I'm not a huge fan of these movies. They're good, but not great. I enjoyed the EE more than the theatrical ones mainly because they seemed to have more plot and character development in them.

it is kind of a moot point arguing over whether or not Tolkien would have agreed with Jackson's vision seeing as how he's been dead for some decades, but I would like to think he would have been at least satisfied with the final outcome.

Logistically it's impossible to nut these movies and leave everyone with a smile on their dial.

Jackson passed with flying colours IMO.

With any book-turned-movie you are going to disappoint some people as their 'vision' of the plot and characters differs from the next person's 'vision'. Unless you had unabridged movies (ie 9 hours long each or so), some stuff has to be eliminated.

What Jackson has done is to extract the most significant parts to form the movie, and the result is an epic trilogy which no-one can deny was highly enjoyable. Certainly some things were missing, but not anything that resulted in the story not getting across.

I think Tolkien would have enjoyed it. I doubt he could have imagined the level of special effects that were used to bring Middle Earth to life, so visually I'm sure he would have been impressed. The locations worked well, the actors chosen to play the parts (IMO) were nearly perfect, and although character development lacked in some areas, it was deep enough to let you understand the characters.

Tolkien is more likely to be pissed off with what Coca-Cola have done to Santa.

I loved them, and before they came out, I was totally expecting a savage let-down...the casting seemed totally fucked in my eyes, before they came out, other than Gandalf. But they were beautiful...I was completely in awe when I saw FOTR. I couldn't believe how close some of the stuff was to how I had imagined it.

Boromir's death is one of my all time favorite movie scenes ever.

I loved the whole trilogy, but nothing will compare to the first one in the theater...I felt like I'd been waiting my whole life for that. Kind of like TPM.

Of course, in the movie you don't get to see what people are actually thinking, or exactly how they feel. I don't feel that he didn't want to be King in the movies - there was certainly an element of humbleness, but not rejection.

Hey, I'm just happy I'm not the only one that really didn't like the films. The look is great, but the strange things they chose to change are what kill it. I had ticks to two shows for the opening of FOTR. After coming out of the first one, I gave the ticket for the second showing away. It took me four days to muddle through the theatrical cut screener of TTT. I haven't even bothered to see ROTK.

I've read the books twice albeit about 10 years ago the first time. As much as I enjoyed the story and the epic scope the characters undertook you can't tell me these are tedious as fuck to read. Some chapters have you reaching for the no-doze. I'm happy with the direction PJ took - he managed to condense enough story in there to keep me happy.

I've never understood why people compare books and movies.

It's like looking at a painting and saying "Yeah, it's good, but it was NOTHING compared to the sculpture it was based off of..."

Well said.

Books are far more open to interpretation than movies are, and obviously have far more depth. Perhaps its like comparing apples and oranges. I was certainly content with the movies, but I went in with an open mind and accepted Jackson's vision of Tolkien's work.

Overall I'm happy they made three movies rather than squeezing it into a single 3 hour movie which would have basically been battle scene after battle scene, climb the mountain, get rid of the ring and happy ever after. In Hollywood these days that happens all too often.

Take the movies for what they are and you'll be a happier person.

Yeah but three movies drive up sales. All the Hollywood studios know that Trilogies are in these days.

Well I have two main gripes with the conversion, one minor and one not so minor.

1. Pippin. My favourite character in the book. Always had something funny to say, constantly brought a smile to my face. His relationship with Gandalf was special. There's no way there was enough screentime to convey this in the movies as there was far more going on, so I'll let this one slip.

2. The Scourging of the Shire. Most people think this part of the book didn't need to be adapted to film. Well boo to them. It was an immensely important completion to the Hobbits character arc and Frodo letting Wormtounge live was especially important. I can assure you all that Tolkien WOULD have wanted this in the movie. After all, it did seem to be a major point in the book, did it not? But Peter Jackson thought he knew better, he thought the story was 'more appropriate' to have the climax at Mount Doom. Maybe he's right, maybe that would work better in the popcorn movie format. But the story suffered.

Overall I'd rate the movies:

FotR: 9/10
TTT: 8/10
RotK: 7.5/10

I read all but Fellowship before seeing the movies, and they're still my favorite movies. I like every change PJ made to the films, and even those that I was really upset about pre-RotK we now know will be in the EE so I can't complain.

Arwen is still a bitch though.

There's nothing wrong with a bit of constructive critisism. Even when you accept the differences between the mediums and acknowledge how difficult it is to make the transfer, it's so easy to watch it and pick up on things that could have been done a better way, a way which suits your own taste rather than the director's or screenwriter's. Biasm isn't an easy thing to dispell.

In other words, my opinion about your opinion about everyone's opinion being, is that your opinion is invalid.

The Academy is corrupt, or so I hear. Either way those award shows hold no water with me. Besides, winning only means he did a better job adapting the screenplay against whoever else was nominated that year. Obviously he did a decent job. Many would have done far worse. But there was room for improvement, especially in RotK.

man what part of the book was this in it sounds good

Read Hobbit before I saw Fellowship movie, then about a month after I saw it, I read the trilogy&Silmarillion and had it finished a few months before Towers came out.

I want to hear from someone who read the books AFTER seeing the movies. I wonder if they'd start tearing strips off Tolkien for writing a wafting, meandering tale with the destruction of the ring an anti-climax to the scouring of the shire...?

I thought PJ was from New Zealand, not Hollywood.

And I had only read the Hobbit when I went into this trilogy, which was an awesome primer, I thought. I deliberately held off reading the books until I had the DVD EE of each book(except ROTK, obviously), and that made all the difference.

I had seen the cartoons partially when I was younger, and I didn't really get into it at all, so I was skeptical about the movies, but I really liked FOTR (PJ's movie, not the toon), so much so that even after three hours I was pissed that I had to leave the theater without hearing the whole story.

I knew I didn't want to be that jerk that complained about how screwed up everything was, so I waited until I had everything I needed, and it made the whole experience 100 times more enjoyable, to be able to watch the movies, see the characters, the locations, everything, then go back and check out the source material as I went along. I was able to enjoy each on it's own merits without worrying about content, because if something was missing in one, it was avaiable in the other form.

My patience just didn't last, and I rolled ahead and read ROTK anyways, complete story or not.

It really made for a complete sensory experience. I even bought the action figures, something I haven't done in years...

(Which reminds me, anyone wanna buy some Star Wars figures?)

"THAT would have been the shit. Oh, and they fucked up Faramir as well."

Movie Faramir is the way Tolkien wanted Faramir to be. In a letter before he died he said he wanted Faramir to change from his trilogy-self to emphasize that only Aragorn had the will to deny the ring's power. So really if PJ had made Faramir like he was in the book, he would have fucked up.

"PJ fucked up"

11 academy awards, biggest fanbase in the world, more money than he knows what to do with... yep, he fucked up bad.

You make a good point, Jeremi, but as much as I'd like to be able to imagine the LOTR books being around in my head all my life, I can't.

I think the experience of a movie or a book is unique for each person, and I had a blast with my LOTR experience, mainly because I didn't have to wait 30 freakin' years for technology to catch up.

Would I have liked to have seen the Scouring of the Shire? You bet, that was my favorite part of ROTK, but the movie still satisfies me without it.

Now, if you want me to bitch about a movie that completely screwed the book it was based on, let's talk Dune.

I saw the movie before I read the book(s), and the movie itself is pretty good even if it makes little or no sense in parts.
The book(s) however are infinitely better, and I'm so happy I did the movie before the book.

But back to LotR I don't think you can form a comparison between GLs OT and PT, and PJs adaptation of Tokien's books. The OT and the PT were both made by George Lucas, whereas the books were Tolkien and the movies were made by an entirely different person.

I prefer the Original Version of the OT, whereas GL obviously prefers the SE. It was closer to *his* original thoughts making the SE the 'correct' version. The PT have been made directly by him, so despite many of us hating it you can't argue that isn't 'correct'.

You can argue that PJs 'vision' is different to Tolkien's, but you can't argue that GLs 'vision' is anything else but GLs 'vision'.

Face it people, Gredo shot first.

"Good" and "Successful" are not synonymous. Hitler was successful in killing a lot of Jews, but what he did was not a good thing, obviously. PJ had major success after the films. Doesn't mean he made good movies.

(then again, "good" is subjective, some people think titanic was good, just like some people thought hitler killing jews was good)



Give me a while, it's buried in ToRN's Green Books somewhere.

Even Tolkien didn't undertstand his intent and "theme" with Faramir, considering he later wished he'd written the character as the complete opposite.

The thing about Faramir being right and virtuous was so awkward after he heavily pushed the fact that only Aragorn had the will to deny the Ring, now you have a Ranger who says he wouldn't pick it up if it lay in the middle of the road. CONSISTENCY PROBLEMS AM I CORRECT?

p.s. i can't find the torn link, try googling "tolkien letters faramir" or something, i tried a little earlier but internet died and i never got the motivation to look again

One of my favorite trilogies of all time, second to the OT.

Were the books full of homoerotic overtones?

Awesome movies though.

Yes.

One scene in the book is Sam holding a naked Frodo in Cirith Ungol while talking about his devotion.