There were too many radical departures from what JRR Tolkien was trying to do for me to still enjoy it.
I particularly loved the small touches; Boromir teaching the hobbits to use their swords, for example, helped make him a much more sympathetic and tragic figure than Tolkien did.
From Two Towers on the changes became considerably less good though; throwing out much of the plot incolving Saruman in favour of an invented-out-of-whole-cloth side quest for Aragorn was a terrible decision and, as you say, the changes to Faramir were appalling.
One positive, though, was emphasising the point that Frodo failed and the ring was destroyed by chance? That was good, because it was a key moral point Tolkien wished to make.
Perhaps it would've made ROTK the first dual-part series finale movie (like The Hobbit, Harry Potter, Twilight, The Hunger Games, Avengers) of its kind.
So, one of the main points (the main point?) is missed, as well as Saruman's proper death.
If ROTK had been made into a two-parter finale it could have worked, perhaps. Or maybe a separate spin-off film for the Scouring.
He is a bit of an odd character, especially with no context of the Silmarillion.
I think that's a fair comment. I would go even further--in fact I did, some time ago:
While the last time I read the whole trilogy was around 1988, while still at school, it (and the Silmarillion) are sort of etched into my memory. I've been putting off re-reading it for ages, but maybe it's time to do that. I will be sure to re-read your essay too.
Thank you again.
I have lost count of the number of times I have re-read Tolkien's works. I first read The Hobbit in 7th grade, and went right on to LotR. It was some time before I was able to get my hands on a copy of The Silmarillion (the hard cover edition--I still have it), but I remember reading it almost straight through once I got it, because I was so keen to see what was in it after reading the appendices to LotR.
Thank you for the feedback!
For example, when they're going down the river and being pursued from the shore... come on, nearly everything in that scene is CGI and screams "we were hoping to make a theme park ride, here's the trailer!", honestly I could have lived without that scene entirely.
I did not watch any of them when they first came out though, perhaps they were better at the time but watching them now they almost feel The 10th Kingdom quality.
(Wyrm vs dragon)
The Hobbit, on the other hand, was awful. Way too much bad CGI. (Never mind all the other problems with that adaptation.)
And in my mind, the theme park ride started as soon as the dwarves were captured by the goblins, with the mind-blowing minecart sequence. I did not realize I was paying $14 to watch "Goblin Snuff Amusement Park Expert Swordfighter Drunken Master Ride: Part I, The Enpartening".
And the worst of all - they left out Tom Bombadil. His character showed what state you need to be in to not be affected by the ring.
The weirdest part is Gollum; everyone seemed to like the portrayal in Fellowship, but then Jackson threw it out the window.
Perhaps he was a bit too gruff or something, especially in the Fellowship of the Ring? I could possibly see that because in the book he was definitely clear-cut 'rough and ready good-guy'.
In the movies he's a blubbering wuss. He whines about how weak he is and how weak men are, he talks about how he doesn't want to lead, he can't lead, blah blah blah. It takes Elrond saying, "you're not getting any elf strange if you don't act like a leader," for him to shape up.
And Storytelling 101 tells us that an important protagonist needs to have a character arc.
The thing is, Aragorn doesn't have a character arc in the LOTR books. His character is largely static. His entire arc was in the backstory, prior to the events of the books. By the time the book starts, he knows exactly what he wants, he knows exactly what he's willing to do to get it, and he does it.
The film, in order to give him an arc, muddied those waters. He turns from being a noble, confident, driven man, into a wishy-washy one-foot-in-one-foot-out wandering stoner, who spends most of his time moping, and the rest with no idea of what he wants, or what he should do to get it.
It makes for character development, but it is not an accurate portrayal of his book character. Much of his nobility in the books comes from him not having these kinds of hangups - he knows what the right thing to do is, and he does it, and people around him are awed by his conviction and charisma.
I usually don't like 'great man' stories, but I have a soft spot for his part in the LOTR books.
Not only that, but even the character arc in the backstory (the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen) is nothing like the arc portrayed in the movies. Even as a young man, Aragorn is noble, confident, and driven: he is only twenty years old when he returns from great deeds in the company of the sons of Elrond and is told his true name and lineage, and from that point he knows he wants to fulfill that lineage; he is never in any doubt about it. His character arc is about all of the things he has to do and all of the knowledge he has to gain in order to be able to fulfill his lineage when the time comes.
In the film, he hemms and hawws, and can't make up his mind of whether or not he wants to be king, but he never actually articulates a single reason for why he would not want to be one.
The film:
* Expects the audience fill in the blank for why he doesn't want to be a leader.
* Tries to make him more sympathetic as a leader, by turning him into a reluctant leader, as opposed to a guy seizing power because... Something something nobility, something something hereditary monarchy is how things are done in Middle Earth, but doesn't fly super-well for modern audiences..?
What was a tough pill to swallow was the self-doubt infused into the character. I know I know, character development, relatability, etc etc. But, c'mon, Aragorn is the damned KING and a leader with unflinching will (a contrast to many around him).
...
Also, where was the damn standard w/ the White Tree, Elendil when Aragorn arrived at the boat?!
If I had to pin it on one thing, it was that Peter Jackson and team were extremely good at portraying evil in all of its ugliness but failed to portray "goodness" with equal skill (which admittedly is not an easy thing to do!). While the honest goodness of the Hobbits was wonderful, the portrayals of "good" characters such as Aragorn and Galadriel fell very flat. This is not to blame on the actors at all as I thought Viggo did an awesome job; but the screenplay needlessly muddled the character.
Also, where was the damn poetry?