Reverse LOTR Gripes

[suncrafter]

Most gripes that LOTR fans seem to have with the movies seem to be the same sort of gripe that people have whenever a book is made into a movie - namely that over half the book was edited out. There are many good reasons for why film makers are forced to edit out content - but it sure seems to cause a lot of heart-ache for the fans.

So I was wondering - do any of you have any "Reverse Gripes"? That is, was there anything in the movies that was BETTER then the book? Was there any change that the film makers made that IMPROVED the story?

No "gripes", please. I'm looking for "reverse gripes" only. :)

[Jon S.]

Personally, I prefer the way the movie version inserted more Arwen scenes into the film itself instead of in an Appendix (or extra DVD). She's an important part of the story and of the motivations, actions, and thoughts of at least 2 primary characters.

P.S. Thanks for posing the question, it's a very good one.

[tolkienfan]

I agree about Arwen to some extent. I liked how Sam didn't call Frodo "Master" in the movie. For some reason that bugged me in the book.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I agree about Arwen to some extent. I liked how Sam didn't call Frodo "Master" in the movie. For some reason that bugged me in the book.

*barf*

[brownjenkins]

In general, I found the movie characters to be a bit more "real". Don't get me wrong, I love Tolkien, but he is somewhat idealistic in the way he portrays his characters.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

In general, I found the movie characters to be a bit more "real". Don't get me wrong, I love Tolkien, but he is somewhat idealistic in the way he portrays his characters.
How do you mean? I actually remembered the hobbits, particularly, as more "real" in the book. The dwarves, too.

[tolkienfan]

*barf*
:confused: :confused:

[Olmer]

Thanks for posting an interesting question. :)

Agree with Jon S on Arwen.
Did't miss Bombadill and Gildor, thought,
but Arven was too important to the story to get just a marginal appearance in the epic.I like the part of her last farewell to the King Elessar, it gives to viewers at least a slight idea why her marriage to Aragorn was so sacrificing.

I like Gollum character, he is not as "flat" as in the book.As brownjenkins said, all persons in the movie are more real, with their good and bad sides, weaknesses and doubts.

I like how Grima was portrayed, not evil, but a tormented person, who against his will fell under Saruman's control.

Also surprisingly for me, and, guess, against moviemakers best notions, Galadriel and Celeborn played out just the way, I imagined them to be.
Celeborn - an inert, lethargic so called king,who was giving the rein to rule to his wife. Galadriel - a contriving, cajoling, manipulative bitch, with something on her mind.
I don't think C. Blanchet meant to portray this way, probably she wanted us to see a mysterious elven queen, but her Galadriel is scary.
Just her parting smile is something to think about. :eek:

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Also surprisingly for me, and, guess, against moviemakers best notions, Galadriel and Celeborn played out just the way, I imagined them to be.
Celeborn - an inert, lethargic so called king,who was giving the rein to rule to his wife. Galadriel - a contriving, cajoling, manipulative bitch, with something on her mind.
I don't think C. Blanchet meant to portray this way, probably she wanted us to see a mysterious elven queen, but her Galadriel is scary.
Just her parting smile is something to think about. :eek:
Olmer. You make them sound like the leads in The Scottish Play. DO you really see them that way?

[Jon S.]

In general, I found the movie characters to be a bit more "real". Don't get me wrong, I love Tolkien, but he is somewhat idealistic in the way he portrays his characters.
Agree completely. The movie characters are real-er to me in that they're more human. This is particularly true with Aragorn who I found unbelievable in the book but much more real (and hence believable) in the movie.

BTW, no need to follow this statement up with barf comments, I know I'm the minority here on this point, can't we disagree respectfully and maturely?

I actually have a theory about Aragorn in the book. As we know, the LOTR book is an adaptation of the Red Book of Westmarch which was conceived and written by Hobbits. So, in those books, we get a highly Hobbit-centric view of the situations and people.

There's no doubt that Bilbo and Frodo adored Aragorn. That being so, it's hardly surprising that, when they wrote their version of the events, they whitewashed his foibles and made him certain and sure.

Personally - again, admittedly a minority view but it's mine - the Aragorn of the book didn't strike me as how a real human being thinks and responds. The Aragorn of the movies does.

[GrayMouser]

Agree on Arwen. I remember first reading the book and coming to the wedding in Gondor and thinking "who the hell is she?"

Boromir's death- heresy I know, but the "my brother, my Captain, my King" was better than what the Professor wrote.

The scene on Weathertop- it was still not very good in the movie- one Aragorn can chase off how many Black Riders?-, but can you imagine how it would have looked if Sam, Merry and Pippin were running around scaring off Nazgul with torches?

[suncrafter]

I like the part where Bilbo has trouble leaving the ring behind when he leaves home. He can't bring himself to set it on the mantel place or on a table. With hands trembling, he only manages to drop the ring near the front door. Not daring to look back at the ring - he steps out the door, and walks way, looking like he has been relieved of a heavy burden.
Soon afterward, Gandalf moves toward the ring, but (despite the fact that he is a powerful wizard) he dares not touch it. He looks at it with trepidation. He leaves the ring there until Frodo enters. Frodo picks it up without a problem.

That is not how it happened in the book - but I liked it a lot.

Cutting out all of that Tom Bombadill crap was also a definite improvement.

[The Gaffer]

Cutting out all of that Tom Bombadill crap was also a definite improvement.
:eek: LOL!

Personally, I think they should have made more changes, not less, in order to make the story more film-friendly.

Some of the performances were great: Christopher Lee and Cate Blanchett were excellent and brought an extra dimension to their characters. Gollum was very well done from both a technical and artistic point of view.

And of course, the fight scenes were outstanding, in spite of the odd lapse.

Don't agree about Aragorn: JRRT's often-criticised lack of characterisation is partly to do with figures such as Aragorn being seen through hobbit's eyes, and partly, I think, a device in which he is characterised by his words and deeds, not his thoughts. This works really well for Aragorn for me.

[Jon S.]

To clarify my own prior post, I liked the Aragorn of the book. I also liked the Aragorn of the movie. I feel each worked in its own setting.

The Aragorn of the movie, had he been cast in the book that way, wouldn't have been as good a fit with the overall epic feel of the book.

The Aragorn of the book, had he been cast that way in the movie, risked coming off like the ME version of John Wayne which, to me (YMMV), would not have been effective.

[The Gaffer]

Forgot to mention Bernard Hill, who was great as Theoden, and Sean Astin, whose performance rescued doe-eyed Elijah in particular and the entire film generally.

[Gordis]

The only change that made sense to me was that in the movie Aragorn had a normal sword when he met the hobbits in Bree - instead of what was left of Narsil, as in the books. I always wondered why the Ranger went around carrying a broken sword instead of leaving it in Rivendell along with the scepter of Annuminas etc.

[hectorberlioz]

*barf*

Oh wow Gwai, you're taking classes in PR too at college? :p

*blows compensation to Tolkienfan:)*

[Rosie Gamgee]

Just to be the voice of opposition: I do not agree about Arwen's 'enlarged' role in the films.

And as for reverse commentary: I am glad they took adil out. I don't think Tolkien knew exactly where he was going with the story at that point, and adil is kind of superfluous and bogs the story down.

Also... (wracks brain) I guess I kind of like that Frodo is younger in the movies. It makes him more accessible. In the books he is fifty-ish (which is not old for a hobbit, but people have a way of translating him into the equivalent of a fifty-year-old human). In the movie his age is more comparable to a twenty-five-year-old.

You know, now that I'm thinking about that, I do wish they would have made him a little older in the film.

[Thehoundsofdeath]

In general, I found the movie characters to be a bit more "real". Don't get me wrong, I love Tolkien, but he is somewhat idealistic in the way he portrays his characters.

I agree, but that is one of the reasons why I don't like the film.

In a work of fantasy, inner turmoil is usually represented through the external events of the fantasy world and its characters. Fantasy is generally loaded with Jungian symbolism. The main characters each have an evil opposite, ie Frodo/Gollum, Saruman/Gandalf, Aragorn/Sauron and so on, rendering the need for explicit inner turmoil in these characters both unneccessary and damaging to the structure of the story. The dark side of the heroes manifests itself through the actions of their dopplegangers.

Further, fantasy landscapes and its creatures serve as a mirror of the psychology of the individual. Much is being said about the characters less than directly, crudely and explicitly in the linear narratives. This is one of the reasons why fantasy has such broad appeal-it speaks to the human heart on a very visceral level.

Before I hijack this thread, things I actually liked that were not in the book: the closing credits were enjoyable.

[tolkienfan]

Before I hijack this thread, things I actually liked that were not in the book: the closing credits were enjoyable. I love to watch the credits!:) It's nice to just listen to the music, it helps me relax after watching such a long movie... of course, it also adds about 30 minutes, but whatever.:p

[brownjenkins]

How do you mean? I actually remembered the hobbits, particularly, as more "real" in the book. The dwarves, too.

Better late than never!

Faramir and Denethor come to mind. They both almost seemed too noble in the books, as did Boromir. If you look at Tolkien's works alone, so many of his main characters had no faults. Anything they did that would be considered evil was simply a result of corruption by the Ring and/or Sauron.

It's idealistic, which is fine, but also unrealistic.

[Thehoundsofdeath]

Better late than never!

Faramir and Denethor come to mind. They both almost seemed too noble in the books, as did Boromir. If you look at Tolkien's works alone, so many of his main characters had no faults. Anything they did that would be considered evil was simply a result of corruption by the Ring and/or Sauron.

It's idealistic, which is fine, but also unrealistic.

I am not sure how you interpret Denethor setting fire to himself and his still-living son, in a feeble act of despair, as "too noble". Some kind of morale-raising immolation-o-gram to the Gondor troops perhaps?

I think the current fashion for realism is getting a bit out of hand when people start complaining that a work of fantasy is unrealistic. So far as I know elves, trolls, balrogs, wizards and hobbits do not exist. I thought a lack of realism was kind of the point.

[brownjenkins]

I meant it in terms of Denethor's general failings being later attributed to his access to a palantir, which lead to corruption by Sauron.

[Jon S.]

I can only speak for myself but when I turn to sci fi and fantasy, I like my landscapes surreal, my species and races (other than humans) unreal, and my humans (and their concerns and issues) real.

I feel generally satisfied from the movies on all 3 points so whereas, like almost everyone, there are aspects of each that grate on me, I enjoyed (and still enjoy) them.

[Rían]

I think a lot of the props were really beautiful. This will come across better in the films, because when a person walks into a room, the author doesn't describe everything in the room, but in a film when a person walks in a room, your eyes go around the room and notice things. And I think they made a lot of beautiful things for the films.

[Rían]

I thought a lack of realism was kind of the point.Well, I think a work should be internally realistic, and in LOTR, humans are humans, and we all know they're not perfect.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Well, I think a work should be internally realistic, and in LOTR, humans are humans, and we all know they're not perfect.
Speak for yourself. ;) :D

[Rían]

:D :D

*gives Sis a big ol' kiss*

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I meant it in terms of Denethor's general failings being later attributed to his access to a palantir, which lead to corruption by Sauron.

Which was only made possible by his overconfidence in his own abilities. Denethor is really a classic tragic hero; a great man, several notches above most, with a tragic flaw which eventually undoes him.