Actual quote from Peter Jackson. I agree with him; the movies aren't the books but they are great in their own right and I enjoy them separately from the books. What a concept! Enjoy both! What'll they think of next?

A movie is a movie. A book is a book. A comic is a comic. You can't completely turn one in to the other. There is always something lost in between if you try to carry it over in to another medium.

The Lord of the Rings are my favorite movies ever, bar none.

I really prefer the extended versions to the original theatrical releases. They flow a lot better. They seem to be a better experience overall. I'm not sure why it is but after watching them a few times each I still believe that to be true.

Exactly. The only thing that gets me is that I don't understand why they made some of the changes they did. I understand giving Arwen a bigger role, but why have elves at Helm's Deep? Why wait until the third movie to reforge Narsil when it was done in Fellowship before they left Rivendell? Why have Theoden under a spell from Saruman? Maybe someone here that is knowledgeable in storytelling and in LOTR (*coughtaftcouch*) could explain to me why they made these changes. They don't bother me, I'm able to watch/read them both for what they are, I'm just curious.

Actually, that's not entirely true. Two things do bother me: the changes they made to Faramir and also the part where Gollum frames Sam for throwing away the lembas bread and Frodo sends Sam home. Frodo would never have doubted Sam, first of all, and second of all Sam would not have left Frodo's side for anything. At least, that's the impression I got from the books. But these two things don't ruin my enjoyment of these fine films, they just irk me a little.

I could give answers to those questions, but it would be my interpretation, however these two I know from the mouths of the filmmakers themselves:



Because even though in the book we know what the Elves are doing during this war, in the movie there isn't time for that, so they decided to do that to show the audiences that the Elves were also fighting against Sauron.



Because they thought that a lot of the movie's suspense resided in the power of the Ring, and having a character so easily reject it would break that spell.

I read where they felt they had to have Frodo doubt Sam and send him away to create dramatic tension over the loyalties of Sam to Frodo and vice versa. They had only a short time to do it.

Because if he's so fucking above it, then why the fuck isn't he the one destroying it. Jackson is right. The ring *has* to be seen as a temptation. Any character that resists it is a cheat.

I did think that it strengthened Frodo's unique ability to resist it. His ordained role was to be the guy who could carry it.

But we all know who the strongest character and real hero of LOTR is. And therefore, the guy he protects needs to be the only guy who can carry the ring. Very powerful, literary even.

I think it comes down to attempting to craft each story as a stand-alone story, viewed a year apart. The reforging of the sword isn't important until the final part, so they move it there.

Frodo casting Sam out is helps ratchet up the tension, as Sam had always been there making sure nothing too bad happens to Frodo and now he's alone with a clearly insane character... all of which ramps up the corruption power of the ring.

Not one of yours, but Christopher Lee was pissed off his character was removed from the third movie. When you consider that many movie goers aren't going to have great memories, having him show up at the very beginning of the third movie to instantly lose doesn't really work. Just as people are figuring out who he was and how they last saw him, he'd be gone.

Faramir was a Mary Sue, so yeah, it did seemed a little out of place having a character so virtuous.



Also in the book Aragron would tell who he was to whoever had enough time to listen, while in the movie Jackson gave him a character arc, after resisting the Ring temptation and his successful commanding of an army, then he was ready to wield the Sword of Isildur.

(One of Byrne's most stupid complaints about the movies was that Aragorn wasn't a hero because he doubted himself. In the book, he sees the hot Elven princess and a Kingdom as his reward for helping destroy the Ring and defeating Sauron, while in the movies he does it while thinking Arwen was lost to him and did not wanted to be king. He did it just because it was the right thing to do and without expecting any kind of reward. If that's not heroic and noble I don't know what is)

That, and it provided Aragorn with a more distinct character arc. In the book he's already a fully formed hero and king, awaiting nothing more than the moment he claims the crown. In the movies they wanted Aragorn to have an actual arc; to grow into the king he would become. In the book he's set to claim his destiny from the start. In the movie, it's a Moment. It's a major turning point for the character and the culmination of his entire arc. So, you put that in the third movie. It's Luke becoming a Jedi or Anakin becoming Vadar.

I think it was the right choice to make.

I think Aragorn in the book is a great character. He works for the story. And I think Aragorn in the movie is a great character, too. He works for the story.

Rather than regurgitate the same points, I'll point you to my exchange with Jeff on the subject. Read through that discussion and you'll see the case I make for the elves at Helm's Deep.

To make Saruman a clearer, more distinct villain for The Two Towers rather than a stop along the way. The filmmakers wanted each movie to have a distinct arc so it could somewhat stand on its own. Having Theoden under a spell both allows for Theoden to have a quicker transformation from a useless old man to a strong king, as well as reinforces Saruman as a magic-hurling bad guy to be reckoned with.

I also suspect that the idea of Grima slowly manipulating Theoden over the years was too subtle a point to get across with any degree of believability in the time they were given. While in a book that whole idea can be discussed and gotten across just fine, in a film we'd ideally see some of that process. It would take time to develop, otherwise it would make Theoden look kind of silly.

"Why is this guy so weak!?"

Making it more based in magic gets around that.

That said, I do think the possession bit was a tad overdone.

Others have explained Faramir okay.

On Frodo and Sam, it's a change I did not like and still don't, but I understand the reasoning behind it. (They explain it in detail in the DVD commentary.) It was all about dramatic tension, making clear the growing power the Ring had over Frodo, and strengthening Sam as the real hero of the story by having him do the right thing no matter what. It reinforced their bond at the crucial moment -- just before entering Mordor.

This one I knew already, but I disagree with their reasoning on it. I read the books, I didn't feel any less threatened by the ring because of this.

Thanks everyone for the explanations. Maybe I should watch all the features on the 4-disc versions.

Also, I think it's silly when people complain that there was no Tom Bombadil. I would have liked to see the Scouring of the Shire, but the movie did have enough endings.

I highly recommend at the very least watching the director/writer commentaries. They're very insightful, and while you might still disagree with some of the decisions, you'll get a good sense of why they made them.

It's also interesting to hear them on the first film, them hear how tired they are two years later on the third film.

One thing I am thankful of and that's that they took out, or altered rather, the filmed scene of Aragorn fighting Sauron. I might have left the theatre.

It certainly gives live to the notion that they were "pissing on it" to make it theirs. Every alteration was made for rather rational reasons. You might disagree with them, but they obviously had numerous discussions and fights about such things.

And btw, Eric, I read your exchange with Jeff and I agree with your reasoning. The only ones that bothered me were Faramir and the Frodo/Sam conflict. And the Ent decision, a little. But they are great films.

Oh wait, there is one other thing that gnaws at me and that's that Merry, Pippen and to a lesser extent Gimli were transformed into comic relief. They were mostly sharp hobbits in the book but bumblers through most of the films.

I do disagree with those that say they were "pissing" on the book. I do believe that they did what they could to transform what many feel is an unfilmable book into three marketable movies. Good intentions and all that.

And Gollum was pitch perfect.