Differences between the movies and books (and how to explain them)...Parts 1,2

[Gil-Estel]

There were a few things about the movie that really bugged me. Faramir's character, which is in the book also a wise and noble man, now almost like a puppy trying to get his fathers approval.
The attack of the Wargs and Aragorn's fall off the cliff. I was watching that the first time and was like: HUH?! NO, you can't be serious.
The Ghost Army indeed. I missed some of the great Men from middle earth, I loved the part in the book where all the Warriors and Princes come to Minas Tirith with their followers. I was dissapointed by the confrontation between Gandalf and the Witch King, for Gandalf was more than equal to him.

Best audiocomment is from Billy Boyd and Dominic Monaghan, when Frodo is confronted with a Nazgul and Mount in Osgiliath...hilarious. Sean Astin and Eliah Woods all serious and taking it to a semi-religious and way to exxagerated level and then Merry and Pippin comment, love it.

[MR. Lurtzy]

I was dissapointed by the confrontation between Gandalf and the Witch King, for Gandalf was more than equal to him.

Single worst scene of all three movies, imo.

[Elrohir]

Chopp-off-the-Head-of-Mister-Mouth-Scene was not well thought...

[ket_the_jet]

Chopp-off-the-Head-of-Mister-Mouth-Scene was not well thought...

I don't really know what I think about that scene. I thought that it turned out alright, but what did you think wasn't "thought out" about it?
-wtk

[MR. Lurtzy]

Chopp-off-the-Head-of-Mister-Mouth-Scene was not well thought...

I have to agree with ket here, I didn't see anything bad about the scene.

[Elrohir]

I think it is ridiculous if Mouth of Sauron loose his head. Lurtz death was better done, I think.

[ket_the_jet]

I think it is ridiculous if Mouth of Sauron loose his head. Lurtz death was better done, I think.

I actually kind of like the Mouth of Sauron's death. Tolkien never says in the book what happens to him, so you have to assume that he gets killed in cold blood...I don't know. It shows a darker side to Gorn-bot.
-wtk

[Olorin]

I was dissapointed by the confrontation between Gandalf and the Witch King, for Gandalf was more than equal to him.

Single worst scene of all three movies, imo.

Yes, I agree that this scene was not well  planned. I think, if Tolkien would see that, he would get a huge shock! 

I respect Peter Jackson's idea of making the Istari (Maiar, Wizards, etc.) not to powerful, with a lot of special effects, coz the real story would get into the background - BUT: many friends of mine, which are not that "affected" from Lotr than me  asked me: "Gandalf? what is he? a wizard? is he powerful? if yes, why does he not take (wizard-)action?

In my opinion, Gandalf could have been - just a little bit - more powerful and do some of his tricks - as I said, just a little bit; e.g. engulf a troll in fire 

[Gil-Estel]

I disagree, cause Gandalf's strength was not in power. He was send to Middle Earth to support others, to encourage, the strenghten spirits. That was his strength. But somehow PJ made him lose dignity in that confrontation. Sometimes strength is shown in an act of calmth. Gandalf was supposed to be the stronger one, but PJ made him look weak, frightened. That was what disturbed me.

[ket_the_jet]

Especially when he rode out to face several Nazgul about half an hour earlier.

I think that scene empowered Eowyn a lot more, but it was still not worth making Gandalf look weak.
-wtk

[Elrohir]

On the other hand, it makes the Witch king more dreadful.

[ket_the_jet]

Gandalf stood up to the Balrog as the Grey Wizard.

Gandalf cowers before the Witch-King as the White Wizard.

Makes the Balrog look like a #$&*@!.
-wtk

[MR. Lurtzy]

Not to mention he fought all 9 nazgul on weathertop, as the grey wizard.

[Treebeard13]

I guess a lot of the problems quite likely stems from making the movie for both LOTR fanatics and the 'normal' public.   I never go to a movie expecting it to be like the book and generally try to take the movie as is.

The good points:  I think PJ did an oustanding job of bringing Middle-earth to life.  The Shire, Minas Tirith, Mordor, etc were done very well.

I agree with most of you that it was the treatment of a number of characters that I had the most trouble with.  Tops for me was Treebeard (obviously).  Next Faramir. 

I too did not like the ghost scene on the Pelenor fields.  Skipping Tom Bombadil and the Barrow wights was OK.  Only the LOTR devoted would likely have picked up that Merry's sword was special and was the only reason he could inflict a wound so Eowyn could finish the Witch-king off.

Scouring of the Shire was a good part of the book.  Gandalf sums it up by telling the Hobbits that setting the Shire 'to rights' was what they had been trained for.  But the third movie was rushed as it was - although I would have left out the opening Smeagol/Gollum stuff which seemed to be done only for Andy Serkis.

The one little item I would have added because I found it to be rather amusing in the book was the banter between Eomer and Gimli over Galadriel.  Just always found that funny, especially at the conclusion.

Just my two cents,
Chuck

[ket_the_jet]

The one little item I would have added because I found it to be rather amusing in the book was the banter between Eomer and Gimli over Galadriel.  Just always found that funny, especially at the conclusion.

Yeah, I don't remember Gimli ever bringing up Galadriel again in the movies. I would've liked to see him at least bring her up...

...I agree that the Andy Serkis stuff was a little...long. I like the idea of that to begin the movie, but him talking to himself for ten minutes showing his physical changes were drawn out.

The Scourging was a good part of the book, but wouldn't have made too much sense for the movie. They would've had to go back to Orthanc where Treebeard would have to explain he let Saruman go, then the whole Scourging event...well, the Battle at the Black Gates was supposed to be the last adventure. The Scourging would've really taken away from all of the battles until then.
-wtk