DrForester
Kills Photobucket
Arwen does nothing in the books. It was another Elf who got Frodo to Rivendell. Glorfindel I think...
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
What are some improvements Peter Jackson made in the LOTR films over the books?
- Thread starter Solidsoul
- Start date
- Status
Arwen does nothing in the books. It was another Elf who got Frodo to Rivendell. Glorfindel I think...
Wait a minute, there are people that actually like Tom Bombadil? He is the worst part of the books, no contest. His chapters are a drag and kill the little momentum that was finally building.
The worst part is, he's not even important later, they only bring him up one other time that I remember and just dismiss him immediately because he's useless
If someone took a trip, and spent 6 hours telling me about their layover in Tucson, it would still be less annoying than the detour that is Tom Fucking Bombadil. If I had a time machine, I would go back in time and do whatever it took to prevent the evil that is Tom Bombadil from being thrust upon this world.
Anyways, I like how they handled Boromir in the movies, but that's probably just Sean Bean being great.
Edit: Altazor gets it.
The worst part is, he's not even important later, they only bring him up one other time that I remember and just dismiss him immediately because he's useless
If someone took a trip, and spent 6 hours telling me about their layover in Tucson, it would still be less annoying than the detour that is Tom Fucking Bombadil. If I had a time machine, I would go back in time and do whatever it took to prevent the evil that is Tom Bombadil from being thrust upon this world.
Anyways, I like how they handled Boromir in the movies, but that's probably just Sean Bean being great.
Edit: Altazor gets it.
Little Old Man
Member
Agree with all of these. Aragon's self doubt is much more interesting to me than how sure of himself he came across in the books to me.
The start of FOTR (a roughly 20 year gap between Bilbo's party, Frodo getting the ring and Frodo moving house across the Shire to Buckland iirc to finally leave would be too convoluted) recieved a needed trimming. There was a nice aspect to it (Frodo enjoying his final years in bliss and ignorance before his quest) but on screen it would have just added unnescary length.
I would also add Faramir's portrayal, and removing Tom Bombadil. Tom would again stop the flow of the story, be hard to convey on screen, and could very much come across as corny.
What should have been left in: the rampart around the Pelennor fields, it's defence, and the fiefdoms of Gondor.
Fancy Clown
Member
Almost all the adaptive choices were for the best tbh. More dramatic tension and most characters, particularly Aragorn, had added emotional depth.
Nope, different elf - a guy called Glorfindel (which also appeared on The Silmarillion).
Arwen is barely a character in the books. I mean, she's little more than a name that gets mentioned every once in a while and then finally appears while Aragorn gets crowned.
that, and the green ghosts (ugh) should've been about helping Aragorn retake the port of Pelargir and defeat the Corsairs of Umbar instead of being Ghosts Ex Machina that defeat the complete forces of Mordor in Pelennor. Horrible change from the books, IMHO. At least one of the ones I dislike the most.
Earthbound64
Banned
Improvements on Tolkien?
What's next - improvements on Shakespeare?
What's next - improvements on Shakespeare?
Fancy Clown
Member
It's not "improvements" per se, but adaptive choices to make it fit the medium better.
Tolkien also isn't in the same ballpark as Shakespeare in terms of pure storytelling either, so I don't think it's sacrilege to be able to improve on some of the stuff he didn't consider as important. Like Aragorn is basically just a symbol in the book, not an actual character.
SomethingInTheSea
Member
It makes sense when you realise that the first few chapters were from when he was writing a straight sequel to The Hobbit in tone and style, there's even a talking fox early on too!
Although I believe the novel remains superior overall - and a far better depiction of an actual journey - I do think the scriptwriters did improve a few elements:
Giving central characters like Faramir, Boromir and Aragorn more of a personality and more of an actual character arc. In the novels they're all pretty flat and stoic for the most part
Removing Tom Bombadil. I know he's beloved by some but personally I always felt the whole section with him (apart from the Barrow's Down) was at odds with the rest of the novel and felt like it had crept in from another tale. In short I just never felt he fit the mythology of Middle Earth particularly well.
Keeping the wraith riders threatening throughout until the final big battles. One of the oddities of the novel is they're the main antagonists for quite a bit then they more or less vanish save a few moments here and there and I always felt Tolkien let their sense of dread slip away in the novel
Trimming the initial period of the novel in the shire down. I get what Tolkein was going for but really it's a very, very slow start to a huge novel and I felt overindulged the Hobbits as simple but pure folk
I think the female characters - particularly Arwen - were improved simply by seeming more equal and important (dropping Glorfindel for Arwen for example makes more narrative sense to me vs a Elf who appears/disappears in the plot
I also think they made Boromir work better for me as a character - although a lot of that was Bean's quite excellent performance
So to my surprise there were elements that felt improved.
They fucked over The Hobbit though which should never have become the over-padded epic they turned it into to manufacture another trilogy of high revenue films.
Giving central characters like Faramir, Boromir and Aragorn more of a personality and more of an actual character arc. In the novels they're all pretty flat and stoic for the most part
Removing Tom Bombadil. I know he's beloved by some but personally I always felt the whole section with him (apart from the Barrow's Down) was at odds with the rest of the novel and felt like it had crept in from another tale. In short I just never felt he fit the mythology of Middle Earth particularly well.
Keeping the wraith riders threatening throughout until the final big battles. One of the oddities of the novel is they're the main antagonists for quite a bit then they more or less vanish save a few moments here and there and I always felt Tolkien let their sense of dread slip away in the novel
Trimming the initial period of the novel in the shire down. I get what Tolkein was going for but really it's a very, very slow start to a huge novel and I felt overindulged the Hobbits as simple but pure folk
I think the female characters - particularly Arwen - were improved simply by seeming more equal and important (dropping Glorfindel for Arwen for example makes more narrative sense to me vs a Elf who appears/disappears in the plot
I also think they made Boromir work better for me as a character - although a lot of that was Bean's quite excellent performance
So to my surprise there were elements that felt improved.
They fucked over The Hobbit though which should never have become the over-padded epic they turned it into to manufacture another trilogy of high revenue films.
The Shadow
Member
This was going to be my reply as well. Really spoiled the hopeless mood of the book for me.
peanutbutterlatte
Member
I know a lot of people hate it but I find the added humour very welcome. Merry and Pippin are dry as fuck in the book.
Earthbound64
Banned
That would make more sense.
Yeah, Shakespeare isn't really as great as he's made out to be.
VistraNorrez
Member
They are 2 different mediums so I don't think an adaptation is there to improve on anything. The context is too different to say if something in the movie would have worked better in the book.
Aaronology
Member
I thought Hobbits were classified as men?
boiled goose
good with gravy
Faramir.
Eowyn.
Aragorn.
Boromir.
Arwen and Aragorn Romance inspired from beren(?).
The ring as an agent.
Sauron as an eye.
Frodo seeming same age as sam.
No random destroying of shire.
Making arwen save frodo not another random character.
Eowyn.
Aragorn.
Boromir.
Arwen and Aragorn Romance inspired from beren(?).
The ring as an agent.
Sauron as an eye.
Frodo seeming same age as sam.
No random destroying of shire.
Making arwen save frodo not another random character.
Along with what others have said, I like how Faramir got more character in relation to his struggle to live up to Borimir and fight the corruption of the ring. In the books he just sees it as no big deal, and it kind of removes any tension from the Faramir scenes. The movies did it much better.
boiled goose
good with gravy
It's the little things like the Barrow-Downs that get lost, though. They should have left those in and then figured out another way of getting them out without using Bombadil.
The book made a point that the only reason Merry was able to hurt the Witch-King was that the sword he used came from those graves in the North, and were specifically crafted to fight against Angmar:
J.R.R. Tolkien said:
In the film, he's somehow able to deal a similar blow to the otherwise untouchable Witch-King with just a normal knife.
I also would have liked to have seen the Scouring of the Shire, but I understand why they took it out.
Fancy Clown
Member
If you only read his stuff in high school perhaps. Filthy hobbits.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
Tom Bombadil is the most weird character in the books. He is described as being powerful enough to end it right then and there, but through a hedonistic and selfish lens, he "ain't got time for dat" styled it. I wonder what Tolkien was trying to say with this character, because it really is a departure from the story. It's like a side story. A spin off.
Symbolically what does his part and indifference towards the end of the world mean? Is it supposed to be a bit like the elfs, where immortality just makes you an arrogant dick who sees mortals as mayflies repeating the same shit over and over again?
Symbolically what does his part and indifference towards the end of the world mean? Is it supposed to be a bit like the elfs, where immortality just makes you an arrogant dick who sees mortals as mayflies repeating the same shit over and over again?
KernelPanic
Member
I always thought he was a representation of Eru Ilúvatar. The ring had no effect on him.
CrunchyFrog
Member
The opening of fellowship for sure. Though moreso that the elongated prologue before they leave for Bree sound never have played in a film. The stuff with Faramir as mentioned. They did definitely screw up Saruman's conclusion in the theatrical, slightly less so in the removed extended scenes. And I did really miss the songs, which was one of the few good parts of the Hobbit trilogy
One popular theory is that the Ring represents the corruptive power of money and capitalism so Tom Bombadil would be Tolkien version of Hippies I guess
Earthbound64
Banned
Middle School, more like.
I've tried to go through some of his stuff a couple of times since then, but they just don't really grab me.
PJV3
Member
I think of him being a representation of the music of the ainur, but the pure version created by Ilúvatar would fit better.
Yeah, I didn't feel any emotional involvement in the books at all. I appreciate the sheer amount of world-building that Tolkien did in the books, but Jackson told the actual story of LOTR better. It helps that the movies have excellent acting performances and great music.
Hobbit though...blech. Depresses me how far Jackson has fallen. He got the tone wrong, he shouldn't have agreed to make it a trilogy, and he went overboard on CG.
balladofwindfishes
Member
What even is Bombadil? A wizard?
Diprosalic
Banned
came here for "cutting bombadil" and leave satisfied.
Most of it?
It's a preference thing, but I just think that unless you're someone who likes getting told a lot of backstory, the ability for films to put it on screen and give you that information without words is really invaluable.
Also, intercutting between Frodo's party and Aragorn's for The Return of the King. It would have been weirdly regressive cinema to show us one part of the story than backtrack to show us the other.
It's a preference thing, but I just think that unless you're someone who likes getting told a lot of backstory, the ability for films to put it on screen and give you that information without words is really invaluable.
Also, intercutting between Frodo's party and Aragorn's for The Return of the King. It would have been weirdly regressive cinema to show us one part of the story than backtrack to show us the other.
Chuck Norris
Banned
LOTR takes place over a couple decades,no? I like that they cut it down to maybe a few months if that
Astral Dog
Member
Does the soundtrack counts 🎧
Chuck Norris
Banned
Hippies would not have even been a thing when it was written
Nope he is not a wizard. We don't really know what he is, as far as I know. I agree with an above poster in that I've always viewed him as Eru Iluvatar in physical form on Middle Earth.
That is how it went down in the movie as well. It was just an awkward time skip
GalacticToast
Member
C'mon some of that stuff made the world come alive and this was epic:
All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king.
Not LITERALLY hippies.
More like ... hermits who are giving zero fucks about money
- Status