Are there any.....?

[aficianado]

Are there any of you out there, who may understand the difference between the medium of book and that of film (or digital) and how changes may happen in adapting from one to the other, have misgivings anyway how on the director made decisions that just violate the source material. I respect the efforts of Mr. P. Jackson but I always think this: it's just someone else's interpretation and not a final statement. I'm not really a fan of the Lord of The Ring's movie because of those very deviations that changed and made unrecognizable the content that gave the story it's particular character and content.

I will always have an issue with fictional alterations such as Frodo being rescued by Arwen.

Or the condensed and fictionalized account of Merry's (???) discovery of the Palantir.

And even how the hobbits were making their way out of the Shire ony to fictionally be discovered by the Ringwraiths, just to name a few points.:ohwell:

[alaristhered]

There are a lot of older threads on just this subject. A dear friend of mine could not tolerate ANY of the changes from the book, and calls himself a "book dick." His phrase, not mine!

I don't have a problem with most of the changes, because they didn't veer from the SPIRIT of the book. For instance, Aragorn's tender farewell to Arwen in Rivendell. Tolkien didn't write it. But it's absolutely in line with what Aragorn would have done.

The only change I have serious problems with is "The Ring goes to Gondor." That made my hair stand on end.

[JackBurtonOfTheShire]

I was a bit annoyed with some of the changes but Peter Jackson's a film-maker first & foremost and I suppose he had to do what he saw fit to keep the films flowing. Also to fit everything from the original story onto the screen would probably have needed a dozen movies. I agree the trilogy kept close to the spirit of Tolkien's work, overall it was the about best book-to-screen adaptation I've seen, IMO. The one change, or rather ommission, that really upset me though was The Scouring Of The Shire. To me, this was one of the most important parts of the book. After I'd heard it wasn't in the theatrical version I thought maybe it was something to look forward to on the extended dvd release. Then I heard that Jackson hadn't shot it at all because he "didn't like it"! :romy: And I wasn't overly impressed by the army of Elves at Helm's Deep.

Then again he's the one with a stack of awards...

[Strider]

I don't think PJ didn't like the scouring. I have heard him say in interviews that he likes it just fine. However, the scouring does not (and would not) work as well in the film medium. ROTK already had several "endings" that people were complaining about (personally I love them all). Imagine if they had the scouring as well.

Sure, I'd like to see it, but I don't really miss it either. I always have the book to turn to. :D

[tstone]

Someone else will eventually adapt it, maybe even in our lifetimes. Be interesting to see another take.

[Rowanberry]

One can never fit everything in a 1000+ page book even into three 3.5 to 4 hour movies; many of the nuances are lost, and it is essential to concentrate on the main characters and storylines. That's why I wasn't bothered by such changes as Arwen at the Fords or leaving the Scouring out. There were scenes that would have worked quite well even if they would have been closer to the book; for example, the elves at Helm's Deep didn't disturb me too much, but instead of them, there could have been a small garrison already at the fortress. And yes, why the heck did Faramir & co. drag Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath?

What I have a beef with is the exaggeration; such scenes as Aragorn's false death, Gollum managing to separate Frodo and Sam, Arwen's imminent death, the skull avalanche in the ROTK EE... Here, PJ forgot two very important guidelines: "Less is more" and "Kill your darlings".