Was LOTR triology a faithful filmatization of the books?

what the FUCK happened to Tom Bombadil?

>filmatization
it's called an "adaptation", retard. also, no, they weren't, but they were fantastic and one of--if not the--best movie trilogies of all time.

No Tom Bombadil, so no. What even was the point of doing it you are going to exclude best part of the book?
youtube.com/watch?v=RRVIVJjuaHE

He seems like a pretty chill guy and they didn't massively fuck up any characters or the spirit of things so I doubt it.

He wasn't talking to himself, he was talking to the retard hobbit. It's not that weird, he stopped to tell the hobbit about the city. Idk why you guys think this is so fucking funny or weird

Attached: 1585520051536.png (686x891, 100.14K)

If travel took weeks to get from one city to the next and you had a nice overlook of a massive tower in the city you would you fucking homo.

I wonder why they didn't have this scene at the beginning of Fellowship when he's there looking for info on the ring.

Around 70% faithful. It still changed stuff like Faramir and Aragorn’s characters, the Dead Men, and how the eye of Sauron actually worked, plus it kind of downplayed the fact that they were fighting a hopeless war. But overall it was more faithful than most adaptations usually are, and it worked.
>inb4 muh bombadillo
The whole bit between Crickhollow and Bree, except for the Westernesse daggers, is irrelevant.

Tom Bombadil was my least favorite part of the book. I don't wanna hear about no fat weirdo living in the woods

it's better than anyone thought possible, one of those books that was generally considered unfilmable, even by tolkien himself, it's why he sold the rights, he knew it couldn't be done in his lifetime.

still great movies, there's changes I do disagree with, but watching the docs with the extended editions they talk about having to strip it down to make it work as a script, cutting out things they themselves loved on the page but just served as timesinks if they were to keep them in, and they weren't wrong.

tldr, thay're not 100% faithful but good enough.

too busy jerking off in the forest to give a shit about the plights of lesser beings.

I've heard people say that, essentially, he'd autistically freak out over all the little things Jackson changed, which if true kind of taints my perception of Tolkien since the movies really do capture the essence of the books if not a few fine-grained plot details, as capturing the essence of the work is really what's important in an adaptation.

>filmatization
it's pronounced kinographitization

>Drive on highway
>See city coming up infront of me
>Stop
>Step out of car
>Turn to friend
>"Chicago"
>Step in car
>Proceed driving
ftfy

The movies are way better

That seems like fans projecting their own autism honestly.

Most autists that scream about differences have no idea what's required to make a decent movie, nor about what material is appropriate in a novel vs. what is appropriate in a movie.

The trilogy pulled off an extremely excellent adaptation. Almost all of the changes make sense for a film - Aragorn given an arc, Faramir having more depth and providing tension for the end of TTT.

Attached: 1505101225008.jpg (408x408, 18.13K)

>Tom Bombadil
This one can be completely excused though. Think about all the "WHY DIDN'T FRODO JUST X?" shit. Now if he had actually put Tom Bombadil in the movie(s), we'd have that x1000.

Peter Jackson structured the movie around action set pieces. Tolkiens LOTR is not action oriented.

The best example of this is Jackson originally wanted Aragorn to fight Sauron at the end of ROTK. So i would say that visually it is spectacular but disagree that it was faithful to the spirit of the books.

There's definitely more of an emphasis on drama and characters getting through the plot with details left out, which is inevitable for a movie adaptation of a book. Tolkien never thought his stories could be adapted to film and for good reason, there's just a lot there, but some of it can be cut out for good measure. The chapter where the characters visit the Tom Bombadil Bank & Trust for example wasn't vital to the overall plot, nor were the weeks of intense litigation proceedings carried on in the Ent County courthouse section all hinging on whether or not Merry and Pippin had a license to designate investment blocs.

He was faithful to the spirit as much as possible when transporting it to a different medium.

No, another question would be if a faithful adaptation would work better, I don't think so.

>Filmatization
I hope you are just being retarded on purpose user.

that sounds like autists calling other people autistic. if tolkien was alive they would have gave him a barrel of money to be a consultant and sucked his dick every say. he was an intelligent man, who would understand that an adaptation of his work was never going to be a 1:1 copy, and he'd have appreciated the artistic effort and detail people put in to things like the sets and wardrobe that aren't even visible on screen for more than five seconds, if at all.

>fat weirdo living in the woods
giwtwm

shut up about the plot holes/if you care about plot holes, you are watching movies wrong

The first film was not bad. The second film had some pointless divergences from the book. The third film was an abomination that ruined certain characters and scenes.

no but it gets a pass anyways.

Yes.

The first film was bad. The second film had some sensible divergences from the book. The third film was a divinely inspired vision that perfected certain characters and scenes.

I should have said 'fully faithful'. I do think a greater adaption could be made which isnt action oriented but it probably wouldnt make enough money to warrant its creation.

Speaking of autism

Reeking of autism

They could have given Aragorn an arc that was more consistent with the books. I.e. "you don't get to marry my daughter unless you defeat Sauron".

Daily reminder, we could have gotten a Witcher

Attached: EJ1UFpoVAAAE9p4.jpg large.jpg (1382x2048, 655.73K)

No, it's called "loving the book, reading all the rest of Tolkien's fiction, reading literary criticism of it, and thinking about adaptations of it for 25 years before the first Jackson movie came out".

>>The first film was bad. The second film had some sensible divergences from the book.
I never got this particularly change:
>In the book, Éomer isn't banished, he is following orders elsewhere, Gandalf goes to get him
>In the film Éomer is banished, and Gandalf has to go and convince him to return
why the change? is the audiance really that stupid that they wouldn't be able to deal with Éomer dealing Saruman on otherside of the kingom?

I like the first film a lot, specially until the balrog. The other two are worse, I agree, and everything after the rohirrim charge is awful.

>was LOTR triology a faithful filmatization of the books?
No, and the trilogy still some of the best kino ever created.

the witcher tv show was 6/10 fantasy trash, that's pretty good considering the source material.

so why didnt they just use a catapult to toss the ring into mount doom? or mount it on one of gandalfs rockets?

Attached: lotr ring.jpg (680x798, 307.79K)

What pissed me off the most is that in the movies everything happened within a couple of months.

there's always the animated movie from the 80s, it's a very faithful adaption. never really liked it though

Well, i mean a better movie as well.

Not completely, no. I do think, however, most of the omissions and replacements could have been forgiven if we had gotten the hobbits returning to the Shire as bad-ass veterans of war for the Scouring of the Shire scenario.

Hackson couldn't even get what JRR didn't like about industrialization right. I don't think he'd like the films.
I think his voiced criticism of them would be less vehement but his private distaste of them would be no less than Christopher's.

Awww is the big baby mad over his fantasy movie aww im sowwy here drink your bah bah

I know this is bait but like the real world, the allies arent always on the same terms. The eagles won't just take you to mount doom. Theyonly intervened when victory seemed close at hand... those allegory theories are hard to dismiss.

>bad-ass veterans of war for the Scouring of the Shire scenario.

i think you missed the point

Pic related is Tolkien's reaction to one of the contemporary adaptation pitches. As you can see, a lot of criticism hold up for Jackson's LotR as well.

Attached: IMG_20200402_234241.jpg (1080x1547, 516.28K)

Feel free to tell me why.

Because he was alone, who he'd announce it to?

We also didn't getba creepy intro to Minas Morgul which also was shown in FotR.

Kek

What Tolkiens son said is true.

Kill yourself

Attached: 1582390125710.jpg (600x437, 32.92K)

thankfully they left out the songs

The hobbits dreamed of returning to the shire only to find it had been turned into an industrial wasteland. They fought bravely and took the shire back but they understood that it would never be the same place ever again. The days of yore were over and the Shire would fade into the mist of legend like the elves.

And clearly, removing helms deep and removing intercutting would be retarded. The man's a brilliant writer, not a brilliant filmmaker.

Nice find desu

You have to remember it wasnt going to be a trilogy in the 60s. He gave them contextual advice.

what did they eat