3 ms·

Well the Shire is saved in the end, isn't it? I think it is more that is a smaller scale conflict playing out after the resolution of the larger conflict which

by olavk 8y ago

Well the Shire is saved in the end, isn't it? I think it is more that is a smaller scale conflict playing out after the resolution of the larger conflict which simply does not work very well on film. Maybe in a tv series, it would work. Even then the movie is weighed down by several drawn-out "endings" after the resolution of the main conflict, which was one of the major criticisms. I do think the movie captures the bitter-sweetnes of the end of the book with the elves leaving middle-earth and so on. I don't think Tolkien would have liked the movies, but then again, he is dead.

ekianjo 8y ago
> I don't think Tolkien would have liked the movies, but then again, he is dead. Then they should clearly say this is not based on the books right from the start. The first movie was still somewhat acceptable as a book adaption, but the second and third go so far away from the actual characters and events it should be called something else.
- olavk 8y ago
  It would be ridiculous to claim the movies were not based on the books. Of course they had to change a lot of things, the books were not written as movie scripts. The primary responsibility of a movie director is to make a great movie.
  - ekianjo 8y ago
    > Of course they had to change a lot of things, the books were not written as movie scripts. The primary responsibility of a movie director is to make a great movie. It's OK to make cuts from a great book in order to fit the essentials. It's NOT OK to completely change the story, like making characters go to Osgiliath for no good reason, making Gimli a constant buffoon and transfiguring every motivation from protagonists, motivations well thought about as Tolkien revised its script during 14 years of writing. And the second and third movies of the trilogy were not even great movies if you forget about the books. Dialogs half taken from the book and half-written like modern American English, general lack of consistency, and a x-parts ending that did not make at all cinematic sense and was all fan service for book lovers. Except that the Scourging of the Shire was missing. What a mess, really.
    - olavk 8y ago
      It seems you just don't like the movies. That is OK!

by olavk 8y ago

ekianjo 8y ago

> I don't think Tolkien would have liked the movies, but then again, he is dead. Then they should clearly say this is not based on the books right from the start. The first movie was still somewhat acceptable as a book adaption, but the second and third go so far away from the actual characters and events it should be called something else.

olavk 8y ago
It would be ridiculous to claim the movies were not based on the books. Of course they had to change a lot of things, the books were not written as movie scripts. The primary responsibility of a movie director is to make a great movie.
- ekianjo 8y ago
  > Of course they had to change a lot of things, the books were not written as movie scripts. The primary responsibility of a movie director is to make a great movie. It's OK to make cuts from a great book in order to fit the essentials. It's NOT OK to completely change the story, like making characters go to Osgiliath for no good reason, making Gimli a constant buffoon and transfiguring every motivation from protagonists, motivations well thought about as Tolkien revised its script during 14 years of writing. And the second and third movies of the trilogy were not even great movies if you forget about the books. Dialogs half taken from the book and half-written like modern American English, general lack of consistency, and a x-parts ending that did not make at all cinematic sense and was all fan service for book lovers. Except that the Scourging of the Shire was missing. What a mess, really.
  - olavk 8y ago
    It seems you just don't like the movies. That is OK!