As a rabid fan and lackluster student of JRRT’s works, I’ve been waiting since 1971 to address this very OP!
Very, very impressed! And happy!
I hope this gets in immediately beneath Qadgop’s post, because he really knows his Tolkien.
I got the books in the mid 1960’s, have been a sometime member of the Tolkien Society and use Tolkien’s ideas all the time in roleplaying.
I was at the premiere of Ralph Bakshi’s attempt to film LotR (which failed, but he didn’t have the CGI for example).
I think Jackson has done a fantastic job, both for the novice and specialist audiences. I prefer the extended editions, but there is so much right about how he did these films.
The scenery, the music, the CGI, the actors - this is the result of a lot of preparation and hard work. The man respects Tolkien and it shows.
I’m a Tolkien dabbler - I’ve read The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and The Silmarillion a few times each, and tried to read The Unfinished Tales once (predictably, I never finished). I cannot imagine anyone doing these movies any better than Peter Jackson and company. They absolutely nailed it, and I could not be happier with the results. These are probably my three favorite films of all time.
Have I got nitpicks? Sure. Are they important? Not at all. The spirit is there, and that’s all that matters. Frodo lives.
I second Toadspittle’s post.
RotK thoughts:
Everyone sounds like they are trying too hard to be Shakespearean. Tolkien’s writing was VERY unpretentious, which is part of why they are so loved - they are accessible to a wide audience. So that was kind of a miss.
“I am no man!” :rolleyes: That didn’t work. (half expected her to cry out, “No! I am woman! Hear me roar! In numbers too big too ignore! And I know too much to…” well, you get the point)…
After the volcano scene, the film gets maudlin and syrupy. And someone please tell Sam to STOP CRYING! :mad:
One interesting thought:
It was conspicuous to me that Frodo had no female love interest, and when he kissed anyone, it was Sam. 
Not suggesting any gay thing going on there (though I believe there was a thread here on SDMB about that angle), but if Tolkien were writing the story today, I imagine he would feel more compelled to write in some kind of heterosexual lechery. I definitely give Jackson credit for remaining faithful to the book on that one, since I am almost 100% positive he must have had nervous producers trying to sell him on inventing a love relationship where none had existed in the books.
Oh, and Arwen had collagen injections on her lips, and it really showed in a Gena Davis way. And every time she appears, the Vienna Boys’ Choir pipes in with Vespers. And some of the orcs looked very Legend-ish (as in Ridley Scott’s film), though I LOVED those elephants and the giants.
I’ll add other nitpicks as they come to me!
On the good side, it is certainly a very good film - do go see it! Exciting and wonderful sound and effects! And it’s finally great to see a fantasy film epic which is well-done!
Two more things:
Is “I love you” a recent, Lower Earthly invention? I mean, you father is dying, and neither of you thinks to say it? 
And then the timing was off when Frodo and Sam are approaching the volcano’s altar, because it looks about a mile or so away from them; cut to outside the gate - “Well, let’s do it for our friends! Charge!” the group charges; back to Frodo, who, not 30 seconds later is AT the volcanic altar. I mean, what am I missing here? Did he use a Segway or something?
Theoden is not Eowyn’s father.
What is with some people who have problems with Frodo’s and Sam’s relationship. They are close friends, nothing more, nothing less.
I finally saw RoTK yesterday and while standing in line behind a family to go into the theater we got to talking about how excited we were to finally see the movie. I mentioned that it was nice to have a movie where you did not have the homophobic angle to it. Where men could be friends and cry and show affection without their sexuality being called into question–Middle Earth being a different culture than our own.
I guess I am just used to seeing (quite often) men hug as friends and even kiss on the cheek so that I do not place a sexual connotation on the action (these men are in church and usually their wives are by their side).
But I loved the films.
My mom and dad, who have not read the books, loved the films. But they do enjoy the EE version more since some of the “left out” scenes answer some of their questions that the theatracal release did not.
The Lord of the Rings has been one of my favorite books since I first read it at age 12.
My impresssion of the movies can best be summed up thusly:
If I ever meet Peter Jackson I will kiss him full on the mouth.
I really enjoyed the movies but I do feel some of the nature of the book has been lost
My question is why does an extended denouement (scouring of the shire) work in book form (according to most opinions) yet would not work in a movie? I can understand the long running time in the theater (a four hour movie would be near impossible to watch without some kind of intermission) but perhaps on the extended DVDs. I would have liked to see the scouring in the movie.
THough PJ did make a set of emotionally moving movies that adhere to much of the content of Tolkien. For that I am grateful.
Yes. This was my main quibble with ROTK (which I just got back from seeing). The only parts I wanted to fast-forward through were when people were on the screen talking very slowly and dramatically at one another.
And though there were things I wish the films had shown the way they really happened 
, there was so much that they got stunningly, breathtakingly right, especially (as c_carol and others have pointed out) the look of Middle Earth. Wow. Can it be that at last the art of moviemaking knows no limits?
There are, of course, things you can get from reading the books that you can’t get from watching the movies (nor should you expect to); and there are things that you can get from the movies and not from the books. Neither supplants the other or renders the other irrelevant; both are incredibly impressive and satisfying works of art in their own right.
I first discovered The Hobbit in about 1967 and couldn’t stop till I got all the way through LOTR, and have been faithfully rereading the books approximately annually ever since.
And I have to say that as has been pointed out, PJ captured the look and the feel and the spirit of Middle Earth in a way that left me absolutely breathless. Yes, I have a few minor nits to pick, most of which have already been picked here, but overall, my fears that the books would end up destroyed on screen have been laid to rest.
Although the purists do have one good point: Where else COULD you use the word “dwimmerlaik” and get away with it?
Seeing the EE on the big screen recently really helped fill in some of the blank spots I’d felt in the original theatrical release. I hope that the EE of ROTK is also given at least a limited theatrical release.
Overall - I’m happy with the results that PJ achieved, and feel he deserves the plaudits he has received. His rendering of Middle Earth and its inhabitants was superb, much better than I ever dreamed, and many of the changes were forced upon him by the limitations of the media he was working with.
My own list of nitpicks -
Aragorn’s near-death experience - what for?
Merry and Pippin’s portrayal in FOTR - too happy-go-lucky for my taste, but redeemed in ROTK
The minimal role of the palantir - a pity as it explained much of the mechanisims behind the story, and turned Denethor from a strong man turned to despair into a nutcase
Sarauman’s “magical” control of Theoden - the mental poisoning of the books was more realistic and more than sufficient
My favorite addition was the struggle for the ring inside Mt Doom - I felt it added an extra dimension that the book lacked.
Grim
I’ve read LOTR about 20 times in the last 25 years, since I was 14, The Hobbit an uncounted number of times since I was 8 or 9, and the Simarillion and the Unifinished Tales once or twice. When I first heard that someone was going to do a live-action version of LOTR, my response was, “Please, oh please, don’t let it suck.” I still had memories of the Bashki animated version, which I can laugh at as bad-movie camp, but that’s really not the way I want to enjoy a movie if I have a better option. When I heard the director of the upcoming LOTR films was the guy who had done Heavenly Creatures, I began to hope.
I was still a bit apprehensive when I first went to see FOTR two years ago, even through some of the opening scenes, until Gandalf arrived at Bag End. The house had a green door, just as it should, and when Gandalf rapped on it with his staff, I thought “He’s going to scratch that paint again…” From that point on, I ceased to worry. It was that careful attention to little details, like the green door, that won me over. The look and feel of things is so very right; I believe it is Middle Earth.
There are things in all three movies that rather irk me:
[ul]
[li]Galadriel’s cgi-enhanced reaction to Frodo offering her the Ring.[/li][li]Aragorn’s death fake-out in TTT.[/li][li]Denethor’s flaming leap.[/li][li]Some of Legolas’s stunts and Gimli’s comic-relief moments.[/li][/ul]
Things that I didn’t like much at first, but have since come around on:
[ul]
[li]The change in Faramir’s character. [/li]
I can see that there are good reasons for it. Also, I have to admit that on repeated viewings, the tension created by this change makes the scenes with him much more compelling than they otherwise would have been. I find the scene at the waterfall particularly tense; at this point in the book, Frodo and Faramir are buddies, so there isn’t any sense that when Frodo goes down to get Gollum, either of them are really in any danger. In the film, I feel that they are.[/ul]
Things I think were done better in the film:
[ul]
[li]Frodo leaving the Shire immediately instead of sitting around for 4 months after Gandalf tells him about the Ring. [/li]
This is a point at which Frodo always irritates me in the book. Gandalf even has to prod him after a couple of weeks to see if he’s going to do anything. In the movie, on the other hand, once he learns the truth about Uncle Bilbo’s ring, he packs up a couple of shirts, a loaf of bread and some apples, puts on his cloak, and he’s ready to go! I fully sympathise with the burst of affection Gandalf has for him at this moment.
[li] The temptation of Aragorn before he agrees to let Frodo go off to Mordor on his own. [/li]
There’s just something about the image of that great big Man-hand hovering over that tiny hobbit-hand while the Ring calls to Aragorn by name.
[li] The Boromir flashback.[/li]
It’s great to see Denethor and his sons all in one scene, interacting as a seriously disfunctional family. There are hints of it in the book, but we never get to see this. That one scene provides both Boromir and Faramir with additional motivations, and after we meet their Dad, can we really blame them for being the way they are about the Ring?
[li] Boromir’s death.[/li]
I never cared much when he died in the book. But I have seen FOTR 80 times now, and can still get misty over “I would have followed you anywhere, my brother, my captain, my king.”
[/ul]
Then there are things that I’m disappointed were taken out:
[ul]
[li]The Scouring of the Shire.[/li][li]Seeing Sam decide to carry on the quest when he thinks Frodo is dead.[/li][/ul]
But I understand why they were done from a film-making point of view.
In fact, many of the things I don’t like or am disappointed with, I can still understand why they were done and respect the choices Peter and Fran Jackson and Phillipa Boynes made even if I disagree with them. None of their cuts, changes or additions seem capricious; they have thought about these matters and come up with solutions to adapting a book to film that work best for them.
To sum up, my overall impression of the films is overwhelmingly positive. I’m so looking forward to next winter, when the last extended DVD comes out, and I can watch the whole thing end to end.
I was really quite disappointed with the movie, for a wide range of reasons. Mostly how aspect after aspect of Tolkien’s story was “sexed up” for mass consumption - basically saying that Lord of the Rings just isn’t interesting or dramatic enough by itself. Here are but two examples that immediately spring to mind:
*The scene where Sam storms the tower. In the book, he frightens away one orc; in the movie, he kills four orcs in hand-to-hand combat. In fact that whole sequence where we don’t see him take the Ring and suffer temptation etc., I have problems with.
*When Denethor immolates himself. In the book, he leaps onto the pyre and dies like the cold-blooded trooper he is. In the movie, he gets knocked onto the pyre, chickens out, then runs (on fire) the length of a football field or more before plunging over a cliff like Wile E. Coyote on an Acme rocket.
The army of the dead was cheesy, strictly Pirates of the Caribbean-ville, particularly in the attack. Liv Tyler looked bad, totally unqualified to play the “most beautiful woman in Middle Earth”. The final battle before the gates was really poorly done, heavy on lowbrow special effects. Gollum hanging out in the lava, still alive; Frodo and Sam standing next to millions of gallons of lava, still alive (someone didn’t pay attention to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom).
I blame not Peter Jackson but the studio, who clearly pressured him to make the movies more in line with what they think people want to see. This process is as old as cinema, but its tradition doesn’t insult my intelligence any less.
And for those who say that the DVD will have this, that and the other, I say that when I pay my money I expect to see a quality product on the screen that day, not some teaser for something I have to buy next year (and will still be ultimately unsatisfied with).
You know, I can’t wait to pick this thread back up when the Extended Edition comes out. I think there are a lot of minor details people are generally missing from the film (i.e. several people have mentioned wanting to see Sam get the Ring, more Denethor explanation, etc.) that will most likely make it to DVD. Seeing as how incredibly improved TTT is on EE, I cannot wait for the ROTK:EE. As I said above, I absolutely loved the film. But it’s still incomplete, and there’s no way the DVD will disappoint.
Is it me…or do others lust love it when a bunch of people get together who all love LOTR and talk about the ins and outs of the works! I love being around people who are in the know! Especialyl when people like me who say Andrew Jackson in stead of PETER! :)
Whoa! my grammar and spelling in that post was needing another cup of Java! Thats it! More coffee… Be right back.
I’ve said elsewhere, there are things we didn’t get in the theatrical ROTK that I’m pretty complacent about–Saruman’s end, Faramir and Eowyn getting together, more about Denethor–since I know they’ve been filmed and we’ll get to see them later on.
I’m not as sanguine about the Sam thing, since the change they made at Cirith Ungol is in the point-of-view to increase suspense; the scene is now set up so that the viewer doesn’t know that Sam has the Ring until he tells Frodo about it. We don’t see Sam take the Ring. We see Frodo wake up and realize he hasn’t got it. Like Frodo, we are meant to think (unless we’ve read the book), that the Enemy now has it. Unless this sequence is drastically re-cut, or we get a flashback, I don’t see this as an extended addition.
I could be wrong (and will be happy if I am, since this is my favorite part of the book), but I’m not hopeful.
I’m so so on the movies. They are an incredible spectacle, but as character films, they are uneven. One of the main reasons that I looked forwards to the film is that I could show friends and family who would never have read the books why the story and world were important to me. But the movies in some ways failed. Parts of them came off as cheesy. Most of what Jackson added in wasn’t just to help translate the story to the screen: it was cliche. It wasn’t as bad as the CGI mugging and pratfalls that Lucas added to Star Wars, but a lot of it seemed meant to please the rubes (ha haha! poop!) rather than make a great film. I guess I was expecting, given all the dedication and passion put into the film, that it would be 100% art driven, and not have marketing and demographic appeal tossed in. That was probably unrealistic, but still dissappointing because of what could have been.
The main problem is that the movies do do quite a lot right: then they blow it with some pathetic “what the hell was THAT for?” moment like dwarf tossing or Denathor doing the aforementioned Acme dive off a cliff. The original is bette rnot because it’s in th books, but because it’s DIFFERENT than all the crap you usually see in movies: it’s powerful and subtle and deeply disturbing. This was goofy crap that belonged in “Bad Boys 3,” not in a film aiming to be a classic.