked the way Theoden actually got to see her before he died in the movie version.
Theoden. His whole character was great, firm but kind. He has some lines too “Now for wrath, now for ruin, and the world’s ending”.
Faramir. I liked the way he returned to his original character and made the changes in the Two Towers seem justifiable.
Denethor. Again, this character is portrayed very well.
Merry and Pippen. Humourous, and they showed the bravery of the Hobbits.
Gollum. The lemus trick, and posioning Frodo against Sam (although I don’t like the way his plan worked) made him even more distasteful.
Negatives:
When Sam turned back. This was completely against his character, something the true Sam would never have done. Enough said. I do love his character after that bit though - his determination to help Mr Frodo till the end.
Frodo. I loved the way he was portrayed in the first movie, and there were some great moments between him and Smeagol in the second film. But his character was completely butchered in the third film. Gone is the wise desision making Frodo from the book, instead replaced with this weak, pathetic, and naive Frodo.
Gandalf. Another character whom didn’t shine in the final movie (although he was great in the other films). Why did he have to be so violent and active? Gandalf’s power is meant to come from his council, not from stupid and disrespectful actions such as knocking Denethor over with his staff and pushing him into the pyre. I just didn’t like the way his power was exercised with actions rather than words.
I haven’t mentioned the exclusion of the Mouth of Sauron and the Voice of Saruman scenes because I have high hopes that they’ll make into the extended cut.
So, what are your thoughts and opinions of the third and final film in The Lord of the Rings trilogy?
The ending Morannon onwards. First time I ever cried like that in a movie theater. And I was actually trying to hold it back. I couldn’t. Some people complain that it was cut short, and others complain it was too long, and “ended” over and over again, but I think it was great.
The Pelennor Fields Whoa. Just…the entire way that Rohan finally came to kick Mordor-ass with Gondor. Theoden and his war speech are a big part of that.
Humor While supposed to be the ultimate trial of light to darkness, the movie has tons of funny points. I thought that Gimli’s “It only counts as one!” was pretty funny, as well as Pippin, the “silly hobbit”.
Denethor Like Solo, I thought that he was portrayed VERY well.
Baddies:
The Last “Debate” How it was cut short. Gandalf didn’t get to make everybody shut up and listen to him.
Gandalf Like Solo, I thought that him knocking Denethor over with the staff was excessive. Surely they didn’t hate each other THAT much…?
Frodo I know he is supposed to be weakening from the Ring, but even so, in the book, he was still capable of fighting back and doin’ his own thing. It felt more like Sam was carrying the Ring for the duration of the movie… 0.0
AND yes, Solo, the Mouth of Sauron should be included in the ext. DVD because he is in the game as well for just a few seconds of movie footage.
My take? It was good when they were fighting (MAN was it good when they were fighting).
Also, it…wouldn’t…END! God, the ending just seemed to drag on forever.
I felt that Gandalf was made into too much of a martial arts hero type character. He also had a lot of respect for the house of stewards as he talked about Denethor as being of “much greater lineage than Theoden”.
From what I’ve read, the Mouth of Sauron, the Voice of Saruman, and the bit where Frodo and Sam are forced into an Orc camp will be the extended version. I’m looking forward to seeing this complete version of the movie.
There was no way such an epic literacy classic could be condensed into anything less than 3 hours, and it also had to fit almost a quarter of the second book into it as well. To create the feeling of a lengthy quest that spanned almost a year, it was important that the story felt long. There is so much detail in Tolkien’s world that it wouldn’t be decent to try and cram the story into a shorter movie… in fact a lot of important scenes (such as concluding Saruman’s character) were cut as it is.
[quote=“Brandt”]My take? It was good when they were fighting (MAN was it good when they were fighting).
Also, it…wouldn’t…END! God, the ending just seemed to drag on forever.[/quote]
Although Peter Jackson’s movie versions of the Lord of the Rings were heavily leaned towards the action style of movie, the emotional sequences were extremely important too. The ending simply couldn’t have been shortened and still been able to produce the same emotional effect (IMO). However, a great deal of actual events near the end of the story weren’t included. Peter Jackson certainly succeeded in making a movie that the general action movie audience can appreciate, but we also have to remember that the Lord of the Rings is based on a book that was primarily not about action, but rather about character development and a fantasy world.
Maybe one day someone will accurately recreate the books for the big screen.
I’m hoping for a version of the original story where all the elves pay for the isolationistic cowardice by being completely wiped out. Oh wait, that happened in Warcraft 3; I guess someone doesn’t appreciate elven arrogance.
I know the books needed to be adapted to meet the criteria of today’s cinema, but wouldn’t fans prefer an accurate adaptation minus the cut characters, cut scenes and political correctness?
Sure, but it would never be a commerical success unfortunately. I’d love to see a true to the book version where Arwen’s character hadn’t be altered, we didn’t have these lines such as “He will try to take the ring” and Faramir didn’t basically wear out his fingerprints in an attempt to burn the location of Gondor into the auidences mind (see the map scene in TTT)! However, given that fact that these were three huge budget movies (filmed all at once too), they just wouldn’t have happened otherwise, at least not with the same amount of depth in the art, the costumes and overall scale.
Personally, I hope that one day some one will not make another movie trilogy, but a mini series. BBC, for example, have made some quality mini series’ in the past, and it would be the best way to fit everything in that was in the books. If another movie trilogy was made you’d still have the problem of cramming all the important details into about 3 hours.
I don’t see how the length of the Grey Havens scene made it not well done.
The elves should never have aided in the defense of Helm’s Deep as it was characteristic of a race of people who no longer wished to wage war. Tolkien’s elves, much like the elves in every other universe, refuse to deal with a threat unless it invades their homeland, which speaks for itself.
The books and the films really tell a different story IMO.
Well, the longness of the movie didn’t bother me quite that much. But lots of my friends were complaining about how there seemed to be several endings.
i.e. it seems to end after Aragorn is crowned, and then it seems to end when the hobbits are drinking in the Shire, and then it seems to end when the last ship sails off, and then it FINALLY ends after Sam comes home.
At least they fled the scene in the Return of the King.
The elves coming to Helm’s Deep was originally planned as a way to unite Aragorn and Arwen (Arwen was going to be involved in the battle as a Uruk-slaughtering warrior princess - thank God that plot device was removed). For some reason, even after Arwen’s character was changed, that scene where the elves join in the battle was left in. From what I gather, it was meant to act as a last hope for the people of Rohan and also show why Arwen (as an elf) was so valuable to Aragorn. However, when it comes to elves, Arwen is really an exception to the rule.
The books tell a story of courage, human heroism, and the smallest of people overcoming the impossible. The movies tell of a much more deadly ring that is irresistible to most, an evil that basically no human or hobbit could not be corrupted by it’s power, and only those with a noble bloodline could resist (the elves, Aragorn, Gandalf etc). The movies also tell of a battle that is unwinnable without the aid of ‘superior’ inhuman forces such as the dead and the elvish armies. I really enjoyed the movies, but storywise I’d agree that the books beat the movies hands down.
Not to mention the ‘suspense ending’ after the ring is destroyed and Frodo and Sam think it is only a matter of time before they are engulfed in the rivers of fire.
Well, despite being very much attached to the books (I only read them once but I annoyed my whole family by pointing out differences. heh heh), I thought the movies were extremely well done. Sure there were differences- sometimes significant ones, but I don’t believe you can necessarily keep things identical between books and movies- they’re two very different mediums, and movies just show certain things better and other things worse, and while you can compensate in one region or another, you can’t necessarily be perfectly balanced. While some people may say that explicitly they showed different things, I believe that implicit in the story rewrite and direction were the same sorts of themes- the way they handled the “action” sequences gave me a powerful, at times moving sense of the morality involved in it- the grim courage, the honor, and the transformation of the hero were all excellently represented according to the medium involved. Sure we get that sense of this power that is irresistable without the aid of “superiors”, but the stress seemed placed more upon the littler people and their individual struggles (and besides that, the help of superior forces is not entirely incompatible with christian morality that I would expect to be represented).
And sure they changed certain things to be politically correct and all that(tho the southrons and the people from the sea could be argued to be hardly so)- I’m not going to agree or disagree with them, but you can’t show things exactly same to different audiences. If you try nothing to reach out to people, you limit yourself completely to a niche and can almost be accused of being unfairly elitist. If you want the book, then that’s what you take. A movie like this is partially to recreate it for a different time and medium, imho. Ya know what I mean?
Personally, though, I have to agree with the whole Arwen thing. I thought throwing a petty love story in was really unnecessary and out of place.
