Lord of the Rings. Question for Fans

[Kaffe]

I've read most of Tolkiens books. Many times. Fantastic work. I hadn't watched the film version of The Lord of The Rings until last night when I watched The Fellowship of The Ring. It's an excellent film and most of the characters and scenes fit well with my mental image from the books. I was disappointed however in that the story seemed to be rushed and there were several parts of the story that were missed out. Notably The Old Forest, Tom Bombadil and The Barrow Downs. The Barrow Downs in particular was a very memorable part of the book. It seems that there is a directors cut and extended versions of the film. Are these worth getting and do they include the missing parts. Anyone know?

[in_denial]

They are worth getting, but they don't!

It would be easier to pack all of LotR into six films, but some bit would drag, so quite a bit is glossed over. I must have read the books twenty times, but I always skip the songs! You have to accept that a film has different pacing requirements to a book, and that there will be plot changes. Don't be put off, the films are a marvellous side dish to the books! I always (re)watch the extended editions in preference to the cinema releases, at least once every two or three years...

[Kaffe]

Thanks. It was a shame to rush such a story. I guess they were concerned about the cinema release and not the DVD, where one can pause or come back to it another day. I'll get the extended version as you say.

[reecie]

Amazon are spanking out serious cash for a new series based adaptation https://www.superherohype.com/tv/497...s-so-expensive

[Kaffe]

Amazon are spanking out serious cash for a new series based adaptation https://www.superherohype.com/tv/497...s-so-expensive

That sounds very promising. So long as it sticks to the book!

[Phil Lee]

The extended releases of LOTR are better than the theatrical versions. They have some extra time to spend in places where the story pauses. There are still parts missed out and sections of the story that are changed.

I would recommend you avoid the 3 Hobbit films. They are nothing like the book.

[Ruggertech]

I would recommend you avoid the 3 Hobbit films. They are nothing like the book.

Indeed, they seem to have the opposite problem to the LOTR films in that a relatively short book was stretched and padded in order to fill three films. One long two hour plus film could have been superb.

[Shrek]

I love the books and have read them many, many times. However, for me, missing out the Tom Bombadil bit can only improve the story. On re-reading I always skip over this bit!

[skmark]

I love the books and have read them many, many times. However, for me, missing out the Tom Bombadil bit can only improve the story. On re-reading I always skip over this bit!

Agree entirely. Whilst Tom is a likeable character the whole episode is a fanciful folly that adds nothing to the overall story. The excellent BBC Radio series chose to leave him out and I believe the film actually follows this more than the books themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Possu]

I understand the need to cut off parts of the story when making a film. Minor changes to the plot are also understandable. I think LOTR movies were overall excellent. Mostly they got things right enough for me. One thing really angers me every time I watch the films though. I hate the way they have ruined Gimli.

In the books he was a rough and tough grumpy man. Strong, steady, honourable and had a heart of gold. One thing he wasn’t, and that’s funny. In other words a proper dwarf. In the movies he’s almost totally opposite. A gibbering idiotic monkey diminished to being the comic relief. He even suggests to Aragorn that it would be a good idea to not keep his word to the army of the dead. That goes against the essence of the whole fellowship and it’s something not one of them would have suggested, Gimli least of all.

[M4tt]

Enjoy

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=690OiCByWRc

[SeanST150]

The Extended Editions are excellent! And well worth picking up. If you have the kit, they were released at the back end of last year on UltraHD Blu-ray, and they are superb.

I think the changes/omissions were necessary for cinema and to reach/appeal to an overall wider audience. The task of turning the book with soo much lore into films must have been daunting exercise, but I can't think it of how the films could have been improved.

Apart from The Godfather, it's most likely my favourite book to film, film.

Out of interest, why has it taken you 20 years to watch the film?

[Kaffe]

The Extended Editions are excellent! And well worth picking up. If you have the kit, they were released at the back end of last year on UltraHD Blu-ray, and they are superb.

I think the changes/omissions were necessary for cinema and to reach/appeal to an overall wider audience. The task of turning the book with soo much lore into films must have been daunting exercise, but I can't think it of how the films could have been improved.

Apart from The Godfather, it's most likely my favourite book to film, film.

Out of interest, why has it taken you 20 years to watch the film?

To be honest, I have shied away from it since its release. I didn't want my image of the story being potentially spoilt by someone else. I was wrong. Not perfect but much better than I feared. Thanks for the input guys.

[tintin]

The films are great and a good adaptation considering the need to make them accessible to the masses, extended editions are better. The Amazon series is set in the Second Age many years before the LoTR and covers a different story I think (can't remember which one). I actually like the Hobbit films as it covers a lot of what was in the Appendices of LoTR and shows what else in happening in the wider story of which the Hobbit book story was just a part of. Legolas being in it with his girl mate who falls in love with a Dwarf is a bit rubbish though.

[Dave E]

Like others have said, I think the LoTR films are excellent adaptions, and the extended editions added more to their excellence. There is a key word in there, though, and that is adaptions: they are not a straight filming of the books, which is likely a good thing. I'm a big fan of the books and have reread them many times, but a film is not a book, and the storytelling needs to differ to reflect that. The changes they made were pretty much all good. (Also, I also always skip over the Tom Bombadil bits, I just don't enjoy them, so I didn't miss them!) The visualisation of Middle Earth and the use of scenery throughout is superb.

As to the Hobbit movies, I finally watched the last one a couple of months ago. I love the book, and they're not a patch on it. The story is too stretched and warped by thinning it out and stuffing in bits from elsewhere (or made up from whole cloth). There are good elements, but there's a lot of stuff that I just don't think worked as well. As companion pieces to the LoTR movies, they kind of work, although they're really not anything like as good, but as an adaption of The Hobbit I don't really like them. I've watched the LoTR movies several times, and I'll watch them again. I've seen the Hobbit movies once each and I doubt I'll bother to re-watch them. I did think they were OK to watch once, however, as long as you let go of the idea that you're getting the book on film, even if you're getting the story that happened in the book. Mind you, part of the issue I think is that the book is so different in tone to LoTR, and very much so to the tone of the LoTR films, so filming it in a way that fitted in with the other movies was always going to involve a huge compromise.

[Kevin]

I love the books and have read them many, many times. However, for me, missing out the Tom Bombadil bit can only improve the story. On re-reading I always skip over this bit!

If any one tells me they are a massive LOTR fan I always ask them 'What's the name of Tom Bombadill's wife?'

Quite often the answer is Tom who?

[Kaffe]

Haha. I liked Tom. Even the songs. He was a distraction but in a good way, I thought. I suppose that if they weren't going to include the Old Forest and the Barrow Downs then there was no need for him in the film. I think the Tom character worked well at that point in the book. The Hobbits were starting to experience some of the dangers that lay ahead. Tom was uplifting, showing that strong spirit and good humour (and silly songs!) were good weapons against the evils of the world. The other scene I wish they had included was the first camp in Moria. Where Pippin carelessly drops a rock down the well and the drums from the deep began. Very scary part of the story.

[Puntsdog]

Hey doll derry doll (or however it was spelled)!

As much a part of the story as any other even though a mite tedious.

I couldxread Tolkien forever, his language was, for me, the most beautiful ever used in story telling.

The films were great once I passed the criticism stage of wondering empty bits were omitted and others created but now I won't watch them again because the book is simply better for me.