I have never met anyone else who disliked the LotR movies. People go on about great directing, epic battles, good casting and so on, but for me, it was yet another excellent book being shaken down for every last cent.

I'm not going to name each and every thing that was left out of the movies (or done wrong) because we'd be here all day, but perhaps the most egregious example was Tom Bombadil.

Anyone else hate the LotR movies?

EDIT: Pressed "post" the instant I remembered to add a poll. Too late now.

If they added too much from the books the movies would be way too long as they are already more than 3 hours long each. I think they're better than most book to movie adaptations.

I just hate hobbits.

There are many other series that they took from books, reorganized them into Frankenstein mixes, and then let them free in the wind.

To tell you the truth, I never watched any of the others after the first LotR (Lord of the Rings) movie, so my opinion is kinda muddled.

Molikroth:
EDIT: Pressed "post" the instant I remembered to add a poll. Too late now.

You may want to change the title to something less of a "flame", say perhaps "Problems with Movie Renditions of Popular Books"?

The books will always be better than the films, and that goes for every book and its film adaptation ever written.

I mean, they're both completely different mediums, novels and films......If you tried making a film that was completely true to the book, it would either be over 10 hours long, or it would only cover a tiny portion of the novel's plot and not do it justice.

Oh, and I don't hate the LotR films (sorry).

I liked the movies. I especially liked the extended version of the movies, which were much more complete.

I dislike the fact that they didn't include Tom Bombadil or that they changed the forging and delivery of Anduril, among other things. Still, those were very much secondary elements of the overall story, and I don't fault them much for not including them.

The only thing that I was very disappointed by was the removal of the razing of the Shire. It's really an important part of the book, and the character arcs of Sam, Merry, and Pippin. I know why they removed it - they wanted more of a 'happy' ending - but I don't think the story is really complete without it.

Molikroth:
I have never met anyone else who disliked the LotR movies. People go on about great directing, epic battles, good casting and so on, but for me, it was yet another excellent book being shaken down for every last cent.

I'm not going to name each and every thing that was left out of the movies (or done wrong) because we'd be here all day, but perhaps the most egregious example was Tom Bombadil.

Anyone else hate the LotR movies?

EDIT: Pressed "post" the instant I remembered to add a poll. Too late now.

I wouldn't say I hated the movies, but I didn't like them that much. The lack of Tom Bombadil pissed me off the most.

Tom Bombadill... yes, THAT would have made the movies better. A scene where, for the span of a few days, the hobbits bask in a hilltop villa eating cheeses while discussing the politics of Middle Earth. Sorry, but my attention span is just too short for that.

They were alright movies. Never read the books so cant compare but as films alone they were pretty decent. & compared to most of the big budget epic CGI fests that have come out of hollywood since they were positively amazing frankly

Jamanticus:
they're both completely different mediums, novels and films......If you tried making a film that was completely true to the book, it would either be over 10 hours long, or it would only cover a tiny portion of the novel's plot and not do it justice.

Oh, and I don't hate the LotR films (sorry).

All that

HomeAliveIn45:
Tom Bombadill... yes, THAT would have made the movies better. A scene where, for the span of a few days, the hobbits bask in a hilltop villa eating cheeses while discussing the politics of Middle Earth. Sorry, but my attention span is just too short for that.

Precisely why books can get away with things that films can't. It can take several weeks to finish a book sometimes, and movies based on such books have to really just try their best to capture the spirit of the books instead of copying them.

I mean, miniseries and the like are able to be more faithful to books they are based on, but feature-length films have to get as much of the book's main ideas out to the audience as they can in their comparatively short length.

EDIT: Thank you, broadband.

Your.Name.Here - I've always wondered why there has to be an upper limit on the length of movies. If the book you're plagiarising was a long one or contained a lot of scenes, have a long movie. Higher production costs can be offset by more expensive tickets/DVDs (why do movies all cost the same amount to see in cinemas?) and people with short attention spans can die in fires (or just not watch the movie, but I prefer option one).

MosDes - I'm happy with the title. I hated the LotR movies. If that's flaming, then I'm more flaming than... Ugh, what's the name of that gay guy who ran the national lottery a few years ago?

I'm with Virgil on the end too though. Even without the Meriadoc/Peregrine/Samwise character arcs (which I didn't much enjoy, in the books - it was a bit like DBZ, while the important characters are doing important things minor ones get a bit of screen time. Why? Just settle for a shorter book/show), what happens with Saruman and Gríma is... I hesitate to say it's important or plot-changing, but it's part of the story.

EDIT: what's changed/added in the extended versions? Does it majorly impact the movies?

They had to leave some things out, Massive LoTR fan though i am, i would struggle to sit through a 5 hour+ film x3(which it would easily be if they included it all) and Tom bombadil makes the most sense to cut, It's like an LSD trip in the middle of the book (there is so much attention to bright colours when describing him and goldberry its mad) And speaks far to ryhthmically it would just seem comic and completely destroy the atmosphere.

Retaking of the shire would have been nice though.

I think given the sheer size and content of the Books, It was fantastic. Sure it could have been better, but i definatly enjoyed it.

Also, how can you say the Battles are not epic? The helms deep battle is pretty much my definition of epic battles in films. Or the battle of Pelennor Fields.

HomeAliveIn45:
Tom Bombadill... yes, THAT would have made the movies better. A scene where, for the span of a few days, the hobbits bask in a hilltop villa eating cheeses while discussing the politics of Middle Earth. Sorry, but my attention span is just too short for that.

ok I'm a pretty big LOTR fan but I never the books. I allways hear people say that Tom bomblabla should of been in it but is that all that he does??? Why would people want that in a insanely long movie as it is. If he doesn't kill anyone no need to add him. In the book there was an entire chapter on Bill the pony going home should they of dragged that out in the movie too? No, of course not they ditch that horse with one line and dont look back.

Molikroth:
I have never met anyone else who disliked the LotR movies. People go on about great directing, epic battles, good casting and so on, but for me, it was yet another excellent book being shaken down for every last cent.

I'm not going to name each and every thing that was left out of the movies (or done wrong) because we'd be here all day, but perhaps the most egregious example was Tom Bombadil.

Anyone else hate the LotR movies?

EDIT: Pressed "post" the instant I remembered to add a poll. Too late now.

Considering that the films had to be marketable to a large audience, they clearly couldn't contain everything in the books. To be honest I can't really think of a better example of a film that manages to condense such a huge book into a watchable film. I mean what did you expect?

I would like to know what you would have done differently in order to make the film "good", as I'm struggling to think of anything.

Kiytan - with the epic battles I'm slightly biased. I prefer one-on-one battles where we are seeing both combatants and care about each. A massive fight makes us care about what the fight is about. A smaller one makes us care on many levels: what the fight is about, each and every attack, whether or not our favourite is hurt, etc. etc. etc.

While I hated the prequel trilogy of Star Wars, for example, Yoda vs. Palpatine was amazing. The leaders, oldest and wisest of their respective orders and representative of their belief systems, doing battle - it beats a massive brawl about a vague idea like "SAURUN R BAD". Of course, the movies can't be blamed for the large impersonal battles, this is just why I wasn't really impressed by the visuals.

Molikroth:
Kiytan - with the epic battles I'm slightly biased. I prefer one-on-one battles where we are seeing both combatants and care about each. A massive fight makes us care about what the fight is about. A smaller one makes us care on many levels: what the fight is about, each and every attack, whether or not our favourite is hurt, etc. etc. etc.

While I hated the prequel trilogy of Star Wars, for example, Yoda vs. Palpatine was amazing. The leaders, oldest and wisest of their respective orders and representative of their belief systems, doing battle - it beats a massive brawl about a vague idea like "SAURUN R BAD". Of course, the movies can't be blamed for the large impersonal battles, this is just why I wasn't really impressed by the visuals.

The one on one battle idea would be completely out of place in the Lord of the Rings movies. The epic battles are there to symbolise that one cliche that seems to be omnipresent: good versus evil. I'm sure that if they replaced the epic battles with one on ones, a lot more people would get upset about it. Plus it wouldn't be true to the book so I don't see how that stands as an argument?

the rusk:
Plus it wouldn't be true to the book so I don't see how that stands as an argument?

Molikroth:
Of course, the movies can't be blamed for the large impersonal battles, this is just why I wasn't really impressed by the visuals.

Your.Name.Here - the movie and book are two different things, I know. My complaint is abuse of the name. When you start changing things, the movie and book aren't set in the same world or don't have the same characters. Why do they use the name, then? For money. But why don't more people complain?

Your.Name.Here:

ATTENTION: This is my ingenious solution for those upset about lack of particular scenes, if you want to experience the story, read the book, if you want see a battle, watch the movie.

Agreed.

Although I'm a fanboy of the books who nitpicks the films on a regular basis, I don't understand the argument for Bombadil. I'll grumble about Anduril for days (what was Narsil doing in Rivendale anyway?) but I know that the argument is a personal annoyance rather than some commentary on Peter Jackson's vision. The way they delivered Anduril allowed for a very climactic moment in the third film that placated the movie going masses, even if it did miff a few of us fanboys.

But back to Bombadil, that section of the book almost put me to sleep. I love the idea of the character -- an immortal being with nearly limitless power who just likes singing songs and having fun -- but he was really boring. I was actually glad when I heard he was removed.

Molikroth:
Your.Name.Here - the movie and book are two different things, I know. My complaint is abuse of the name. When you start changing things, the movie and book aren't set in the same world or don't have the same characters. Why should they get to use the name, then?

The same could be said for any novel adapted into film, although LotR is perhaps least guilty of this offense.

Is there any film adaptation of a book that you feel was completely true to the book, or do you think they all drifted away a bit to preserve the integrity of the film?

I never really cared for the movies, the last one took forever to finish
Tom Bombadil "An elephont ate my shoes and now my feet are angry at me"

Jamanticus:

Molikroth:
Your.Name.Here - the movie and book are two different things, I know. My complaint is abuse of the name. When you start changing things, the movie and book aren't set in the same world or don't have the same characters. Why should they get to use the name, then?

The same could be said for any novel adapted into film, although LotR is perhaps least guilty of this offense.

Is there any film adaptation of a book that you feel was completely true to the book, or do you think they all drifted away a bit to preserve the integrity of the film?

Stephen King's books make good movies, for some reason. Particularly the short stories - though those take liberties with adding scenes, and so on.

It's not the LotR movies were BAD per say, it's just that they had that modern Hollywood feel to all movies. Somewhat kid friendly, somewhere in the middle, adding pieces a modern person can relate to without having to be extremely literate...

All those details.
Overall they were good, just not mainly forthe audience who knew the book universe over the films.

I hated the LotR for the story. A group of characters of different races fed ex a ring across the world to drop it into a volcano while a generic two dimensional evil named Sauron is after them.

Sauron wants this ring to rule the world *that's right*, even though without it he already manages to raise armies that can crush all opposition and in that brief time he had the ring he was defeated by having his hand cut off. It seems like the smart thing to do is to stay as an eye until everyone is wasted before getting his body back, oh and given that the volcano is his one weakness why was the entrance completely ungaurded?

But on topic all movies will have details cut when translated from books and it is no surprise when the books were as long and as detailed as LOTR that fan loved plot points would be cut.

Molikroth:
I have never met anyone else who disliked the LotR movies. People go on about great directing, epic battles, good casting and so on, but for me, it was yet another excellent book being shaken down for every last cent.

I'm not going to name each and every thing that was left out of the movies (or done wrong) because we'd be here all day, but perhaps the most egregious example was Tom Bombadil.

Anyone else hate the LotR movies?

EDIT: Pressed "post" the instant I remembered to add a poll. Too late now.

I'm in the same boat as you bro. I went to see the first one (ex-gf dragged be), and at the end, I was said, "why didn't they destroy the ring? That was stupid!" Two, what looked to be mid-twenties LARPS, turned around, and in the geekiest voices imaginable said, "It's the first of a trilogy." "Duh, how could you not know that?" I looked at them, shook my head, the dragged the ex out of the theatre.

It has it's good bits and bad bits.

The Good:
-Gore
-Dragons
-John Rys Davies
-Orcs in general

Bad
-Terrible delivery of lines
-terrible interpretation of the book
-Making things up that weren't in the book when they could have gone with what actually happened.
-Liv Tyler's character, I don't care about her, why did they give here more of a role than her character had in the book when someone as awesome as Tom Bombadil (who even has his own stand alone book) doesn't have any?
-Legolas. I liked him in the book. Thanks to Orlando Bloom I now have a deep set hatred for everything remotely related to elves.
-Hillarious and (for me) humiliating attempts by the New Zealander actors to not speak in New Zealand accents.
-Too long

I guess, by adding up those "points", I'm not particularly fond of the movies.

I enjoyed the movies a lot.

I watch them quite a lot too.

Gives me alot of inspiration to make epic battles on some RTS's

all the things i read are really nit picky i loved the moive and the reason u have trouble finding people who didnt like the the moive is cause it was a great moive!

I here Tom Bombadill from people s the #1 thing they wanted to see in the movie. I couldn't get through the first book myself it takes so long for any action to happen why do they have to spend so much time on Bilbo's party?

oh the irony of john rhys davies playing a Dwarf

and i apologise but:
/fanboy mode on

hypothetical fact:
I hated the LotR for the story. A group of characters of different races fed ex a ring across the world to drop it into a volcano while a generic two dimensional evil named Sauron is after them.

Can't argue with Sauron Being 2D. He is just evil. what can i say, it's classic fantasy.

hypothetical fact:
in that brief time he had the ring he was defeated by having his hand cut off

When he was first around he had the ring for a pretty damned long time. And think of the ring like super-steroids (or any drug really), while he had it he was all powerful, but without it he was much weaker than normal.

hypothetical fact:
oh and given that the volcano is his one weakness why was the entrance completely ungaurded?

It wasn't There was an entire army around it, sauron didn't expect anyone to be able to get past, especially two pathetic little hobbits (He's an arrogant bugger) It's kind of a theme of the Books Small things can have big effects (a ring, hobbits e.t.c)
[/quote]

KaZZaP:

HomeAliveIn45:
Tom Bombadill... yes, THAT would have made the movies better. A scene where, for the span of a few days, the hobbits bask in a hilltop villa eating cheeses while discussing the politics of Middle Earth. Sorry, but my attention span is just too short for that.

ok I'm a pretty big LOTR fan but I never the books. I allways hear people say that Tom bomblabla should of been in it but is that all that he does??? Why would people want that in a insanely long movie as it is. If he doesn't kill anyone no need to add him. In the book there was an entire chapter on Bill the pony going home should they of dragged that out in the movie too? No, of course not they ditch that horse with one line and dont look back.

There is that one part where he makes the ring non-existent(or says he can I don't remember), but give's it back to frodo so he can continue on his journey for the learning experience.