Login | Register
 
Message Board | Latest Posts | Your Recent Posts | Rules

Thread: Major changes in plot

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > The Return of the King > Major changes in plot   
What do you think are the major changes in plot and how do they affect the audience (those who did not read the books, that it) Why do you think Peter Jackson choose to do them?
I'd really need to wait for the dvd so I can watch it through again and again.......

I think PJ had a very difficult job cutting out stuff from the books to make the films fit within the time allowed.

I also think anyone watching the film who had not read the books would be totally blown away and would then rush out and buy the books.

Of course, there should have been more Faramir........

There were so many plot crimes to anger and astonish but the worst part is the fact that the shire was not scoured and Saruman was forgotten about (did PJ get bored of the character and think noone would notice). The films felt unfinished without the real ending.
Also there were no wild men, no Prince Imrahil, NO DUNEDAIN???? and why did the Rohirrim charge headlong into the mumakil, not a great tactical decision was it? And what were the army of the dead doing on the Pelennor abrubtly ending the battle that should have lasted all day with much more loss on both sides.
With the attention to detail that went into designing the people and places how could you change the plot around so much, surely this is the most important part. I don't think Peter Jackson had enough respect for Professor Tolkien and his stories.

My rant is over now and even though all of these changes are dismaying to see, I appreciate the films for what they are, a vague and edited glimpse into parts of the book and a physical picture of Middle Earth.
Grim... i agree with a lot of what you say, but i think in defense of Peter Jackson i would add that the medium of cinema and that of literature are far from compatible when it comes to bridging the gap in individual taste, if i can refer you to other examples of which i am sure youre aware, where transferring the wealth of plot, character definition, environment (ambience) and pace from a piece of literature to the big screen have often failed to meet with everyones expectations, least of all their satisfaction (examples include, in my opinion, the Godfather, Catch 22, Bladerunner, Dune,etc...). In all these cases and there are no doubt loads more, I think that most would judge either the book or the film as being the superior piece of art, but folks should be aware of each respective mediums fundamental differences. Hopefully that was not a rant...

but here's one i made earlier... in respect to the Dunedain(rangers of the north) where were Ellodan and Elrohir? and the Mouth of Sauron , a bit part character in the book that could have been slipped into the film to add that extra level of suspense before the final showdown at the black gates, the Barrow-wights? Glorfindel (damn you Arwen, you're prettier but less believable)?

In all i think there is more good to say about the films and Peter Jackson fantastic effort and vision than there is bad to say as the need to edit, and cater to a broader audience(i.e.those that hadnt yet read the books) had to be priority, in any event the extended version out later in the year on DVD will include some bits that have been cut out, notably Saruman, the palantir and the scourging of the shire.

i hopeses that PJ is not daunted by any criticism or lack of Academy acclaim to go on to make the Prequel "the Hobbit"
Dunce Smilie
Quote:
Also there were no wild men

Well Faramir was pretty wild when he ordered to have Gollum beaten up...

Quote:
and why did the Rohirrim charge headlong into the mumakil, not a great tactical decision was it?

Because they wanted to show how cool Eowyn was. She had to down a Mumak, with dinousaur dimensions, with her potato knife.

Quote:
And what were the army of the dead doing on the Pelennor abrubtly ending the battle that should have lasted all day with much more loss on both sides.

Yes, that sucked bigtime. We didn't even see Eomer and Aragorn meeting again at the Pelennor fields. We didn't even see Eomer there. They weren't even friends. Heck.

Quote:
With the attention to detail that went into designing the people and places how could you change the plot around so much, surely this is the most important part. I don't think Peter Jackson had enough respect for Professor Tolkien and his stories.

Well, looks like they put most (all) of the work into trying to bring Middle-Earth alive (as they call it) by designing swords, whatever, etc. (not that i was impressed by the barbie elves and the rest)

Anyway, some things must be left out to stay under the three hour mark i guess, but i cannot see why some characters and parts from the book must be completely altered (for instance : the council of elrond in the movie. what the heck was that?).
You cannot tell a story of a book if you change the book story completely. It would be like filming Romeo and Juliet and finish the movie with a happy end. (don't even think about it, PJ)

The Lord of the Rings movies aren't Lord of the Rings, it should be renamed to 'A cinematic adaptation of JRRT's Lord of the Rings'. That would be acceptable.

Doesn't anyone in here remember the practical joke annex marketing trick "the legend comes alive" from the teaser posters ? i do.

Quote:
i hopeses that PJ is not daunted by any criticism or lack of Academy acclaim to go on to make the Prequel "the Hobbit"

I hope he is daunted.
Adaptation - yes...

A Movie about a book = Adaptation, same as a Theatrical adaptation of a play.

i fail to see your point
Quote:
i fail to see your point

Buy yourself some glasses.
oh funny guy.. your wit is only exceeded by the facile and purile content of that last post

Cool Smilie
Quote:
oh funny guy.. your wit is only exceeded by the facile and purile content of that last post

Well at least you got yourself some glasses.
Quote:
the extended version out later in the year on DVD will include some bits that have been cut out, notably Saruman, the palantir and the scourging of the shire.

I hope so, but the fellowship did not contain the barrow wights or Tom Bombadil. The Two Towers
had the least taken out except for poor Erkenbrand which meant Eomer was missing from Helms Deep.
In the weapons and warfare film tie-in book there is a suit of armour for the Mouth of Sauron and his horse so I think he could well be in the extended version.