About half way through Fellowship

It's good, but I can full understand why Tolkien's son and few other book fans hate the movie. It's unreasonable to expect a one hundred percent accurate adaptation, but there are still some huge changes here and there.

Attached: IMG_2167.jpg (3691x2567, 1.75M)

The cover on my copy is better than yours

if they realistically wanted to make the books i to films it would have taken 8-12 films to do so

>dude 40 years passed between the opening scenes in the shire and gandalf returning but the movie makes it feel like a day awful movie!

Attached: 1587511629897.png (600x800, 37.85K)

Hey, you're that user from that other thread that got deleted. Glad you're enjoying it.

I think the tone of the movie is "wrong" in some part, skipped elements aside.
But it made the movie flow, have a larger appeal without selling out, and frankly while I miss the Barrow-downs I don't miss BOMBADILLO
Spergs act as if the lotr trilogy did wrong. Look at the hobbit for that.

That is the biggest change from the book, but it's also the most reasonable one.

I mean, the movies only ruined Gimli, Frodo, Sam and Boromir.

They never outright said how much time passed inbetween, so it's pointless to reee by default.
Post your cover.

This. Bombadil was fun in the books, but I don't think it would have translated to the movie well at all. Skipping the Barrow-downs kind of screwed up Merry stabbing the Witchking as well.

TOM TOM BOMBADIL
TOM BOMBADILLO

The movie adaptations are fine. It was the Hobbit that was fucking retarded.

That's not the biggest change from the big. To name one: the scene where Arwen shows up in the movie is not only supposed to happen days later, but it's supposed to be a Male Elf named Glorfindel that shows up.
True, but that's just dumb. Cutting amd changing things is necessary.
It got deleted? How come?
The pacing is a lot faster. That's what I noticed.

>it's supposed to be a Male Elf named Glorfindel that shows up.
>Muh Glorfindel
It's a totally superficial character.

I think most of the people who hated the movies literally have high functioning autism. A straight adaptation of the books wouldn’t have worked at all. Jackson did an incredible job of extracting a epic film from what feels like an unfilmable book.

I don't miss Bombadillo either. But in watching it as an adult the action sequences are some of the worst parts of the films. The falling staircase in Moria just sucked and seriously felt like they just needed another thing. Other problems....

>Haldir filling Eomer's role in Helm's Deep while Eomer takes Erkenbrand's
This fuckup has rippling effects throughout the trilogy because Eomer is a very supporting character. Gimli and Eomer have a meaningful friendship and the respect given to Gimli by Rohan makes us respect him. Eomer losing his shit at Pelennor fields is one of the best parts of the trilogy but there's no reason to highlight this if the character isn't established at Helm's Deep (extended edition has him bein sad but who cares). And when he's forms a final stand and defiantly raises his sword at the Corsairs only for Aragorn to raise his back... pure kino. Seeing the two become kings side by side and ride towards the black gate is huge without requiring much dialogue if the audience knows who Eomer is.

Further, the battle of Pelennor really should have felt like a three-front fight that is won with teamwork. If Eomer were more represented as a character, then Imrahil would be more prominent - and, by extension, Gondor as a faction. Gondor's swan knights rushed out to die with the Rohirrim. Also, Dol Amroth is cool.

Gondor is further highlighted by Aragorn's journey. They just had to portray the paths of the dead as another dungeon when that journey is Aragorn gathering loyal men. Assembling a small army of routed Gondorians is so much more significant than ghost baddies or his sword.

That's only one change. I can name others (I'm still only halfway through).

I felt Haldir showing up unnecessarily muddled the world building. It makes Legolas + Gimli’s relationship less special, and makes Elrond seem uniquely anti-man by comparison.

That too. A clear case of adapters thinking they can write better, not understanding how much they're ruining everything. Omissions are one thing. Changes take balls.

I remember an interview on the dvds where some lady said it was beautiful symbolism between the friendship of elves and men. And the best decision Jackson made. Pure stupidity.

I'd say the movie ruined Faramir the most
made him into a creepy loser when in the books he is very noble and a real good man even better than Boromir

Oh, and I forgot to mention the changes to Aragorn's character. Making him not fully embrace his status as Isildur's Heir until the third movie was so obvious you wonder why Tolkien didn't do it.

there were definitely some great scenes in it. i'll check out that edit sometime, maybe tonight actually. i thought the scenes from the shire were great, at the beginning and end, i thought smaug was amazing and erebor in general, even if the book didn't mean for it to be that vast. a few other parts were good too.

>>no Radagast
where was radagast in fotr? i dont remember

I think Tolkien had Aragorn be somewhat static because he was meant to be the embodiment of the classic hero archetype. Frodo and Sam, even Merry & Pippin to a degree, are really the ones he was interested in giving coming of age arcs.

The problem is that that's retarded.

Not really, Legolas and Gimli are also fairly static. He was emulating classic folktales and mythology of old, where the hero is more or less a given quantity and they overcome the obstacles in front of them but don't really have too much growth overall.

>dude I'm going to make my character static because that's how it works in beowulf lmao
>the idea that characters evolving makes for more compelling stories? bullshit

There is also the fact that Elrond looks at men with disdain in the movies, but in the books he looks back at the Isildur with sadness.

I mean you can critique it all you want, but this is clearly what he was trying to strive towards. I think Aragorn's changes work very well in the film and for modern audiences, but I have very few problems with Tolkien's approach to his characters.