News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:‘Lord of the Rings’ at 20: Why It Was One of Hollywood’s ... by panick21_ on Thursday December 16, 2021 @01:43AM (#29575683)
> Nor Glorfindel helping Frodo escape the Ringwraiths

They replaced Glorfindel with another character that makes just as much sense and made it so the movie was not even more male dominate then it already was. It also improved the romantic relationship considerably. In some ways its actually an improvement from the books.

Overall I think that is just complaining on an incredibly high level. Sure, lets make a new set of Lord of the Rings movies every 5 years, I'm in. But given the history of Fantasy in Movies, LotR pulls of the nearly impossible.

Re:‘Lord of the Rings’ at 20: Why It Was One of Hollywood’s ... by matart on Thursday December 16, 2021 @09:35AM (#29578504)
Almost all the comments that are unhappy with the LoTR trilogy are upset that they didn't add every single thing from the book. Tom Bombadil adds nothing to the story. Glorfindel can and was easily swapped. I believe the books have ~160 different characters with speaking roles. If they were accurate with the books it would cost way too much and they would need 30 hrs of runtime.
Re:‘Lord of the Rings’ at 20: Why It Was One of Hollywood’s ... by ekianjo on Thursday December 16, 2021 @10:18PM (#29587267)
> Tom Bombadil adds nothing to the story

He does. He's the only character on which the Ring has no effect.

> If they were accurate with the books it would cost way too much and they would need 30 hrs of runtime

Even by keeping it at the same length, it could have been way more faithful. Faramir is portrayed as an asshole in the movie while in the books he understands that his brother was mistaken and does not make the same decision with the hobbits. Going to Osgiliath made absolutely no sense at all.

Such changes were NOT needed.

Re:‘Lord of the Rings’ at 20: Why It Was One of Hollywood’s ... by panick21_ on Friday December 17, 2021 @07:18AM (#29591193)
Faramir is not just an asshole, they show him as conflicted. They show how his father is talking down to him and you can understand his motivation. And in the end he makes the same choice. And that makes it more impactful when his father gets angry and sends him back to Osgiliath.

At also made showing the taking of Osgiliath more natural in the movie.

Re:‘Lord of the Rings’ at 20: Why It Was One of Hollywood’s ... by ekianjo on Friday December 17, 2021 @08:48AM (#29592012)
> At also made showing the taking of Osgiliath more natural in the movie.

I have only one thing to add: Sam, who apparently knows the book, says:

> "We should not even be here"

Hear hear.

Re:‘Lord of the Rings’ at 20: Why It Was One of Hollywood’s ... by Apocryphon on Thursday December 16, 2021 @02:41AM (#29576008)
Yeah, it's at the level of calling for a re-adaptation of The Godfather or 2001: A Space Odyssey.