The fact that the movies were done so well and so completely is a minor miracle, and I think there’s little doubt that the movie trilogy will hold up well in comparison to what came before, and arguably to whatever subsequent attempts are made. Most of the issues raised in this thread are quibbles over directorial or editorial choices. Some of those may only be forgiveable in the context of the overall achievement, but that achievement is based on all the wonderful scenes and details which Jackson included.
For my money, the whole trilogy is made worthwhile by the inclusion of Theoden’s rallying speech before the charge of the Rohirrim at Pellenor Field. It would’ve been great to see that charge portrayed militarily correctly against a competent Orcish army, but what we got was not only much better than I expected, it was stunning and moving in a way which rivals the passage in the book. The poor editing choices which followed that scene didn’t have a chance of ruining my enjoyment after that.
All of the editorial deletions I think were justified, but none of the additions or changes to the story seemed to improve character development, provide better explication of plot points, or otherwise improve the tale. So I’ve got four quibbles and one major criticism which, for me, absolutely prevented the movie achievement from approaching the literary one in any significant way.
-
Denethor. Jackson turned one of Tolkien’s most tragic and noble figures into a one dimensional B-movie character. It’s a shame that instead of the determined and capable regent of a determined and capable city state, driven to despair by the loss of two sons and the seemingly imminent destruction of all that he’s spent a lifetime protecting, we were instead given the high fantasy equivalent of Captain Queeg.
-
The deletion from the theatrical release of Gandalf’s confrontation by the Witch King of Angmar in Minas Tirith just prior to the Charge of the Rohirrim, when Gandalf’s staff is broken and he is bested. Without this scene, the enormity of Merry and Eowyn’s actions on the field is wildly diminished. Merry brings down and Eowyn destroys the leader of the Nazgul, but without the earlier context this scene becomes another “gee whiz” but otherwise unimportant development. And to have excised the confrontation in favor of including Legolas’ acrobatics on the Oliphaunt is just inept storytelling which yields a few minutes of exciting action footage in a scene already replete with it.
-
Over reliance on FX. As someone’s already mentioned, why hire Ian Holms and Cate Blanchett and then hide bits of their performances behind (IMO somewhat cheesy) visual tricks? And the Army of the Dead would’ve perhaps inspired more dread if they’d been more dreadful and less radioactive.
-
Treebeard & co. The whole dramatic punch of this part of the story is based on the deliberateness of the Ents and the growing despair of Merry and Pippin when they come to expect no help from the creatures. When the Entmoot ends with consensus among the Ents to take part in the fight, and when the –very deliberate and obsessively careful- Ents act so quickly, terribly and decisively to remove the threat of Orthanc, it’s revelatory of the greater thread of the story. In Middle Earth at the end of the Third Age, no neutrality is possible. The Ents come to realize this so thoroughly and completely that their actions and methods are described by Tolkien almost purely in natural terms, as if Nature itself were rising against the Enemy. None of this comes through in the film.
The major problem with PJ’s movie trilogy, that which makes it a different and lesser story, is the character Frodo.
Has anyone spoken to any person who hasn’t read the books but who really “gets” Frodo from the movies? The most common take I’ve heard from this set of viewers is that they really like the character of Sam and are amused by the other Hobbits, but they don’t understand the big deal with Frodo. He just carries the Ring around, does stupid things to almost get caught, acts like a wuss, and then can’t even toss the damn thing in the fire when he gets to Mt. Doom. Why didn’t they just give the Ring to Sam?
But the importance of Frodo to Tolkien’s story (but not to Jackson’s) is like the importance of Tom Joad to Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath. The story of Frodo is the story of Middle Earth writ small. That Tolkien doesn’t beat the reader over the head with this is more a tribute to his abilities as a storyteller than an indication that Frodo’s struggle is not illustrative of the larger one. Frodo’s story, in fact, is key to understanding the larger story.
Frodo is used by Tolkien to demonstrate the qualities he thinks are absolutely vital for “Good” to triumph over “Evil”. In the books, Frodo demonstrates more than any other character the qualities of respect and moral courage. It’s Frodo’s stewardship of the Ring, rather than his mere conveyance of it, that is Tolkien’s focus. At every turn, Frodo faces a moral choice, and the choices offered never seem to yield a reward for the strictly moral path but constantly offer some obvious advantage to taking an easier, more pragmatic, less ethical, but superficially righteous path.
Frodo’s effort is certainly not well abetted by his companions; he has the help he needs with the physical journey but he is most certainly alone on the moral one. His fellow Hobbits are loyal and good but are followers. Gandalf has a larger role and an Agenda so out of Frodo’s reach and understanding that what guidance he can give is inevitably so broad in scope as to be pointless in effect. Aragorn is locked from the start in a Hamletesque existential struggle of his own, and while a giver of wise counsel and a good moral ally, he has his own struggle to bear. The Elvish leaders at Rivendell and Lothlorien are also good and wise and important, but they are wrapped so inextricably in the larger Struggle that they are essentially little more to Frodo than exemplars of virtue and providers of situational aid. Sam, the constant and reliable companion is as good as they come, but he can’t see beyond the basic first level moral equations.
Frodo is truly on his own, and is the only major character capable of bearing the Ring (in both senses of the word) for very long. Were it not for Frodo’s understanding of this and willingness to sacrifice himself to the task, the Ring would stay in Rivendell and ultimately be captured by Sauron, or would leave in the Company of those who would either try and use it –and be destroyed- or try and keep it safe from the Enemy- and be destroyed. As it becomes more and more clear to Frodo that he is alone in the task, he makes the difficult choice to leave his Companions and strike out on his own. Yet he inspires such loyalty that Sam cannot let him take that path alone.
Most importantly, the choice Frodo makes –three times in the story- to spare or save the life of Gollum is the moral decision which ultimately redeems him, confounds Sauron and destroys the Ring. Near the end, on the steps of Mount Doom, Frodo is so profoundly weary and beaten and heartsick by the struggle that he is near death. The desolate place he has achieved geographically he has also come to spiritually. He is literally at the end of his ability to struggle further. And he still can’t allow the killing of Gollum, having only pity for the creature. It’s that final act of mercy that sets the stage for the final betrayal and redemption of Frodo, when Frodo can’t bear to destroy the Ring.
Gollum’s fate seems to come across as fortunate and accidental in the movie, and that’s a shame.
good one. It doesn’t say anything in the boks about there being an innumerable force of orcs.