LotR Coming to Amazon TV

[LordEntrails]

He uses the tongs to pull the Ring from the fire onto the hearth, then picks it up from there and gives it to Frodo, assuring him it's quite cool--with some justification because he actually picked the thing up.

And that's a significant complaint that the movie did not follow the book?

Come on, that's probably just visual and time considerations. Dropping the ring into Frodo's hand simply flows better in a visual sense and takes less time. It does not change the core story, that the ring is cold and undamaged when emerging from the fire.

[Silfir]

Gandalf's ability to reassure Frodo that the ring is "quite cool" without physically touching it really only emphasizes to the audience that a) the ring is some serious magic and b) Gandalf knows how that magic works because he's really a quite good wizard. Which is perfectly fair.

Of the many complaints leveled against the movie, the only ones I tend to share are about Faramir's treatment; but even that aspect of it isn't nearly enough to downgrade the movies from masterpieces to anything lesser. There's some truly inane stuff getting peddled - "Why didn't they drop the ring from an eagle lol" - that's remarkably persistent.

[Vinyadan]

It also adds some curiosity about Gandalf's knowledge on the ring and its origin. Iirc he's looking at the camera, right? It's like he's asking the viewer to take a bet and trust him on this while physically giving him the story.

The one thing I didn't like in the movie was how the dead were handled. That really had nothing to do with the book, in spirit or form, and was ultimately silly. Otherwise, yes, there were changes, but OK with the artistic intention of the movies. They even managed to make the first chapters interesting!

[warty goblin]

Jackson and/or Newline made quite a few bad decisions in those adaptations from a thematic standpoint, in respect to representing Tolkien's work - this is what made them disappointing Lord of the Rings movies. Production values, financial and critical success have nothing to do with that. They can be enjoyed purely as well made fantasy films regardless of the source material - this is why they were successful in the mainstream.

Odds are, if Amazon put someone in charge who actually likes and understands Tolkien for what it is and gave sufficient creative control, they would make a better LotR adaptation than Jackson/Newline did, especially given the fact that it would be long-form rather than forced into theater conventions. Whether it would be flashy enough to keep the attention of the general TV watching public and the current generation of youngsters is less likely, maybe. But anyone who enjoys Tolkien like I do would probably enjoy that better than the films.

I know they're not likely to ever do that, that's just what I'd like to see. I truly believe LotR could be better adapted and I'd want to see it. The movies we have now are good, but they could have been far, far better, even within the logistic constraints of studio film-making. I just don't think Jackson and his producers were really Tolkien fans at all, despite the claims of the DVD commentaries and interviews, and it shows in the resulting product.

Honestly I suspect that the constraints of TV are even worse. The movies could divide the story into three roughly equally sized chunks, each of which had to work as a satisfying narrative arc on its own. That is, somebody leaving the theater would need to feel that they had seen a satisfying bit of narrative that developed the characters and advanced the plot, although obviously for Fellowship and Two Towers leaving open what happens next. Since the books already do this, there didn't have to be any particularly huge changes to the structure of the story to get it to fit - mostly just moving some of Two Towers into Return of the King.

A TV show would need to pull off this same structure basically every hour. Maybe the standards of prestige TV have changed in the last few years since I basically stopped watching stuff, but in my experience this is done by constantly stacking on the drama so every single episode ends on some startling revelation! or dire threat! or something or another that makes it feel like if you don't watch the next episode right now you will basically explode. To be sure a lot of the really annoying things in the movie adaptions are instances of rather artificial and forced conflict, mostly in the Frodo and Sam plotline since that one's not got a lot of Big Drama moments in it after the breaking of the Fellowship. A TV show, constrained to make Frodo and Sam's bits contain some super-dramatic seeming event every bloody hour would be even worse.

Until eventually it ends up where it seems like all TV shows end up, character development getting totally mangled and any sense of a sensible or thematic plot just getting buried under the constant avalanche of intensity. I'm not saying that the movies don't stray down this path - because they absolutely do - but the temptation and structural imperative for a TV show to do it would be much, much larger.

[factotum]

Gandalf's ability to reassure Frodo that the ring is "quite cool" without physically touching it really only emphasizes to the audience that a) the ring is some serious magic and b) Gandalf knows how that magic works because he's really a quite good wizard. Which is perfectly fair.

I only offered that as one example of the movie deviating from the book--there's also Faramir's treatment, the Paths of the Dead being turned from something genuinely chilling into some sort of Hallowe'en sideshow, Frodo looking at the statues of the Argonath like he's bored with the whole affair (and then a flock of birds flying out of one of the statues' eyes, just in case any sense of awe or wonder had managed to creep in)...I could go on. None of these things make the movies bad movies, as I said earlier, though; they just make them bad adaptations.

[Thrudd]

Honestly I suspect that the constraints of TV are even worse. The movies could divide the story into three roughly equally sized chunks, each of which had to work as a satisfying narrative arc on its own. That is, somebody leaving the theater would need to feel that they had seen a satisfying bit of narrative that developed the characters and advanced the plot, although obviously for Fellowship and Two Towers leaving open what happens next. Since the books already do this, there didn't have to be any particularly huge changes to the structure of the story to get it to fit - mostly just moving some of Two Towers into Return of the King.

A TV show would need to pull off this same structure basically every hour. Maybe the standards of prestige TV have changed in the last few years since I basically stopped watching stuff, but in my experience this is done by constantly stacking on the drama so every single episode ends on some startling revelation! or dire threat! or something or another that makes it feel like if you don't watch the next episode right now you will basically explode. To be sure a lot of the really annoying things in the movie adaptions are instances of rather artificial and forced conflict, mostly in the Frodo and Sam plotline since that one's not got a lot of Big Drama moments in it after the breaking of the Fellowship. A TV show, constrained to make Frodo and Sam's bits contain some super-dramatic seeming event every bloody hour would be even worse.

Until eventually it ends up where it seems like all TV shows end up, character development getting totally mangled and any sense of a sensible or thematic plot just getting buried under the constant avalanche of intensity. I'm not saying that the movies don't stray down this path - because they absolutely do - but the temptation and structural imperative for a TV show to do it would be much, much larger.

You are right, there are still constraints to adapting the thing. I believe someone with enough knowledge and respect for the material could pull it off. Not all TV shows are an endless stream of intense suspense and interpersonal conflict, and LotR shouldn't be- though I believe there is plenty to keep things interesting throughout.

The problem with the films was not the format, imo, but the creative thematic decisions made by Jackson et al. Whatever format it moves to, the people handling it make all the difference. It could have been done better then and still could.

[Lord Joeltion]

I fear them making it a Got rehash. LotR is SO not GoT. Also don't like GoT in the least

The movies we have now are good, but they could have been far, far better, even within the logistic constraints of studio film-making. I just don't think Jackson and his producers were really Tolkien fans at all, despite the claims of the DVD commentaries and interviews, and it shows in the resulting product.

No true

Just because they happen to be different kind of fans, it doesn't make them any less fans than yourself. I, for once, prefer the kind of fan that simply accepts the reality that Literary Conventions =/= Movie Conventions; and that tropes/structure and pacing is what defines the media. Some elements will simply have to be lost/reshaped in translation, otherwise you will have an inaccurate translation, i.e: a lousy, unappealing product.

Like say: a musical score by a frigging hippie that could single handedly end the war by himself but won't because he doesn't give a crap. Not only that would be a waste of time and help nothing to the narrative structure of a film, but it would also account for the worst kind of appeal that can ever used in a movie: Fan Service.

[warty goblin]

I only offered that as one example of the movie deviating from the book--there's also Faramir's treatment, the Paths of the Dead being turned from something genuinely chilling into some sort of Hallowe'en sideshow, Frodo looking at the statues of the Argonath like he's bored with the whole affair (and then a flock of birds flying out of one of the statues' eyes, just in case any sense of awe or wonder had managed to creep in)...I could go on. None of these things make the movies bad movies, as I said earlier, though; they just make them bad adaptations.

I both thought Frodo's reaction was a much more reasonable depiction of awe than a big 'oh wow' face, and liked the birds. For one thing they were a part of a really excellently framed shot, and helped set the scale from a different angle. For another, they made the statues feel like part of the world, something creatures could interact with, instead of here be visual effect.

You are right, there are still constraints to adapting the thing. I believe someone with enough knowledge and respect for the material could pull it off. Not all TV shows are an endless stream of intense suspense and interpersonal conflict, and LotR shouldn't be- though I believe there is plenty to keep things interesting throughout.

The problem with the films was not the format, imo, but the creative thematic decisions made by Jackson et al. Whatever format it moves to, the people handling it make all the difference. It could have been done better then and still could.

How? Let's face it, it's really easy to sit back and go "I don't like thing X" but we don't have to make a movie that's watchable by millions of people ranging from hardcore fans to people who don't know Lord of the Rings from Harry Potter. We've got zero constraints and zero responsibility because we're sitting in a message board showing off how big of fans we are in the traditional manner of hating everything that doesn't conform to our narrow and personal view.

Take out the bit with Faramir taking Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath? Sure it's more true to the book, but you've taken a bit about them being in danger and helpless to 'they meet a very nice young man in the woods', and undermined a huge amount of the narrative work that's gone into making the Ring dangerous and corrupting. Since this will be intercut with big drama in Rohan and Helm's Deep and ents and all sorts of other fantastic stuff, the actual center of the story is now substantially less interesting than the side show. Now 3/4 of your audience, who maybe read the books once in college or knows somebody who's read 'em end up thinking the most important plotline is boring and won't go to see it again.

Bottom line is that whether for film or TV, the writers and director(s) will need to up the amount of drama and conflict in the movie for it to have a snowball's chance in hell of being big and appealing enough to recoup its budget. Personally I think we got lucky as hell in getting the movies we got.

I fear them making it a Got rehash. LotR is SO not GoT. Also don't like GoT in the least

I actually like GoT, and think the first season in particular is really well done. I stopped watching about the time it caught up with the books, because I want to read before I watch, but I'm quite happy with the job they did adapting it. But GoT has a lot more dramatic bits and cliffhangers built into the story than LoTR does, and probably adapts a lot easier.

No true

Just because they happen to be different kind of fans, it doesn't make them any less fans than yourself. I, for once, prefer the kind of fan that simply accepts the reality that Literary Conventions =/= Movie Conventions; and that tropes/structure and pacing is what defines the media. Some elements will simply have to be lost/reshaped in translation, otherwise you will have an inaccurate translation, i.e: a lousy, unappealing product.

Like say: a musical score by a frigging hippie that could single handedly end the war by himself but won't because he doesn't give a crap. Not only that would be a waste of time and help nothing to the narrative structure of a film, but it would also account for the worst kind of appeal that can ever used in a movie: Fan Service.

Amen. Down with making things for the fans. It's a terrible idea.

[Vinyadan]

I'd like to note that JRR considered making Tom Bombadil the main character of the book.
Also, about translations: Bombadil means "good shovel" in Italian.

[Talakeal]

Jackson and/or Newline made quite a few bad decisions in those adaptations from a thematic standpoint, in respect to representing Tolkien's work - this is what made them disappointing Lord of the Rings movies. Production values, financial and critical success have nothing to do with that. They can be enjoyed purely as well made fantasy films regardless of the source material - this is why they were successful in the mainstream.

Odds are, if Amazon put someone in charge who actually likes and understands Tolkien for what it is and gave sufficient creative control, they would make a better LotR adaptation than Jackson/Newline did, especially given the fact that it would be long-form rather than forced into theater conventions. Whether it would be flashy enough to keep the attention of the general TV watching public and the current generation of youngsters is less likely, maybe. But anyone who enjoys Tolkien like I do would probably enjoy that better than the films.

I know they're not likely to ever do that, that's just what I'd like to see. I truly believe LotR could be better adapted and I'd want to see it. The movies we have now are good, but they could have been far, far better, even within the logistic constraints of studio film-making. I just don't think Jackson and his producers were really Tolkien fans at all, despite the claims of the DVD commentaries and interviews, and it shows in the resulting product.

Yes, the could do things differently and make a series that appeals to people like you. They could also make a movie that fixes all of my complaints with the original trilogy.

But the odds of them actually doing that are almost zero.

If they do a remake they are almost certainly going to try, and fail, to make a movie that has as broad an appeal as possible.


There are a few remakes I like better than the originals, but I think you would be hard pressed to find a remake of a "good" movie that was liked by more people than the original.



Now full disclosure, I personally think that the movies are arguably my favorite films of all time and I find the books rather "meh," with their true value come in the form of world building rather than tone or narrative. The Hobbit, on the other hand, is arguably one of my favorite books of all time while the movies are just pretty good, although I still like them a lot better than most.

[Lord Joeltion]

I actually like GoT, and think the first season in particular is really well done. I stopped watching about the time it caught up with the books, because I want to read before I watch, but I'm quite happy with the job they did adapting it. But GoT has a lot more dramatic bits and cliffhangers built into the story than LoTR does, and probably adapts a lot easier.

Oh, no offence to GoT. I haven't even read a single sheet of Martin's work. It's more about it not being my type of show than anything else. I can't speak for its quality because I haven't watched that much of it. The whole thematic is just boring for me ("politics in X-land", mainly). That's why it would be the worst for me. I couldn't bear it.

I'd like to note that JRR considered making Tom Bombadil the main character of the book.

So we would have had a Broadway of Middle Earth instead? Or more of a Dr. Seuss saves the Elven People type of nonsense?

[Thrudd]

I would like to point out that I am not "hating on fans that like something different than me." Nor did I ever suggest the books could be completely accurately translated into film. I understand the different approach required for different mediums. My posts were not meant to have that implication, if my tone wasn't clear.

I only mentioned what I personally would like to see, and attempted to answer why I want that when questioned about it. Someone that doesn't like the books of course doesn't care about the themes and characterizations of the books. A movie can be good regardless of its relationship to source material. I said as much previously.

I disagree that it impossible to capture the tone and characters of LotR better than was done in the New Line movies. That's an opinion, based on hindsight, a love of the books, and purposefully not taking into account the pressures of the corporate media/film industry.

I am not the only person that was disappointed in the films - and it is natural upon hearing that the rights are in new hands to fantasize about the possibilities, regardless of how realistic or how financially successful my dream project might be.

[factotum]

Take out the bit with Faramir taking Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath? Sure it's more true to the book, but you've taken a bit about them being in danger and helpless to 'they meet a very nice young man in the woods', and undermined a huge amount of the narrative work that's gone into making the Ring dangerous and corrupting.

But that's the whole problem with the scene? Only the most weak-minded (e.g. Smeagol) would get corrupted by simply touching or looking at the Ring, but Peter Jackson changed it so the thing was like metaphysical typhoid--so Gandalf won't touch it when he takes it out of the fire and Faramir decides to take it within seconds of picking it up. Yet somehow Frodo manages to resist the Ring's corruption for weeks without too much trouble, and only falls to its corruption when he's standing on the edge of the Cracks of Doom themselves? DOES NOT COMPUTE.

(Oh, and it's also worth noting that it took a very long time for the Ring to corrupt Boromir, and he started out with a desire for the thing that Faramir did not have--so again, why did Faramir fall to its corruption so rapidly?).

[Piedmon_Sama]

I have nothing to say about this I didn't have to say when they made the MMO. I have nothing to say. I'm sorry Christopher Tolkien lived to see this. I'm sorry the silly thing even matters. I wish they could have made three good action movies based on "Lord of the Rings" and left it at that. I'm sorry these things will probably make money. There's nothing to do with this. There's nothing to do with anything that's popular.

My avatar always looks happy but I'm an increasingly old and unhappy man nowadays.

[Silfir]

But that's the whole problem with the scene? Only the most weak-minded (e.g. Smeagol) would get corrupted by simply touching or looking at the Ring, but Peter Jackson changed it so the thing was like metaphysical typhoid--so Gandalf won't touch it when he takes it out of the fire and Faramir decides to take it within seconds of picking it up. Yet somehow Frodo manages to resist the Ring's corruption for weeks without too much trouble, and only falls to its corruption when he's standing on the edge of the Cracks of Doom themselves? DOES NOT COMPUTE.

(Oh, and it's also worth noting that it took a very long time for the Ring to corrupt Boromir, and he started out with a desire for the thing that Faramir did not have--so again, why did Faramir fall to its corruption so rapidly?).

The Ring was depicted as powerful and seductive in the books as well - it's made very clear that no one is truly immune to its pull. Boromir was tempted to take it just by knowing what it was, and the power it represented. That's not something the movie invented; all of that is in the book.

The only thing notably different is that book Faramir possesses the wisdom and humility to resist taking the ring outright, which, while admirable on his part, *is* just a little anti-climactic, which is probably 100% of the reason behind the change in the movie. (The "Gandalf doesn't touch it" thing is just a quibble. You're really reading way too much into it.)

[Adderbane]

There's some truly inane stuff getting peddled - "Why didn't they drop the ring from an eagle lol" - that's remarkably persistent.

https://youtu.be/6ZrJPiq9QGM

This is my usual rebuttal.

[factotum]

(The "Gandalf doesn't touch it" thing is just a quibble. You're really reading way too much into it.)

I don't think I am. There's a scene where Gandalf reaches out to touch the ring and suddenly sees a scene of Sauron, and he refuses to touch it after that. And yes, the book says that the Ring has a malefic influence that begins work immediately on its possessor, but it doesn't say that touching it once will immediately corrupt you with no chance of recovery, which seems to be the way the movie looks at it?

[LordEntrails]

I don't think I am. There's a scene where Gandalf reaches out to touch the ring and suddenly sees a scene of Sauron, and he refuses to touch it after that. And yes, the book says that the Ring has a malefic influence that begins work immediately on its possessor, but it doesn't say that touching it once will immediately corrupt you with no chance of recovery, which seems to be the way the movie looks at it?

Maybe Gandalf refuses to touch it because he is powerful, and he knows he is closer to the edge of being influenced and he knows the danger if he were to be swayed to evil.

I feel sorry for those of you who can't take an adaptation for what it is and must compare and find flaws in it. It's the same in the DC Legends thread. Enjoy it for what it is, understand that their must be a difference between a book and a movie, and even between various versions of a books or movies. Compare and critique, but still take the adaptation and enjoy it for what it is.

[factotum]

I feel sorry for those of you who can't take an adaptation for what it is and must compare and find flaws in it.

So you obviously missed *both* occasions in this thread where I said the LOTR movies are good movies, they're just bad adaptations? The reverse is equally possible--the Watchmen movie is an excellent adaptation of the source material, it just isn't a very good movie!

[Silfir]

There's *so much* in the LotR movies that is a pitch-perfect, faithful adaptation of the books - there's not nearly enough nitpicking you can do to downgrade them all the way to "bad" adaptations. For every flaw you mention, there are a hundred things the movies get as right as it's even possible to get. The Shire. Moria. Rohan. Minas Tirith. Gollum, for pete's sake! If the worst you can come up with for LotR is that they slightly exaggerated the threat of the One Ring, and that a minor character gets the short end of the stick, you don't have a bad adaptation; the only thing you don't have is a 1:1 adaptation, which is neither possible nor desirable anyway.

"Good movie, bad adaptation" is a judgment you may be able to apply to movies like Paul Verhoeven's Starship Troopers - a movie made by a director who despised the source material and everything it stood for, and turned it into pretty much the opposite of itself.

The Hobbit movies are bad, at best mixed, adaptations as well. Some parts are immaculate - Martin Freeman as Bilbo is perfectly casted and his scenes with Gollum are excellent, but there are enough absolutely awful deviations in there to ruin the bunch, the addition of Tauriel foremost among them.

[Thufir]

There's *so much* in the LotR movies that is a pitch-perfect, faithful adaptation of the books - there's not nearly enough nitpicking you can do to downgrade them all the way to "bad" adaptations. For every flaw you mention, there are a hundred things the movies get as right as it's even possible to get.

This is highly subjective. Yes, they nailed the visual aesthetic and the casting was generally pretty great. But while the significance a given audience member places on them will vary, the films are littered with deviations from the books, e.g. Faramir as mentioned; Theoden's reluctance to go into battle; Treebeard not knowing half his forest was gone; the butchering of Denethor's character; the absence of some minor characters, like Beregond and Fatty Bolger; the removal of Merry and Pippin's agency in going on the quest; Gimli being largely turned into comic relief; Aragorn being turned into a reluctant hero; Suddenly Lord Elrond shows up in your camp; and so on.
Of course then some deviations were pretty much necessitated by the medium but it doesn't change the fact they lessen the quality of the adaptation - omitting the Scouring of the Shire would be the obvious example. It wouldn't really fit the pacing of the film, but leaving it out loses a significant thematic point of the book Return of the King.

Whether one considers these and/or other failings enough to consider the films to be bad adaptations is a matter of personal taste. Personally I'd call them good adaptations, but still with significant room for improvement.

[Mechalich]

This is highly subjective. Yes, they nailed the visual aesthetic and the casting was generally pretty great. But while the significance a given audience member places on them will vary, the films are littered with deviations from the books, e.g. Faramir as mentioned; Theoden's reluctance to go into battle; Treebeard not knowing half his forest was gone; the butchering of Denethor's character; the absence of some minor characters, like Beregond and Fatty Bolger; the removal of Merry and Pippin's agency in going on the quest; Gimli being largely turned into comic relief; Aragorn being turned into a reluctant hero; Suddenly Lord Elrond shows up in your camp; and so on.
Of course then some deviations were pretty much necessitated by the medium but it doesn't change the fact they lessen the quality of the adaptation - omitting the Scouring of the Shire would be the obvious example. It wouldn't really fit the pacing of the film, but leaving it out loses a significant thematic point of the book Return of the King.

Whether one considers these and/or other failings enough to consider the films to be bad adaptations is a matter of personal taste. Personally I'd call them good adaptations, but still with significant room for improvement.

The thing is, it is very clear that Peter Jackson and co. tried to hold to the spirit of the books as they understood it and as they were capable of producing - the fact that the various super-long cuts have all this additional book stuff that they simply couldn't fit into the theatrical release is a significant point of evidence here. They tried to be as faithful as they could given the constraints of actually making good movies and in terms of scenes actually filmed the adaptation is really, really close. For comparison, the LotR movies are a much closer adaptation of Tolkien's books that Game of Throne is of ASOIAF - and that's a massively high bar to clear.

Regardless, as far as the TV-viewing masses are concerned, the LotR movies are a perfectly good adaptation and in terms of certain massive sequences (ex. Helm's Deep) simply better than anything you could possibly produce on TV for monetary and time reasons that remaking them is not the correct approach.

Additionally, and this is highly relevant, the reaction of audiences to the massive amount of padding that was included in the Hobbit movies was almost universally negative. Not just Tauriel but stuff like the overwrought goblin sequence in the first one. The every-last-bit-we-filmed version of the LotR movies runs to something like 13 hours. That's one season of prestige television (seriously, that's the runtime of Luke Cage). If you included everything and stretched out absolutely the entirety of the books you might get two seasons.

In order to get six or seven seasons out of this - which is what Amazon is going to shoot for - you're going to need to move to a new timeframe with new characters and new conflicts you can conduct to justify a massive amount of TV and probably a huge cast. Like GoT you want multiple nexuses of power you can move between. For instance if you did the young Aragorn plot you could have: Gondor - internal politics between nobles, generals, and the stewards in response to military aggression with limited resources; Rohan - as the reluctant allies; Mordor - Ringwraiths and orcs scheming; Umbar - court of the Corsairs; Harad - court of the Southrons; and Rhun - court of the Easterlings. You could even throw in Dale and the Iron Hills if you want to go north. You'd then build over time and adventures to the big climatic battle where Aragorn kills the leader of the corsairs in 2980 (which is canon) and thereby convinces Arwen to marry him (their betrothal happens in the same year).

[LordEntrails]

So you obviously missed *both* occasions in this thread where I said the LOTR movies are good movies, they're just bad adaptations? The reverse is equally possible--the Watchmen movie is an excellent adaptation of the source material, it just isn't a very good movie!

Why do you assume I was talking to you? Not everything is directed at you *G* You point out my comment doesn't apply to your ability to enjoy a movie adaptation, so then that means it wasn't directed at you!

I will also say I did not mean it as an attack or non-useful criticism. It was intended to cause those who don't enjoy alternate forms of something just because it is not true to their preferred version to re-think it, for their own benefit. So that they can enjoy things for what they are. Not for what they are not.

[factotum]

Why do you assume I was talking to you?

Because you posted it as the second half of a post which both quoted me and replied to that quote? I mean, if you'd started that paragraph "Not talking about you, but..." then I would have known you weren't talking specifically to me there.

Speaking of the Hobbit, I don't think the simple addition of Tauriel was a problem, it was that they completely wasted her potential. For instance, Legolas in LOTR starts out as being rather hostile to Dwarves, then learns they're OK by being paired with Gimli for much of the runtime. His arc in the Hobbit is pretty much the same, so you have to wonder what happened between the end of the Hobbit and the start of LOTR that resets him to his Dwarf-hatin' ways? Whereas, they had a perfect opportunity to have him start the Hobbit as being OK toward Dwarfkind, but then learn to hate them after one of them steals his girlfriend. That would have made that entire subplot not only make sense, but actually add something to the narrative other than "movie runtime".

[Vinyadan]

Btw, there has been one tv series that did a beautiful job by simply picking up a book and using it as a script, and that's the 1967 version of the Betrothed. Of course, there's the fact that Manzoni wrote much better dialogues than Tolkien, and had an eerily keen feel for how to use a camera. I once was told that the world of cinema actually learnt how to use the camera reading XIX century novels.
To explain what I mean by better dialogues, the dialogues in LotR work very well in their setting, but are very unrealistic when compared to reality. They are the hypernoble version of speech, the same way Aragorn is the hypernoble version of a king. I think that many older writers were forced to greater naturalism by the fact that much of their audience was illiterate, and actually listened to someone else reading the book (which also meant that the text had to be easily understandable and clear).

[Hopeless]

Made me wonder what if they turned it in a post apocalyptic fantasy where they mistake tech as magic so Sauron is an AI stuck using an army of cybernetic minions with most of the various races infected by one of many nanotech viruses meaning they handle the One Ring and Sauron begins the process of downloading itself to create its newest host.
However halflings have escaped that infection which is why most are either unaffected or it takes considerable time for it to overwhelm them.
The True King being an exception since the AI is still unable to control them because of sub routines intended to keep the AI under control but all they can do is prevent them possessing members of that family line.

I wonder how long before they start announcing who they cast?

Do you think this will be released before 2020?

[Lvl 2 Expert]

And that's a significant complaint that the movie did not follow the book?

Come on, that's probably just visual and time considerations. Dropping the ring into Frodo's hand simply flows better in a visual sense and takes less time. It does not change the core story, that the ring is cold and undamaged when emerging from the fire.

Plus it sets up the whole thing where the ring can corrupt people, and the mightiest people the easiest. Gandalf is afraid of the ring, even of touching it. It's a very visual theme that makes the ring kind of omnious, there's something about it the audience doesn't understand at this point in the story (if they never heard of the books or seen the trailers, but still).

As far as I'm concerned it's not just an acceptable deviation, it's probably an improvement, and it really helps set up the believability of later encounters, Boromir going mad and Galadriel doing the whole "I would go mad" scene. And that all feeds into why the hobbits are send to do this ring quest thing in the first place. So it's an improvement that stays faithful to the intentions and themes of the original story, those are the best kind. And all that in a few little scenes with a pair of thongs and an envelope.

[The Glyphstone]

And all that in a few little scenes with a pair of thongs and an envelope.

There is no way in which putting the cast of LOTR in thongs would be an improvement.

[factotum]

Plus it sets up the whole thing where the ring can corrupt people, and the mightiest people the easiest.

So, by that logic, Smeagol must have been one of the mightiest people in Middle-Earth considering how easily he fell to the Ring's influence? No, he was not, and the Ring's corruption never had anything to do with how "mighty" the person was--it came down to strength of will and nothing else.

[snowblizz]

So, by that logic, Smeagol must have been one of the mightiest people in Middle-Earth considering how easily he fell to the Ring's influence? No, he was not, and the Ring's corruption never had anything to do with how "mighty" the person was--it came down to strength of will and nothing else.

It's promoting these kinds of binary solutions that's the great problem of the movies. It glosses past much of the depth and context of things.

There are a bunch of factors seemingly impacting on how corruptible you are to the One ring. Strength of will is one. But the circumstances of gaining the ring matters too (both Gandalf and Galadriel bring up the "you give it to me freely?"). As does you natural "resistence" as it were. And a general disposition in life. Hobbits are naturally stubborn, but joyful and happy with the small things in life and don't have much of a wish to dominate others. Not a lot for the ring to work with. Smeagol's character was more flawed and he was easily hooked but resisted the ring for centuries anyway.
And yes Smeagol had enormous strength of will to resist being totally consumed by the ring in 500 years (Sauron being quiet also helped).

Both Gandalf and Galadriel are keenly aware that power corrupts and that the One ring corrupts absolutely, especially those in positions of command. If strength of will was the only thing mattering they'd have a shot at it, also these are the types Sauron fears will claim the ring because they will have the willpower to challenge him. Consider that Isildur was hooked rather quickly but the ring had to work on tempting Boromir longer, Isildur knew he had a right to the right whereas Boromir was fighting with his own conscience and short term need over long term conswequences.