Fun Stuff > ENJOY
Book to movie inconsistencies that are genuinely annoying and unneeded
Inlander:
Actually the change that really bugged me the most about in the Lord of the Rings movies was what they did to Saruman's character. In the book he's basically a good guy who's completely corrupted by the lure of the ring. In the movie he's just Sauron's lackey. The movie version really diluted the point of how and why the ring was so dangerous - it just made it into a boring black and white "us vs. them" scenario. It irritated me, I like my narratives to be a bit more subtle than that.
MadassAlex:
--- Quote from: 0bsessions on 06 May 2009, 10:30 ---Explaining them as they turned out in the book would make a three fucking hour movie even longer. Arwen saved Frodo because it was quicker than introducing a character who never shows up again and explaining just how much of a badass he is.
--- End quote ---
Glorfindel's background isn't explained in the book, either, you need to read The Silmarillion for that. So, essentially, in the book, he was introduced and never shows up again (but it's clear that he's badass anyway).
--- Quote from: 0bsessions on 06 May 2009, 10:30 ---None of them made the movie any worse, they just made it more compact, which is pretty necessary when your trilogy racks up a combined 12 1/2 hours of running time without even delving into the extended editions.
--- End quote ---
They are all at least instances of badass decay and at most ridiculously unnecessary and stupid. Why move the reforging of Narsil to the third movie and have Elrond personally deliver it? That's retarded, because the plot made it convenient and more meaningful to do it during Fellowship. Why have the elves show up at Helm's Deep instead of the infinitely more crucial Minas Tirith? No matter what, this kind of thing would've taken the same amount of time to go through.
--- Quote from: Inlander on 06 May 2009, 17:25 ---Actually the change that really bugged me the most about in the Lord of the Rings movies was what they did to Saruman's character. In the book he's basically a good guy who's completely corrupted by the lure of the ring. In the movie he's just Sauron's lackey. The movie version really diluted the point of how and why the ring was so dangerous - it just made it into a boring black and white "us vs. them" scenario. It irritated me, I like my narratives to be a bit more subtle than that.
--- End quote ---
Mmm, agreeing with this. In the book, it's clear that Sarumen, for a while, had the same idea as Boromir or Denethor - to use the power of the Ring against Sauron for the good of all.
Jimmy the Squid:
X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Pretty much the entire film but I think it mostly qualifies as nerd rage.
Second opinions anyone?
jimbunny:
Interthreaduality!
StaedlerMars:
My favourite part of the book, was easily where the Rohirrim arrived at the start of the seige, right after Gandalf denies the Witch King, and then cut their way through the ranges of orks. The way Tolkien described this moment of despair for Gondor, and how the men of the West thought they were completely alone, and then the Rohirrim arrived, and Eowyn kills the Witch King was amazing. And then the arrival of the Aragorn on the boats.
The movie in no way did it justice.
EDIT: and of course the taking out of Tom Bombadil, although I understand why.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version