Sir Whiskers said:
Valinor, or staying and fading into legend. Only someone who had read the novels could have understood the depths of their loss while watching the movies.
Which is why the movies simply omit the connection between the destruction of the ring and their fading from Middle Earth, thus not needing to get viewers to understand it.
*The strength and endurance of the people of Gondor, as poignantly shown in the novels, was given very little attention in the movies - Denethor despaired because he fought Sauron for so long, not because he was just some raving madman.
In the books Denethor despaired because he was duped by Sauron, who controlled what he saw when using the palantir, into believing that there truly was no choice but to find a good way to die. In the
movie Denethor despairs because he's fought Sauron for so long and believes there's no longer any way to win, it's just that the palantir isn't the instrument that brings him to believe it.
What of Beregond, who faced the terrible choice of fighting his kinsmen to save Faramir from Denethor's madness?
A minor character who in the larger scheme of the story was unnecessary.
*The hobbits also sacrificed, as we read in the Scouring of the Shire, yet that was completely cut from the movies. The whole sense that Frodo was permanently scarred by his ordeal was barely touched upon in the movies.
Did we see the same movies? Did you miss the ENDLESS repetition of Frodos pained face, his looks at the ring, clutching it under his shirt, his outbursts at Sam, etc.?
The movies did a credible job of showing Aragorn confronting the oathbreakers in the Paths of the Dead, but otherwise he didn't really come into his own until the confrontation before the Black Gate.
And thus largely a matter of timing only, and the timing and pacing of a movie is not the same as a book.
The movies showed the fall of Boromir well, they completely messed up Faramir's character.
I wouldn't say "messed up", although they DID assign Faramir a different role in the story. It's just that he then reinforces the corruptive power of the ring instead of highlighting the differences between himself and Boromir and Denethor. Faramirs charge is then added to serve the purpose of demonstrating the gulf between he and Denethor.
*Gandalf telling Aragorn to go with Theoden to Helm's Deep, because the King was "leading his people into a trap" and Aragorn must "save them". Aragorn, Gimli, and the elves from Lorien end up "saving" the Rohirrim.
This wasn't to show that nobody outside the Fellowship could do anything right, but to bring down the lofty, Awful Lawful Good, tone of the characters to something more flawed. Essentially, making the character more believeable and palatable to a wider audience.
*The hobbits "tricked" Treebeard into getting involved in the War. Huh? They started the ents thinking about Saruman's depradations, but only through their presence with Treebeard. The old ent was too wise to have fallen for anything so idiotic as what the movie showed.
Apples and oranges. The book had the luxury of presenting Treebeard as a very patient, wise creature. The movie does not have the luxury of being free with the time being spent in the seat. While I agree that the decision could have, and should have, been made in the same way as the book your criticism here takes an aspect of Treebeards character that isn't ESTABLISHED in the movie and criticizes the film for being contrary to that aspect of character.
*Pippin starting the fires to summon the Rohirrim to Gondor's aid. Why? Why couldn't PJ and company have left it the way it was in the novels, with Denethor ordering the fires lit? I suppose because they had made such a travesty of his character, it wouldn't have made sense. More likely, it seems part of the theme that only the Fellowship could do anything right.
No, just the first part. On this one I agree with you that they could have and should have played it the same way as in the book, and it's a change largely necessitated by the shorter shrift that's given to Denethors character.
I do agree that if one reduces the story to its most basic elements (weak little people take powerful artifact to volcano to destroy great evil), then the movies' changes were only cosmetic. If one, however, views the trilogy as more than just the story of the Fellowship, then a great deal was lost.
Good thing the movies don't attempt to present it that way then. If they had then that criticism would have merit. It IS presented essentially as just the story of the Fellowship, with most of the larger, subtler overtones of the book dealt with only superficially.
This depth was lost in the movies.
Not "lost". That implies that they tried to put it in there. They didn't. They largely just omitted it.
No doubt, some of the changes were necessary due to the different medium (film vs. book), but many cannot be explained by this. While I don't claim to read minds, I can only conclude that PJ et. al. simply couldn't resist making changes they felt would improve the story told by the movies. And in doing so, a great deal of Tolkien's original story was lost.
You almost had it there. It IS explained almost entirely by the differences in medium. They changed the story BECAUSE a mass-market series of films has different requirements than a book and some of Tolkiens original story was OMITTED as unnecessary and even problematic. Had Tolkien done the screenplay adaptation himself he would undoubtedly have taken many of the same axe blows to his own work.
