Lord Of The Rings - how close to the books?

[slaphapy]

I have seen the movies, though i have not read the books.

those who have read the books... are the movies close? do they catch about as much as you can if you don't want to bore an audience beyond sanity...and fit it into 3 hours or so

I know that many peoples opinions will proably be that "oh it doesn't even compare" or something like that, it seems as though every movie to someone that reads the books, just does not even come close to comparison to the books. Putting that aside, did you think they were relatively close... within reason

i think i may read the books because they are a story that i really enjoy... i have watched the first one around 10-15 times lol.... i'm even watching it right now, and i own the "special extended edition" (hehehe) as well as i went to the theatre to see the 2nd like 3 times lol (man i can't get over how sweet that battle scene was) so i will probably read the books, because i just can't get enough of it...

but back to the point, this thread is to find out what all of your opinions are...

[VigilVirus]

I'd say it's pretty close to the book. I mean they did take out some parts and added the mushy Arwen love story, but that is always done to balance things out in any movie.

[Frodo]

i thought peter jackson did a great job. you can not take as detailed of a book as LOTR is and fit everything in a 3 hour movie. so for people to complain that the movie was too long, than complain that there wasn't enough detail is ridiculus. i thought it was a great adaption of the book.

[number6]

I think the first movie, "The Fellowship of the Ring", was very faithful to the original book. In "The Two Towers" Peter Jackson did some things that annoyed me and one thing he did could alter how the third movie pans out.

[hide]

In the original book Farimir does not take Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath where one of the Ring Wraiths actually sees the ring in Frodo's posession. This is a major problem for the remaining plot, because in the books Sauron believes that Saruman has the ring at Isengard. The reason he believes this is because one of the Hobbits (Pippin I think) touches the Palantir and Sauron sees a Hobbit and believes this is the Hobbit who carries the ring. In the movie Sauron now knows that the ring is on the border of Morder. This knowledge would make it much more difficult for the ring bearer to complete his quest, because the Armies of Sauron would be even more aggressive in there hunt for the ring. This is a significant alteration in my opinion.

[/hide]

I still think "The Two Towers" is an excellent movie, but I am dissapointed with some of the plot alterations (Especially the one mentioned above). Peter Jackson also left out like 7 chapters from the second book, some of which must be covered in the third movie to complete the major plot lines. Overall the movies are excellent and in their own right they are masterpieces. I suggest reading the books for a much deeper understanding of what you are seeing in the movies.

[number6]

Go to these 2 links:

http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/movie.html

http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/twotowers.html

For a more in depth comparison between the movies and the books.

[zamboe]

Let me put it this way.

Scale from 1 to 10. 10 being the max.

About how well the movies intend to reproduce the history of the books, I'd give to LOTR:FOTR : 6

I'd give to LOTR:TTT : 5

I have read the book (actually is only 1 book, divided in 3 parts), and given all that was not covered in TTT and all the rest of the history, plus the biggest battles that are to come, I predict that there will major cuts of very important parts, I don't see how a good third movie could possible happen in just 3 hours.

[Dude_Doc]

I think the whole TTT was directed in a strange way. It somehow did not follow the directing like FoT. By this I mean that the scenes are cut strangely.

I also think that the Gimli "jokes" were like an alternative to Star Wars's "Jar Jar Bin".

I think they/Jackson could've done better on TTT.

[Frodo]

i agree number6, that was a major mistake, but i read that the last 7 chapters could not fit in the movie and were moved to the third. i think that the aragorn/arwen stuff was added to attract a bigger audience. i think he did a great job though.

[number6]

Frodo,

For all of the things I can find wrong with the movie version of "The Two Towers" there are many more things that were done right and better than I had expected. I have enjoyed both movies immensely and I can't wait for "The Return of the King". So I agree that Peter Jackson did a great job. I wish Peter would have done "The Hobbit" first though. It looks like he has no plans of making a Hobbit movie :( .

[Frodo]

Yes, that is what I thought also. The Hobbit would truly be a master peice! It was probably my favorite book, and I think it would be awesome on the big screen. I hope he decides to make it, because with all of the hype right now, it would hit records in the box office.

[GhostHunter]

I personally felt the movies were thrilling and very close to the books. Of course, things have to be left out, and a few new add-ins placed but hey, it's probably one of the closet novel movies that there is, and for the SCALE of it, it was meracolous.

The only thing I didn't really like, was at Healms Deep, I do not recall the elves coming to help the humans at the last moment. Other than that I loved both of the movies, and eagerly await the third sequel.

[slaphapy]

really? i wouldn't think the humans could possibly have won without the elves at helms deep

[Lord J]

I dunno, I think the Elves' re-inforcing Helm's Deep made a good statement about the fellowship of humankind (Even if the Elves aren't human... ;) ).

I didn't really see much of anything wrong with The Two Towers. I think Frodo was a bit over-acted. Faramir should have been much more honorable. But other than those comments I think it was a rousing success. I can't wait to see what he does with Return of the King.

[Dude_Doc]

TTT was nominated 6 Academy Awards, so I must say I am surprised...

Although, it doesn't have to mean it will win all those...

But still...

[Alexander_Ordos]

I'm really sorry guys but movies can't even be compared to books >:( The first movie was OK, though it still lacked something, but The Two Towers is embarrasing! I mean was it really necessary to add that silly spam to the movie? The conversations ARE tooo long :-[ The battles look good with all that graphics stuff but they were just too short to cover the movie mistakes. And those elves - I wanted to see some great cavalry maneuvering and what do I see - some elves that simply look good and nothing else. Gendalf was suposed to bring the Dark woods NOT the cavalry ??? I don't even repeat that Frodo wasn't supposed to go to Osgiliath and Faramir was supposed to resist the charm of the ring, that's why he's different from his brother... Ok enough of this ::)

[Aeris]

The Fellowship of the Ring was really close to the book, for the most part, I was impressed. In the Two Twoers, though, they messed up quite a bit, but still, pretty faihful to the book.