Nitpicker's Guide to LOTR

Post by **Vympel** » 2005-01-12 10:12am

Pretty easy to find, I find this interesting for those who haven't read or don't remember the books to see what changes were made:

Link

Captain Cyran · Post by **Captain Cyran** » 2005-01-12 04:23pm

Some very interesting things, hell, a lot of that stuff in FotR I had forgotten about.

All in all in many of the variences he whines about the differences and talks about them being "forgivable" in some cases. A very purist way of going about it, but it looks sound from what little of LotR I've read.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2005-01-12 09:44pm

He didn't whine, he simply compiled the list of differences. He only stated that PJ did 4 things he can't agree on, all the rest is just fluff. He does say he enjoys the films, ROTK the least FOTR the most (kinda like me).

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2005-01-12 09:54pm

He does whine a bit in his comparisons. I can do without "And Jackson does this instead...." I can read the differences and come up with my own conclusions and opinions.

Though it's a good resource for what was changed.

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba · Post by **Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba** » 2005-01-12 10:31pm

Good for a bored teenager. Good resource.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2005-01-13 10:35am

Is it bad if I was reading it and nitpicked things that he'd forgotten to mention?

Post by **Vympel** » 2005-01-13 10:55am

Mayabird wrote:Is it bad if I was reading it and nitpicked things that he'd forgotten to mention?

No.

I'm surprised he didn't nitpick the visual style- like the absurdity of every Gondor soldier being in plate armour- even fricking archers.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2005-01-13 04:13pm

Mayabird wrote:Is it bad if I was reading it and nitpicked things that he'd forgotten to mention?

Not at all, I was doing the same thing, such as "What about Gandalfs letter that the Inn Keeper at the prancing pony is meant to have..." and so on

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » 2005-01-15 02:15am

When I and most of my dorm went to see the movies, some of us spent some time classifying the errors as:

1: Laudable - Leaving out Tom Bombadill

2: Forgivable - Leaving the fireworks out of Bilbo's disapearing act.

3: Unforgivable - The vile slanders against Faramir.

Pick · Post by **Pick** » 2005-01-15 04:01pm

Yeah, the difference between the books and the movie... hmm.... I honestly think that the movies were better. No Bombadill. Yes, this has been mentioned, but it is quite critical as to much of why I enjoyed FoTR. I was giggling like an idiot when I saw they left him out.

Though to Faramir!?... the horrors...

I still think many of the mistakes went into making it easier to follow, which is mostly forgiveable because Tolkein was ridiculously long-winded (though yes, I did enjoy the books.) I think that there should have been effort to remove silly-stuff though, but eh. It works. I mean, I can remember seeing the animated versions. After that, this trilogy shines like a beacon of the divine.

unigolyn · Post by **unigolyn** » 2005-01-22 11:55am

Some of those nitpicks are just bizarrely trivial - 'The elves accuse Gimli of breathing loudly, when in fact it was Sam'.

LOTR is my all-time favorite book, but it is no way good literature or even consistently good storytelling, and treating it as holy scripture is ridiculous. It is not a study of 'honor', but a simplistic look at addiction and overcoming fear - no more insightful than any other mythological story (the moral of Prometheus - do not covet advancement lest your liver be consumed daily by a big bird). The plot, such as it is, is simply there to guide the reader through the mythological and linguistic inventions of Tolkien, which is the real reason the book kicks ass, and where it is thoroughly and sometimes incredibly consistent (take the whole hobbit/holbytlan/rohirric thing).

Bombadil - A bearded fruit in yellow boots singing 'Hey dol merry dol'. A pointless (cameo) character who perfectly illustrates the stylistic inconsistency of the book - it obviously started out as Hobbit 2 - Judgment Day. Bombadil, Goldberry, 'Old Man Willow', simplistic plot devices handing out uber-blades. Then, from Bree onwards, it turns into a high fantasy epic (not coincidentally, there were years between writing FOTR pre-Bree and after-Bree). Also, having a character unswayed by the One Ring who is then rationalized away as an obvious Ring-bearer is umm, dumb.

Book Faramir - yaaaawn. Movie Faramir - nearly the best character in the story.

Book Boromir - pompous blowhard. Movie Boromir - best character in the story.

The movie Gimli sucked, as did Legolas - though not because of the much-hated acrobatics - they were reduced to pointless comic relief (then again there's not much room to flesh out all the characters even in 10+ hours).

The only serious gripe I have with the movie is the green snot Army of the Dead - anticlimactic as all hell.

Personally, I have no illusions about the book. I liked it as a kid because kids have horrendously low standards, and don't notice the crap because of the gee-whiz. I still like it because of the incredibly rich, made-up universe it takes place in. The reason the movies work is that Peter Jackson took the all of the gee-whiz he got as a kid and made the story bearable to anyone by cutting out or replacing Tolkien's miscalculations.

Flame away.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2005-01-22 02:40pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:
Mayabird wrote:Is it bad if I was reading it and nitpicked things that he'd forgotten to mention?
Not at all, I was doing the same thing, such as "What about Gandalfs letter that the Inn Keeper at the prancing pony is meant to have..." and so on

Email him: others have. Nothing wrong with a bit of nitpicking now and then. Christ on a pogo stick, isn't that what we do here half the time anyway?

I agree with most of his gripes. Overall, many of the changes Jackson made did not improve the story enough to justify them or didn't improve it at all... some degraded it. The notable exception to this was of course the the exclusion of Tom Bombadil (the old movie adaption as well as the comic adaptions excluded him also).

Pick · Post by **Pick** » 2005-01-22 02:43pm

unigolyn wrote:Personally, I have no illusions about the book. I liked it as a kid because kids have horrendously low standards, and don't notice the crap because of the gee-whiz. I still like it because of the incredibly rich, made-up universe it takes place in. The reason the movies work is that Peter Jackson took the all of the gee-whiz he got as a kid and made the story bearable to anyone by cutting out or replacing Tolkien's miscalculations.

Flame away.

Actually, I think that you're quite right in most respects (I still liked book Faramir though). As I said, hell, I liked the movies better. Tolkein did great things for fantasy literature, but I feel a lot of his actual... works... were in severe need of a an editor. Or something. Just... too... thick? Not in length, but in wordiness. Oh, and it always seemed to me that my favorite parts got severely cut down while ridiculous, overblown scenes took chapters. I'm not really too sure though, I think I read them twice (once to read them for pleasure, the second time to reaffirm that they really weren't that good.):|

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2005-01-22 02:55pm

unigolyn wrote:Personally, I have no illusions about the book. I liked it as a kid because kids have horrendously low standards, and don't notice the crap because of the gee-whiz. I still like it because of the incredibly rich, made-up universe it takes place in. The reason the movies work is that Peter Jackson took the all of the gee-whiz he got as a kid and made the story bearable to anyone by cutting out or replacing Tolkien's miscalculations.

Flame away.

Low standards? Crap? In what sense are the books of low standard?

Pick wrote:Actually, I think that you're quite right in most respects (I still liked book Faramir though). As I said, hell, I liked the movies better. Tolkein did great things for fantasy literature, but I feel a lot of his actual... works... were in severe need of a an editor. Or something. Just... too... thick? Not in length, but in wordiness. Oh, and it always seemed to me that my favorite parts got severely cut down while ridiculous, overblown scenes took chapters. I'm not really too sure though, I think I read them twice (once to read them for pleasure, the second time to reaffirm that they really weren't that good.):|

Tsk. Instant gratifaction generation. No patience at all.

By these arguments Dante's the Divine Comedy and Malory's Le Morte D'Arthur are poor works.

Pick · Post by **Pick** » 2005-01-22 03:18pm

Lord Zentei wrote:
Pick wrote:Actually, I think that you're quite right in most respects (I still liked book Faramir though). As I said, hell, I liked the movies better. Tolkein did great things for fantasy literature, but I feel a lot of his actual... works... were in severe need of a an editor. Or something. Just... too... thick? Not in length, but in wordiness. Oh, and it always seemed to me that my favorite parts got severely cut down while ridiculous, overblown scenes took chapters. I'm not really too sure though, I think I read them twice (once to read them for pleasure, the second time to reaffirm that they really weren't that good.):|
Tsk. Instant gratifaction generation. No patience at all. By these arguments Dante's the Divine Comedy and Malory's Le Morte D'Arthur are poor works.

Actually, I loved Dante's Divine Comedy.

And many other slow-paced, and enriching books. Tolkein's just didn't do much for me at its given level of style. I think I am a bit less patient when it comes to fantasy literature, however.

Captain Cyran · Post by **Captain Cyran** » 2005-01-22 03:22pm

Lord Zentei wrote:
unigolyn wrote:Personally, I have no illusions about the book. I liked it as a kid because kids have horrendously low standards, and don't notice the crap because of the gee-whiz. I still like it because of the incredibly rich, made-up universe it takes place in. The reason the movies work is that Peter Jackson took the all of the gee-whiz he got as a kid and made the story bearable to anyone by cutting out or replacing Tolkien's miscalculations.

Flame away.
Low standards? Crap? In what sense are the books of low standard?

I don't think they mean the books are low standard... just pointing out that, when you're a kid, Barney is cool. Low standards of what is good or not, what a kid is doing reading LotR is beyond me though.

Pick wrote:Actually, I think that you're quite right in most respects (I still liked book Faramir though). As I said, hell, I liked the movies better. Tolkein did great things for fantasy literature, but I feel a lot of his actual... works... were in severe need of a an editor. Or something. Just... too... thick? Not in length, but in wordiness. Oh, and it always seemed to me that my favorite parts got severely cut down while ridiculous, overblown scenes took chapters. I'm not really too sure though, I think I read them twice (once to read them for pleasure, the second time to reaffirm that they really weren't that good.):|
Tsk. Instant gratifaction generation. No patience at all. By these arguments Dante's the Divine Comedy and Malory's Le Morte D'Arthur are poor works.

Odd, I'm reading The Inferno right now and enjoying it thoroughly, but I HATE the first half of FotR with a burning passion. The Second half was much better but still wasn't enough to make me eager to read TTT.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2005-01-22 03:26pm

Pick wrote:
Lord Zentei wrote:Tsk. Instant gratifaction generation. No patience at all. By these arguments Dante's the Divine Comedy and Malory's Le Morte D'Arthur are poor works.
Actually, I loved Dante's Divine Comedy. And many other slow-paced, and enriching books. Tolkein's just didn't do much for me at its given level of style. I think I am a bit less patient when it comes to fantasy literature, however.

Well, to me the slow pace of the overall stories contrasted nicely with the fast pace of the battles. The richness of the setting and it's history would have been hard to capture if the pace of the writing were significantly increased, and that mattered a lot IMO. Hence also my reference to Le Morte D'Arthur which is similar in that regard. I guess I gust feel that high fantasy should be more similar to sagas and legends and should not be Hollywood style action hero stuff. YMMV, and all that.

Post by **Vympel** » 2005-01-25 08:52am

Well I think the point about a pointless signing bearded fruit handing out uber-blades for use against the Witch-King falls under the category of "low standards".

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2005-01-25 10:33am

Ok, c'mon, let's just admit it, the LOTR books were boring. What I don't like about the movie is a lot of stupid eye candy (Legolas ridiculous stunts), but most of the changes were really for the best.

And I still don't get what's up with Faramir. So in the book he's a guy with an unbreakable iron will, and here he's just human? All the people crying for character-rape sound like fanwankers. Worse than Wolverine fans

Post by **NecronLord** » 2005-01-25 10:55am

He's not just human in the film. He's a fucking pussy. He leads his men on a suicide charge just because he has paternal issues and throws all their lives away.

Pcm979 · Post by **Pcm979** » 2005-01-25 10:58am

Eh, I don't have a problem with that; Middle ages-style societies have a lot of massively stupid things ordered by superiors and carried out by normally rational people. I see it as being realistic.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2005-01-25 11:00am

You've been reading too much Samurai propaganda son.

Such things were likely rarer than people of the time would like to admit.

Hell, if you want to get technical, he tried to take a city with cavalry too. More to the point, Gondor/Westernesse wasn't a standard middle age society, in many ways it was far more progressive. Female inheritance (including Ruling Queen laws better than those of the UK) for example.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2005-01-25 08:12pm

Slartibartfast wrote:Ok, c'mon, let's just admit it, the LOTR books were boring.

Not my perception at all, you foul heathen.

Slartibartfast wrote:What I don't like about the movie is a lot of stupid eye candy (Legolas ridiculous stunts)

Indeed.

Slartibartfast wrote: but most of the changes were really for the best.

See point nr.1

Pcm979 · Post by **Pcm979** » 2005-01-26 06:13am

NecronLord wrote:You've been reading too much Samurai propaganda son. Such things were likely rarer than people of the time would like to admit.

Probably. THey did happen, though.

NecronLord wrote:Hell, if you want to get technical, he tried to take a city with cavalry too. More to the point, Gondor/Westernesse wasn't a standard middle age society, in many ways it was far more progressive. Female inheritance (including Ruling Queen laws better than those of the UK) for example.

Hrm. I don't have my LotR at hand, but I thought Gondor never had a ruling queen?

EmperorSolo51 · Post by **EmperorSolo51** » 2005-01-26 08:49am

Pcm979 wrote:
NecronLord wrote:You've been reading too much Samurai propaganda son. Such things were likely rarer than people of the time would like to admit.
Probably. THey did happen, though.

NecronLord wrote:Hell, if you want to get technical, he tried to take a city with cavalry too. More to the point, Gondor/Westernesse wasn't a standard middle age society, in many ways it was far more progressive. Female inheritance (including Ruling Queen laws better than those of the UK) for example.
Hrm. I don't have my LotR at hand, but I thought Gondor never had a ruling queen?

You are absolutley correct. Of all the Queens of Gondor, noner ruled in thier own right. However, There were three Queens of Numenor who ruled in thier own right.