Yay, Peter Jackson, let's go screw LOTR around some more.

[TheOneHero]

For those of you who haven't seen the Extended Edition of Return of the King, I suggest stop reading, spoilers are sure to follow:



When a book is made into a movie, one will often suspect changes are to happen to the original story. Usually they are brief, and don't make a big difference.


1. Gandalf at Minis Tirith, Witch King flies down, says crap, whoops out Sword of Fire, the breaks Gandalf's staff.

As far as I am concerned, didn't happen in the book, serious fucked up the entire scene. *Many other things had been left out*

2. Gandalf walking the battle field, in the original version you see him holding his staff. Hmm, Extended: Staff is blotted out, we see Gandalf walking holding an "Invisible Staff."

You could have done better PJ.

3. Aragorn looking into the Palantir, ka-boof, he shows Sarun on what's up. Get's up a moment later and yoink, the jewel given to him from Arwen falls and shatters.

4. Mouth of Sarun gets his head lopped off, yay. His horse suddenly vanishs and so does his body. Magic? Like woah.

5. Skulls, skulls, and more skulls. Yay. The realm of the dead collapses, thousands of skulls pour out. Rather a cool scene but, I really don't remember that happening.

These are just a few things that happened that I personally didn't like overall. Could of done better in editing the scenes/making them work better.

Overall, the added battle scenes, Mouth of Sarun getting owned, *not to mention Saruman too. =D* The movie was decent despite a few complaints.

I still think PJ screwed it up more than he should have.

[AUTO_]

The thing is though, is that the movie stands well on it's own regardless if it followed the books perfectly.

I'm working on being more cynical...this post didn't help much.

[KaFKa]

maybe you should watch the other extra features that ocme with the DVD. they even say that this isnt a book-to-film transition, its a film interpretation of what they (the writers, producers, etc.) saw in the books.

there is a huge difference, treat it as such.

[_Sinue_]

LOTR actually followed the storyline of the books alot better than most litterary to film translations. For example, look at what they've done to Michael Crichton's books. Jurrasic Park, Sphere, Rising Sun, Congo, TimeLine.. they're almost nothing at all like their books. Andromeda Strain was about the closest to a direct transition.. but it was OLD and did pretty poorly. (One of my favs though) I'm sure Stephen King's books have gone through similar "Hollywood-ization" as well.

I heard a rumor that PJ was thinking about making another LOTR movie after he gets done with his King Kong remake. Well.. not LOTR, but it's prequil "The Hobbit". Probly BS.. but it'd be a good idea I think.

[SLON]

The films are very well made, but the deviations from the original story are astounding: Confrontation between Aragorn and Boromir in Rivendell (invented), Elves turning up at Helms Deep (eh??wtf??), Faramir trying to take Frodo and Sam back to Minas Tirith (rubbish), Frodo sending Sam home and putting his trust in Gollum (ludicrous), Pippin lighting signal fires at Minas Tirith(??), a 30 foot high Balrog (no no no - read the history of Middle earth books; a Balrog should be slightly bigger than a man, no more), fight scene between Gandalf and Saruman (invented), the possession of Theoden by Saruman (crap), and so on and so on. If Peter Jackson is such a fan of the books, why has he fkd up the story so much?

[Sagasu]

If they had done it right, it would be around 8 hours long.

I don't want to sit that long on my ass. Do you?

[KodiaX987]

The movies are, what, 3 hours each?

3 x 3 = 9

Looks like they 0wned you by breaking it into slightly more digestable pieces.

[Aredhel]

On 2004-12-15 05:13, SLON wrote:
If Peter Jackson is such a fan of the books, why has he fkd up the story so much?



And don't forget that, in The Fellowship of the Ring, Glorfindel, Elrond's blonde-haired son, rescues Frodo after he is stabbed by the Nazgul. In the movies, Arwen was used far to liberally as some heroic feminine figure that the women in the audience could "identify with". Also, it gave them an opportunity to make a large marketing line tailored for girls! =P

But we say these things as though Tolkien's books are some sort of "truth". It's all fiction, so don't worry when there's discrepencies - Jackson may have been a fan of the books, yes, but it's obvious he didn't intend to blurt out the entire Lord of the Rings story onto the big-screen verbatim (though he came closer than anyone has/ever will come before).

[Nai_Calus]

I was pissed off at the end of the scene with Saruman getting owned, because it made it obvious that they were not going to slip in the stuff with him causing trouble in the Shire. XP Grawr.

I liked the drinking game with Legolas and Gimli. XD

Speaking of Aragorn and the Palantir, did the pendant falling and shattering actually happen, or was it more visions? Because if it actually happened, he has the damned thing on in the entire rest of the movie, and somehow I don't think he went out and got another one.

Nice with actually showing Aragorn et al going and hijacking the ships with the ghost army, but it ruins the 'suspense' of them showing up on the ships. XP (Not that it's suspenseful if you've read the book/seen the movie before, but still)

The song in the added scene in the houses of healing broke the mood of the entire film. XP All other singing in all three movies has either been background and in another language(Arwen's vision, Gandalf riding out to shoo off the Nazgul when Faramir et al were returning from Osgiliath the first time) or sung by a character on-screen(Pippin singing for Denethor, Merry and Pippin singing about the Green Dragon, Aragorn singing at his coronation)... And here's a gratuitous song in english! Der, what the fuck?

Overall, though, I thought it was good, though I could have done without some of the made-up stuff and would have preffered more of the stuff that was left out. At least they actually DID cover Faramir and Eowyn. XP