Lord of the Rings Article: Books vs. Movies

posted by matchesrulezu

The title can be misleading, but I couldn't think of another title. lol. I'm not doing an in-depth writing of the contrasts between the books and movies. Not yet, at least.

I just wanted to know if I was the only one that thinks they did it a little backwards. Last I heard, they were looking to turn The Hobbit into a three-part movie series. A trilogy like The Lord of the Rings. But if you've read the books, you would know that The Hobbit should have been one movie, maybe two, and that each of the LotR books should have been made into three movies.

The Hobbit is actually a short book and while I do like the movie (I'm looking forward to the next one), I am a little disappointed that they created a plot for the sake of drama that wasn't anywhere in the actual book. Without creating their own plot, they could have still made two movies out of the one book. But they cut so many details out of each of the LotR books so they could turn each book into one movie. It just seems a little backwards to me.

I love both the movies and the books, though, even if the movies aren't that accurate in comparison to the books.

♥ Matches

tsmith120 Actually, a lot of the stuff they added into the Hobbit film is a variation on pre-existing lore within the books, just not necessarily The Hobbit. And I really don't think the Lord of the Rings needed to be made into three separate films for each one, since a lot of it is long description and dialogue that would really make the story drag. A nine episode long series would be pushing it immensely. Though I do agree The Hobbit should have been at most two films.

matchesrulezu Well I didn't [i]literally[/i] mean that it should have been three movies per book, just that if any book should have been made into three movies out of the whole series, it would have been those and not The Hobbit I would have chosen. To literally take the three books and make nine movies would have been extensive, I agree. Though from reading The Hobbit, I don't recall any mention of the Pale Orc. I'm re-reading the LotR trilogy because I was young at the time I first read it and can't recall many details, so I'm interested in finding the pre-existing lore that you've mentioned.

Flickerflame The additional parts in the Hobbit films are taken from the appendices of LOTR. They're events which happened behind the scenes during the events of the Hobbit but aren't mentioned in that book, e.g. explaining why Gandalf left the dwarves and Bilbo when they entered Mirkwood. I actually like that they're expanding it and adding these details.

matchesrulezu Does that include the Pale Orc? That was mostly what I was referring to. It seems like the Pale Orc wouldn't have been a behind-the-scenes kind of deal in the book considering he's directly interacting with a main character of The Hobbit (in the movie, at least). I haven't read any of the appendices, but I will be sure to look into those.

tsmith120 The pale Orc is Azog, the one that killed Thorin's grandfather. That story is gone into more detail in the appendices in ROTK, but it is mentioned a couple of times in The Hobbit, but he's actually dead in the book by that point. I think they combined his character with his son Bolg, who does make an appearance in the book, and gave him a more prominent role than either of the two in the books had. Certainly neither make an actual appearance by the point the films are up to, but since it gives a bit more emotional weight to the stuff with the Orcs, I'm not complaining.

matchesrulezu Azog. I kept wanting to say Azarog for some reason. I'm bad with names apparently. I knew who he is and what role he plays in the movie, I just couldn't remember his name. They really mentioned him in The Hobbit? I don't even recall Bolg. In fact, from what I remember, it seemed like they barely mentioned Orcs. I've even talked to my father about it (I inherited my love for LotR from him) and he said that the part of Azog in the movie is just a plot point to help expand the book into three movies. Then again...he did mention something about The Silmarillion... Okay, so maybe I'm not bad with names, maybe it's just my memory. I mean, regardless of what details they include or exclude, I love the movies. Don't get me wrong. The LotR trilogy (movies) flowed very well and even if they excluded details, I was able to get lost in the movie as if the book never existed. But I'm able to get lost in the book as if the movie doesn't exist. So I love each as their own thing, but I love the whole thing together... Is any of that making sense or am I blabbering? lol.