Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Most gripes that LOTR fans seem to have with the movies seem to be the same sort of gripe that people have whenever a book is made into a movie - namely that over half the book was edited out. There are many good reasons for why film makers are forced to edit out content - but it sure seems to cause a lot of heart-ache for the fans.

So I was wondering - do any of you have any "Reverse Gripes"? That is, was there anything in the movies that was BETTER then the book? Was there any change that the film makers made that IMPROVED the story?

No "gripes", please. I'm looking for "reverse gripes" only.

Hmm.. I'm sure I have plenty. Peter Jackson IS brilliant after all!

Um, off the toppa my head: Using NZ to shoot the films. Don't mean to blow our own trumpets for the millionth time, but NZ just gave so much to the films.

That's a reverse-gripe i guess...

Gandalf's appearance and clothing (Grey & White) was less 'folk'...

The script in general was excellent. Did justice to the characters even though the original scripting did change.

I love it that Durins Bane was given wings. That just makes it look soooo much cooler/powerful.

This could be a reverse-gripe depending on how you interpret the original text.

Originally posted by The Secret Fire
Gandalf's appearance and clothing (Grey & White) was less 'folk'...

I thought his clothing matched Tolkien's description quite adequately....

Originally posted by The Secret Fire
I love it that Durins Bane was given wings. That just makes it look soooo much cooler/powerful.

This could be a reverse-gripe depending on how you interpret the original text.

Depending on how one interprets the scene, the Balrog could indeed have originally had wings....I forget just what was said on the actual topic, although I know it was discussed somewhere in this Forum....

Originally posted by suncrafter
Most gripes that LOTR fans seem to have with the movies seem to be the same sort of gripe that people have whenever a book is made into a movie - namely that over half the book was edited out. There are many good reasons for why film makers are forced to edit out content - but it sure seems to cause a lot of heart-ache for the fans.

So I was wondering - do any of you have any "Reverse Gripes"? That is, was there anything in the movies that was BETTER then the book? Was there any change that the film makers made that IMPROVED the story?

No "gripes", please. I'm looking for "reverse gripes" only.

Meh....I really enjoyed the sacrifices of Gandalf and Boromir in FotR. They represented rather closely how I'd imagined the scenes....

Ultimately, though, I didn't "prefer" anything in the films. I simply can't ignore the Hollywoodism that was introduced into them, thus degrading their cultural/literary significance.

Originally posted by The Secret Fire
Well I didn't see any hat-protruding eyebrows or large boots.. Did you?



Depends on how you interpret the text (the book) is what I meant.

LOL

His eyebrows were fairly bushy, weren't they? And his boots....why, they were just hidden beneath his robe!

BTW: I knew what you meant, I just didn't express myself properly.

Haha

I like the part where Bilbo has trouble leaving the ring behind when he leaves home. He can't bring himself to set it on the mantel place or on a table. With hands trembling, he only manages to drop the ring near the front door. Not daring to look back at the ring - he steps out the door, and walks way, looking like he has been relieved of a heavy burden.
Soon afterward, Gandalf moves toward the ring, but (despite the fact that he is a powerful wizard) he dares not touch it. He looks at it with trepidation. He leaves the ring there until Frodo enters. Frodo picks it up without a problem.

That is not how it happened in the book - but I liked it a lot.

Cutting out all of that Tom Bombadill crap was also a definite improvement.

????

That scene was very similar to the book, IMI.

BTW: Tom Bombadil "crap"? Not a good thing to say in these parts.

Yes, ah if Tolkien was still around he would roast you for saying such blasphemy suncrafter!

*washes crafters tongue out with soap*

LOL , Tom would have been soooooo unnecessary in the movie, good thing they left him out.

I think it's hard to argue that having the Hobbits, especially Frodo and Sam, being relatively young was a plus in the movie. In the book, they are young adults (as hobbit's go- 33 at the stories beginning). What work's in a book doesn't always work on screne- and young, Innocent, dew-eyed hobbit's just works better.

uote=9778373](auto quote)he had wings in the book aswell he flee there when fleeing from the valar