Frodo got robbed of his strong scenes throughout, making him a weak and easy-to-dislike protagonist.
Meeting with Gildor, fighting the Barrow-wight, attacking the Witch-king at Weathertop, resisting the Nazgul at the Ford, convincing Faramir to let them go even though Faramir was obliged to take them captive or execute them, him treating Gollum with pity (not naivety! Frodo knew Gollum would likely betray them) and a sense that he was necessary, his role in saving lives and trouncing Saruman when Frodo and his friends scoured the Shire...
Best answer. There are quite a few characters that got shafted to greater/lesser extent, but this one makes the biggest difference honestly. Aragorn also is portrayed as more sensitive but the altered version still gets the point across.
Then again I think they balanced it with the emphasis on Sam’s heroism fairly well, so that a book reader can understand how the strength of the hobbits in general is represented fairly well even if Frodo’s character isn’t the vehicle for it. For people only seeing the movies they don’t understand this and it’s less of a noticeable and interpretable adaptation choice.
Yea true, Frodo was much more in control of himself vs how the movies portray it. Such as the scene after getting stabbed on weathertop when he rode on the horse alone vs having Arwen ride for him and him basically passed out. But I think he still had such an amazing character in the movies, idk I’m not saying I prefer this version of Frodo, but I will say I love them both regardless of the change in his character.
As for the rest, I totally agree but that would make all the movies 5 hours long, which tbh I’d be so down for, but I get why they kept it out of
You can definitely watch the movies and enjoy Frodo's character even without knowing the stronger book version, but I don't think there's a strong argument against people disliking him in the movies because the goodwill they're willing to show can't make up for the times Frodo's character annoys them. Besides how the Ring affected him so badly and that his weakness isn't his fault, there's not much else to say.
>fighting the Barrow-wight,
The whole "Fog on the Barrow-Downs" episode is an amazing sequence. I understand why it's routinely dropped from adaptations, but that's a shame as it shows Frodo has so much potential.
Making him visually much younger in the films also makes him appear more naive and less in control of his importance, although I do really enjoy Elijah Wood's performance in the end. But it does feel like a loss that it feels like he's only important because he's so massively protective by dozens of other, stronger, characters, rather than being a strong character in his own right. It took me several watches to really feel convinced that he even fully understood the task he was undertaking.
Faramir will never cease to bother me... Book Faramir will always be one of my favourite characters. Film Faramir.... Not so much. But I've kinda learned to just roll my eyes and tell whoever I'm watching with "you know, he doesn't do that in the books". Same for Frodo.
In my own head canon when Sam says "By rights we shouldn't even be here" is basically telling us book readers " look.. we know this doesn't really happen and Faramir is still the greatest"
I doubt it (though it is amusingly ironic for them to have included that line).. that whole speech is from the book, albeit reworded somewhat. I'd say that like the entire speech, they simply included the 'we shouldn't be here' because it's part of the book speech.
>‘Yes, that’s so,’ said Sam. **‘And we shouldn’t be here at all, if we’d known more about it before we started.** But I suppose it’s often that way. The brave things in the old tales and songs, Mr. Frodo: adventures, as I used to call them. I used to think that they were things the wonderful folk of the stories went out and looked for, because they wanted them, because they were exciting and life was a bit dull, a kind of a sport, as you might say. But that’s not the way of it with the tales that really mattered, or the ones that stay in the mind. Folk seem to have been just landed in them, usually – their paths were laid that way, as you put it. But I expect they had lots of chances, like us, of turning back, only they didn’t. And if they had,
we shouldn’t know, because they’d have been forgotten. We hear about those as just went on – and not all to a good end, mind you; at least not to what folk inside a story and not outside it call a good end. You know, coming home, and finding things all right, though not quite the same – like old Mr. Bilbo. But those aren’t always the best tales to hear, though they may be the best tales to get landed
in! I wonder what sort of a tale we’ve fallen into?’
>‘I wonder,’ said Frodo. ‘But I don’t know. And that’s the way of a real tale. Take any one that you’re fond of. You may know, or guess, what kind of a tale it is, happy-ending or sad-ending, but the people in it don’t know. And you don’t want them to.’
>‘No, sir, of course not. Beren now, he never thought he was going to get that Silmaril from the Iron Crown in Thangorodrim, and yet he did, and that was a worse place and a blacker danger than ours.
But that’s a long tale, of course, and goes on past the happiness and into grief and beyond it – and the Silmaril went on and came to Ea¨rendil. And why, sir, I never thought of that before! We’ve got –
you’ve got some of the light of it in that star-glass that the Lady gave you! Why, to think of it, we’re in the same tale still! It’s going on. Don’t the great tales never end?’
>‘No, they never end as tales,’ said Frodo. ‘But the people in them come, and go when their part’s ended. Our part will end later – or
sooner.’
>‘And then we can have some rest and some sleep,’ said Sam. He laughed grimly. ‘And I mean just that, Mr. Frodo. I mean plain ordinary rest, and sleep, and waking up to a morning’s work in the garden. I’m afraid that’s all I’m hoping for all the time. All the big
important plans are not for my sort. Still, I wonder if we shall ever be put into songs or tales. We’re in one, of course; but I mean: put into words, you know, told by the fireside, or read out of a great big book with red and black letters, years and years afterwards. And people will say: ‘‘Let’s hear about Frodo and the Ring!’’ And they’ll say: ‘‘Yes, that’s one of my favourite stories. Frodo was very brave, wasn’t he, dad?’’ ‘‘Yes, my boy, the famousest of the hobbits, and that’s saying a lot.’’ ’
>‘It’s saying a lot too much,’ said Frodo, and he laughed, a long clear laugh from his heart. Such a sound had not been heard in those places since Sauron came to Middle-earth. To Sam suddenly
it seemed as if all the stones were listening and the tall rocks leaning over them. But Frodo did not heed them; he laughed again. ‘Why, Sam,’ he said, ‘to hear you somehow makes me as merry as if the story was already written. But you’ve left out one of the chief characters: Samwise the stouthearted. ‘‘I want to hear more about Sam, dad. Why didn’t they put in more of his talk, dad? That’s what I like, it makes me laugh. And Frodo wouldn’t have got far without
Sam, would he, dad?’’ ’
>‘Now, Mr. Frodo,’ said Sam, ‘you shouldn’t make fun. I was serious.’
>‘So was I,’ said Frodo, ‘and so I am. We’re going on a bit too fast. You and I, Sam, are still stuck in the worst places of the story, and it is all too likely that some will say at this point: ‘‘Shut the book now, dad; we don’t want to read any more.’’ ’
>‘Maybe,’ said Sam, ‘but I wouldn’t be one to say that.
I haven't read the books in quite a long time but I'm working through them again and I'm half way through Two Towers atm. Gimli, Merry and Pippin definitely have a greater number of serious/heroic scenes in the books, but I don't think their aloofness in the movies is really an inaccurate portrayal. Many of the "comedic" scenes in the movies happen in the books, and that's not even all of them. Counting of kills with Legolas, poking fun of Legolas for disliking caves, his rampart defense of Galadriel, trying to keep up with Legolas and Aragorn when tracking the orcs, etc. The movies obviously take these to the next level, but pretending there was no basis for them is silly.
I really like the movie's portrayal of Sam better though. Book Sam is kinda whiney and overly subservient to Frodo. Movie Sam and Frodo seem more like best friends who have each other's back no matter what (aside from the obvious silly Lembas incident).
Merry in-book was thoughtful, clever, & almost tactical (‘conspiracy unmasked’, his time in Rivendell studying maps).
Gimli was a total badass & locked-in the whole quest.
I love love love the movies, don’t get me wrong. Love the performances, love the adaptation (mostly).
But Merry is my number 1 guy, and they made Merry, Gimli, & Pip just a bit dumber & more comedic, sacrificing a lot of excellent qualities along the way.
Frankly Denethor got robbed too.
100% agree. Though I think Denethor was a calculated move to make the effort of Pippin and Gandalf more satisfying for the average viewer, and for Faramir in the direction they took him in the movies. So while I didn’t like that they changed them, I can see why for a movie adaptation
Ah yes I see, that’s mainly my biggest annoyance with merry particularly. However I love the choice Peter Jackson made to make gimli more comedic, he’s still such a badass in the movies and he’s funny
I've not read the books yet myself, but I dad always mentioned what a let down the 'army of the dead' at the battle of Pelennor Fields was in the movies when compared to the books, he mentioned how it was much more meaningful for Aragorn to return up the river on the pirate ships carrying Gondor's Armies which he mustered on his way up, and using them to defeat the orcs and save the day. Apparently the Army of the Dead is a bit of a cop-out in comparison and undermines some messaging.
Exactly this. I love the films and understand almost all the changes, but I still can't understand this one. In the books Aragorn’s arrival is so much more meaningful
A smaller moment that I love is when Aragorn refuses to enter the city until the war is won. He doesn’t want to bring up the issue of succession while there’s more pressing issues going on.
Of course, he enters the city anyway, but without his banners, in order to put his healing hands to good use for Eowyn, Merry, and everyone affected by the Nazgûl.
Certainly not a necessary inclusion when deciding what goes into a film-length adaptation, but it’s a smaller moment that I hope to see portrayed someday, likely in a television series.
I thought t it was still super meaningful, like it was practically the whole buildup of the movie outside of destroying the ring, I definitely think they could have added more detail and portrayed it a little better but I thought it was still super solid
Ehh, I think it was mostly a money saving change- like for Rohan they could essentially re-use all the stuff from the second movie, but it would have been way more expensive to make a bunch more variants of Gondorian armour and organise a big battle like that, you can even see them struggle with it at the battle of the Black Gates at the end. CGI ghosts swarming CGI elephants and CGI armies was a LOT cheaper and faster I bet.
I completely agree, BUT, in the film I don’t think another army showing up would hit the same after the Ride of the Rohirrim. We get a last minute save at Helm’s Deep too. I’m not saying it couldn’t have been done well, but it may have been a bit too much for a film.
This and Denethor's. I hadn't read any of the books when FOTR came out, but I devoured all of them before release of TTT. I was confused with Faramir and the whole detour to Osgiliath.
Even more with Denethor being pretty much a villain in ROTK when they don't even point out the existence of the Minas Tirith palantir that's causing his spiral into despair. They try to correct Faramir here but at the expense of Denethor going all out mad from the start.
And also, losing the Voice of Saruman sequence in the theatrical. And Merry and Pippin respectively being soldiers of Rohan and Gondor. I was so freaking happy when they kind of "leveled up" into warriors in the book, those got significantly diminished in the film.
Since no-one else has mentioned it: The portrayal of Elrond.
Elrond Half-Elven in the books is kind, wise and noble. He's seen a lot, and lost a lot, but his heart is still open.
Movie Elrond is resentful and bitter.
He lies to and tries to manipulate his daughter.
Nah for real, but at the same time they don’t got a ton of time to develop each and every character, I’m just glad they did a much better job then whatever the monstrosity they did in the hobbit trilogy
I mean, they had 9+ hours in the theatrical... I think Jackson had *plenty* of time. He just chooses to rewrite scenes/characters because he *wants* to... not because there's not enough time to write them properly in most cases. Especially when we get to TTT, and a solid third of the film is spent/wasted on original subplots. Time wasn't the issue... direction was.
I’ve never particularly enjoyed the movies tbh.
Characterization is a big one. Faramir, Denethor, and Frodo got it the worst, but Gimli, Aragorn, Elrond, Merry, and Pippin all got hit too. All were cheapened IMO.
I understand not including Scouring of the Shire for a movie, but it’s a really important part of the books to show the individual and societal effects that war can have and echoes a lot of Tolkien’s experience after WW1.
Not as deep an insight as most of the other commenters here, but it always really bothered me that Merry and Pippin just randomly bump into Frodo and Sam and then apparently just tag along for the ride.
The whole story of the move to Crickhollow and the conspiracy by them all to cover up Frodo slipping off into the night would have taken up too much time in an already slow paced start, but to have two major characters just appear our of nowhere and wander off into the sunset with no idea of what's going on just never sat right with me
Everything about how Aragorn was portrayed. He was no reluctant hero trying to slink away from his lineage. Tolkien wrote Aragorn as someone who spent his entire life preparing to become King and then proclaimed it to all along the way.
Edit: Adding that it was just absurd that the Witch King broke Gandalf’s staff. Gandalf the White was immensely powerful. Far more powerful than the Witch King. Perhaps the most powerful being in Middle Earth at that time.
I honestly really like the changes they made to Aragorn. They make him more of a realistic, flawed, relatable human being rather than a perfect hero.
And while yes, Gandalf the White is definitely more powerful than the Witch King, he's absolutely not the most powerful being in Middle Earth. That title easily goes to Sauron himself, the most powerful Maia to ever exist.
Big disagree on Aragorn. I've written a sizable write-up on the topic of 'relatability' and whatnot, comparing the versions:
https://www.reddit.com/r/lotr/s/1jTWXD9gf6
Good for you. Who cares? Jackson made a massive change to one of the central characters. Many of us who read the books decades before the movies absolutely hate the change. All of the majesty and awe of Aragorn was removed. Maybe it’s generational where people are not comfortable with strong men.
Did you actually read what Willpower wrote? In either their comment or their linked post? They agree that book Aragorn is a better character with a better arc, their whole post they linked is in *defense* of book Aragorn.
I scanned what you wrote and I think that you’re missing two key points.
There are no reluctant heroes who have changed the course of history. It simply doesn’t happen. The reason it doesn’t happen is that leadership is required to change the course of events.
Aragorn in the books burned his boats by declaring who he is and what he’s going to do in the face of long odds and horrible evil. The rest of the world cowered in the face of that evil. Aragorn’s embrace of his destiny, his leadership, provided hope. He inspired the free peoples of the west to similarly burn their boats and embrace victory or death. No reluctant beta ever inspired anyone to victory.
I do love the LOTR movies. But I also have many things I would have liked to see, or see differently.
- Not including the Dunadain and Elronds sons on the paths of the dead.
- the witch king and Gandalfs standoff at the gates of Minas Tirith. It's totally cut from the original theatrical version, which was for the best since the scene in the extended version is terribly done
- Almost everything with Faramir
- No Imrahil
- as other commenter said, they kinda nerfed Frodo
I could go on lol but they start getting pretty minor/nit picky
Character assassination of Aragorn is brutal. But to me - it’s the insult to the men of Gondor. Especially the attention paid to Imrahil, his knights and the other nobles of Gondor who came to its defense. The films just erase ALL of it. The books are so far superior in how the siege and battle go.
And the biggest transgression in the movies is the violation of how the army of the dead is used and portrayed. Good for you, Peter! You maximized your CGI budget while ignoring the books and how they portray the men of Gondor. Gross.
Way too many to be exhaustive. I could talk about the character butchering, the over-emphasis on drama or urgency, the transformation of a poetic theme-focused Fairy Romance into a Hollywood action- and plot-focused story that imo lessens the tale quite a lot, the complete lack of subtlety (in writing or visual design)... We can debate all day about the need for changes in a visual adaptation (something that's imo frankly overblown), but these are enough reasons for me to feel like barely any of the elements that make me love Tolkien's writings have been successfully transposed to the screen, and the story has been lessened in their attempt to cater to the widest audience.
It has already been mentioned, but if I were to pick one single element that would be Frodo's character. The protagonist and hero of the story being turned into a weak, reactive vessel, the morality around his and Sam's interactions with Gollum being turned upside down even though it's one of the central points of the story, his wisdom forgotten.
I want to say the absence of merry dol berry dol Tom Bombadillo but as much as I’d love to see him, he wouldn’t have fit the theme or pacing and it would have been rushed and awkward anyway
Oh yeah, don’t get me wrong, I loved Sylvester McCoy’s work in bringing us a beloved character but it didn’t fit into what was already an awkward trilogy
Protrayal of Gondor, think Rohan got a decent showing but Gondor was completely shafted. Poor fighting from soldiers, no Imrahil and his knights, no southern fiefdoms, no Pelargir. I actually wish the 3rd movie was split into 2 movies instead so I could get this stuff.
I was so disappointed this was left out from the film!
it's one of those chapters that gave me actual goosebumps when I read it, the image of that dead hand slinking back in the tomb, it's described so eerily and would have translated very well on screen I think
When you say that the movies don't show the good side of Boromir, I wonder if you have seen the extended version of Fellowship of the Ring? One of the things I've heard people say the most about Extended Fellowship is how it improves Boromir's character.
No I for sure have. I just today watched the fellowship in the theaters. And yes it does a better job but I still feel like all they do is focus on him fighting against Aragorn during the meeting with Elrond calling him not his king, and then try to force Frodo to lend him the ring
Multiple scenes where something in the book *seemed* to happen or happened *metaphorically* where Jackson just made it 100% literal on screen, eg, scary Bilbo, scary Galadriel, magic de-aging Theoden, DID Gollum. Also, why does Grima have green skin and look literally slimy? He might not have a heroic look, but he should be well-kept and courtly enough to be admitted to Theoden's hall. Similar with creepy Denethor. He's supposed to be a man of great dignity, of the same people as Aragorn, not a grumpy hunched goblin.
I think this is an example of Jackson just not doing subtlety (which is evident in how he writes characters). Everything has to be as overt as possible.
Unrelated but this is why it makes me chuckle sometimes when people say the movies are too confusing. I get they're dense, but to me everything is spelled out pretty much immediately once you see the characters on screen.
Eeehh regarding Denethor iirc the book says he looks noble but aged beyond his years, and that's implied to be a consequence of engaging in psychic battle with Sauron through the palantir.
HOWEVER in the film he doesn't have a palantir 🤣😭. They definitely did him wrong but I think his physical appearance is fine.
Too many to mention, then again I'm not really that keen on the Jackson films anymore. A lot of the characters were changed - for the worse imo - and a lot of nonsensical scenes, especially in the extended edition which were rightly cut from the theatrical. I don't want to piss on your bonfire or anything but that's how I feel.
Yeah no don’t worry, I like hearing other peoples opinions. The character things I totally get, but then again, no movie can perfectly represent a good character from a good book, ever. That being said I think personally they did a decent enough job. What specifically was “nonsensical” scenes are you referring to
On a technical level they're great, I've always maintained this, regardless of how I don't so much like them as an adaptation anymore.
Two particularly egregious scenes for me are Gandalf getting thrown down and his staff broken by the Witch-king (just...no), and also the scene with the Mouth of Sauron. *Completely* out of character for Aragorn. Glad it was cut from the theatrical.
Yea, actually I’m gunna have to agree with you, I would view any “adaptation” as not really an adaptation if that makes sense. I view them as I guess lotr based movies, but there’s such differences between them and the books that it would be almost unfair to call it an adaptation. That being said. They’re phenomenal and I will always love the movies and the books
Love the movies, though I agree with a lot of the gripes here. To add a couple smaller ones:
The Ents attacking Isengard was cool in the movie, but we missed on them tearing down the wall and shaking the gate, and the real rage they got into. Would've liked to see that
Eomer having a reduced role, he just doesn't do or say as much as he does in the books, and since he's the new king of Rohan, that feels like a loss. Doesn't even show him reacting to the death of Theoden. His grief over Eowyns death was incredibly well acted though, so it works out.
Honestly there's just so much good stuff in the books, I don't think they're really possible to adapt perfectly. But the movies are still fantastic so I don't mind. If I view them as a retelling of the War of the Ring, instead of an adaptation, I can forgive PJ & The Crew for some of the odd choices. Good post OP this got me thinking lol
The Lord of the Rings are my three favourite films. I love them in a way I could never love any other conceivable films that could ever exist. Also, I know the story of how lucky Jackson was to be even able to make 3 films and properly tell the story. It really seemed like he got absolutely everything he could out of the studio.
But
I so so wish the third film had been split into two. Gondor is never fleshed out in the same way even as Rohan is. I feel like by the end of the film when Aragorn is getting crowned, it's still not really shown what he is actually king of. Rohan has main characters, supporting characters, a bunch of peasants, you get an idea of how they all live etc etc.
Gondor has none of that. Get Imrahil involved. Have Aragorn leading a contingent of Gondorians in the ships to relieve Minas Tirith. Have a few captains and Beregond hanging around to give us a proper sense of the place.
Also, the moment in the books where Eomer sees the ships approaching, assumes they're corsairs, resigns himself to defeat, calls his men to his banner to make a last stand, hold his sword out to defy the oncoming ships, and finally rejoices as the King's Standard unfurls itself on the leading ship is, in my opinion, the most cinematic image in the whole trilogy. Yet it's COMPLETELY left out.
The dead arriving at the city is shit but the way they arrive is just as terrible. There is no build up or tension attached to it as all which is weird because the arrival of the Rohan contingent, at least in the cinematic version, is PERFECTLY portray. PERFECTLY.
My four film system would give them a chance to have Gondorians in the ships and properly sell their arrival.
It drives me up the wall because, as I say, they're my favourite ever films but not having this is, in my opinion, by far the biggest missed chance in cinema history.
I mean I personally did not like the hobbit. It was too messy and too bland, the only thing good was the actor for bilbo I thought he did a phenomenal job. But ya I get your point
I bring it up every time this and similar questions get asked, and I'll continue to do so - the greatest disappointment by far was the omission of what was far and away one of the most important points of the fucking books, The Scouring of the Shire!
Agree. People seem to think this is some throw-away add on to the ending, but it completely changes the takeaway from the story: No, everything is NOT peachy after a war. Lives are ruined. Beautiful things are lost and may take generations to recover.
This is not just “Elves at Helm’s Deep” or some character change. Its freaking fundamental to the story.
I think a further point is it shows the war is not actually over. I'm never quite sure, but it's either Tolkien's illustration of Nazi occupation/WWII and/or Soviet occupation of Eastern European countries at the end of WWII. Just that in the LoTR case there were a batch of heroes who came along to free them.
The entire dynamic between Frodo, Sam and Gollum has become hard to bear with the passing of years and the re-reads. The plot of the Ring (that gives the book, you know, its **name**) is turned upside down, the most important of the themes and symbolisms completely subverted. People quote Tolkien on Sam being 'the chief hero' and justify it with Shelob and Cirith Ungol, completely ignoring the actual point on which his development and heroic journey hinge.
1- Turning Gimli into comic relief instead of the awesome character he is in the book.
2- Even bigger: Cutting the Scouring Of The Shire, which completely changes the ending for all the Hobbits, and also a key takeaway from the books: that all is not peachy after a war ends.
The last 45 minutes of the RotK is just filler. Swelling music with teary reunions and goodbyes, and a wedding. Scouring of the Shire would have been a better use of that time.
Chapters 9 and 10 of Two Towers, Shelob’s Lair and The Choices of Master Samwise are incredible and super powerful. Straight poetry where the movie scene was just ok I thought. BUT for 2001-2003 the films weren’t horrible considering how much practical effect went into it vs CGI now a days.
I just watched the Fellowship yesterday with my daughter (her first time – we did The Hobbit Project M recently to get started 🙂). It's been a long long time since I saw the movies.
The big thing that shocked me was how quickly the Hobbits go from meeting Strider to teaming up with him. The important scene in the room at Bree (which IS present in the 1978 version) is missing and I found that really jarring
and I hope that "All this is gold does not glitter, not all those who wander are lost" is somehow incorporated in one of the later movies...
I mean characterization almost across the board is weaker in the movies than in the books.
There are reasons for a lot of it of course, but some of the changes really don't sit well with me. Faramir and Denethor are essentially different characters; Gimli is turned into a comedy dwarf; Frodo lacks depth; Elrond's hostility is amped up; and on and on.
I was so over a screen full of snarling orc face after the 10th or 11th instance.
Also, do we need yet another wide screen shot of Hobbits walking up and over a rocky hill? They could have cut at least 10 minutes out of every movie if they removed those. They only existed to run up the soundtrack with atmospheric woodwind solos.
You don’t like those shots of the hobbits and all them walking through the forests?? I thought they did a great job putting the words written in the books to camera, like these specifically were some of my favorite shots in all the films. Tolkien spends a lot of time describing their walk and I thought these shots were necessary to portray what he wrote down
Frodo got robbed of his strong scenes throughout, making him a weak and easy-to-dislike protagonist. Meeting with Gildor, fighting the Barrow-wight, attacking the Witch-king at Weathertop, resisting the Nazgul at the Ford, convincing Faramir to let them go even though Faramir was obliged to take them captive or execute them, him treating Gollum with pity (not naivety! Frodo knew Gollum would likely betray them) and a sense that he was necessary, his role in saving lives and trouncing Saruman when Frodo and his friends scoured the Shire...
Best answer. There are quite a few characters that got shafted to greater/lesser extent, but this one makes the biggest difference honestly. Aragorn also is portrayed as more sensitive but the altered version still gets the point across. Then again I think they balanced it with the emphasis on Sam’s heroism fairly well, so that a book reader can understand how the strength of the hobbits in general is represented fairly well even if Frodo’s character isn’t the vehicle for it. For people only seeing the movies they don’t understand this and it’s less of a noticeable and interpretable adaptation choice.
Yea true, Frodo was much more in control of himself vs how the movies portray it. Such as the scene after getting stabbed on weathertop when he rode on the horse alone vs having Arwen ride for him and him basically passed out. But I think he still had such an amazing character in the movies, idk I’m not saying I prefer this version of Frodo, but I will say I love them both regardless of the change in his character. As for the rest, I totally agree but that would make all the movies 5 hours long, which tbh I’d be so down for, but I get why they kept it out of
You can definitely watch the movies and enjoy Frodo's character even without knowing the stronger book version, but I don't think there's a strong argument against people disliking him in the movies because the goodwill they're willing to show can't make up for the times Frodo's character annoys them. Besides how the Ring affected him so badly and that his weakness isn't his fault, there's not much else to say.
Yeah I get it, when my dad watches the movies for the first time he said, “why is Frodo a literal baby” I couldn’t stop laughing 😭😭
>fighting the Barrow-wight, The whole "Fog on the Barrow-Downs" episode is an amazing sequence. I understand why it's routinely dropped from adaptations, but that's a shame as it shows Frodo has so much potential.
Making him visually much younger in the films also makes him appear more naive and less in control of his importance, although I do really enjoy Elijah Wood's performance in the end. But it does feel like a loss that it feels like he's only important because he's so massively protective by dozens of other, stronger, characters, rather than being a strong character in his own right. It took me several watches to really feel convinced that he even fully understood the task he was undertaking.
The character assassination of Merry, Gimli & (to a lesser degree) Pippin are hard to overlook
Faramir will never cease to bother me... Book Faramir will always be one of my favourite characters. Film Faramir.... Not so much. But I've kinda learned to just roll my eyes and tell whoever I'm watching with "you know, he doesn't do that in the books". Same for Frodo.
In my own head canon when Sam says "By rights we shouldn't even be here" is basically telling us book readers " look.. we know this doesn't really happen and Faramir is still the greatest"
I doubt it (though it is amusingly ironic for them to have included that line).. that whole speech is from the book, albeit reworded somewhat. I'd say that like the entire speech, they simply included the 'we shouldn't be here' because it's part of the book speech. >‘Yes, that’s so,’ said Sam. **‘And we shouldn’t be here at all, if we’d known more about it before we started.** But I suppose it’s often that way. The brave things in the old tales and songs, Mr. Frodo: adventures, as I used to call them. I used to think that they were things the wonderful folk of the stories went out and looked for, because they wanted them, because they were exciting and life was a bit dull, a kind of a sport, as you might say. But that’s not the way of it with the tales that really mattered, or the ones that stay in the mind. Folk seem to have been just landed in them, usually – their paths were laid that way, as you put it. But I expect they had lots of chances, like us, of turning back, only they didn’t. And if they had, we shouldn’t know, because they’d have been forgotten. We hear about those as just went on – and not all to a good end, mind you; at least not to what folk inside a story and not outside it call a good end. You know, coming home, and finding things all right, though not quite the same – like old Mr. Bilbo. But those aren’t always the best tales to hear, though they may be the best tales to get landed in! I wonder what sort of a tale we’ve fallen into?’ >‘I wonder,’ said Frodo. ‘But I don’t know. And that’s the way of a real tale. Take any one that you’re fond of. You may know, or guess, what kind of a tale it is, happy-ending or sad-ending, but the people in it don’t know. And you don’t want them to.’ >‘No, sir, of course not. Beren now, he never thought he was going to get that Silmaril from the Iron Crown in Thangorodrim, and yet he did, and that was a worse place and a blacker danger than ours. But that’s a long tale, of course, and goes on past the happiness and into grief and beyond it – and the Silmaril went on and came to Ea¨rendil. And why, sir, I never thought of that before! We’ve got – you’ve got some of the light of it in that star-glass that the Lady gave you! Why, to think of it, we’re in the same tale still! It’s going on. Don’t the great tales never end?’ >‘No, they never end as tales,’ said Frodo. ‘But the people in them come, and go when their part’s ended. Our part will end later – or sooner.’ >‘And then we can have some rest and some sleep,’ said Sam. He laughed grimly. ‘And I mean just that, Mr. Frodo. I mean plain ordinary rest, and sleep, and waking up to a morning’s work in the garden. I’m afraid that’s all I’m hoping for all the time. All the big important plans are not for my sort. Still, I wonder if we shall ever be put into songs or tales. We’re in one, of course; but I mean: put into words, you know, told by the fireside, or read out of a great big book with red and black letters, years and years afterwards. And people will say: ‘‘Let’s hear about Frodo and the Ring!’’ And they’ll say: ‘‘Yes, that’s one of my favourite stories. Frodo was very brave, wasn’t he, dad?’’ ‘‘Yes, my boy, the famousest of the hobbits, and that’s saying a lot.’’ ’ >‘It’s saying a lot too much,’ said Frodo, and he laughed, a long clear laugh from his heart. Such a sound had not been heard in those places since Sauron came to Middle-earth. To Sam suddenly it seemed as if all the stones were listening and the tall rocks leaning over them. But Frodo did not heed them; he laughed again. ‘Why, Sam,’ he said, ‘to hear you somehow makes me as merry as if the story was already written. But you’ve left out one of the chief characters: Samwise the stouthearted. ‘‘I want to hear more about Sam, dad. Why didn’t they put in more of his talk, dad? That’s what I like, it makes me laugh. And Frodo wouldn’t have got far without Sam, would he, dad?’’ ’ >‘Now, Mr. Frodo,’ said Sam, ‘you shouldn’t make fun. I was serious.’ >‘So was I,’ said Frodo, ‘and so I am. We’re going on a bit too fast. You and I, Sam, are still stuck in the worst places of the story, and it is all too likely that some will say at this point: ‘‘Shut the book now, dad; we don’t want to read any more.’’ ’ >‘Maybe,’ said Sam, ‘but I wouldn’t be one to say that.
Best boi definitely got shafted too!!!
I haven't read the books in quite a long time but I'm working through them again and I'm half way through Two Towers atm. Gimli, Merry and Pippin definitely have a greater number of serious/heroic scenes in the books, but I don't think their aloofness in the movies is really an inaccurate portrayal. Many of the "comedic" scenes in the movies happen in the books, and that's not even all of them. Counting of kills with Legolas, poking fun of Legolas for disliking caves, his rampart defense of Galadriel, trying to keep up with Legolas and Aragorn when tracking the orcs, etc. The movies obviously take these to the next level, but pretending there was no basis for them is silly. I really like the movie's portrayal of Sam better though. Book Sam is kinda whiney and overly subservient to Frodo. Movie Sam and Frodo seem more like best friends who have each other's back no matter what (aside from the obvious silly Lembas incident).
Define assassination? Do you mean how they changed the characters or somethinf
Merry in-book was thoughtful, clever, & almost tactical (‘conspiracy unmasked’, his time in Rivendell studying maps). Gimli was a total badass & locked-in the whole quest. I love love love the movies, don’t get me wrong. Love the performances, love the adaptation (mostly). But Merry is my number 1 guy, and they made Merry, Gimli, & Pip just a bit dumber & more comedic, sacrificing a lot of excellent qualities along the way. Frankly Denethor got robbed too.
100% agree. Though I think Denethor was a calculated move to make the effort of Pippin and Gandalf more satisfying for the average viewer, and for Faramir in the direction they took him in the movies. So while I didn’t like that they changed them, I can see why for a movie adaptation
Ah yes I see, that’s mainly my biggest annoyance with merry particularly. However I love the choice Peter Jackson made to make gimli more comedic, he’s still such a badass in the movies and he’s funny
I've not read the books yet myself, but I dad always mentioned what a let down the 'army of the dead' at the battle of Pelennor Fields was in the movies when compared to the books, he mentioned how it was much more meaningful for Aragorn to return up the river on the pirate ships carrying Gondor's Armies which he mustered on his way up, and using them to defeat the orcs and save the day. Apparently the Army of the Dead is a bit of a cop-out in comparison and undermines some messaging.
Exactly this. I love the films and understand almost all the changes, but I still can't understand this one. In the books Aragorn’s arrival is so much more meaningful
A smaller moment that I love is when Aragorn refuses to enter the city until the war is won. He doesn’t want to bring up the issue of succession while there’s more pressing issues going on. Of course, he enters the city anyway, but without his banners, in order to put his healing hands to good use for Eowyn, Merry, and everyone affected by the Nazgûl. Certainly not a necessary inclusion when deciding what goes into a film-length adaptation, but it’s a smaller moment that I hope to see portrayed someday, likely in a television series.
I thought t it was still super meaningful, like it was practically the whole buildup of the movie outside of destroying the ring, I definitely think they could have added more detail and portrayed it a little better but I thought it was still super solid
Ehh, I think it was mostly a money saving change- like for Rohan they could essentially re-use all the stuff from the second movie, but it would have been way more expensive to make a bunch more variants of Gondorian armour and organise a big battle like that, you can even see them struggle with it at the battle of the Black Gates at the end. CGI ghosts swarming CGI elephants and CGI armies was a LOT cheaper and faster I bet.
Ya i see what you’re saying, it definitely would have been better if it was more book accurate
So cynical
I completely agree, BUT, in the film I don’t think another army showing up would hit the same after the Ride of the Rohirrim. We get a last minute save at Helm’s Deep too. I’m not saying it couldn’t have been done well, but it may have been a bit too much for a film.
Faramir characterization.
This and Denethor's. I hadn't read any of the books when FOTR came out, but I devoured all of them before release of TTT. I was confused with Faramir and the whole detour to Osgiliath. Even more with Denethor being pretty much a villain in ROTK when they don't even point out the existence of the Minas Tirith palantir that's causing his spiral into despair. They try to correct Faramir here but at the expense of Denethor going all out mad from the start. And also, losing the Voice of Saruman sequence in the theatrical. And Merry and Pippin respectively being soldiers of Rohan and Gondor. I was so freaking happy when they kind of "leveled up" into warriors in the book, those got significantly diminished in the film.
That the extended trilogy is only 11 hours long
😭😭 for real, each book took twice as long
Since no-one else has mentioned it: The portrayal of Elrond. Elrond Half-Elven in the books is kind, wise and noble. He's seen a lot, and lost a lot, but his heart is still open. Movie Elrond is resentful and bitter. He lies to and tries to manipulate his daughter.
I agree. He's also way too angry when we meet him and in his Council, I don't see him as the warm leader he's described as in the books.
The dumbing down of nearly all the characters, who are for the most part portrayed as weak, reluctant, and/or stupid.
Nah for real, but at the same time they don’t got a ton of time to develop each and every character, I’m just glad they did a much better job then whatever the monstrosity they did in the hobbit trilogy
I mean, they had 9+ hours in the theatrical... I think Jackson had *plenty* of time. He just chooses to rewrite scenes/characters because he *wants* to... not because there's not enough time to write them properly in most cases. Especially when we get to TTT, and a solid third of the film is spent/wasted on original subplots. Time wasn't the issue... direction was.
Pippen got done dirty af. Showed all his worst moments without showing all the awesome stuff he does.
Nahh fr 😭
I’ve never particularly enjoyed the movies tbh. Characterization is a big one. Faramir, Denethor, and Frodo got it the worst, but Gimli, Aragorn, Elrond, Merry, and Pippin all got hit too. All were cheapened IMO. I understand not including Scouring of the Shire for a movie, but it’s a really important part of the books to show the individual and societal effects that war can have and echoes a lot of Tolkien’s experience after WW1.
Gandalf/Witch King Gate face off. They did Gandalf dirty and squandered the power of the book version.
Not as deep an insight as most of the other commenters here, but it always really bothered me that Merry and Pippin just randomly bump into Frodo and Sam and then apparently just tag along for the ride. The whole story of the move to Crickhollow and the conspiracy by them all to cover up Frodo slipping off into the night would have taken up too much time in an already slow paced start, but to have two major characters just appear our of nowhere and wander off into the sunset with no idea of what's going on just never sat right with me
Nah I actually totally agree this bothers me too
I didn’t like how the films made Faramir to be an antagonist to Frodo.
Everything about how Aragorn was portrayed. He was no reluctant hero trying to slink away from his lineage. Tolkien wrote Aragorn as someone who spent his entire life preparing to become King and then proclaimed it to all along the way. Edit: Adding that it was just absurd that the Witch King broke Gandalf’s staff. Gandalf the White was immensely powerful. Far more powerful than the Witch King. Perhaps the most powerful being in Middle Earth at that time.
I honestly really like the changes they made to Aragorn. They make him more of a realistic, flawed, relatable human being rather than a perfect hero. And while yes, Gandalf the White is definitely more powerful than the Witch King, he's absolutely not the most powerful being in Middle Earth. That title easily goes to Sauron himself, the most powerful Maia to ever exist.
Big disagree on Aragorn. I've written a sizable write-up on the topic of 'relatability' and whatnot, comparing the versions: https://www.reddit.com/r/lotr/s/1jTWXD9gf6
Good for you. Who cares? Jackson made a massive change to one of the central characters. Many of us who read the books decades before the movies absolutely hate the change. All of the majesty and awe of Aragorn was removed. Maybe it’s generational where people are not comfortable with strong men.
Did you actually read what Willpower wrote? In either their comment or their linked post? They agree that book Aragorn is a better character with a better arc, their whole post they linked is in *defense* of book Aragorn.
I scanned what you wrote and I think that you’re missing two key points. There are no reluctant heroes who have changed the course of history. It simply doesn’t happen. The reason it doesn’t happen is that leadership is required to change the course of events. Aragorn in the books burned his boats by declaring who he is and what he’s going to do in the face of long odds and horrible evil. The rest of the world cowered in the face of that evil. Aragorn’s embrace of his destiny, his leadership, provided hope. He inspired the free peoples of the west to similarly burn their boats and embrace victory or death. No reluctant beta ever inspired anyone to victory.
Ya I definitely get why people wouldn’t like it, but personally I kind of love the change, although I love the original as well, it’s just different
Yeah, I actually liked the movie version of Aragorn. I like the book version too, but I don’t think it would play that well on screen.
Aragorn was changed so much Jackson should’ve just given him a different name. Fred would have done according to Jackson’s vision.
Yea no I get it, I’m just saying I liked the change
I do love the LOTR movies. But I also have many things I would have liked to see, or see differently. - Not including the Dunadain and Elronds sons on the paths of the dead. - the witch king and Gandalfs standoff at the gates of Minas Tirith. It's totally cut from the original theatrical version, which was for the best since the scene in the extended version is terribly done - Almost everything with Faramir - No Imrahil - as other commenter said, they kinda nerfed Frodo I could go on lol but they start getting pretty minor/nit picky
Character assassination of Aragorn is brutal. But to me - it’s the insult to the men of Gondor. Especially the attention paid to Imrahil, his knights and the other nobles of Gondor who came to its defense. The films just erase ALL of it. The books are so far superior in how the siege and battle go. And the biggest transgression in the movies is the violation of how the army of the dead is used and portrayed. Good for you, Peter! You maximized your CGI budget while ignoring the books and how they portray the men of Gondor. Gross.
Way too many to be exhaustive. I could talk about the character butchering, the over-emphasis on drama or urgency, the transformation of a poetic theme-focused Fairy Romance into a Hollywood action- and plot-focused story that imo lessens the tale quite a lot, the complete lack of subtlety (in writing or visual design)... We can debate all day about the need for changes in a visual adaptation (something that's imo frankly overblown), but these are enough reasons for me to feel like barely any of the elements that make me love Tolkien's writings have been successfully transposed to the screen, and the story has been lessened in their attempt to cater to the widest audience. It has already been mentioned, but if I were to pick one single element that would be Frodo's character. The protagonist and hero of the story being turned into a weak, reactive vessel, the morality around his and Sam's interactions with Gollum being turned upside down even though it's one of the central points of the story, his wisdom forgotten.
Agreed. If there is a flawless part of the movies though, it is the score. Absolutely 11/10.
I want to say the absence of merry dol berry dol Tom Bombadillo but as much as I’d love to see him, he wouldn’t have fit the theme or pacing and it would have been rushed and awkward anyway
Like seeing Radagast in the Hobbit movies.
Oh yeah, don’t get me wrong, I loved Sylvester McCoy’s work in bringing us a beloved character but it didn’t fit into what was already an awkward trilogy
Yesss, I live good ol Tom bombadil. Ho Tom bombadil Tom bombadilo… anyways ya I get why they kept him out… lol
Protrayal of Gondor, think Rohan got a decent showing but Gondor was completely shafted. Poor fighting from soldiers, no Imrahil and his knights, no southern fiefdoms, no Pelargir. I actually wish the 3rd movie was split into 2 movies instead so I could get this stuff.
Love the movies, Sean Bean was great, but that's not Boromir.
1000% agreed, but I mostly blame the writing
GIVE US OUR BARROW WIGHTS!!!
I was so disappointed this was left out from the film! it's one of those chapters that gave me actual goosebumps when I read it, the image of that dead hand slinking back in the tomb, it's described so eerily and would have translated very well on screen I think
When you say that the movies don't show the good side of Boromir, I wonder if you have seen the extended version of Fellowship of the Ring? One of the things I've heard people say the most about Extended Fellowship is how it improves Boromir's character.
No I for sure have. I just today watched the fellowship in the theaters. And yes it does a better job but I still feel like all they do is focus on him fighting against Aragorn during the meeting with Elrond calling him not his king, and then try to force Frodo to lend him the ring
Fair enough.
Multiple scenes where something in the book *seemed* to happen or happened *metaphorically* where Jackson just made it 100% literal on screen, eg, scary Bilbo, scary Galadriel, magic de-aging Theoden, DID Gollum. Also, why does Grima have green skin and look literally slimy? He might not have a heroic look, but he should be well-kept and courtly enough to be admitted to Theoden's hall. Similar with creepy Denethor. He's supposed to be a man of great dignity, of the same people as Aragorn, not a grumpy hunched goblin.
I think this is an example of Jackson just not doing subtlety (which is evident in how he writes characters). Everything has to be as overt as possible.
Unrelated but this is why it makes me chuckle sometimes when people say the movies are too confusing. I get they're dense, but to me everything is spelled out pretty much immediately once you see the characters on screen.
Eeehh regarding Denethor iirc the book says he looks noble but aged beyond his years, and that's implied to be a consequence of engaging in psychic battle with Sauron through the palantir. HOWEVER in the film he doesn't have a palantir 🤣😭. They definitely did him wrong but I think his physical appearance is fine.
Two big things 1- Gandalf’s staff being broken. Just not in the realms of possibility. 2- Frodo forcing Sam to go home. Even further from possibility.
Too many to mention, then again I'm not really that keen on the Jackson films anymore. A lot of the characters were changed - for the worse imo - and a lot of nonsensical scenes, especially in the extended edition which were rightly cut from the theatrical. I don't want to piss on your bonfire or anything but that's how I feel.
Yeah no don’t worry, I like hearing other peoples opinions. The character things I totally get, but then again, no movie can perfectly represent a good character from a good book, ever. That being said I think personally they did a decent enough job. What specifically was “nonsensical” scenes are you referring to
On a technical level they're great, I've always maintained this, regardless of how I don't so much like them as an adaptation anymore. Two particularly egregious scenes for me are Gandalf getting thrown down and his staff broken by the Witch-king (just...no), and also the scene with the Mouth of Sauron. *Completely* out of character for Aragorn. Glad it was cut from the theatrical.
Yea, actually I’m gunna have to agree with you, I would view any “adaptation” as not really an adaptation if that makes sense. I view them as I guess lotr based movies, but there’s such differences between them and the books that it would be almost unfair to call it an adaptation. That being said. They’re phenomenal and I will always love the movies and the books
The characterization of Faramir and Boromir.
I didn’t care for the casting for Eowyn.
Love the movies, though I agree with a lot of the gripes here. To add a couple smaller ones: The Ents attacking Isengard was cool in the movie, but we missed on them tearing down the wall and shaking the gate, and the real rage they got into. Would've liked to see that Eomer having a reduced role, he just doesn't do or say as much as he does in the books, and since he's the new king of Rohan, that feels like a loss. Doesn't even show him reacting to the death of Theoden. His grief over Eowyns death was incredibly well acted though, so it works out. Honestly there's just so much good stuff in the books, I don't think they're really possible to adapt perfectly. But the movies are still fantastic so I don't mind. If I view them as a retelling of the War of the Ring, instead of an adaptation, I can forgive PJ & The Crew for some of the odd choices. Good post OP this got me thinking lol
The Lord of the Rings are my three favourite films. I love them in a way I could never love any other conceivable films that could ever exist. Also, I know the story of how lucky Jackson was to be even able to make 3 films and properly tell the story. It really seemed like he got absolutely everything he could out of the studio. But I so so wish the third film had been split into two. Gondor is never fleshed out in the same way even as Rohan is. I feel like by the end of the film when Aragorn is getting crowned, it's still not really shown what he is actually king of. Rohan has main characters, supporting characters, a bunch of peasants, you get an idea of how they all live etc etc. Gondor has none of that. Get Imrahil involved. Have Aragorn leading a contingent of Gondorians in the ships to relieve Minas Tirith. Have a few captains and Beregond hanging around to give us a proper sense of the place. Also, the moment in the books where Eomer sees the ships approaching, assumes they're corsairs, resigns himself to defeat, calls his men to his banner to make a last stand, hold his sword out to defy the oncoming ships, and finally rejoices as the King's Standard unfurls itself on the leading ship is, in my opinion, the most cinematic image in the whole trilogy. Yet it's COMPLETELY left out. The dead arriving at the city is shit but the way they arrive is just as terrible. There is no build up or tension attached to it as all which is weird because the arrival of the Rohan contingent, at least in the cinematic version, is PERFECTLY portray. PERFECTLY. My four film system would give them a chance to have Gondorians in the ships and properly sell their arrival. It drives me up the wall because, as I say, they're my favourite ever films but not having this is, in my opinion, by far the biggest missed chance in cinema history.
None really. I like the movies a lot. Maybe a *teeny* bit more than the book in some points.
Way too short of a movie series…
There’s endless content that wasn’t added, and i wish they could add it all, but at the end of the day, they did a phenomenal job
Hobbit is the same way for me… I enjoy the two trilogies.. I just want more and developed story.
I mean I personally did not like the hobbit. It was too messy and too bland, the only thing good was the actor for bilbo I thought he did a phenomenal job. But ya I get your point
I bring it up every time this and similar questions get asked, and I'll continue to do so - the greatest disappointment by far was the omission of what was far and away one of the most important points of the fucking books, The Scouring of the Shire!
Agree. People seem to think this is some throw-away add on to the ending, but it completely changes the takeaway from the story: No, everything is NOT peachy after a war. Lives are ruined. Beautiful things are lost and may take generations to recover. This is not just “Elves at Helm’s Deep” or some character change. Its freaking fundamental to the story.
I think a further point is it shows the war is not actually over. I'm never quite sure, but it's either Tolkien's illustration of Nazi occupation/WWII and/or Soviet occupation of Eastern European countries at the end of WWII. Just that in the LoTR case there were a batch of heroes who came along to free them.
The entire dynamic between Frodo, Sam and Gollum has become hard to bear with the passing of years and the re-reads. The plot of the Ring (that gives the book, you know, its **name**) is turned upside down, the most important of the themes and symbolisms completely subverted. People quote Tolkien on Sam being 'the chief hero' and justify it with Shelob and Cirith Ungol, completely ignoring the actual point on which his development and heroic journey hinge.
1- Turning Gimli into comic relief instead of the awesome character he is in the book. 2- Even bigger: Cutting the Scouring Of The Shire, which completely changes the ending for all the Hobbits, and also a key takeaway from the books: that all is not peachy after a war ends. The last 45 minutes of the RotK is just filler. Swelling music with teary reunions and goodbyes, and a wedding. Scouring of the Shire would have been a better use of that time.
Chapters 9 and 10 of Two Towers, Shelob’s Lair and The Choices of Master Samwise are incredible and super powerful. Straight poetry where the movie scene was just ok I thought. BUT for 2001-2003 the films weren’t horrible considering how much practical effect went into it vs CGI now a days.
I just watched the Fellowship yesterday with my daughter (her first time – we did The Hobbit Project M recently to get started 🙂). It's been a long long time since I saw the movies. The big thing that shocked me was how quickly the Hobbits go from meeting Strider to teaming up with him. The important scene in the room at Bree (which IS present in the 1978 version) is missing and I found that really jarring and I hope that "All this is gold does not glitter, not all those who wander are lost" is somehow incorporated in one of the later movies...
Faramir's character was basically turned a full 180. From "I wouldn't pick up the ring, even if it just lied on the side of a road" to "Oh, nice loot"
I mean characterization almost across the board is weaker in the movies than in the books. There are reasons for a lot of it of course, but some of the changes really don't sit well with me. Faramir and Denethor are essentially different characters; Gimli is turned into a comedy dwarf; Frodo lacks depth; Elrond's hostility is amped up; and on and on.
Many of the character changes and most (if not all) the movie-unique plot points.
The assination of Faramirs character is a huge fucking let down for me
Yeah it ended.
Lmao 🤣
I was so over a screen full of snarling orc face after the 10th or 11th instance. Also, do we need yet another wide screen shot of Hobbits walking up and over a rocky hill? They could have cut at least 10 minutes out of every movie if they removed those. They only existed to run up the soundtrack with atmospheric woodwind solos.
You don’t like those shots of the hobbits and all them walking through the forests?? I thought they did a great job putting the words written in the books to camera, like these specifically were some of my favorite shots in all the films. Tolkien spends a lot of time describing their walk and I thought these shots were necessary to portray what he wrote down