Okay, so what do you think NOW?

[Meriadoc1961]

I, too, like the movies, but in all sincerity I believe a person who had not read the books first would probably like the movies better than those of us who read the books first.

[Knight of Gondor]

There were plenty of bones to pick with PJ's rendition. The radical departure from Faramir's true character. Frodo's portrayal as a simpering weenie. Gandalf smacking Denethor in the head. Aragorn's reluctance. Gandalf's humbling before the Witchking. Denethor's flaming plunge of death. Frodo telling Sam to leave. Sam leaving. Legolas's brilliant wit ("A diversion"), Gimli's use for comic relief, Arwen's fate suddenly and inexplicably being "tied to the Ring"...etc.

Yet, despite all my intellectual quarrels with plot differences, the movies (especially Return of the King) stunned and amazed me. They blew me away when I saw them in theaters, and at home. I just recently completed watching the trilogy again (with a younger brother who was finally old enough to see the movies) and I have yet to see any movie that compares. The glory of so many moments -- the whole battle of Pelennor (especially Theoden's speech and the Ride of the Rohirrim) Sam and Frodo at Mt. Doom, Aragorn's "For Frodo" death charge, Gandalf telling Pippin about the Grey Havens, the very end of the film at the Havens (which chokes me up just thinking about) -- all of this redeems the film and more.

[Sauron the White]

Regarding the Jackson portrayal of Galadriel in the Mirror scene with Frodo -
This direct from the writing of JRRT himself.

"She lifted up her hand and from the ring that she wore there issued a great light that illuminated her alone and left all else dark. She stood before Frodo seeming now tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful."

The words Blanchett speaks seem to be taken directly from the paragraph that precedes this description.

I do not know what film others saw, or what version of LOTR others have read, but it seems to me that Jackson nailed this scene as written by Tolkien himself.

[Folwren]

I have always liked that scene with Galadriel. All, except, her delivery of the line "I know what it is you saw." But, ignoring that...

The part where she tells Frodo what she would be like with the Ring...what others describe as psychotic, or whatever, has always stirred me deeply. I like it. Most everyone else has told me that they don't. *shrugs* Oh well.

-- Folwren

[Finduilas]

I agree with Folwren and Sauron the White on Galadriel.

I didn't like how they did Bilbo's speach at his party. I think it would have been so funny/fun if they had done it more booklike. Of course, the way they did it, Gandalf wasn't in the mix which tied in more later, but they could have had Bilbo continue, and just leave out Gandalfs flash.

It seems that some people disliked the scene in TT with Boromir and Faramir in Osgiliath. Despite some of its problems, I liked it because...
1. Since they twisted Faramir, it was nice to see the reason.
2. It showed a great love between the brothers.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

Originally Posted by Meriadoc1961

I, too, like the movies, but in all sincerity I believe a person who had not read the books first would probably like the movies better than those of us who read the books first.

I saw the movies first but, I like the books better...Actually I read the books because my friend was whining and complaining because PJ left the Scouring of The Shire out, so I was curious and read the books and love LotR even more than before. The books and the movies make me cry, but the books make me cry even more. Well I'm done now.

My 100th post!!!!

[Elladan and Elrohir]

For me, well, I'm suckered, I'm hooked, to use words from previous posts.

I get to have my cake and eat it, as far as the films go: My love for the books makes the movies seem that much richer and more glorious, and yet I still enjoy them as separate entities from Tolkien's masterpiece, unworthy of comparison with it in the end.

It's been said before, but I'll mention it again: Jackson brought Middle-earth to life. Is it Tolkien's Middle-earth? No, not really; it's Jackson's Middle-earth. Very similar in some areas, very different in a lot of others. But it is a vision that PJ has realized. He has not cut out a carbon copy of the Professor's work, nor has he gone too far (for the most part) in making Middle-earth his own.

I realize that last statement, at least, may face (and does face) vehement disagreement among some on this board. But that's my perspective.

Alatar continues to hope for a remake in 20 years. I'm divided. On the one hand, plot-wise and character-wise, I see a LOT of different ways the filmmakers could have approached it and made it something different, but perhaps far better. But on the other hand, the visual realization of Middle-earth is so strong that I don't know whether any director will ever dare to try to come up with a new one. PJ created, in my mind, the definitive Bag End, Dwarrowdelf, Helm's Deep, Minas Tirith, among many others. A new director would have to go in a radically different direction visually (and thus stray significantly from Tolkien in that regard, and perhaps lose the fans immediately) in order to be perceived as being original.

So yeah, now I pretty much see them as my favorite films of all time. Not that I've really seen very many, especially great ones.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Elladan and Elrohir

Alatar continues to hope for a remake in 20 years. I'm divided.

You must be young... Back in the day there were no cell phones, internet, digital pretty much anything, and so I figure by the time my kids hit mid-life, movies may become more interactive in ways we cannot imagine today.

It's not that I don't appreciate the films; I've just seen too many changes to think that PJ's version is the end-all be-all.

[Finduilas]

Yes, PJ did bring Middle Earth to life. His sets were awesome. And I don't think that many could outdo them. But he could have done at least a 100% better at the movie itself. I don't think he could have easily bettered his sets. Not unless he spent 20 years doing it. But I still stick to everything I said, he messed up terribly on many parts. (And not so terribly, but still badly, on another many parts.)

[Sauron the White]

Imagine for a few moments if you could go back into the past in mid 2001. FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING would be released in just a few months and anticipation was extremely high.

Now imagine that you could look into the future and discover the following:

- all three films would be massive hits with all three breaking into the All Time Worldwide Box Office list Top Ten
- one of the three films would be only the second film to break the magical $1billion dollar mark and still be in second place years later
- the collective films would be nominated for over 30 Academy Awards, win 17 including Best Picture of the Year
- numerous other awards would be heaped upon the films including many BAFTA's, Golden Globes and other
- The three films would be almost universally praised by professional film critics and be among the highest critically acclaimed films of each year
- one of the films would eventually crack the prestigious AFI's list of the Best Films of All Time and make the Top Fifty.
- many Tolkien related websites would have post after post from readers gushing about the films and their favorite scenes

I think you would have been very happy.

When I read many of these posts I have to wonder if people saw the same films that I did.

[Meriadoc1961]

I appreciate everyone's thoughts and comments.

While reading through these posts it seems to me that all seem to be in agreement that visually the trilogy is a masterpiece. And since Jackson WAS so adept at capturing visually Minas Tirith, Rohan, The Shire and Bag End, The Black Gate, the Ents, Gollum, the Balrog, the Mines of Moria, Rivendell, Shelob, Lorien, etc., etc., then why the need to change the characters? That is what disturbs me when I watch the films. I like them, but I see no need for Jackson to have changed the characters at all. There was absolutely no reason for him to have done what he did with Gandalf being a bully and beating Denethor. There was no need to have Frodo tell Sam to leave. Frodo is supposed to be a very wise individual, and yet he comes across as a weak fool in many ways in the movie. The portrayal of Gimli as a buffoon was not needed at all, and in fact, I believe Tolkien would have been particularly insulted by that portrayal of the Dwarf, a member of a race he respected. Treebeard was no fool, either, and yet he has to be tricked by the hobbits in order to do the right thing. And what he did with the character of Faramir is practically unforgiveable, and absolutely pointless, not to mention how Aragorn went from being a person of high character and purpose to a man who was trying to flee from his duty. Why? How was any of this an improvement, and how was any of it necessary?

[Sauron the White]

Meriadoc...
Perhaps if you watched the extra features, especially the commentary from the writers and producers, that comes with the special editions of the three films you would gain some explaination of why they did what they did.

It would take time - many hours of repeated viewings watching the same films over and over again but listening to the audio commentaries of different people who actually made the movie.

I do think that would provide you with an explaination and would help in understanding why some of these changes were made.

Besides that, there is the obvious difference between the art form of a book and that of a film. That would require a few book length postings to fully explain.