[manwe]

The LOTR movies are my favorite movies (surpassing Star Wars), and the books are my favorite books. But there were a few things that really ticked me off in the movies.

In no particular order:
- When Gandalf's staff is broken by the Witch King in ROTK. What was the point?
- That Saruman is killed by Wormtongue. I can see the purpose - to help speed through the ending, but that leaves my to my next complaint
- That the Shire was not being controlled by Saruman and Orcs at the end. I though that was a great way to conclude the book - showing the progression of Hobbits to be able to fend for themselves.
- That Faramir had the intent to take the ring back to his father. In the books, I thought the fact that he never had the intention to do that made him a great character.

Anyone else???

[Evil Agent]

Well, to be honest, these are all complaints that I've heard years ago, when the movies first came out. On some Tolkien forums, I've seen debate threads that go on for tens of pages, usually film fans against purists, who are upset with all those changes.

I don't really have the energy to discuss this all over again, but in general I am okay with the changes. There are many things I would have loved to see, that would have made the film much better, but I'm happy enough with the films and I get enough enjoyment out of them that I can live with it. Personally, I think we're lucky that the movies were ever made.

The Scouring of the Shire scene was never going to be in the film, they said that years before the movie even came out, so I wasn't too disappointed. But it is one of my favorite scenes in the book, it's a shame we couldn't have seen it. Anything with Christopher Lee as Saruman is the best! But as to Wormtongue killing him, that still happens in the book... just in the Shire, rather than on top of Orthanc.

[sa989]

well manwe, the only thing from that list that i really have a grievance with is Gandalf getting his staff broken..it makes him look weak, totally out of character. But, then again, they cut that out of the final release, so i guess they realized their mistake.

yeah taking the ring to osgiliath was kinda dumb, but it was more to give faramir a "character arc", make him a round character so to speak. still dumb though.

the killing of saruman wasn't bad; in fact it was good. scouring of the shire couldn't happen, obviously. one, for time restraints. it would have made the movie a whole lot longer to fit it in nicely. and since it detracts a little from the main story arc, it wouldn't have made sense to extend the film so much longer. that being said, the killing of saruman was almost as it was in the book, except taking place at orthanc instead of the shire.

otherwise, very nice job with the movies. except for a few additions/subtractions, I thought they captured the book nicely. those who are strict dissenters are usually tolkien purists, or those who simply don't want to view lotr any way but their own. of course the books will always be more on an epic and grander scale, but the movies are still well done.

[Brys]

I think there had to be some changes and cuts - the films were long enough as they were. I think that the films were better than the books, because, quite simply, the films were an excellent piece of cinema at the top end of all films made, while the novels were just very good, but not close to the top of fantasy.

[cheese]

lol the only thing that really annoyed me in the movie is when legolas rides a piece of metal (might have been a shield or something) down a ledge like its a skateboard, and at the same time shooting down orcs.

I thought for the most part the transition from the book to the movie was pretty good. No matter how the movie was made there would always be people complaining about faults or parts of the books that weren't included. lol like me :D

[sa989]

ok but what about gandalf losing to the witch king? gandalf the GREY killed a balrog (a maia). so gandalf the WHITE, also a maia, wearing narya, loses to a MAN with voodoo powers wearing a stupid man ring? wtf?? i'm so offended i might open a whole new thread about this!

this is the only thing i hate watching...otherwise...spectacular movies. i love them and all, but i lost some respect for peter jackson when i saw that.

[Cirdan]

The movies are great and the books even more so. I have to agree that the last part with the hobbits and the Shire is relly important but I understand why it wasn't included in the movie.
The thing with Gandalf seems like a mistake. Like Jackson relly wanted it in there but couldn't make it fit the rest. That seems to be the case several times in ROTK. More should be in and even in the Extended Version some scenes are too short to include everything. The movie should have been at least ½ hour longer.

[Sir Stephen]

ok but what about gandalf losing to the witch king? gandalf the GREY killed a balrog (a maia). so gandalf the WHITE, also a maia, wearing narya, loses to a MAN with voodoo powers wearing a stupid man ring? wtf?? i'm so offended i might open a whole new thread about this!

this is the only thing i hate watching...otherwise...spectacular movies. i love them and all, but i lost some respect for peter jackson when i saw that.
lol. I'm right with you there. What was Jackson thinking? But that would only be my 2nd worst moment of the film. What about Aragon and co waiding through thousands of (plastic) sculls in the Paths of the Dead!? Too cheesy for words....

Now I really enjoyed these films, but the third one really goes off in odd directions at times. Looking at the three movies I'd say their strength corresponds exactly to how faithfull Jackson kept to each book. When he went his own way things got messed up.

I'd say Fellowship is by far the strongest. Two Towers was still great but drags for the first half as Jackson decided to leave the best bit (Shelob) out. By ROTK he's got cocky, left the book in large chunks, thus all the strange stuff in the extended version. He's also got an editing nightmare, legacy of his decisions in the second film. So ROTK ends up lacking cohesion, focus and unfortunatly gets a bit cheesy.

Overall, books win. But films are good.

[sa989]

i wouldnt say the whole movie goes off in odd directions. i think its pretty strong as a movie. actually, a spectacular one. and the theatrical cut is nearly flawless. but the extended edition...man...wtf?? gandalf getting pwnd by the witch-king?? why?? i did like the little discourse between gandalf and saruman though in the beginning. shame they cut that out.

[~claire~]

hmmm i HATED the harry potter movies athough the new one looks promising.

the LOTR movie was excellent and it was great for me as i found the books rather tedious and boring.

Quote: lol the only thing that really annoyed me in the movie is when legolas rides a piece of metal (might have been a shield or something) down a ledge like its a skateboard, and at the same time shooting down orcs.

yea that was so rubbish i just stared in disbelief at the screen. it was the most silly part in the movie. some bits were amusing eg: gimli the dwarf. but for me legolas, particlurly orlando bloom could never be anything apart from funny.