Phaedron said:
I would be interested to know what is in the book that the movies are lacking.
you asked for it!
fellowship was the best movie of the three. pretty awesome adaptation. the only thing missing was the Tom Bombadil/Old Man Willow/ Barrow-wight sequence. the other little inconsistencies I don’t mind at all, because everything was done so coolly.
Two Towers was also very well done, but the fact that they changed the part with the ents so that they decided
not to go to war, only to then immediately change their mind on treebeard's emotional whim one scene later- made the purist in me twitch. some braniac must have wanted to show the hobbits to be growing as bold characters, but it just came across as weak and unnecessary, especially considering all the dialogue up until this point conveyed ents to be the slowest, least hasty beings in the LOTR world.
"Bah!" said the purist, "Humbug!"
the return of the king was my least fav; too much crappy cgi, from the spirits of the dead to the crappy collapse of the black tower and the cheesy lava in mount doom.
too much surfer-orlando-bloom.
and finally, they cut out the best climax of the whole trilogy (replacing it with a near climax of a
whole different animal with the scene of the company's reunion);
what happened to the scourge of the shire! what the hell! the heroic hobbits are supposed to return, only to see their shire in ruins and run by ruffian ********! they let loose, organize a rebellion, and fight the power oldschool hobbiton style!
when that scene never materialized in the movie, it was a downer for sure.
Thus: the books rock way harder, even though the cinematic imagery influenced by the art of john howe, alan lee and ted nasmith was largely perfect.