Currently Reading

[Maturin]

Well... I've started reading my lovely hardback version of Fellowship of the Ring. Few chapters in, it's interesting how much is different to Jackson's film. More than I remember. I'd totally forgotten Frodo had his special birthday on the same day as Bilbo's, or that Gandalf was in on Bilbo's prank all along, the sneaky old git.

[Sly Boots]

Well... I've started reading my lovely hardback version of Fellowship of the Ring. Few chapters in, it's interesting how much is different to Jackson's film. More than I remember. I'd totally forgotten Frodo had his special birthday on the same day as Bilbo's, or that Gandalf was in on Bilbo's prank all along, the sneaky old git.

They also totally left out that whole bit with the barrows and the wights - while I wasn't a massive fan of Tom Bombadil's in the book, it's still a pretty huge section to leave out entirely.

No doubt due to time constraints as I suppose it doesn't really advance the narrative much (is Tom ever referenced again? I think Gandalf mentions him once in Riverdell but that's about it I think), but having them wake up in a funereal tunnel with ghoulish wights stalking them through the darkness could have been quite cool to see on the big screen.

[Stormbringer]

It's a creepy scene indeed, but I can see why it was left out of the film as it really adds nothing to the central plot of the Ring, and the audience may have confused the Barrow Wights with the Black Riders.

[Strudel]

I was generally very happy with what they chopped and changed from the books, even the Scouring of the Shire, which would have been nice to have had in some measure, but I totally understand how it doesn't work as a post-Big Bad Battle conflict. It's not like Return of the King had an abrupt ending in the films anyway ¬_¬

[Strudel]

Oh and the fact that in the books, Gandalf wanted to go through Moria and Aragorn was dead set against it, whereas in the films Gandalf really didn't fancy it. I think that worked fine though; in the films, he was much more reluctant towards confrontation, particularly when he had the hobbits with him and it worked to emphasise their frailty and innocence.

I like the idea of Gandalf cruising for a punch up with another lesser god though. "Come on flamey, if ya think ya 'ard enough!"

[Gibby]

I hated Tom Bombadil, I'm glad they cut him out of the films.

[Stormbringer]

I like the idea of Gandalf cruising for a punch up with another lesser god though. "Come on flamey, if ya think ya 'ard enough!"

That reminds me of the famous Reddit post about Gandalf actually not being a Wizard, but a Fighter with Int. 18.

[Maturin]

Another big difference is definitely the age/wisdom of the four hobbits. In the books they're described deeply as surprisingly wise, world-weary, contemplative beings - I can't even picture the film characters having the intellect to come out with most of the dialogue of their book counterparts - but Jackson obviously thought the film needed to have a broader appeal so made them a bunch of simple-minded youths for the most part. Especially Merry and Pippin.

It works in the film if you forget the books exist (I do love FotR the most out of the 3 films), but it's also achingly primitive in its interpretation of the hobbits.

EDIT: For example, the segment where Merry reveals his machinations in Crickhollow and effectively forfeits his life to serve Frodo (while expertly preventing any guilt to occur in him over this) is lightyears ahead of anything the country-bumpkin film-Merry would be capable of.

[Stormbringer]

Aye, the films are but a hollow, pale and murky reflection of the majesty of the books. I had not read them when I saw the films, so my only reference to "how things should be" was Ralph Bakshi's 1978 animation. Coming from that, the films were suitably impressive!

[Hatredsheart]

Aye, the films are but a hollow, pale and murky reflection of the majesty of the books. I had not read them when I saw the films, so my only reference to "how things should be" was Ralph Bakshi's 1978 animation. Coming from that, the films were suitably impressive!

That film was an abomination.

[Stormbringer]

As a child it was one of my favourites and was the main influencing force in developing my interest in Middle-earth and fantasy in general.

[Maturin]

I remember being fascinated by it as a child, especially the bloody bits. But yes it's pretty janky when looking at it now, with an endless list of odd creative decisions.

[Stormbringer]

I remember being fascinated by it as a child, especially the bloody bits.

Yes! I loved how Boromir and Aragorn carved huge bloody gashes through the orcs with their swords, and that scene where Gandalf slices open the back of an Uruk-hai's head with Glamdring and blood sprays EVERYWHERE!

[Hatredsheart]

I hated the way some of the characters were portrayed in the Ralph Bakshi version. The hobbits looked like children, boromir a viking, and Gimli might as well have come out singing "Hi ho".

[Mantis]

The Peter Jackson trilogy may have made a few seemingly unnecessary changes, but I think a lot of them were done very stylishly to make for a more coherent and refined movie experience; cutting certain characters and scenes etc.

They are still some of my favourite movies. They are pure accomplishments of film making. Shame that studio drama and production issues screwed over The Hobbit so badly.