Slashdot Mirror
Nit-Pickers Guide to Deviations in Jackson's LotR
bcolflesh submits "A lengthy list of deviations to be found when comparing the text of The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien and the translation of those texts to film as undertaken by Peter Jackson, et.al."
That dude missed a few glaring deviations.
Fellowship of the Ring
75. In the book, Gandalf isn't the one saying "You shall not pass!", It's the Black Knight. King Arthur subsequently hacks off all of the Knight's arms and legs leaving a limbless knight protesting on the ground.
The Two Towers
107. In the book it isn't an army of Orcs that decimate the army of the good guys, it's a bunny with "a vicious streak a mile wide". Also, the magical fellow warning them in the book is an Enchanter named Tim, not a Wizard named Gandalf.
The Return of the King
77. In the movie, Gollum falls into the lava of Mt. Doom and dies. The book clearly states that John Cleese carries him to a cart while Gollum protests "I'm not dead!" Eric Idle then crushes his skull with a club then runs off to the Robinsons' as "they've lost nine today."
damn slacker..
Trolling is a art,
This is great work, but you could make this article much shorter in one easy step:
1) Peter Jackson's work is a movie, not a book.
Done.
I can't think of a perfect translation from book to movie or video game to movie etc. Give Jackson some credit, he came pretty damn close to perfection.
Worst translations ever is still mortal kombat2 and double dragon the movie. LOTR could have ended up that bad, thank god it didn't.
Is it good, or is it whack?
Here is another site which lists out the differences:
Linky
Links are at the bottom for differences in each of the three movies.
I suppose this was bound to happen but frankly, the movies are long enough already, if they added in all this other crap you'd need a damned diaper to make it thru 1 movie.
The films were excellent. They were the best I've ever seen combine live action, 2D compositing, 3D rendering and absolutely fantastic special effects. And the army scenes. Wow!
:-)
In fact I think the LotR trilogy adhered more to the books on which they're based than any other film I can care to mention, but not for a moment in the cinema did I think to myself "ah, they've left a bit out there". I was too caught up in the story, and that's what I go to the cinema for. I'm not a professional critic... (Grin: I'm just very critical
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
If you're wondering how he eats and breathes
and other science facts (la la la),
Then repeat to yourself, "It's just a show,
I should really just relax"
Who cares? Name me a movie that really does follow a text adaptation tried and true? It's nearly impossible because most great books are rarely good screenplays automatically.
This story has an amazingly low number of posts, given its topic and age. Then I realized: These geeks are actually reading it!
...the discrepancy between how many people watched the films vs how many people have made it to the end of his turgid books!
Gandalf first grabs Sam by the shoulders outside the window of Bag End and scolds him, then he carefully lifts him through the window (FOTR p.97-98). Jackson has Gandalf pull Sam quickly through the window and onto a table. Unnecessary and poorly handled. Why did Gandalf need to treat poor Sam so violently? It was also an obvious stuffed dummy prop.
I think because this is a movie, and we need to quickly show that this is a very serious matter that Gandalf is talking about. Plus it gives more punch to the '...and something about the end of the world.' line.
--
In London? Need a Physics Tutor?
American Weblog in London
for a pretty funny political photoshop ;-)
(if the page is slashdotted, it is president bush wearing the ring of doom)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Who would have thought? The book had to be adapted so it can be shot as a movie! I'm speechless.
There aren't any glaring omissions that won't end up in a special edition DVD, and none of the changes are worth whining about really. Peter did a pretty good job considering he managed to convince the studios to let him make not one, but three ~3 hour movies. That's a trick by itself, nevermind the amount of content he managed to cram into them.
Tom Bombadil is the one who suggests the Hobbits make for Bree. Jackson has Gandalf make this suggestion though, having left Bombadil out of the film entirely, this is somewhat understandable.
Erm, yes of course. Because a character has been completely removed from a theatrical adaptation of the book, then his absense in making a small suggestion elsewhere in the book is only somewhat understandable...
By the sounds of these, I feel they were on a mission to reach point number 1000 or somewhere near that. Pedants! Bah!
CAN I RTFA? ok thanks.
Contrary to what many people seems to believe, there are MANY far better works for you to read out there.
If I counted correctly, that's 257 deviations between all three parts.
Could this guy have, instead, spent the time starting his own software company or something? Certainly would be more productive than photoshopping The Ring on GW Bush's finger...
While I'm thinking about it, my car could use some detailing and all the mountain dew cans in my room could be taken back to the store. Think this guy will do it all for a copy of LotR:RotK extended DVD when it comes out?
:wq
..the books don't start with the words: "based on the book by J.R.R. Tolkien"
Lets face it the LOTR troligoy is possibly the best ever book to movie rendition. The differences are minimal and forgivable (with the exception of not having the hobbits fight for the shire when they return at the end of the book). I doubt anyone can suggest a book turned into movie that was successful and followed so closely to the book.
.. nitpickers
I mean, c'mon, there is at least dozen other things to do instead of movie forensics. _IT IS_ movie after all. If somebody wants to read the book, so be it, but please don't ruin the magic for those who didn't read it. IMHO, Jackson was quite good at compresing the story and I'm shure he read the book at least twice, but that should not restrain him to add some extra and remove some, right?
Sinisa
It's already running slow!
http://slushdot.org/mirror/lotr/
Why I am so addicted to stuff like this?
The Star-Wars blooper sites are great as well.
Recently a buddy of mine came over a pointed out all the errors on the Matrix Reloaded. I thought "what a loser" and now I'm looking at the same thing for LOTRs. Gesh.
I have never understood why we get so excited about these type of "errors."
Anyway... just another facet of my geekness.
AC
Here is a mirror without images
http://macwhore.net/lotr.html
Have you missed the entire last 30 years?
Do you ignore everything happened before you entered kindergarten?
KFG
All that and he didn't mention the ommission of my favorate minor character: Radagast the Brown.
I swear, the first one who calls him simple or a fool or a bird-tamer is getting a punch in the mouth. : )
--
In London? Need a Physics Tutor?
American Weblog in London
To everyone nit-picking at the nit-picker, given that the page is actually called "Nit-Pickers Guide...", I think one should expect the author of the page to actually nit-pick at the movies, rather than point out only the truly disturbing and fundamental changes.
] D
Lets see this guy make a list for Dune.
That should keep him busy for a few years.
I have to agree with the author of the article in wishing that Jackson has spent as much time and attention to detail on the story as he did on the visuals. Yes, yes, I know there had to be omissions and none of those bothered me -- it was the changes to the story that I found disappointing and completely unnecessary
The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
I would swear that #69 for the Return of the King is incorrect and that in the movie Frodo DID tell Bilbo that he had lost the ring after Bilbo inquired about it, and Bilbo says something like "I really would have liked to touch it one more time". Can someone please correct me if I am wrong.
A Bugg
was the "bourne identity". the movie was so identical to the book that you thought you were reading.
Here is another list of changes. We have had this one up for a couple years now. Some of it has not been updated in a while, but, it is rather complete.
Fantasy remains a human right; we make in our measure and in our derivative mode... -- JRR Tolkien
If you bitch about Arwen appearing too much in the trilogy, you must be a homosexual. Liv Tyler is quite possibly the most beautiful woman on the planet. I wouldn't have minded if she was the only character in all three movies.
I haven't read the books yet, you insensitive clod!
So why did Jackson make the changes? Just to prove that he was the man in charge?
And by the way, I have a hard time imagining that any woman or child of Rohan would have run screaming helplessly from a band of invading Orcs. Cried, sure. While picking up the closest sword/wooodaxe/sycthe and charging toward the orcs.
sPh
Jeez, how on earth did you compile such a long list of tiny details. Did you read along as you watched the movie?
--
In London? Need a Physics Tutor?
American Weblog in London
It's a movie. Let's see. It took me about one month to read all the books as a kid. By my thinking, if you made the books as they are into the separate movies, they would be much longer than the 3+ hour epics they are now. I expect there to be omissions. I pray for omissions!
Stranded.org
Is a dissection always necessary? The films aren't verbatim renditions of the books and I don't think there are too many people that would have wanted them so. I for one am glad that some things were dropped (eg, Tom Bombadil) and that other things were added.
Quite frankly, the LOTR trilogy is perhaps the best fantasy/sci-fi book to film adaptation of all time. I mean, you only have to look at how Hollywood managed to screw up Dune to see how bad it can get: nobody who hasn't already read the book has a chance of following what's going on and why because the film leaves out vital chunks of the storyline. (Yes, I know about the history behind the making of that film. Let's not go into that here please.)
In contrast, Peter Jackson's adaptation left out few things that anyone but a die-hard fan would call vital. Where he did cull the story was where it was needed if the story was to translate onto the silver screen successfully. And when he did cull, he culled gently.
Remember, the Extended Editions contain a lot of extra scenes and footage and flesh out the story further, but even then they aren't everything Tolkien wrote; if they had been then the films would have lasted five to six hours minimum, at which point they become more tour de force and less entertainment.
As I said, Jackson's trilogy is fantastic. Personally, I'd like to thank him for giving a literary classic the respectful treatment it deserves.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
They started this whole thing by setting the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey around Jupiter when it should have been Saturn as described in the book!
Celeborn was a tree-elf, not an Eldar. Hence, he should not have been allowed to travel into the West in the end.
Why bother?
1 - As has been posted, there are books, and there are movies. They aren't the same.
2 - You really don't want a faithful movie version of the book you love. I've read through The Hobbit and LotR books many times. Re-read them every couple of years, love them, think of them as old friends. Peter Jackson's movies were something new and something I, and many fans, enjoyed.
I'll contrast those movies with the Harry Potter movies, which are about as faithful an adaptation as could be made. And they are as boring and stiff as could be. 'Oh look...it's everything I've read in the book up on a big screen...just as I read it...yawn.'
I'd compare it to making a radio play or audio book version. You can be faithful to the original to the extreme, and end up with a recording of someone reading the book. Or you can do some adapting and interpreting for a new format an up with something that isn't 100% of the original, but brings something new, and hopefully entertaining, to the table.
1) inviting a girl to the book is usually a bad idea
2) the text version is recommended if you plan on wearing nothing but your boxers all day
3) if you've been at the bar all night, keep in mind that the books are significantly less enjoyable for illiterate people (temporary or not)
"Dubya ain't so dumb after all".
Picture at bottom of article refers. Check out the magnified bubble.
I appreciate the dedication and thought that went into the article but heck! It was worth looking just to see the pic!
My hyperlinks aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
Considering that Peter Jackson made such gems as this, I think that he deserves quite a lot of credit. Just imagine how bad he could have done the LOTR series.
One future, two choices. Oppose them or let them destroy us.
These also include the Extended Edition DVDs, and are in handy table format.
Fellowship of the Ring
The Two Towers
Return of the King
I just think it's fantastic that people like Tolkien are finally writing books based on movies these days. It really helps out people who leave a movie wanting more.
-Barkeep, a draft of your most hazardous brew, for the world is slowly stepping into focus, and I don't like what I see.
Peter Jackson did a great job considering what a huge undertaking it was, and it's a long way from his work on Meet the Feebles which was my first introduction to him at University of Cape Town Film Society.
You mean LoTR was based on a book or something?
I knew there was something that bugged me about these movies. Now I know!
"76. Bilbo rides to the Grey Havens on a pony (ROTK p.381). Jackson has Bilbo ride to the Grey Havens in a covered wagon."
Thanks Nit-Picker!!!
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." -- Ambrose Bierce
...That this movie was also created with the mainstream public in mind, who are not necessarily devoted fans of Tolkien. This gives allowance for changes and omissions/dramatic liberties taken; it has to appeal to the jaded masses as well as the rest of us.
1. Why was Sauron visible when he wore the ring in the opening sequence of the Fellowship of the Rings?
2. What is so great about the ring? Sauron wore the ring, and his hand was cut off. I think Sauron should have gotten a refund.
3. Bilbo loved the ring, and had a good time with it. It scared the beejezus out of Frodo when he wore it. Why the difference?
4. If anyone deserved the ring, it was Boromir: "By the blood of our people are your lands kept free." Naw, give it to the cute little hobbits. No way.
STeve
The Death Penalty: Killing people to show others that killing people is wrong.
Is that they left out the weirding modules.
Merry does not recognize Eowyn in armor until she confronts the Lord of the Nazgul (ROTK p.93,142). Jackson has Merry recognize her right away.
Well duh.
This is exactly the sort of scene that works well in a book but horribly in a movie. Different mediums require changes. I remember in the BBC audio-dramatization (my favorite incantation of the Lord of the Rings Story) they did that scene without Sam recognizing her and it just doesn't work. Even with the 'I'm speaking from inside a helmet' effect, it's clearly Eowyn.
--
In London? Need a Physics Tutor?
American Weblog in London
I actually liked some of the movie bits better than what was in the book.
In the TTT Special Edition, I liked the cut scene where Denethor sends Boromir to Rivendell to consult with Elrond. They also build up the relationship between Farmir and Boromir has brothers and the rocky relationship with their Father.
I also like how they used more of the Army of the Dead in Return of the King. I know this was a big change from the book, but it was well done. I always thought that the Army of the Dead was down played too much in the books.
One thing I've always wondered about, and wasn't mentioned in the nitpickers guide was Aragorn bearing a bow and using it expertly in FotR. Don't remember anything mentioned about Aragorn being skilled with the bow in the book. And we never see him with a bow again after FotR? Perhaps he left it in Emyn Muil so that the three hunters can travel light.
The White council drives Sauron from Dol Guldur at the epilogue of The Hobbit. That would have been before Frodo was born.
After the women left he was sulking in a corner and said something cruel and sexist about them. When I finally lost my patience and told him he reminded me of Denethor he stopped talking to me! Blessing in disguise, really.
Here's the executive summary:
1. Tolkien didn't actually have Aragorn saying "Let's hunt some orc!".
2. There are no "Dwarf throwing" jokes in the book.
3. There is no elfish shield-surfing in the book.
4. I don't think Tolkien even knew what a cherry tomato is.
I want the fire back.
There is no room to remake it.
Jackson's adaptation was brilliant. A literal book as script version would go over like anthrax. Yes, I understand he was a linguist, and that he wanted to return some of the gaelic mythos that was lost due to forced civilization by the romans, and conquest by the normen. But the OOooh the singing, the descriptions of many of the battles, and the I'm tired of writing about this I don't know how exactly I'm getting out of it, so we'll just abrubtly move on, and the other quirks....
FRODO: Wow that the most exciting thing ever. But it's night time, I must have my rest.
He sleeps, immediatly snoring obnoxiously.
Thematically The Lord of the Rings is beyond brilliant. The subtleness of the role of Providence.... The plot. So many things. And even his aims and his ability to meet them.
But it does have it's failings. It's not for everyone as is. Sorry, it's just not. But Peter Jackson's version, very true to the original even in form but especially in spirit. JRRT got his wish. That tradition and mythos he wanted to get back, to popularize for his people just came back and stomped every other story in one of the best years in storytelling in my memory. Contrary to what his knownothing, donothing son might think, I fail to see how he could be anything by pleased at his work's latest incarnation.
Encyclopedia of Arda: Movie Goer's Guides
Fellowship of the Ring
The Two Towers
Return of the King
Please don't mod another poster pretending he doesn't know about the books as funny. Thank you.
Well, why not? There's loads of LotR fans here, all with Linux boxes and Gimp, computer animation is spectacularly cheap, so let's have an Open Source Linux-like true-to-the-book LotR and show Jackson how it should REALLY be done!
Actually, I'm semi-serious. Loads of people have criticised Jackson, personally I reckon he's done a stunning job. So he's had to reinterpret bits of it. Well believe it or not LotR the book isn't 9 hours of movie material plus a load of fluff. So when you cut bits out you're (a) going to get a bunch of non-sequiturs or (b) going to have to adapt what's left, which means not having exactly what's in the book. Ok, or (c) film the lot, including the however many hours Council Of Elrond, which is almost as exciting as Leviticus.
So how about it then? Pull your thumbs out of your arses and do something about it rather than just sitting there whingeing. (Oh, and no American accents please. Tolkien makes it quite clear it's an *English* story.)
When writing a script you shalt:
- Keep the number of characters to a bare minumum.
- Think about how much it will cost to make a scene.
- Every scene must move the action forward or build up our knowledge of the characters.
- Every scene should be a logical consecuence of the previous ones.
- The end ideally will be inevitable and unforecasteable (W. Goldman)
So, book-like accuracy won't make for a good movie.
That fat guy needs a girlfriend.
"Be rest assured I was on the internet within minutes registering my displeasure."
77. In the movie, Gollum falls into the lava of Mt. Doom and dies. The book clearly states that John Cleese carries him to a cart while Gollum protests "I'm not dead!" Eric Idle then crushes his skull with a club then runs off to the Robinsons' as "they've lost nine today."
78. Theoden's last words were, "Tan my hide when I'm dead, Fred, tan my hide when I'm dead." And Merry later states, "So we tanned his hide when he died, Clyde, and that's it hangin' up on the shed."
Unbelievable omission...really ruined the movie for me.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I know who really wrote the list:
The Simpsons "Comic Book Guy"
The one that bothers me the most is how Gimli is turned into this goofy one dimensional comic reief character, instead of being, well..., Gimli!
Yes they're full of nice flash, fancy graphics, but they plot seemed to get forgotten :( Bring in the death penalty for script writers and directors who ruin classic books!
To whom it may concern:
Get a life.
LOTR is way overhyped. I nearly fell asleep during Two Towers.
The fantasy genre is itself highly boring. Every fantasy plot revolves around the Magical Doodad.
A witty saying proves you are wittier than the next guy.
they contradicted the basic plot lines in insulting - but more importantly - pointless ways. Consolidating the story is not what jackson is guilty of. It's needlessly contradicting all of the basic themes in Tolkien's work for no reason at all. It was a truly bad script considering what they had to work with. It was very very very hollywood. So much was done well, but the script was poor at best.
I was quickly glancing over the list and shaking my head in both amazement and sadness that someone would take the time to do this. Only when I scrolled back up and read the second paragraph did I realize how much this guy actually needs help:
:(
One major issue is pagination. The page numbers I'm using are from the Ballantine editions. Any Ballantine edition published between 1965 and 1990 should work. If you're using older or newer editions, you'll need to convert the page numbers. Check here for a good Houghton-Mifflin-to-Ballantine conversion table. Here is another site that may be of additional help. Anyway, the list:
He will never know what sex is like
This was a FAR easier read than that pendantic crap!
I can't believe I scrolled almost half-way down!
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
At the bottom of the page there is a picture of Dubya wearing the ring. How come he is visible?
It's the expanded love plot between Aragorn and his girlfriend that ruins the movie for me. Why can't these idiots in hollywood translate a good book to the screen without throwing it moronic and formulaic love plots?
The Positronic Man is probably the best example of a movie translation being spoiled by that.
Things like this always remind me of an SNL episode hosted by William Shatner in the 1980's. In one skit, he was speaking at a Star Trek convention and he's says to some poor bastard dressed as a Vulcan, "Hey, you with the ears...Have you ever kissed a girl?"
Anyone else notice how Pippin's hand are unbound in "The Two Towers" when the horse is about to trample him after the Orks are attacked by the Riders of Rohan. As Aragorn recounts what happened it showed Pippen about to be trampled with unbound hands and then a couple minutes later it shows him cutting his ropes.
Now that's nit picking.
What works in a book does not neccesarily work in a movie. Jackson had to flesh out all the characters on a much tighter schedule than a book affords. Most of the nit picks involve attributing dialogue to different characters in the films and after reading most of the list I can absolutely see where Jackson is coming from. Lines that are crucial to the plot are given to the character who would be the most developed and fleshed out by them rather than remaining faithful to the book. Apart from a purist standpoint I see no fault in this.
This article does a wonderful job of saying Jackson did this, Jackson did that, but Boyens and Walsh were also involved in writing the screenplay. Wasn't Philippa Boyens the primary writer of it?
We should be blaming her, or all three of them.
The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
NEEEEEEERRRRRRRRDS!!!!/homer
Boromir does not quake under the gaze of Galadriel (FOTR p.463-464). Jackson has Boromir looking distressed and turning away from the gaze of Galadriel.
What, so on film Boromir should have started visibly vibrating, maybe with his knees knocking together with a comical clattering sound, a la Scooby-Doo?
Or maybe Boromir was supposed to be rocket-jumping in the book. "54ur0n, u wa11h4ck f4g!!!"
You must think in Russian.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail does take the piss.
I think Monty Python is more "accurate" than the LOTR film trilogy.
(1) Arwen -- very minor and peripheral character in the book with, as the article mentions, only one line in the entire saga (not that I mind seeing Liv Tyler, but I found that whole subplot extremely contrived).
Except she has four paragraphs in the first book. DOh!! Is the basis of Aragorn's test with Galadriel, and the only thing that keeps him going. But yeah, aside from that she's as peripheral as Sauron.
(4) Sam -- was never sent away by Frodo, who never trusted Gollum but knew he may be of use.
In The Two Towers Sam wanted to tell Faramir to have his men just shoot Gollum and be done with it, and checked himself not out of any utility of Gollum but rather reverence for his Master. But that's not the only time Sam comes close to outright killing Gollum either.
There was enough of the "I don't know what the hell I'm doing, I wish Gandalf were here as in his abscense I find myself a poor substitue" to be considered angst.
Seriously, read the books, you might even like them.
"What would have been the problem with making the movies EXACTLY like the book. I'm talking word for word. Sure it would have been VERY VERY long, but just think of how much better it would have been." That is what I would hope that all Tolkien fans were thinking, as was I, but people say it was impossible. The answer is that it is a simple power issue. For the most part the changes, the changing of parts, and the adding of chracters is because people wanted to leave their mark. The head of WETA states that his favorite character is the Orc leader that was added to the movies. He simply like what he has created, as Aule did in in the books with the Dwarves. I would have loved to have an exact copy, but people would have complained about it being 12 hrs. per movie. That and those bastards at WETA had to leave their mark. (I hate the head of WETA and his STUPID ass voice.)
Talk about monocultures..
"But as the theme progressed, it came into the heart of Melkor to interweave matters of his own imagining that were not in accord with the theme of Iluvatar; for he sought therein to increase the power and the glory of the part assigned to himself."
"He now wove the new thoughts into his music, and straightway discord arose about him, and many that sang nigh him grew dispondent, and their thought was disturbed and their music faltered; but some began to attune their music to his rather than to the thought which they had first."
-- J.R.R Tolkien, The Silmarillion
I honestly do not undestand the apolegtic attitude for Peter Jackson expressed here on Slashdot. Especially I do not understand the claim that all the changes Jackson made were neccessary for the film to be succesful. In fact I say that most of the changes were not needed: Peter Jackson just had to make the story "more American" and "more dramatic" by changing the delicate web of characters, events and themes created by J.R.R. Tolkien. It appears that Jackson thought that he could create a better LotR than Tolkien by introducing exaggerated battle scenes and gut-wrenching folk psychology -- the problem is Jackson's overgrown ego, not the structure of the book.
It is obvious that the book needed to be edited into a script, and that is OK to me. That editing, however, should have taken place by cutting away some scenes and spoken lines from the book. To corrupt the basic ideas and themes of an original work can not be forgiven. Peter Jackson made (especially in TTT) compeletely inexplicable choices, and for instance perverted Theoden's character from a great warrior king to a mindless follower of others.
Tolkien himself commented an early non-filmed script (1958) by Zimmerman in his letter to Forrest J. Ackerman. Some of his comments are very thought-provoking, and seem to be directed straight to Peter Jackson. I urge everyone to read the letter and see what Tolkien really thought about movies based on his books.
- Ismo
The Princess Bride
After hearing back-and-forth about the numbers involving the million man march, finding out that there is currently no scientific method for crowd estimation, I told him he has no basis for judging how many humanoids were in any army, and his untrained eye is probably way off.
Can anyone shed light on this conversation?
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
but funny. Don't remember where I grabbed this list, but here's 12 Things Not To Say Watching ROTK in the theatre:
1. Stand up halfway through the movie and yell loudly, "Wait...where the hell is Harry Potter?"
2. Block the entrance to the theater while screaming, "YOU.....SHALL....NOT..... PASS!" - After the movie, say "Lucas could have done it better."
3. Play a drinking game where you have to take a sip every time someone says, "the Ring."
4. Point and laugh whenever someone dies.
5. Ask everyone around you if they think Gandalf went to Hogwarts.
6. Finish off every one of Elrond's lines with "Mis..ter Ander-sonnn."
7. When Aragorn is crowned king, stand up and at the top of your lungs sing, "And I did it.... MY way...!"
8. Talk like Gollum all through the movie. At the end, bite off someone's finger and fall down the stairs.
9. Dress up as old ladies and reenact "The Battle of Helms Deep," Monty Python style.
10. When Denethor lights the fire, shout "Barbecue!"
11. In TTT when the Ents decide to march to war, stand up and shout, "RUN FOREST, RUN!"
12. Every time someone kills an Orc, yell: "That's what I'm Tolkien about!" See how long it takes before you get kicked out of the theatre.
13. During a wide shot of a battle, inquire, "Where's Waldo?"
14. Talk loudly about how you heard that there is a single frame of a nude Elf hidden somewhere in the movie.
15. Start an Orc sing-a-long.
16. Come to the premiere dressed as Frankenfurter and wander around looking terribly confused.
17 When they go in the paths of the dead, wait for a tense moment and shout, "I see dead people!"
18. Imitate what you think a conversation between Gollum, Dobby and Yoda would be like.
19. Release a jar of daddy-long-legs into the theater during the Shelob scene.
20. Wonder out loud if Aragorn is going to run for governor of California.
21. When Shelob comes on, exclaim, "Man!Charlotte's really let herself go!"
TLoTR did come out as bad as Double Dragon and Mortal Kombat 2. Back when Ralph Bakshi did it. Anyone who thinks Peter Jackson's treatment is not up to snuff needs to watch Bakshi's horrendious pile of hyena offal.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Its all over. Shut down /. after years of silence, the biggest geek in all of Middle Earth has made himself known!
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!
Jackson stated that he built up [Arwen's] role to make the movies more appealing to female movie-goers. I truly doubt that this had much impact--especially compared to the impact of having Orlando Bloom running around in tights or having Viggo Mortensen up on the big screen.
This guy apparently does not have a girlfriend. Arwen herself is not what makes the story attractive to women, it's the love story of her and Aragorn. Jackson had to beef up her role in order to sell the love story aspect, and the love story is a big deal to women.
You see, unlike the author of this list, I have actually had sex with women before.
ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
that there are people on Earth with waaaaay too much free time...
I never understood the desire for a movie and a book to be identical. I mean honestly: you already have the god damned book--why would you want the exact plot _again_! Add to that the fact that a) imagination factors in entirely differently, and b) a text is read at an entirely different pace and duration then a film is enjoyed, meaning that the dramatic flow cannot be a direct mapping from one to the other.
I would really much rather have something new to watch (intentional repetition). Kurosawa's Ran for instance--I derive great pleasure from and associate much of the intelligence of the work precisely with the alteration he made when deriving from the original Shakespeare.
If we stop being pedantic Tolkien-readers for a while and consider Jackson's omissions, changes and additions as such, has anyone found anything positive about these changes? Has anyone liked the scenes Jackson added to the story? Which of these scenes would you definitely want to see removed from the extended DVD version?
The aim of science is not to open the door to infinite wisdom, but to set a limit to infinite error.
-Bertolt Brecht
Nit-Pickers Guide to Deviations in Jackson's LotR
Better known as "NPG2DIJLOTR".
Here's another deviation. Not related to the books... but, after Peter Jackson recieved the Golden Globe award, he noticed that New Zealand is absent from the 'globe' trophy.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
And somehow, this guy isn't bitter about never getting laid?
http://www.exile.ru/182/182061202.html
The charges: treason and sabotage. Jackson's three Lord of the Rings films are designed to sabotage all the most noble and unworldly elements of Tolkien's story, depriving poor Middle Earth disciples of their last dream refuge. Jackson's motive for this odious crime is in part simple lust for fame and money. He may not have set out to destroy Tolkien fans' capacity for faith in the trilogy; the poisoning of their mental Middle Earths may be, let's say, "collateral damage" in Jackson's campaign to make a version of LOTR which, by reversing the charge of Tolkien's books, would reassure and flatter "real-world" people, the ones who read the Financial section and like sports--in the process creating a sort of cinematic deprogramming for the faithful, an anti-LOTR. Or was it malice?
In episode 2F09, when Itchy plays Scratchy's skeleton like a xylophone, he strikes the same rib in succession, yet he produces two clearly different tones. I mean, what are we to believe, that this is a magic xylophone, or something? Ha ha, boy, I really hope somebody got fired for that blunder.
$_='while(read+STDIN,$_,2048){$a=29;$b=73;$c=142;
From the article:
"Building up (and distorting) Arwen's role was one of Jackson's Three Major Mistakes, in my opinion."
"I truly think that the beefing up of Arwen's role was the major mistake of Jackson's adaptation. Omission of the Scouring of the Shire is a close second."
Are there two "major mistakes", or was it three? And if so, what's the third one? Could this be a major mistake with the article's enumeration of major mistakes?
# 73: The Gaffer lives in 3 Bagshot Row (ROTK p.373). Jackson has Sam live in 3 Bagshot Row with Rosie
I think this nut missed a scene where Sam's third cousin had a hangnail on his LEFT pinky instead of his RIGHT pinky.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
For me, I was only bothered in the first movie by what I would term 64.1: the scene when Frodo offers the Ring to Galadriel.
In the book, Galadriel remains in full control of herself and deliberately shows herself to Frodo as a terrible and powerful queen to illustrate what the Ring would make her into. In the movie, by contrast, it seems as if she is half-swept away by the temptation of the Ring, as she turns into some kind of bogey-monster.
The movie just made her seem a touch too out of control, and it violated her character, for me, as being one of the wisest and fairest of elves.
Other than that, I absolutely loved the first movie and think it the best of the three.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
It's called a "McGuffin". Every movie and movie genre has them. Fantasy movies have the Magical Artifact, science fiction movies have the Doomsday Weapon or the Reactor or the Big Secret, romance movies have the Unspoken Love, etc....
It's not what McGiuffin a genre uses, it's how well the author/director uses that McGuffin that is important.
The problem with moden fantasy is not that they all have the Magic Artifact, is that they are all piss-poor dirivatives of TLoTR. They all shamelessly steal from Tolkein's work without understanding what makes it good.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Sadly, I've never read any of Tolkien's books, so I can't really say anything insightful about this article. But I can share my experiences with the Nitpicker's guide to Star Trek the Next Generation. Though some of the nitpicks were quite valid, there were also a few that really bothered me. For eaxmple, the author of the book didn't like the idea that a sub-warp Shuttle would be sent from the Enterprise on a 6-hour cruise to a planet. He went on and on, even doing the math of how quickly the Enterprise could get there at warp speed. For all of the observation skills this guy had, he just never noticed that they avoid going to warp within a solar system. So why expend the fuel to send a humungous ship when you can expend just the bare minimum via shuttle?
So I haveta ask, are some of the nitpicks on this site (or others...) kind of in that vicinity? The nitpicker just didn't get it? I guess you all have a good idea why I'm not a big fan of reading nitpicks. I'm curious if any of you have similar stories to share about nitpicking the nitpickers.
"Derp de derp."
What if I do a screenplay about Linus and the birth of Linux and I cast Linus as a classic nerd, perhaps played by the guy in Jurassic Part (you know, "Newman"). Then I incude choice quotes like "We must ship Linux by tomorrow."
/. crowd would howl!
Maybe I throw in some Darl and how Linux never liked him, since, oh I don't know they went to college together and liked the same computer geek girl (Sandra Bullock) so Linux plans all along to get him good with this Open Source stuff.
Oh man, the
But, it's just a movie... sheesh, get a life.
I have no idea what sort of tune to put to them when singing them in my head, if Jackson had left them in and translated the books to a Musical rather than a fantasy/actioner I wouldn't have this problem.
He talks about how in the movie Sarumon gives Gandalf grief about his smoking the halfling leaf, but in the books he himself smokes it. These are BOTH true statements. I've been reading the unfinished tales and some of the history stuff so I'm not sure it's not in those instead of the original cannon. BUT Saruman starts out giving Gandalf grief about the halfling leaf and continues to do so even after he himself has started using it.
Surprised that somebody so obviously anal about the books would miss something like this in the extras.
CharlesP
wordtrip.com
Not the Scouring, but the grim justice.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Look, they even took liberties with the story when they made "The Ten Commandments" and no one complained about that. If you can get away with not following the Bible exactly, I think we can forgive a few liberties with LOTR.
Of course, Christians and Jews aren't nearly as fanatical as some of Tolkien's fans.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
I R some more of TFA
"Jackson, in my opinion, commits another Major Mistake in his handling of the Faramir storyline."
So the article writer's big three complaints are too much Arwen, no scouring of the Shire, and the Faramir storyline. In all I'd say Jackson did pretty well if that's the worst anyone can come up with.
There are three entire DVDs of nothing but commentary and interviews. Pretty much every major departure from the book is drawn out, discussed, and explained.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
I think LOTR would make an excellent anime series as long as it was not produced by someone too caught up in the politics of the current world.
The whole point of having the Faramir/Boromir combo in the book was to contrast them - one brother who tries to steal the ring (and pays for it), and the other who has an opportunity to take the ring and purposely does not.
The way Jackson did it, this contrast is completely lost. Boromir tries to steal the ring, and Faramir probably would have if it wasn't drawing Nazgul to him. As it is in the movie, there is little difference between Boromir and Faramir except that Daddy doesn't like one of them (and even that only came out in the extended edition, I believe).
It's easy to dismiss this list of changes as entirely justifiable for the switch of medium from book to film.
And that'd be wrong.
It's equally easy to say the films couldn't have been any better because there haven't been better translations from book to film, and therefore the films are great and above criticism.
And that'd be wrong too. Other translations have little to do with it, other than to show that the problems of translating a book to film have been frequently shown before and anyone attempting it really should take the lessons into account. When you have a hugely popular book, it's usually popular for a reason - so sure, you have to make changes to adapt to the movie format (and make it less than 20 hours long) but you keep the impact of those changes to a minimum, especially when it comes to changing the characters.
The films could have been better. Ignore the books for the moment - consider just the films. There was plenty of it that was contrived, hugely cliched, or just plain didn't make any sense. Characters behaved inconsistently. It breaks the suspension of belief and draws you out of the film. That's a bad thing. It wasn't well done, and could easily have been done better.
Especially when you do take the book into account and realise that the vast majority of those failings were on account of pointless changes - changes that appear to be nothing to do with the switch of medium, adding nothing as they do, but far more to do with changes for changes sake. Possibly changes in a 'Hey, look at me, I'm a creative scriptwriter, not just an adaptor of books, I am soooo smart' sort of way.
To summarise: Peter Jackson et al., are not great scriptwriters. J.R.R. Tolkien was a great author. Put them together and you'd expect a quite good but nowhere near great script. And that's exactly what we got.
I mentioned this over here. There are at least two versions of RotK running in theatres.
It's not that particular change that bothers me, it's the idea that there could be other variations as well, and that we're missing out on good stuff. :-) I assume the variations are to try and track where the pirated versions come from.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
The omissions -- Crickhollow/the Old Forest/Bombadil/the Barrow Wights, much of the Council, whichever bits of Faramir's/Eowyn's/Saruman's stories don't appear in ROTK EE, the return journey and the Scouring of the Shire -- I find easier to handle, though they're all unfortunate to some degree.
But for me the single most enduring irritations are the occasional bits of stupid dialogue. You know, the crass, cringeworthy substitution of Tolkien's masterful language with dumbed-down inanities of the "Let's hunt some orc!" <wince> variety. The dwarf-tossing references, and "Nobody likes you!" pulp fare. There are only a handful of these, but they spoil a disproportionate amount of the movie...
(That said, almost everything in the movies is closer to the spirit of the book than we had any right to hope, and any expectation of putting onto film. They're a magnificent achievement, if an imperfect one.)
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
If these nit-pickers don't like how LOTR came out on screen, they can always raise the funds to film a fresh movie doing everything exactly as Tolkien wrote it. It'll only cost them... around $400 million dollars US (as reported here
Seriously, Some of this stuff is extremely nit picky, Don't you guys have anything better to do?
I hate it when people try to pick apart a movie and think it is suppose to be the same. Movies are a compleatly different medium and there is no realistic way everything can remain the same. We all know that LOTR was a pretty long movie. Adding in all those *small* differences in the film may not seem like a lot, but after awhile they all add up, and we would be looking at another hour or so.
The purpose of the edit is to make the movie follow more closely to the original books. "It's amazing the work the editor has done by selectively removing scenes and rearranging them - without messing up the sound synchronisation. Now there are no longer any elves in Helm's Deep, Faramir is a good guy again, and the ents aren't idiots anymore." (tangent3)
Major changes (out of about 30 changes totally):
Ents don't refuse to attack Isengard
Elves do not come to Helm's Deep
Gimli is no longer a dwarf clown
Faramir does not decide to take the Ring to Gondor as a "mighty gift"
Frodo does not attempt to give the Ring to Nazgul
Arwen stays in Middle-Earth
Aragorn doesn't fall from a cliff
e rs-The_ Purist_Edit.avi|729462784|ec0671172619e490d7b0ea6b 5278468c|/
E dit-Traile r.avi|14997504|965c013e991ee246d63d45ea71954c4d|/
Here's the ed2k link:
ed2k://|file|Lord_of_the_Rings-The_Two_Tow
Here is the trailer:
ed2k://|file|The_Two_Towers-The_Purist_
Alternatively, get the trailer from here.
More information in the ShareReactor forum.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Is, as I have said before, less a director and more like a creature from Mirkwood.
The man's a B-movie director and his use of slow motion, adding "tension," and other changes he made all fit in line with the idea that he's stuck in that way of making films. While I am saddened by the changes he made, I'm suprised the films came out in a watchable form at all, considering Jackson's resume.
Personally, I think the film would have been much better made by a younger director and a largerly unknown cast (why did Liv Tyler have to be Arwen? Agent Smith was the worst conciveable Elrond ever! Only Gandalf and Saruman were truly great).
"There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter," Jeeves, (Jeeves and the Impending Doom)
Huh? Am I the only one who missed the part in the books where the Quidditch "field" is a bog, and the "stands" are 100 foot towers? Its kind of funny, the game which was developed in parallel (I assume) has Quidditch looking consistent with the descriptions in the book. Not that WWF vertical towers of doom crap.
I had the good fortune to attend a lecture at Local University by Professor Tom Shippey, author of The Road to Middle Earth and Tolkien: Author of the Century. He currently sits in St. Louis, but in times past he held the same chair as Tolkien did academically. The topic of the lecture was exclusively directed at what Tolkien might have thought of Jackson's work. Shippey served an advisory role during the making of the RotK film.
Shippey's treatment was incisive, particular, thoughtful, and thoroughly illuminating. He mentioned a couple of specific points that Tolkien, in his estimation, would have focussed on to judge the quality.
First, Tolkien would have disliked habitual carelessness. Mispellings in the script, etc. Not a big deal in the movie, but there you have it.
Second, Tolkien would have been most concerned with what Shippey called "failing to adhere to the narrative core of the original." He noted that there was a great expansion of Aragorn et al's adventures after the Fellowship split up, but that on the whole the story remained faithful to the core of Frodo, Sam and Gollum's journey.
Third, it was noted that Tolkien had no objection to abridgement, as he understood to some extent the limitations of the different medium of film. Some things work on film, some don't -- internal monologue is one example I can think of. In a book, you can have a lot of it. In a film, you have to do it right, or drop it completely and express the core another way.
In relation #3, Tolkien objected to *compression* -- crushing thousands of years of history into a single chunk, whipping through it for only the sake of mentioning it, and moving on without it having impact. In this case, Shippey thought (and reflecting on it, I agree) that having the ring's history explained at the very start was a really smart move for the films.
This is not to say that Shippey wasn't confused at some of Jackson's inclusions. Legolas skateboarding and the multiple dwarf-tossing jokes were eyebrow raisers for a lot of people, I think. The weird death/ressurrection of Aragorn in TTT was described as a "narrative zag" in that it had no effect on the plot or character. You make a good point on theme, but depending on what you consider to be the vital them of the trilogy... well. Shippey said that one theme that didn't make it was the role of providence. I'd like to go more into that, but this is getting long and I need to wrap it up.
Shippey mentioned Tolkien's observations on the scripts for the animated films. I didn't know he had lived long enough to see them, so that's a new one on me. Something to keep in mind though is that even the medium of film has changed dramatically over the past 30 years. It's hard to take the critique of three-generations-back and apply it to what Jackson did. The scales are just too disperate.
In the end, I think Shippey's opinion was favorable overall.
Finally -- I appreciate the Silmarillion quote. But you should remember yourself that no artist creates in a vaccuum. Tolkien claimed, twisted, adjusted, and applied numerous myths and themes from stories past in order to create LotR. I find LotR to be a more engaging read than, say, Beowulf or the Viking Sagas, so I guess you can count me as one of those detracting voices in the song. I guess it depends on which song you sing first.
The author's disdain for Peter Jackson's adaptation comes through too clearly for me to read the text in its entirety. It's just an enumerated list of more than 250 holier-than-Peter-Jackson complaints. And I understand that the function of a nitpicker's guide is to point out the tiniest deviance or flaw. But I would also contend that the purpose is not necessarily to be unceasingly nasty about doing so.
First of all big budget movies are made for the masses. Audiences will not sit through hours and hours of a movie that has so many different characters that it becomes confusing to watch. Think about it like this, if the movie was exactly what was in the book and the book didnt exist...First you wouldnt be able to sit through it and it would hard to follow all those characters at once. First rule of screenwriting is keep the main characters on screen as much as possible cause they are what the audience reacts to. Having a bunch of little characters who do one or two things not only takes away from the flow of the film, but its also disturbing to the audience who wonders what happened to the other characters. Look at how many complaints from regular movie goers on the length of Return of The king, which we didnt hear as much with the other films. The trick of these films was to make the LOTR hardcore fans and the average joes have a good and fun movie experience and for a film that for years was called "unfilmable" I think it succeeded.
Trix are for kids!
The Postman. The movie took the setting and the first chapter of the book and wrote a completely different movie based on that.
But I understand why Jackson gave Arwen such an expanded role, and I think it was justified. I adore Tolkein as much as the next nerd, but he really had a blind spot for female characters. You could count the number of significant female characters in The Hobbit and The Rings combined on the fingers of one hand. As the article writer himself points out, Arwen only had one line in the books. And the women weren't exactly well-rounded I-can-identify-with-her characters. They were mostly just archetypes. (Yeah, a lot of the men were too, but the key (male) protagonists had some depth to them.)
I'll grant you that getting to see Orlando and Viggo strut about gives the films some female appeal. (They were certainly a treat to these guy-loving eyes.) But having another substantial woman character acting among the men makes it seem less like Middle Earth is a world where not only the dwarves' women look like men, but the other races' as well.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Pretty big whinge there, but i was also disapointed in a few glaring errors i noticed. i admit i didnt notice *THAT* many, more like i only noticed about 20 or so, this was like three hundred.
Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know when your gonna get food poisoning.
The biggest plot deviation, and disappointment of ROTK to my mind is the treatment of Denethor. In the book he is a noble lord of ancient linage, who knows full well the history of the ring, and in his pride thinks he is equal to the task of matching wills with the dark lord. And it is his inability to put aside his pride (like Farimir and Borimir is the end) that dooms him.
In the movie he just seems like a mean old fool. And what where the city guard doing when Gandalf conked Denethor on the head? All looking the other way? Obviously their opinion of their lord wasn't that much higher than Jackson's.
I forgave the many changes of the first two movies (made particularly better by the extended editions), some where necessary to adapt the book to a movie, a few even enhanced the story to some degree (as far as a movie going audience was concerned). But the third movie just really bugged me every time I watched it. I am hoping it can be redeemed by the extended edition, but I expect it wont.
Why do you people bother nitpicking the movie? Hello, its not the book.
Why do you other people complain about the nitpickers?
Hello, nitpicking this movie is pointless, but nitpicking people's choice in slashdot comments isn't?
Why do people like me complain about the complainers?
It's all so depressing. A brain the size of a planet, and all I ever get to do is post on slashdot.
[please dont mod me down flaimbait or whatever if you don't get that reference. its really funny. really. kinda.]
I can understand that this fanboy is upset about how the movie is different from the book, but for the love of god, grow up!
Anyone who critiques a movie based on a book this way clearly has such limited experience with reading that it's plainly obvious they're either not yet out of high school, or the genre* they read is so obscure that noone cares enough to bother writing movies in it.
So what if Tom Bombadill isn't in the movie? So what if some of the lines aren't quite the same? This movie actually took lines directly from the book. He should be glad that it's this accurate! Most of the time when you have a movie adaptation, there should be a line in the credits that says "loosely based on the book". Very loosely. As in, "There's a character we took from the book and a couple plot elements."
LotR is a movie made by fans, for fans. The credits even give kudos to every member of the fan club for god's sake.
* intentionally not plural.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
This the main thing wrong with these movies. True, for the most part the events that take place in the films are the same as in the books, but in the books there were long periods where things slowed down. This made the more dramatic events seem important and interesting when they happened. In the movie, all of those pauses are cut; it's just one action scene after another. None of the more fantastic events seem quite as exciting as they did in the books.
This is somewhat forgivable, as I can't see how it could have been done otherwise. But I think it gives all the more reason why extra actions scenes like Aragorn's lame assed fake-death in the second movie were a bad idea. As has been pointed out by others, yet another fake death just made everybody groan; there were enough in the book as it was, but at least you had time to forget about the last one before a new one happened.
Also far too much choir music and over-emotional slow motion. Fantasy has enough trouble being taken seriously without this cheese.
Now we can all get some sleep.
public final transient String president = DUBYA;
I saw it twice, and I'm fairly certain that Gollum wasn't pushed. He was dancing about with glee at recovering "his precious" just as in the book.
I agree with you completely about Denethor. Its really the only grievance I have left about the movies. Every other complaint I had (and I was seriously unhappy with the Two Towers theatrical version) has been mollified by the extended versions. In the extended editions, deviations like Aragorn's fall, and Faramir's Osgiliath make much more sense and flow better. In nearly every case I found that, while the movies departed from the narrative of the book, the purpose was usually to reveal some facet of the characters that was true to the book, such as Aragorn's facility with animals, or Faramir's conflicted sense of duty.
I'm quite confident that Denethor's character will be much more developed in the Extended RotK.
I suppose this was bound to happen but frankly, the movies are long enough already, if they added in all this other crap you'd need a damned diaper to make it thru 1 movie.
I would have loved to see LoTR done as a series. From the first movie, The Fellowship of The Ring, I found the films to be incredibly fast paced as they raced through the events in the books. Jackson did an amazingly good job on the films, but it's impossible to do the books justice even with 3 long films. You miss out a lot of the smaller moments of interplay between characters that make the books special. There are so so many events in the books that you could easily break the story up into maybe 20 or 30 hour long shows. How cool would that be!. Although I understand that the idea might not be as commercially viable as making films.
Whereas Tolkein's is an eyewitness account of events, Peter Jackson's is more research-based. Like any historical event, it varies in the retelling by different people.
I watched only RotK, and my main complaint is that it could easily have been trimmed to 2 hours without any significant sacrifice. As it was, it reminded me of why, in the late 60's, I liked Bored of the Rings so much more than the original.
For them, Beowulf, Arthur and Cuchulain didn't match up to the fables of Odin and Thor and all the rest.
If you look at his work in this light, it is perfectly acceptible for someone else to take the underlying themes and tell them in their own way. Just look at the proliferation of works on Gawain, The Green Knight, Arthur, Merlin and so on that have proliferated over the years. Especially from the 10th to 12th century, where the underlying stories were moulded into new myths about the Knights Templar.
If his works *are* to be seen as myth (albeit invented) it is only to be expected that others will reinterpret these stories in a different way.
All that said, I found the Jackson films to be a marvellous telling of the themes in the books, though (understandibly, for length) you need the extended editions to get his full version of the telling.
As many other have repeatedly said, books and film are two very different media. Whilst I haven't heard it, I'm told the BBC radio version of LOTR is also brilliant. I for one am joyous to know that there are many different types of media that tell the same myths in such a brilliant way.
S
I liked the movie, but one thing bugged the crap out of me. In the book, the temptation of the ring to humans plays a major role. The ring is the ultimate test of character, and to be able to resist it shows the humans are ready to live without the elves. Aragorn, Faramir, and Boromir all face the temptation of the ring. Boromir falls for it, but redeems himself in the end.
The quiver that Legolas is wearing, is it a magic one that somehow produces arrows?
He seems to have an unlimited supply of arrows.
Do you ignore everything happened before you entered kindergarten?
"ignore everything happened"?
kindergarTen?
Have you ignored everything since???
In the original, Han shoots first!
Cheers,
IT
Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
People might find this criticism of the Middle Earth corpus interesting . It's obviously a white male conspiracy which hid the important roles of Eowyn and Arwen.
In a mod system like that, I would certainly assign deeply negative wisdom to the butchering of Faramir and Denethor's characters, the miraculous appearance of the elves at Helm's Deep, and Frodo showing the ring to the ring wraith at Osgiliath (when the whole point was that the location, owner and direction of movement of the ring were supposed to be secret).
The guy is just being anal, has far too much time on his hands, and needs to get a life. No-one asked his opinions before making these movies, and no-one that matters really cares what he thinks afterwards.
"And thou, Melkor, wilt discover all the secret thoughts of thy mind, and wilt perceive that they are but a part of the whole and tributary to its glory."
-- J.R.R Tolkien, The Silmarillion
I have trouble understanding the attitude of Tolkien fans who seem unhappy with Jackson's work. Do you really imagine that a more faithful adaptation could be realized? I don't.
Understand that it is the extended editions which are the true versions for the Tolkien fan. The theatrical versions are far too choppy. But I simply cannot relate to any so-called Tolkien fan who does not appreciate the enormity of the task of bringing these books to life, and how it was done with such artistry, care and respect for the original work. Watch the extended commentary, and you may understand that some deviations, while you may not like them, were intended to further convey the themes of the books.
Perhaps because I have read (and reread) so much of the underlying Middle-Earth material published posthumously by Tolkien's son, I have come to view the stories of Middle-Earth as dynamic, evolving over time like an oral tradition. Tolkien described them in this way also. Thus this latest evolution is perhaps less shocking than reading Tolkien's earlier stories, with Sauron as a giant cat, or later King of Werewolves. It is clear to me that some of this earlier material is drawn on in the movie, as for example the romance of Arwen and Aragorn has taken on much of the flavor of the tale of Beren and Luthien.
The key thing is that the movies are true to the themes of the books, and capture the many-layered complexity of Tolkien's masterpiece. Changes to the narrative are forgiveable, and doubly so when you understand that they are intended to convey facets of the characters which the reader fully recognizes.
kindergarTen?
The answer to my question would appear to be yes, since you do not know how to spell this word, thus don't know how to pronounce it either, and cannot simply deduce that the word is German.
A broader temporal outlook might have saved you from this error.
Have you ignored everything since???
The answer to your question is "No." See above.
I win.
KFG
I thought Tolkien's story was fine the way it was, with Denethor hiding in secret his torture by Sauron through the hidden Palantir. And his tragic end.
Jackson completely trashed Denethor, for no apparent reason. The third book got the weirdest makeover, with Gollum spilling crumbs on Sam, etc., for no apparent gain whatsoever. The crumbs scene was dumb, and Denethor was more unsavory than Grima.
The third movie, special effects nonwithstanding, is definitely my least favorite.
Kindergarten is the accepted spelling. The word comes from a german compound word, and garten is how you spell garden in german. Your other nitpick was correct, though.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
I wondered why she had the elongated nose and the huge lips. They feel good on my cock, though.
any decent fan would have the The Hobbit along with LotR (4 books)
Really devoted fans also read the Silmarillion.
Droll means "interesting", not "dull" nor "dreary", and definitely not "half-witted". Look it up in a dictionary.
a) a movie director
b) very, very rich (now)
c) the proud leader of a project that has got a buttload of accademy awards, and has just been nominated for a buttload more
and c) able to hang out with people like liv tyler
whilst you are... a) someone posting on slashdot
Face it, for better or worse, for bastardisation and plot change, messr jackson has not only got a whole new generation interested in the works of tolkien but has also done what was though impossible, made films of the lord of the rings trilogy.
I am NaN
The next time my wife dares to tell me "You have too much free time on your hands," I will show her this guy's site.
She will never be able to use that line again, for it will have lost all meaning.
any more pedantic.... ?
this is not a flawless plan.. this is inspiration
...a little too much time on their hands.
I am NaN
The silly thing about a list like this is that it's just pointing out the inevitable. When a story goes from one medium to another, from words to action, you have to abbreviate things and get certain points across about characters in a different way. In the book, it's clear that Gandalf is powerful and not to be triffled with and we know this because Tolkien has page after page to get that point across. In the film, where action is key not words, it must be demonstrated and in a way that doesn't seem too pedantic. So, Gandalf reaching through the window and pulling Sam through violently demonstrates that he's far more powerful than he looks. In a sense, doing it that way remains more faithful to what Tolkien wrote than slavishly adhering to each and every detail.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
...Oops! I Crapped My Pants.
This guy must have a ring up his ass. I agree the major deviations in the TTR and RTK movies didn't add much (and in some cases sucked), but in general, looking through his list of complaints about Fellowship, I find myself disagreeing with him about almost -every- single change Jackson made, except these four, which could easily have been left in to strengthen the story:
;-)
17) Frodo doesn't try to stab the Nazgul at Weathertop
24) Bilbo's not at the Council
32) Saruman wants to join Mordor (is slave to Sauron, not trying to be independant)
70) Boromir's betrayal on Amon-Hen is portrayed as a fairly obvious and aggressive attack
Besides that, Jackson did *good*. But wait for my re-edit once I've got all the extended footage together heh-heh
Another book v. movie debate.
Why is the book SOOOOO much better all the time. A better way to look at it is this. Imagine 2 people reading a book(or books)in question. After reading it, the 2 people are asked to tell the story as best they can to another group of people. Now imagine 1 person tells the story by himself making various gestures , facial expressions, movements, etc. meanwhile the other person uses props and other people to portray the story as he tells the story along side them.
The fact is the first person mentioned above is someone who feels they can act out(imagine in their own minds) the events unfolding in the book better than ANYONE else and without anyone else's opinion. The second person is someone who realizes they can't portray every part read by themselves to it's maximum potential and thus utilizes other actors and props to give an audience a better chance to imagine the story for themselves.
Which story is true/most factual? They both are. Let me explain.
Given any book(or other written/spoken material) any 2 people will understand the story or "facts" differently. I don't care HOW CLEARLY it seems to be written.
If this were not the case we wouldn't have a need for lawyers, or a need to debate anything, am I not correct?!!!
What I usually see is the book people(people who ALWAYS proclaim books are better than movies, oh yes my friend they exist) getting irrate over someone else's story telling ability. What book people don't seem to realize is that a book is a story in an of itself, it is in a different format, it is compressed, it is time elapsed, obviously less than a movie but none the less a story. The original writer could not possible fit every detail in the book and keep the reader captivated. We would all be quite bored knowing how thick Frodo's and Bilbo's soles of their shoes were every day during their adventure! Imagine every page getting an update on their sole thickness. Blah! In fact many books go overboard with detail or the writer actually has no skill in portraying those details in a timely fashion.
This is true in fiction and non-fiction. Pick a story you like, this includes subject and delivery method, enjoy it and be happy about it. There is no need to ram a particular version of a story down everyone's throat proclaiming YOU are the King!
What bothered me the most was that in the movies the elves are portrayed as being alien--a sort of unnatural creature of Middle-Earth. Even the cadence of their speech in the movies is unnatural.
By contrast in the book the elves are "supernatural" meaning that they are extremely natural. Their magic is one that is in concert with the earth, not alien to it. In the books the elves are characterized as more at home in Middle Earth than other races.
Have to say, don't know why she didn't just take a sword, slay all of the Nine and then take down Sauron, herself!
No woman indeed... becch.
Tom Bombadil = Sauron
I seriously hope that this is a sick joke, the man has been dead for a VERY LONG time. That's why his son polished off The Silmarillion for publication and not him...
The question I have is this: Is there any change from the book that actually bothers people?
The Fellowship is IMO easily the best of the three. I only slightly missed Glorfindel. Arwen's much cuter anyway.
The big problems start happening in The Two Towers. I didn't mind so much the battle with the wargs, but Aragorn's late arrival at Helm's Deep just so he could dream about Arwen smeo more...?
Pippin tricking 6000 year old Treebeard into going south? Ridiculous. Could at least have used a half-way persuasive argument.
The worst deviation is losing Faramir's character. That whole section is pointless, slowl and stupid (especially when Frodo offers the ring to the Witch King). The only necessary bit is Frodo's betrayal of Gollum.
Frodo trusting Sam over Gollum in Return of the King -- highly unlikely but I suppose the Ring could have distorted his mind that much.
Having said this, I think I think The Two Towers is a much better film than Return of the King. The Ents and the Battle of Helm's Deep are superb, whereas the Battle for Minas Tirith has the Rohirrim charging Oliphaunts (?) and ends with a huge anti-climax (The Dead going on the rampage could have been much more interesting). The Return of the King has some pretty lame acting in it too. And the music isn't as good.
From the article: 69. Saruman enjoys the pipeweed of the Halflings (ROTK p.324). Jackson has Saruman tell Gandalf that his wits have been dulled by Halfling leaf as if he doesn't smoke it himself and, it might be added, even though there is pipeweed amongst the flotsam and jetsam of Isengard.
If I'm not mistaken, this line was actually lifted from Unfinished Tales, the rambling colletion of bits and pieces that Tokien never hammered into stories worthy of publication. I recall this line being spoken by Saruman to Gandalf in the presence of the other members of the Council of the Wise when they were meeting to discuss the matter of the Rings of Power.
From The Encyclopedia of Arda: When the Council debated the Rings of Power, Saruman claimed that his researches showed that the One Ring had been lost forever. It was later shown that he did not believe this, however, and was searching for it himself, having secretly rebelled against the Council.
Saruman was attempting to discredit Gandalf (they were in disagreement on this matter) by exposing his affinity for hobbits. The quotation was something like: "Your wits have been dulled by your love of the halflings' leaf."
I might be wrong about the timing, but I'm pretty sure I had read the line before I heard it delivered in FOTR. In the end, it ended up being one of my favourite lines :)
...Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter.
Churchill
There's also the Encyclopedia of Arda "Movie-Goer's Guides."
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
This thread must be a total geekasm
I'm not gonna read it!
...just been up a long time working ;o)
True, some of his changes irked me somewhat as well, but on the whole I think he's produced a modern classic that we will look back on in years to come and still enjoy watching, a modern day ben hur if you will.
One change I agreed with wholeheartedly however is the removal of all those bloody songs, it's the only part of the books I skip over (well, that and the apendices that make up over half the third book, I've read em once, and that was enough).
I am NaN
Jeez, that old Miriam Webster must have it all wrong then:
"Main Entry: droll
Function: adjective
: having a humorous, whimsical, or odd quality"
I always wondered what was Gandalfs plan to enter Mordor and get to mount Doom. The fellowship split may
have been what he intended, even if he did not have a hand in it. Maybe he new some other path from the
North. Any ideas?
Do not underestimate the power of the Dark side
I haven't been able to find LoTR as an e-book.
Politas
This LoTR thing, what's it all about? Is it good, or is it whack?
Has anyone else noticed this ?
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
If I was a wose I'd be really irritated - not only do we get missed by Jackson, we even got missed by the nitpickers..
My oh my, I would hate to spoil another movie for you.
/. crowd.
How inconsiderate of the
Mea culpa, mea culpa (beating chest, lowering head...).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
While somewhat interesting to see what made it, what didn't, and what Jackson made up in his adaptation, this list is basically really annoying. Why can't some people just enjoy a good movie instead of complaining that it wasn't what they wanted? Before even the first movie was released, Jackson was pretty plain about the fact that things were changed, so if the diehard Tolkien fan that made this list couldn't bear to see the "sacred" words of Tolkien altered, why did he bother seeing the movies at all?
Makes sense to me...
Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors!
This is much easier said than done. Take any book, and look at your favourite character. Then go through the story and see what bits you think really make that character. Chances are your list will differ from someone else's.
The effect that this has is that even one-liners and tiny scenes can be, to at least one fan, something which shows the inrtrinsic nature of a given character.
What this means for a film-to-book conversion is that without making it 20 hours long, there is probably no way to make chances that don't have a significant impact to some of the viewers.
Really most of the chances are going to be down to the differences in book and film. You lose the narrative element. Three pages can easily describe a minute, but it's damn hard to take a minute of screen-time and try to accurately depict three pages.
"Lossy Compression", as it were.
And trying to compress several hundred pages into only a few hours? Exercise in futility to my mind. It just doesn't make sense to anyone - except the people looking at how much a theatrical release, DVD/VHS release, box-set, and merchandising rights will add up to.
Long books like the LoTR trilogy and the Harry Potter series are just that. Long. You're right in saying that if a story is popular, it'll be for a reason. And that by shortening/compressing the story you're going to risk changing what made it popular.
So why make movies? It really is a different medium, and one that makes it very much harder to do justice to the original source material.
My personal thoughts on this are that LoTR is one of those stories that would suit television better than movies.
Spread the three books over a series of 30+ hours total and you've got something that's likely to be more faithful. You don't have to speed through longer scenes. You don't lose the momentum that a one-year wait between releases inevitably slows down. And not only do you get more time to flesh out the characters (by not having to cut out slower segments of the story), but if a journey (or setup) is supposed to take a long time to occur, you can switch focus to another group for an episode or so. So you lose the 'They journeyed for a month, in ten minutes of screen-time' effect.
Oops. Rambling.
But really, making movies of these books simply isn't going to work without making some pretty major changes. I don't like that they choose to do it this way, and I usually hate the changes that get made, but I accept them as a necessity evil of trying to compress a novel into a few-hour film.
All you can really do is accept a film as what it is (a hopefully-good adaptation of a known story), rather than lamenting what it could have been.
TiggsA lot easier said than done, I know!
Tiggs
"120 chars should be enough for everyone..."
The scene where Gandalf turns up at Isengard and basically breaks Saruman is perhaps my favourite from the books, and I had really looked forward to seeing it in film. I hope it's in the extended version.
"I feel sorry for a lot of the kids who might otherwise have read the book."
That's a funny comment, but not in line with my experience. I personally know about 20 teens who read the trilogy for the first time and I have a list of 7 teens who want to borrow my copy of "The Silmarillion." The thing that would keep them from reading the books is the type of sanctimonious attitudes of those who are quoting Tolkien LIKE IT IS SCRIPTURE!!! It is a WORK OF FICTION!
In tTT extended version, Merry and Pippen both quaff quite a bit of Ent draught, resulting in them growing a good 6 inches each.
Yet, in RotK they are back to being of similar height relative to the other hobbits, Sam and Frodo.
Did Pete film 2 versions? With and without the sprouting hobbits?
I hate my sig.
Maybe The Hobbit will breathe more detail into the Dwarves (and Gandalf's so-called Wizardry....where was the magic?), but I'm half-expecting something along the lines of The Seven Dwarves go Dragon Slaying, with a Hobbit...
=======
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
In tTT extended version, Merry and Pippen both quaff quite a bit of Ent draught, resulting in them growing a good 6 inches each.
Yet, in RotK they are back to being of similar height relative to the other hobbits, Sam and Frodo.
Did Pete film 2 versions of RotK? One with a bigger Merry and Pippen and one with them normal sized?
I hate my sig.
21 != 12
PJ deserves credit for getting the job done, but I think the whole movie series is vastly over rated, not just because of infidelity to the source, but because of Jackson's apparent conflicted views about conflict. OOH he wants to use CGI too lavishly to create something "epic", at the expense of plot, character and our behinds, and OTOH he wants to recharacterize characters and whole countries from being eager and willing for war or resolute in face of war (Rohan and Gondor) to weepy whiney pacifists. Let's not forget JRR's theme of the little people keeping a stiff upper lip, enduring hardship patiently and contributing mightily in the face of an inplacable enemy (I think THAT part could be derived from his war experiences). IMHO, the order of release of the series matched the quality. Fellowship was the best and Return the worst.
Sam -- was never sent away by Frodo, who never trusted Gollum but knew he may be of use.
Fifteem minutes of pitch blackness while Sam and Frodo hold hands (which no one can see) and whisper in the dark, only occasionally. Being able to see in the cave, HEY IT'S A MOVIE!@!, necessitates a few changes. Hobbits aren't gay and retarded in the book either. I'll take Jackson's version for the movie thanks.
Alternatively they could have had Peter Arnet in there with a green nightvision post-production effect and a flak jacket. That would have been sweet too. I'm sure Jackson is crushed he didn't think of it first.
BTW Sam did have a important turning point where he searched within himself to find if he should leave his master or not, and ultimately deciding to go back.
What, you didn't read the books, or was it your first time at the movies?
There are, of course, levels of discontent. I'm at a lowish level. On the whole, I liked the movies. I also felt that they had several almost-fatal flaws, all involving unnecessary changes and additions.
Top of my list is changing Faramir from a truly noble character into a jerk (which, to be fair, was partly fixed in TTT extended).
So why do I care? Because I have been waiting for these movies all of my life. I don't read LOTR every other year just to be geeky; I read it because it I love it, much as Sam loves the Shire. When I saw FOTR, I rejoiced because Jackson visually captured Middle Earth in a richer way than I had ever imagined it.
When he modified Faramir's character, and Denethor's, and added extra material which did not significantly contribute to the story, it made me sad. I felt that in many ways, Jackson missed the warmth and nobility of Tolkein's work. That warmth and nobility are, to me, a core element of LOTR; without it, the movie is incomplete.
Anyway, the point of some of us ranters is that when you mess with something beloved, you need to be really really careful. It has nothing to do with pedantry and everything to do with loving our dreams. Jackson gets, IMO, a B+ for care. But I agree that the changes he made were partly in the sprit of "I can do a better job." And I think some humility there might have avoided some problems.
Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
If you did a literal book to screen translation it would have been much close to The Sound Of Music than what made it to the screen. Everyone sings. For everything. All the time. I get the reason for it, and it's even interesting. But seriously, I don't want to see Gandalf singing the shiting in the woods song on an 80 foot screen. The books are good, don't get me wrong. But they have got some quirks, and they go way beyond the singing.
Wow, that's awful. Not to mention wrong - the whole point is that Faramir thought for himself, that the ring wasn't desirable to everyone. Aragorn and Galadriel both resisted the ring more easily than Faramir did - in the book!
Maybe I'm missing something - but wasn't the whole point of the Faramir character that he was wiser than his brother and thought for himself? That's totally lost with him making a "save my ass" decision rather than seeing the ring for the evil that it is.
It's like Jackson has no concept of characterization. You almost with an English Lit professor could have been in the production meeting to set those idiots straight.
I liked the movies very well by and large, but I thought that decision was atrocious. And I agree with you that saying Tolkein's version was wrong - well, that's monstrously arrogant, and I'm inclined to go with Tolkein.
The hobbits now live in Teletubbie land.
As a license-fee payer I hope that the BBC earned some money for letting the Hobbits stay in their set.
Blaming GW Bush for the Iraq war is like blaming Ronald McDonald for the poor quality of food.
Ummmm.
He's talking about the 17 years between Bilbo leaving the Shire after his birthday party and Frodo leaving with the ring.
Unless you were watching a different movie from the rest of us....
Hmm. Your glass house may have a whole lot of holes. You're going to have to practice your English. FYI, to and two are different too.
What does Sam wanting to kill Gollum have to do with Frodo wanting to keep him around?
"Wanting" is a verb; you're under the impression it's a noun. Your hypocritical desire to criticize someone's English is another noun, and it's the subject of this sentence too.
You know, where a character speaks?
Just where, I ask, is the subject located in this sentence? You know...It's the place where you identify what you're talking about. Complete sentences make English easier to understand, don't you think Yoda?
She only does that towards the end of the RotK. And indecision about the best course for the fellowship is just tiny smidgeon different than wondering whether or not to fulfill the destiny you have been working toward your entire life.
Summarily, we have a meandering, nonsequetorial, and run-on sentence, beginning with the word "And" no less. And it's posed as the rebuttal of another writer's nonsequitor. Does it get worse? While it's become acceptible to begin a sentence with "and," that sentence must be directly related to the preceeding sentence for it to make any sense. See?
Not only that, but Tolkien freely open about changes made for adaptations. For some reason, geeks have conjured this image of a stingy, stubborn, unflexible professor who wouldn't approve of ANY changes made to his precious story in the movies.
Meanwhile, he suggested in one of his letters cutting Helm's Deep because it is "unnecessary." In fact, Tolkien was always revising and editing and even said he would do things differently than the way he had. And he did sign away the movie rights himself.
The real stubbornness comes from his nerdy fans. Tolkien, from interviews and from his own writings, seem much more grounded and easygoing about things, even his own literary mythologies. The worst thing about Lord of the Rings is the fans.
It wasn't pointless--it gave a point to the Warg fight. And the Warg fight was there to give rising tension to the trek from Edoras to Helm's Deep. They were raising suspense. Faramir's changes were also necessary for the film. These were all explained in the DVD commentaries.
Yes, in movies, there is an arc of tension that you raise and release at the end. The classic novels can get away with settling down and killing all tension, for instance, with the Tom Bombadil sequences. What adds to a world in the books completely destroys it in a movie.
I think at that point, you didn't need Sam to say "I made a promise." Sean's excellent performance gave the conflict away without words. The same with his realization when he sees the lembas at the bottom. Peter Jackson said they were hoping for Sean Astin to get an Oscar this time around. Too bad.
Actually, this is not true. Christopher Tolkein & co. guard the copyrights to Middle-Earth like Smaug on his gold. I believe he had a final veto on the script and/or deviations from the Holy Writ of his father. So Jackson had to (a) make the movie mainstream enough for the studio bosses, and (b) make the movie orthodox enough to get the Tolkein seal of approval. All things considered, he did a decent job of it.
=============
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
The same difference is there--Boromir tried to take the ring, and Faramir rejects it.
We just see the CHARACTER ARC that leads to that decision by Faramir. In movies, you have to have characters that change, or they are boring and tedious. It's really not that big of a change--in the books, he rejects it at first...in the movie, he has to be convinced first. It raises the tension, and also gives credence to Faramir trying to please his fauther.
Such a simple change, with large repercussions. Why did he have to make it?
Because in movies, you don't tell, you show.
TTT was full of this--characters who in the books had already made their decisions, were instead run through the process that gave them their decisions, so we could SEE it. It's called film-making.
In the article the first point raised in the Return of the King section uses the acronym RPTK. This is inconsistant with the usual ROTK ;-)
Tolkien was a linguist; he had to be aware of the etymology of the words he used. Maybe he decided that unless he wanted to create a new vocabulary to write his stories in, he would just accept the inaccuracy.
--
Long-term effects of Bush deficits
Have you even bothered to listen to the DVD commentaries? They explain why they make each and every change to adapt the 1000+ pages of the story into a film structure.
So one theater had the projection too low and cut off the subtitles on the screen. That somehow means multiple movie versions?
That's an extremely superficial consideration, which completely ignores the motivation behind each character. Previously, Faramir sent Frodo packing because he recognized its evil. Here, he does so because it's about to get his ass kicked. Enormous difference.
We just see the CHARACTER ARC that leads to that decision by Faramir. In movies, you have to have characters that change, or they are boring and tedious. It's really not that big of a change--in the books, he rejects it at first...in the movie, he has to be convinced first. It raises the tension, and also gives credence to Faramir trying to please his fauther.
He's also "convinced" in the book, but the treatment is more realistic. In the movie, his being "convinced" is simply realizing he's about to get his ass kicked.
and also gives credence to Faramir trying to please his father.
Which destroys the angle where Faramir becomes his own man.
Regardless, I'm inclined to go with Tolkein over Jackson. He's a better writer.
For instance, when they are in Moria and the Orcs first attack.
Plus, he's a ranger, and, you know, has to hunt things now and then. I imagine he's skilled with a bow, wouldn't you think?
The Scouring of the Shire is the destruction of your own favourite place by the madness of industrialisation. It is what makes LotR truly Tolkienian rather than simply a variation on Western myth. It tells the reader that it is not enough simply to save the world - you also have to save your own town. Going off and doing great deeds in distant places doesn't stop bad things happening when you get home. In a sense, it uses the idea of 'winning the peace' - on how veterans of the great wars of the twentieth century were changed by what they saw in the world, but who could not simply return to comfort and security at home afterwards. The wars transformed their own homes even if a bomb never dropped there.
The absence of the Scouring did not break the movie - but it turned it into a different creature, one which fits better with standard fantasy blueprints and which requires less of the viewer.
Who would believe in penguins,unless he had seen them? Conor O Brien - Across Three Oceans
Nope, we thought of that.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
I hope those kittens were well greased!!! Bacon grease works best, followed by 'possum and rendered Yoda fat.
Am I the first to point to The Lord of the ... whatever ?! Tolkien's fens on rec.arts.books.tolkien have created a parody of the book. It's hilarious! Guaranteed to piss off any die-hard LOTR fanatic. It nearly pissed me off on a couple of occasions, but mostly it made me laugh.
Yes, there were scenes that were left out, as you'd expect in any such translation (well, except I found myself wishing that the closing scenes of LOTR were left on the cutting room floor), but if you'd read the book, and then went to see the movie, the rise and fall of emotions paralleled almost perfectly.
Tim