Hm. Shouldn't have read all this stuff before I saw the movie. Primed me to notice it more, and took me out of the movie.

Also, shouldn't have drunk so much cola while in the movie. Last 3/4 hour was problematic. Also took me out of the movie. ;-)

Will see it again, though, to see what I saw and remember it all better. Wonder how the extended DVD version will be.

Quoth 96/103:
[q]What I was trying to say was, if they had shown the cut down trees before the Entmoot, that would have satisfied the ideas in the book. Treebeard would have gone to Entmoot, told all the Ents about the damage that was done to their trees, and then they would have decided to go kick some Isengard ass.[/q]I see your point, but a) in the book, Merry, Pippin, and Treebeard didn't go near where the trees were cut down, and b) in the movie, the geography is kinda FUBAR. Fangorn forest is actually not all that close to Isengard. Still, I think something like you suggest might have been pulled off better than the way it was actually done.

Pippin (got too used to typing -ing) :(

So, is Gandalf returning to Orthanc (with Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli as well as Theoden and some Rohans), rejoining Merry and Pipping, and the confrontation with Saruman (having the "stone" thrown at them by Wormtongue and Pippin's handling of the stone) all being put in the RotK? Or being dropped completely?

Craig P.

This is AG 96, beating a dead horse. In the book, Treebeard told the Hobbits about the damage that was done to the trees before the Entmoot. Thus, the Ents had foreknowledge of the trees being cut down before they made their decision, and that is precisely why they did make the decision to attack.

What I was trying to say was, if they had shown the cut down trees before the Entmoot, that would have satisfied the ideas in the book. Treebeard would have gone to Entmoot, told all the Ents about the damage that was done to their trees, and then they would have decided to go kick some Isengard ass.

I need to see the movie again. I thought that in the film Treebeard tells the Hobbits about the trees being cut down, but now I'm not positive.

AG 97: Yeah, I think you're right, that is probably why it was changed. Either way, by leaving it the way they it was in the book they could have expanded the roles of Merry and Pippin the way Tolkien did, after the sacking of Isengard, and especially in the Battle of Pelennor Fields.

I'm not sure what you're all whining about. The Lord of the Rings was BORING and the movies were less so.

The books were mainly about people walking from place to place, with things occasionally happening when they stopped. Sometimes.

The saddest thing is that I do think Jackson's vision of the Ents is exactly what Tolkien pictured. In a long-winded, dull novel, these rejects from a Happy Meal were the crowning turd. Ultra-long-winded, even 'expressly' long winded, and twice as deadly dull. How you people ever made it thorough all three parts of the novel is beyond me.

Jackson should be commended for making it all (barely) watchable (which was primarily accomplished by chopping out all the damned walking).

I wish he had combined Saruman and Sauron, into one somewhat more interesting character. He could have saved a precious hour of my life.

AG 96:
[q]About the Ents' attack: it was similar to what happened in the book, and could have worked in the movie. Just show the chopped down trees before the Entmoot. There, you have it. Just like the book!! LOL.[/q]The attack itself is fine. I'm talking about the decision to attack, which was made at the Entmoot in the books (with Quickbeam deciding very hastily :-) but by Treebeard alone in the movie. The problem is that the entire Entmoot bit is telling, not showing, and thus wouldn't really work onscreen. I'm just not sold on how they replaced it.

AG 99 - No excuse, because the elves at Helm's Deep are from Lothlórien, not Mirkwood.

100th post.

Somebody must have misunderstood Legolas WISHING they had a hundred elven archers from Mirkwood and thought it meant he was EXPECTING them.

If the movies had been true to the book, they would have been musicals -- since the books are full of songs.

One thing I really did like was the intermingling of Merry and Pippin's actions with Aragorn's tracking skills. It was well done.

I think the change with the Ents was to give Merry and Pippin a little more action in what happened. They are minor characters -- but for the movie they are given a greater role in the events.

In the book Merry and Pippin never saw Gandalf - they just mentioned his name to Treebeard. They told him much of what they knew of what had been happening in the outside world including news of Saruman's actions. Treebeard took them to the Ent counsel the next day and it lasted about two or three days. The hobbits spent that time with a "hasty" Ent while waiting for the others to discuss and decide. The decision of the counsel was to head for Isengard.

Craig P;

About the Ents' attack: it was similar to what happened in the book, and could have worked in the movie. Just show the chopped down trees before the Entmoot. There, you have it. Just like the book!! LOL.

Pyrodeus;

Concerning your observation about Faramir and how Jackson handled him: quite plausible. The thing is, in the book he is written in a way so as to be able to contend with Aragorn. Faramir was supposed to be similar. As the blood of Numenor runs truer in Aragorn that it had in generations, thus was Faramir supposed to appear, the new Captain of Gondor, since Boromir fell. After the battle of the Pelennor Fields Aragorn doesn't want to cause strife for this reason. That is why it was a suck way to change him. Anyhoo..

yet to see the movie but glad the title didnt change to reflect the rabid revising of world history since WTC disaster

[q]Gandalf is just a little too all-powerful at some points and then nearly incapable of doing jack-diddly at others. He magically exorcises Saruman, then physically rides off to find the Rohan riders. He glows oh so bright to make sure we know he is now white, but what difference does it make?[/q]This is no different than what happens in the book.

Having now read the books, my observations:

Thumbs down -
Frodo and Sam in Osgiliath. I disagree that it's necessary.
No Huorns, at all, neither at Isengard nor at Helm's Deep.
Wargs seemed a little too un-wolf-like.

Neutral -
Faramir, I'm not convinced he's really changed from the book.
Elves at Helm's Deep, I'm reserving judgement.
Attack of the Warg riders.
Frodo and Sam knowing about Boromir's death, I need to rewatch Fellowship.
Manner in which the Ents decide to attack. I'm not convinced the book really works in cinematic form here, because it's too drawn out, and it's all telling and no showing.

Thumbs up -
Combining Éomer with Erkenbrand.
Women and children at Helm's Deep - they were there in the book too, just not from Edoras (I've seen this incorrectly implied as a change).
Cutting out the part about the Rohan defenders of the ford at Isen.
Aragorn and Gimli assaulting the orcs at the gate, which is taken directly from the book (I'm pretty sure I've seen this implied as a change).

I realize this is very much a minority opinion, but I think this movie might have been truer to the book than Fellowship.

Too, too many implausabilities. The book, at least, avoided those or explained them away -- something the movie couldn't take the time to do.

Gandalf is just a little too all-powerful at some points and then nearly incapable of doing jack-diddly at others. He magically exorcises Saruman, then physically rides off to find the Rohan riders. He glows oh so bright to make sure we know he is now white, but what difference does it make?

How do a bunch of horsemen barreling down a steep slope into a packed crowd of orcs with lances at the ready somehow avoid having a single horse or rider injured in the initial onslaught?

Why would the women and children sit in the front part of the caves if there was a back way out? Why weren't they already heading toward that exit as soon as the orc attack was known about?

Where did the sudden flow of water come from when the wall was blasted?

Originally Posted by Pyrodeus
One thing that occurred to me watching the film, that I just can\'t shake: The orc\'s totally would have won at Helm\'s Deep if they\'d had more crossbows.

First, when Aragorn and Gimli are being hoisted up the wall on that rope, where were the cross bows? They were sitting ducks!

Second, when Thoeden, Aragorn et al charges out the front gate to meet the orcs head on (in the process killing every orc that got within ten feet of them), where the Hell were the crossbows? Or, failing crossbows why didn\'t the orcs at least TRY to stab Thoeden, et al\'s horses? It beats getting trampled and thrown aside.

Evidently, though, 10,000 orcs brought about five crossbows to the fight.

Don\'t get me wrong, I undersand that if the orcs had shot Aragorn and Gimli or had shot Aragorn and Thoeden (later on) that that would be bad for the plot, but I think that just means Jackson should have rethought the entire sequences. If you\'re going to insert scenes to make the movie more interesting than the book, at least don\'t make them implausible.

Another point, how many Riders of Rohan did Gandalf bring with him? I thought there were supposed to be a few \"hundred\" Riders, but there had to be at least 8,000 orcs left by the time they arrived. So it wasn\'t 100% clear to me that the victory at Helm\'s Deep was a forgone conclusion just because Gandalf showed up.

That said, I really liked this movie. All movies have plot holes that bug me, so if I didn\'t learn to deal with it, I\'d never go to the movies.

As for Faramir, I suspect Jackson simply decided that he had ALREADY shown us a man (Aragorn) who was completely willing to give up the Ring (as he did by letting Frodo go at the end of FotR). He probably didn\'t want Faramir to seem as noble, as that dimishes the special place reserved in the narrative for Aragorn. What I didn\'t understand was why Faramir had his change of heart.

On the one hand, Sam\'s speech spoke of simple individuals meeting their destinies as best they can and overcoming the odds in the process.

On the other hand:

(i) these two hobbits were somehow related Boromir\'s death,
(ii) Faramir himself had no idea who they were, really,
(iii) they were heading into Mordor, which is supposed to be
impossible (as far as Faramir knows) unless Sauron lets you,
(iv) if they are caught sneaking into Mordor, they\'re too small to
put up much of a fight,
(v) if they\'re captured, Sauron wins,
(vi) Frodo JUST TRIED TO GIVE THE RING TO A NAZGUL,
and would have succeeded but for Faramir\'s intervention and
(vii) Faramir gets executed if he lets them go.

If it were me, Frodo would be having his salad tossed in the Thane\'s dungeons (likely by Sam).

Some time in in the 1990s I was able to buy a cassette tape of Tolkien reading portions of The Hobbit. I'm reasonably confident it's available somewhere, still.

Originally Posted by StrikeAnywhere
I haven\'t been able to get out to see TTT yet, but I\'m prepared to live with something other than my preconception of how Gollum\'s voice should sound.

Many (25+?) years ago, I had a record album (a vinyl LP) of The Hobbit, which I think featured JRR Tolkien himself reading an abridged version of it. If nothing else, I distinctly remember the line \"Bless us and splash us my precious!\" I remember being disappointed that the rendering of Gollum\'s voice was not what I\'d imagined. Of course, I was a just a kid with arguably unrealistic expectations, and for all I know, Tolkien may not have been a particularly good voice actor. Still, while it struck me as wrong, and JRRT sure as heck knew what the voice was intended to be, if anyone did. Anyway, if Tolkien couldn\'t nail it for me, what chance does anyone else have?

Anyone else remember that album? I think my parents sold mine at a garage sale about 20 years ago while I was in college, or I\'d dig it back out. Rats.

Yep, I almost quit reading the Hobbit when I started reading it because it was worded in such a way that I imagined it targeted at 4-5 year olds. But struggling through that, eventually it matured up enough to not bother me any more. Maybe I just got used to it, but I don't think so. He should have rewritten the first part to correct the wording.

I just read the Time article about TTT. And what it seems is that Jackson know very well how much TTT departs from the books, and if it were up to the big US film industry, it would have parted more, and so would FotR(with a action packed ending if they would have gotten what they wanted). So dont be too hard on Jackson as he tries to please not just some hundred millions of fans and theatre visitors, but also a huge movie industry which is almost as bad as the record industry.

He..... i should read over the appendices in book 7(Every part is spread over 2 books, with a separate book for the chronological history) of the Millenium edition really. The hobbit was great, but feels very much as a younger tale and a prelude to the ring, which it is of course. The silmarillion is on the bookshelf, but i havent read it yet.....ill get to it anyday now or something ;)

Does anyone remember the hobbit cartoon? They shoulda got whoever did gollum's voice in that to do it in the movie. That crap used to freak me out when I was younger.

There's a greatly condensed version of the recent history of Middle Earth in the appendices to RotK.

Isn't Sauron (and the Balrogs) still acting as a proxy for Morgoth?

[q]Actually there is no difference between Boromir and Faramir as portrayed in the movie.[/q]Still can't agree with that. Boromir attempts to take the Ring by force (in the movies, on two different occasions). Faramir never attempts this (he holds Frodo, but does not attempt to take the Ring from him), and he releases Frodo when he realizes the power of the Ring.

Aphasia

Yeah, you should read the Silmarillion. Pretty good, though disjointed, story of the the First and Second ages of Middle Earth and what happened before that. But, there is more to it than the Silmarillion. There's the Books of Lost Tales, pretty good reading. And of course the Hobbit. Other stuff. However, as far as completeness goes, LotR and the Hobbit are the only really complete books. The Silmarillion and everything else published has been pieced together by Tolkien's son after Tolkien died.

I loved the computer graphics, finally technology is catching up to what I want CG characters to look like. Great emotion by the animators.

I did not like the Ent sequences, one of the most annying things to me is the movie gives the merry and pippin some sort of say in the Ents path/decision making. What a bunch of bull, like a couple of 4 foot hobbits are going to change what a 10,000+ year old tree-being does. Plus the Ents NEVER make hasty decisions right? But here the decision to attack is mae in a couple of seconds. Extremely annoying to me. I too thought that there would be more Ents and I expected them (or some) to be more substantial. I think they did a great job with the sound effects though.

Elves at helm's deep? Boo. Frodo in Gondor? Boo. I cannot believe that. Making Faramir into a dumbass? Double Boo.

I thought that Faramir was much wiser than his brother, understood the power of the ring and let Frodo go free. What is this crap about taking him here and there and Frodo standing in front of a ringwraith about to put the ring on? That sucked.

Lastly, I'm am still botherd with this Aragon/liv Tyler's character(name?) thing. When I read the books this all seemed to be an undercurrent that isn't realized until the last book. Annoying to me. This isn't some tortured love story and the time spent adding that element could've been put elsewhere.

Maia - Vala
Maybe i should read the Silmarillion...... or is there more to it then that too.

Originally Posted by Transman88
[qut he\'s either a Maia (singular form?) like Gandalf or a Vala (singular form?) (which would be one step above Gandalf).
[/q]

He\'s a Maia. Which really puts things into perspective if you think about it. The baddest, most powerful force in Middle Earth....and he\'s not the worst there is.

Morgoth was a Vala. Now [i]there\'/i] a Dark Lord for you. :)

I found the Faramir sequence fairly faithful to the book. I was pleased at the emotional depth this sequence added to the character - in the book he's just plain heroic. In the movie, he's much more human.

In general the movie did a spectacular job of lending emotional weight to Tolkien's usually flat characterizations. Especially Grima (Richard III?), Gollum (a weird combo of Peter Lorre and Brenda Blethyn?), and the Eo*.

Biggest disappointment: The ents. There weren't enough of them, and there wasn't enough screen time for them, and their refusal to join the battle reminded me of Rick (Casablanca) via the Lorax.

Plus, Fangorn forest devouring the remaining orc troops is one of my favorite parts of the book. But I suppose that would look just plain stupid on film.

And the real ending of the book, as well, wouldn't work on film - how would novices know that Frodo wasn't really dead? What would draw them back next year? I though the film ending was fine.