FotR movie vs. book

[fat buddha]

It had been a very long time since I read the LotR, so I started rereading it recently. I must say, I hadn't realized there was such a discrepancy between the first movie and the book. Right now I'm at the flight to the ford, and almost nothing has matched up with the movie. I understand that film, being a different medium, can't tell a story in the same way as print, but the number of differences so far has been shocking.

I like the movie, don't get me wrong. But it almost seems like a different story altogether from the book. I understand why they would want to make certain changes, like turning Merry and Pippen into more comical characters, and not having Aragorn carry around a broken sword, and making the flight from the shire more dramatic. I also understand why so many things had to be left out. But it might cause a problem if I run a LotR game for people who've only seen the movies.

Does anyone else think the first movie could have stuck a lot closer to the book?

[mcb]

I couldn't agree with you more fat buddha. Personally I think changing the characters was there biggest mistake. I can see the cuts in the story line to fit the time constrants. IMHO to have properly done the books to movies it should have been stretched out over six movies not three. There are six books in the trilogy and each could have gotten its own movie. Oh well.

Fellowship of the ring was closer then The Two Towers was to it book. I thought TTT was pretty bad about twisting the story line to fit a Hollywood mold.

Visually the movies have been stunning but they lack alot of the depth of both character and plot.

mcb

[fat buddha]

I've heard the second movie stuck less to the book than did the first, but at this point I can't really see how that's possible. I guess I'll just be even more scandalized when I get to The Two Towers.

I'm with you on the six movie idea. It would be nice if, years down the road, LotR was made into a miniseries with the express aim of staying as close as possible to the source material.

On the other hand, I am excited about the prospect of PJ and co. doing a movie based on The Hobbit. That book seems like it would translate more easily to the big screen than LotR.

[Ineti]

Originally posted by fat buddha
I'm with you on the six movie idea. It would be nice if, years down the road, LotR was made into a miniseries with the express aim of staying as close as possible to the source material.

Ye gods. I think I'll skip the nights they cover Frodo's life between the time Gandalf leaves and comes back. What is that, 17 years?

[Evan van Eyk]

I actually think they sticked very wel to the book. The only difference is that some people are missing along with the very long introduction, which would have been unsuitable for a movie I think. But beside that the essential story parts are all there.
The most significant part which differs is the missing 'Bombadil' part, but to be honest it does not tell anything about the actual 'Ring'-Story and therefore would only have made those wonder who do not know the book. I think the first movie is the best bookadaption I ever saw. I also think it was good to give Arwen the part of Glorfindel so that the viewer gets to know her better. In the book she only has a margine role yet gets to marry Aragorn - in the movie the audience learns more of her and there is new character like Glorfindel which only has a small part. And for the story it is irrelevant whether Glorfindel finds them or Arwen, I think.

[fat buddha]

Originally posted by Ineti
Ye gods. I think I'll skip the nights they cover Frodo's life between the time Gandalf leaves and comes back. What is that, 17 years?

Oh, come on! Those 17 years wouldn't take more than a few minutes to cover. Nothing much happened during them. They could flash "x years later" at the bottom of the screen at the beginning of the next scene and just about get the same effect.

Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
And for the story it is irrelevant whether Glorfindel finds them or Arwen, I think.

Perhaps, but I didn't like how the movie had Arwen sneak up on Aragorn and put her sword to his neck. Also, at the ford, it was Arwen confronting the ringwraiths instead of Frodo. The first movie didn't give Frodo much of a chance to show his bravery.

[Joe Dizzy]

Originally posted by fat buddha
The first movie didn't give Frodo much of a chance to show his bravery.

But was that really necessary?

Don't you get an equally interesting, albeit slightly different development arc for Frodo by not establishing him as a dormant bad-ass?

It's a change that might be unnecessary to some, but I don't feel as if it hurts the over-all story. Therefore, no harm done, IMO.

[ben hur]

I think it's amazing that they've stayed this close to the books! The main story is all there, and lots of deeper information is hinted at, and that makes people want to know more and read the books.

Obviously, I would love it if they went and made a 15-hour version of it, but I'm content with the movies so far.

I think the Fellowship of the Ring is more faithful to the book, but really The Two Towers isn't that much more at variance. If you just ignore the Elves at Helm's Deep, I'd say they are about equal. A lot of stuff in TTT is from the RotK actually, such as when Grima talks to Eowyn after Theodred dies, the things he says are actually said by Gandalf in RotK, and all the love scenes with Aragorn and Arwen (which I've heard recieve a lot of flak as being 'invented' by PJ) are actually in the appendix and couldn't seriously be told without doing as they did. In the book, you see Arwen at Rivendell, hear about the standard she sends to Aragorn, and then they are married at RotK's ending and you are like "whoa, where'd she turn up from?" So in the movie you need some backround on her, otherwise your normal movie-goer would think "gosh, why did he snub Eowyn's advances like that? They should have married!"

I think I like FotR better than TTT... but they are so different, it's hard to say that. They were originally written to be one book, the Lord of the Rings, so I just tell people "Lord of the Rings is my favorite!" and don't worry about trying to figure out which of the trilogy I like best.

So, in closing, since I guess I've sort of rambled incoherently... I'm absolutely fine with how they've done the movies and love them, but I totally see where people come from when they complain about things they did or didn't do. We are all LotR fanatics here!

[Evan van Eyk]

Well actually I think TTT is a complete different thing. It was much worse than FOTR, although I still liked it. Besides several bad fx effects, I did not agree to the changes. E.g. why did the Ents first of all say no? There is no need for it. However the Ents talk days to come to that conclusion and when Fangorn sees the killed trees they are all present within seconds and march towards Isengart. But why was that change made?

The next and even worse thing is the change with Faramir. He becomes far more "evil" than in the book and is actually destroyed. and then this very bad move at then end. The attack of the Nazgul with the ring only one arm length away and it is driven away by one single arrow? HELLLOOOOO??? That was real bad.

Aragorns fall and ride through wilderness was also unneccessary and I do not see why that change was made.

And why does Elrdon hate Aragorn so much? That is much different in the book, hey, after all he's Aragorns Great ( times 10 ) uncle.


The only thing I like about the changes is the help by the Elves. I think that was a good change, although it changes the story significantly. It takes much of the sadness of the book.


But FOTR showed the very essence of the book adequately with enough scenes for the fans to say, "Hey I know that!". I do not know about the English version but in the German one, around 50% of the dialogues were original quotes of the book, which was very good.

[Joe Dizzy]

Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
E.g. why did the Ents first of all say no? There is no need for it. However the Ents talk days to come to that conclusion and when Fangorn sees the killed trees they are all present within seconds and march towards Isengart. But why was that change made?

Because having a subplot that essentially consists of a bunch of characters sitting around and agreeing with one another is boring and pointless in a movie.

The next and even worse thing is the change with Faramir. He becomes far more "evil" than in the book and is actually destroyed.

I've found the character quite interesting. Again, having a subplot that consists of a bunch of characters agreeing with each other is not particularly exciting. I liked the final exchange between him and Frodo, which was an interesting take on how the two characters relate to one another.
I'm not sure what to make of Faramir leading them to Osgiliath, but I'm willing to wait for RotK before judging this change in plot.

The attack of the Nazgul with the ring only one arm length away and it is driven away by one single arrow? HELLLOOOOO??? That was real bad.

Dramatic license in story-telling. I didn't hear anyone complaining about one man killing hundreds of orcs single-handedly in FotR.
Just because it was in the book, doesn't make it any less OTT and unrealistic.

Aragorns fall and ride through wilderness was also unneccessary and I do not see why that change was made.

In part because it showed how Aragorn's love for Arwen is a very important aspect of the character, almost a driving force.
But mostly because it provided a segueway into the Arwen flashback and allowed the other characters (Legolas, Gimli, Theoden and especially Eowyn) to react to his "death". This way you realized just how they relate to him, without having people flat out telling you.
It was quite clever, I thought.

And why does Elrdon hate Aragorn so much?

???
It's not that he hates Aragorn, but that he loves Arwen more. TO him Aragorn is pretty much some teenage punk coming to take away his "precious".

Now, one might argue whether giving Elrond such a "regular father's" motivation is a good idea. I didn't mind it, as it grounded the other-wise aloof elves in reality.

It takes much of the sadness of the book.

How so?
Book-elves: "Well, there's this evil demi-god, which we fought together ages ago, and this fallen wizard about to conquer all your lands. Good luck with that, we're off to Ibiza!"

Movie-elves:"Well, there's this evil demi-god, which we fought together ages ago, and this fallen wizard about to conquer all your lands. We could just disappear or show some back-bone and help you one last time, despite risking our immortality for an earth we won't live in anyway."

The elves fighting and dieing at Helm's Deep makes them noble, when you realize what they've given up.
There's nothing sad about a bunch of elves leaving, if you don't realize what is being lost to M-E because of it. The elves in Helm's Deep helped the audience realize this.

[Jason Durall]

Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
Well actually I think TTT is a complete different thing. It was much worse than FOTR, although I still liked it. Besides several bad fx effects, I did not agree to the changes. E.g. why did the Ents first of all say no? There is no need for it. However the Ents talk days to come to that conclusion and when Fangorn sees the killed trees they are all present within seconds and march towards Isengart. But why was that change made?

The next and even worse thing is the change with Faramir. He becomes far more "evil" than in the book and is actually destroyed. and then this very bad move at then end. The attack of the Nazgul with the ring only one arm length away and it is driven away by one single arrow? HELLLOOOOO??? That was real bad.

Aragorns fall and ride through wilderness was also unneccessary and I do not see why that change was made.

And why does Elrdon hate Aragorn so much? That is much different in the book, hey, after all he's Aragorns Great ( times 10 ) uncle.

The only thing I like about the changes is the help by the Elves. I think that was a good change, although it changes the story significantly. It takes much of the sadness of the book.

But FOTR showed the very essence of the book adequately with enough scenes for the fans to say, "Hey I know that!". I do not know about the English version but in the German one, around 50% of the dialogues were original quotes of the book, which was very good.

I can't say that I know exactly what thought processes Peter Jackson and his co-adapters went through, but from a dramatic standpoint, many of the changes make sense.

Film, as a medium, is all about heightened drama, and characters being met with challenges which change them. I am aiming these comments at the supposition that PJ and crew aimed at a highly-successful, dramatic adaptation rather than one which scrupulously adhered to the novels. Prose can tell us so much more about the inner workings of characters, while in films, everything must obviously be spelled out through action or dialogue.

Having the Ents immediately agree with the Hobbits equals no drama.

I'm not sure why the Ents were all on hand at Isengard, but then, some small amount of time may have passed from Treebeard's summons and their arrival, they might have been following him because they were curious about the Hobbits, or the ones who came out of the wood might have been others than those at the Entmoot.

Having Faramir recognize that the ring is evil and do nothing but talk to the Hobbits for several hours in the cave, then let them go, unharmed and unhindered, is neither dramatic (for a film, that is), or showing any character development. The Ring is evil - the book can constantly tell us how it is manipulating people and corrupting them, but if you can't show it affecting someone (and that person overcoming the ring's corrupting influence), then it lacks the drama that a film requires.

No idea why the Nazgul was so eager to flee, but then, the thought of a bunch more arrows killing its hell-hawk and stranding it in the middle of Osgiliath (a city on a river - which Nazgul despise), might have been motive enough.

Having Aragorn separated and go through some sort "rebirth" gives him the chance to: a) have a flashback about Arwen, b) appear to be supernaturally fated or lucky, and c) gives him the "hero reborn" aura that just hanging around with the Rohir might not have given him.

I personally never got the notion that Elrond hated Aragorn - it certainly doesn't come through in the Fellowship film. I thought it was more that to him, his fatherly love for his daughter took precedence over Aragorn's love for her, and he advised her as to best avoid a life of heartache and loss because she would marry a mortal. I mean, the tale of Beren and Luthien is a pretty sad one, and well-known to the Elves.

I also agreed with the change of having the Elves show up, as it was nice to see a reuniting of the Free Peoples. Not sure why Haldir said "Master Elrond sends his greetings" rather than mentioning Galadriel, but there you go.

[Jason Durall]

Gee, Joe -

You wrote point-for-point exactly what I was composing, and posted it while I was still busy typing away.

Cool to be on the same wavelength!

[fat buddha]

Originally posted by Joe Dizzy
Don't you get an equally interesting, albeit slightly different development arc for Frodo by not establishing him as a dormant bad-ass?

I personally prefer the way Frodo is depicted in the book. I find the movie version less compelling. That's just my opinion, though. Like I already said, I think the movie was very good. But I think I would have liked it more if less had been altered.

[Phantom]

I hope this won't be taken negatively.

I saw in an interview with PJ about TTT where he said he basically took the story of TTT and made the movie the way he would like to see it as someone watching from the theater seats.

As far as I am concerned PJ has been very faithful to the story, maybe not the books but certainly the overall story. Changes have to be made in the book-film transition. I personally like the Helm's Deep debate with the Elves. In my thinking it is easier to do Helm's Deep the way the Prof. did in print then on film. Just look at it you have, what, maybe 100-200 Rohir defending the Deep being attacked by thousands of orcs. Now, the readers attention will be held because in the book it is well written and very dramatic. The movie-goer will see that same small force beating 1000s of orcs, even with the help of Gandalf and Eomer's men, and they'll snort and say "yeah, right." Even I was wondering if they would bring in re-enforcements when I saw the movie. Actually seeing a scene with ones eyes make it more "real" then reading the same scene in a book.

And the thought of breaking the story down to it's six components...?!! They would still be filming the blasted thing and it would have a release date of 2012 and wouldn't end until 2018! Anyone want to wait that long???

[Joe Dizzy]

Originally posted by Jason Durall
Gee, Joe -

You wrote point-for-point exactly what I was composing, and posted it while I was still busy typing away.

Cool to be on the same wavelength!

Doesn't happen very often, that I'm on a similar, let alone the same, wavelength with anyone.

You'll be added to my Buddy List, just for that.