Which Races were well portrayed?

"As for myself," said Eomer, "I have little knowledge of these deep matters; but I need it not."
Post Reply
Istari Steward
Points: 2 032 
Posts: 1089
Joined: Thu May 21, 2020 3:10 pm
Which of Tolkien's races were best portrayed in the Peter Jackson adaptations? Or, uh, NOT best, I guess. When you think of Tolkien Elves, Dwarves, Men, Hobbits, Ents, Orcs, Trolls, Eagles, etc...who got the short and long ends of the stick?

Personally, for some preliminary thoughts:

1) I think some Elves were done better than others, and as a whole they were not done well, but I also think it's extremely difficult to portray what Tolkien was going for with Elves in an accurate manner. To combine the joyful, easy-laughing nature of the Elves (especially in Rivendell) with the sense of wonder and awe that Elves induce at other times is very hard to get right. Also, Mr. Angry Eyebrows as Elrond? Interesting choice. Bit tough to complain about Galadriel though right?

2) Dwarves are mostly in the Hobbit movies, and I haven't even seen like half those movies so I'll refrain from saying much other than that Balin is the only portrayal I really enjoyed of what I saw, which is a real bummer. And in LotR you really only get Gimli. As I talk about in my retrospective, I think the actor absolutely nailed a lot about the role, but was given some really crummy dialogue and direction sometimes. Gimli ends up being the butt of too many jokes, I think, and it kind of ruins the perception of dwarves. Probably the worst-done of the races, if I had to pin an opinion down.

3) Men as a race are done well, as individuals they are again somewhat hit or miss (cough Faramir cough Aragorn cough) If I had a complaint it's that their weakness, which is a real thing, is overplayed. Kind of a common theme to movies, I guess, they have to AMP UP characteristics for the big screen or people don't get what's going on. Also, you know, probably the easiest thing to get right, they're just people lol.

4) Hobbits are the best, easily. There's actually nothing much to say other than EVERYTHING, basically. It actually makes me sad there's no Scouring, even though it was probably a good idea to leave it out overall, just because by leaving it out we are missing more hobbit time, and hobbit character arc completion.

5) Orcs were done alright but a bit weird sometimes. Why can the Moria goblins climb walls and the ceiling like beetles? Don't get me started on those creepy Isengard mud pits of spawning, or whatever they were, yuck. Makeup and costuming at its finest though, really liked the look of orcs.

6) Ents--I'm gonna save much comment for a different post in my retrospective, but while I liked the visuals and sound of the Ents, their use in the movie's story made me pretty angry, I think they dunce-ify Treebeard and that's not fair to him.

So what do you all think?

Istari Savant
Points: 302 
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed May 27, 2020 8:35 pm
Ents are probably one of the worst portrayals. Physically, Jackson's attempts are wooden. No, literally, they are made of wood, and that's wrong. Tolkien describes them as flesh-and-blood, but having features that mimic trees to the point where initial confusion is understandable. He compares them frequently with trolls, physically. And beyond physicality the departure gets even more egregious, as you imply.

I think the Elves of Lothlorien were portrayed particularly badly, and this belief comes from a long experience of OldPlaza people in that kingdom constantly butting heads in lore with people who had to keep telling them that the trees of Lorien did not look like that, or the tree-houses in Lorien did not look like that, or the Elves weren't vegetarians, or the Elves had to do cut down trees to do things, or that Haldir wasn't some important general. And let's not talk about the preoccupation with curves, in every minute facet of culture. You don't spawn such constant misapprehensions if the portrayal is good. It often feels like Jackson wanted to have the rights to the Silmarillion and show Tirion upon Tuna in the days of the Trees, but couldn't, and so settled for hoisting that all on the Galadhrim.

My issue with Jackson's portrayal of Men is largely the insane whitewashing.

Orcs were bad in the way he tried to overplay their differences, mostly. The Uruk-hai are supposed to be tall and more reminiscent of Men, but they are much too tall, and the other Orcs are much less reminiscent of Men. There's a particularly style of body horror that goes along with Jackson's lower orc breeds that seems to have more to do with his own history in the horror genre than in anything deriving from Tolkien. And then there's the cultural changes, exemplified in that terrible line 'meat's back on the menu', where Jackson takes the little Tolkien shows us about Orc traits and deliberately inverts them.

Istari Savant
Points: 245 
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun May 31, 2020 10:45 pm
Elenhir wrote: Fri Jul 24, 2020 5:46 pm Ents are probably one of the worst portrayals.
And Treebeard was absolutely massive in the films. Treebeard was in the realm of 14 feet tall? And the Hobbits were in the realm of ~3 feet? It's not exactly specified in the books, but Bilbo notes near the end that they are approaching the height of Bullroarer Took, who was over 4 feet tall. So Treebeard should be 4-5 times the height of Merry and Pippin, while in the movies he seems significantly taller than that.
KingODuckingham wrote: Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:56 pm 2) Dwarves are mostly in the Hobbit movies, and I haven't even seen like half those movies so I'll refrain from saying much
They're ... eh. I think they're okay as long as you go in not really expecting a rendition of The Hobbit, but rather treat it as a demo for a Disney ride. Many cartoonish elements and visuals. Something along the lines of many Jack Sparrow scenes in the Pirates movies.
What, she killed them with mathematics. What else could it have been? - Jayne Cobb

Chief Counsellor of Gondor
Points: 2 090 
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri May 29, 2020 3:09 am
What's been interesting for me is I always felt the LOTR movies were generally accurate, but doing this re-reading of the books Mojo started, there was just so much I had forgotten and I'm having almost a completely opposite reaction. There was a lot that is very different and Jackson liked to mix lines around. Give lines from one character in the book to a different character in the movie and in a different place in the story. Which, ok I'd much rather hear Tolkien's words than the hack job script when they invented dialogue, but still by doing that it changes a character.

I mean, there are some of Bombadil's lines given to Treebeard in the films and I guess Jackson thought "hey I had to cut Bombadil, but if I throw some of his lines to Treebeard that'll make the purists happy." Well, no, not exactly because Treebeard is not Bombadil. I would rather have, if you're going to cut Bombadil out, ok cut him out. But how about you do Treebeard right instead of throwing him some Bombadil lines?

I think there are individuals portrayed well, but races as a whole not too well. I agree that hobbits are the best, although the whole 2nd breakfast and 6 meals every day causes some problems. For the most part, I did feel like I could connect to hobbits, which is an important part of the book in my opinion.

As far as Men, the Rohirrim are the best, but this is just going from memory. I haven't gotten to the Rohan chapters in my read-through yet. I just know Gondorians were portrayed horribly and Jackson seemed to want to give all of Man's bravery and courage to Rohan.

I wouldn't expect anything too good from The Hobbit dwarves. Physical appearance is ok, in that I think he did have to create a different look for each dwarf in Thorin's company to set them apart on screen. Their characters and personality though, well he didn't seem to want to develop any of them besides a few. In a short book I think Tolkien does more development of the dwarves than Jackson pulled off in 3 movies. Thorin's obviously the most developed, but I can't wrap my head around Richard Armitage portraying a dwarf. Balin and Bofur are the best for me, but I think that was more from the actors and they are pretty much the only ones who have any interaction with Bilbo. Then Dain is a CGI Billy Connolly and that was a trainwreck.

I know they're not a 'race' but as a group I think the 3 Istari were overall the best. Most of that probably has to do with Ian McKellan and Christopher Lee nailing their characters. Oddly, I wasn't all that upset about Radagast's portrayal in The Hobbit movies. His physical appearance is 100% wrong and ridiculous, but I think Sylvester McCoy hit the right balance with the limited information about Radagast. I mean in Lord of the Rings all we really get on Radagast is through the eyes of Saruman and Gandalf. Saruman has absolutely no respect for Radagast, that is clear. Gandalf calls him a 'worthy wizard in his own way' but also I get the feeling that when he meets Gandalf, Radagast is a bit of a nervous wreck. Gandalf comments that he raced off as if all 9 black riders were on his tail. Physical appearance was completely wrong, but I do like how Radagast's 'worthiness' is portrayed, but also Saruman's contempt and disgust with Radagast can be seen.
A Loquacious Loreman.
he/him
Tis the season of Sean Bean prequel shows

Esquire of The Mark
Points: 373 
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 2:40 am
1) I think some Elves were done better than others, and as a whole they were not done well, but I also think it's extremely difficult to portray what Tolkien was going for with Elves in an accurate manner. To combine the joyful, easy-laughing nature of the Elves (especially in Rivendell) with the sense of wonder and awe that Elves induce at other times is very hard to get right. Also, Mr. Angry Eyebrows as Elrond? Interesting choice. Bit tough to complain about Galadriel though right?
I agree, I think the Elves were portrayed as too ethereal and too haughty, in a way. I absolutely LOATHE a deleted scene in the first Hobbit movie, where the Dwarves are eating at Elrond's table. The food is all vegetarian, there is a harpist playing a somber type of song, and it feels very, very wrong. I wasn't opposed to the casting of Elrond, but I certainly think they could have tried to do more in the makeup department to de-age their actors a bit. Wasn't it said that Elrond's face was essentially ageless? Am I misremembering that? Cate Blanchett as Galadriel though, no complaints from me.
2) Dwarves are mostly in the Hobbit movies, and I haven't even seen like half those movies so I'll refrain from saying much other than that Balin is the only portrayal I really enjoyed of what I saw, which is a real bummer. And in LotR you really only get Gimli. As I talk about in my retrospective, I think the actor absolutely nailed a lot about the role, but was given some really crummy dialogue and direction sometimes. Gimli ends up being the butt of too many jokes, I think, and it kind of ruins the perception of dwarves. Probably the worst-done of the races, if I had to pin an opinion down.
I disliked the portrayal of the Dwarves in the Hobbit movies, immensely. Many of the Dwarves essentially just become jokes, and many of them are incredibly wooden. They're portrayed as a dirty, uncultured, crass, and rude. Now I won't lie my headcanon has always pictured Dwarves as gruffer, but Khazad-dum was at one point one of the great civilizations in Middle-Earth. I have a hard time believing that Dwarves of the House of Durin, specifically those of the kingly line (Fili and Kili particularly) would act they way they did in the movies. John Rhys-Davies did a fantastic job as Gimli, though I agree with you that they made him the comedic relief too often. He still exemplified what I always pictured Dwarves to be though. Stubborn, strong, devoted, and willful. I think the biggest issue is that we see so little of Dwarves in Lord of the Rings, so all Dwarvish culture had to be put on Gimli's shoulders.
3) Men as a race are done well, as individuals they are again somewhat hit or miss (cough Faramir cough Aragorn cough) If I had a complaint it's that their weakness, which is a real thing, is overplayed. Kind of a common theme to movies, I guess, they have to AMP UP characteristics for the big screen or people don't get what's going on. Also, you know, probably the easiest thing to get right, they're just people lol.
I think, because of how the movies were made, it was probably difficult to portray all the differences between cultures. I mean, off the top of my head you've got Breelanders, Dunlendings, the Woses, the Rohirrim (Eastern and Western), Gondorians, Beornings, the Men of Dale, and tons more. To portray so many distinct cultures of Men, all while trying to only cast New Zealanders would have been difficult I'm sure. I agree with @Elenhir that there was certainly some whitewashing, which is very annoying. I will say I enjoyed the portrayal of the Rohirrim immensely, though at times I think they showed them in a light I didn't like. I never pictured Eomer from the text as being in any way sort of crass, to me he always seemed to be very noble. I mean, he is the Third Marshal of the Mark and I imagine every educated as far as the Rohirrim go.
4) Hobbits are the best, easily. There's actually nothing much to say other than EVERYTHING, basically. It actually makes me sad there's no Scouring, even though it was probably a good idea to leave it out overall, just because by leaving it out we are missing more hobbit time, and hobbit character arc completion.
No argument there. The Hobbits were great. I think they overdid it a bit with Merry and Pippin as comedic relief, but other than that I loved all portrayals of the Hobbits.
5) Orcs were done alright but a bit weird sometimes. Why can the Moria goblins climb walls and the ceiling like beetles? Don't get me started on those creepy Isengard mud pits of spawning, or whatever they were, yuck. Makeup and costuming at its finest though, really liked the look of orcs.
Next to the Hobbits, I think the orcs were some of the most well done. There are the minor things for me like the beetle-goblins and tall Uruks, but I think the makeup, the armor, the way they got the "orc" orcs to actually walk like they do in the books was all well done. As for the Hobbit movies...horrible. HORRIBLE. The portrayal of the orcs and goblins was AWFUL. One of the worst things I've ever seen. Bad CGI, the orcs were almost 7 feet tall, the goblins looked like diseased rabbits. Ugh. I hate it.
6) Ents--I'm gonna save much comment for a different post in my retrospective, but while I liked the visuals and sound of the Ents, their use in the movie's story made me pretty angry, I think they dunce-ify Treebeard and that's not fair to him.
They made Treebeard seem less intelligent than he is. He's arguably the oldest denizen of Middle-Earth, he's not a moron. And yeah, too big. I understand WHY they made the Ents look exactly like trees, but I disliked it. It strayed too far from the text. But, it did look magnificent. I'll give them that.

Warrior of Imladris
Points: 1 565 
Posts: 1355
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 10:54 am
This is all very interesting. I too have thought it was just storied elements which were done poorly, and I have appreciated the attention to detail in the look of the races.

In my current read-through, with @Boromir88, @Mojo et al, I too have been struck by some things I took as faithful renditions. But then the last time I read the books was before the films came out and I haven't read them in their entirety since. It's probably 20 years since I read it last time, so it isn't at all surprising that my memory has great holes.

I don't think I ever understood that they got Ents wrong ... haha. I'll learn what they should be like on this read-through.

I think hobbits were done pretty well in LotR, and their feet were not something I was annoyed by. The giant, barely-moveable, flippers of Bilbo in the Hobbit movie were not done well. I appreciate that they were safer for the actor, but still ...

I think costuming was one of the films' great strengths, and it helped to define the Elves and Dwarves particularly. The Dwarves were not helped by appearing as normal-size in some shots, and little in others ... there is a disconnect; they should always have been made small by their surroundings, not just in juxtaposition with other races.

I do like the Elves, for there is an aspect of them which is haughty as appears to others, which we saw a little of in the Lothlorien Elves' extreme hauteur in the films, but the ease with which they laugh is a sad loss i.e. with Gildor's company:
Frodo: We seem to be going the same way as you are. I like walking under the stars. But I would welcome your company.’
‘But we have no need of other company, and hobbits are so dull,’ they laughed.
They remind me, a little, a very little, of Pratchett's elves here. They do mitigate their response by fairer words, after hearing of the Black Riders, but the initial response is rude. The laughing meanness of that response, though not meant meanly, would be, I feel, impossible to film accurately.
The Wood-elves lingered in the twilight of our Sun and Moon, but loved best the stars.

Istari Steward
Points: 2 032 
Posts: 1089
Joined: Thu May 21, 2020 3:10 pm
Wew, so much true stuff here I'd either forgot to say or forgot entirely, like
Elenhir wrote: Fri Jul 24, 2020 5:46 pm There's a particularly style of body horror that goes along with Jackson's lower orc breeds that seems to have more to do with his own history in the horror genre than in anything deriving from Tolkien. And then there's the cultural changes, exemplified in that terrible line 'meat's back on the menu', where Jackson takes the little Tolkien shows us about Orc traits and deliberately inverts them.
Yeaahhh...there's a whole cartload of times that the horror movie elements come in far too strong, and feel just as cheesy as they do in a B horror film, it's almost painful to watch. And some of the dialogue (basically anything not ripped wholesale from the books), ugh. AND the deliberate inversion, something that happens many times in the movies. It makes you wonder, because it's worse than just being ignorant. It's like they knew what they should do, and did the opposite. To what end?
Boromir88 wrote: Fri Jul 24, 2020 11:24 pm I just know Gondorians were portrayed horribly and Jackson seemed to want to give all of Man's bravery and courage to Rohan.
This is pretty true, and weird too. Kind of undercuts Aragorn's whole arc, they play up his going to return as King so much compared to the book, but then he's going to be king of...that? And speaking of undercutting things, Aragorn's arc messes up the portrayal of Theoden, Denethor, and (probably Faramir, although the characters barely if at all meet in film) in order to try and play up Aragorn as someone special and unique.
Ta'leus Shieldsong wrote: Sat Jul 25, 2020 5:03 am I absolutely LOATHE a deleted scene in the first Hobbit movie, where the Dwarves are eating at Elrond's table. The food is all vegetarian, there is a harpist playing a somber type of song, and it feels very, very wrong.
Wow I haven't seen that but it sounds awful haha. That's to the point where I'd rather see no adaptation than such a bad one.
Lirimaer wrote: Sat Jul 25, 2020 11:07 am The Dwarves were not helped by appearing as normal-size in some shots, and little in others ... there is a disconnect; they should always have been made small by their surroundings, not just in juxtaposition with other races.
I hadn't thought about that but it makes sense and I definitely see it now that you say it. One of those things that my subconscious noticed even if my active brain didn't.

Ent Ancient
Points: 2 696 
Posts: 1830
Joined: Sat May 23, 2020 11:34 pm
I can't speak as to the Hobbit movies at all because I do not really remember them at all, so this is purely based on LotR.

I agree I thought the hobbits were the best-represented race for sure!

I actually thought the Elves were pretty well-done even though it is a shame we missed their lighter side. To be honest, I always found them haughty in the books as well as the movies, so that worked for me. I always thought that PJ rather loved elves a lot and inserted them absolutely wherever he could and it irritated me a little. (Ok, mostly this is re: Helm's Deep...)

I also thought Orcs were pretty good, though to be honest, I don't have big expectations for them, so I'm not too critical about them. They served there purpose, done and dusted.

As far as humans go, I would say Rohan fared better than Gondor, though I still think it could have been better. I was disappointed with how weak both Rohan and Gondor were portrayed as being. Yes, they were in dire straits and difficult situations, but I remember them being a lot more brave about it in the books!

Dwarves were all right, I guess? Its hard to say really just based on Gimli, and while I thought he did an excellent job, its a shame he was mostly used for comic relief.

Ents. I get why they made Treebeard what he was but seriously? They are SO different from book Ents, its ridiculous.

Ent High Elder
Points: 932 
Posts: 549
Joined: Fri May 15, 2020 1:14 pm
I think this gets to one of the things I have come to realize about the Peter Jackson LOTR movies over time.

Visually they are stunning masterpieces. They took great strides to get the look and feel of the movies correct. From the costumes to the settings to the scenery and cinematography, it's all excellent. This is, of course, helped by the fact that they brought in people like Alan Lee and John Howe who have spent a lifetime creating Tolkien artwork to be consultants for the film. The look and feel of all of the races and even certain divisions within those races (the differences between Rohan, Gondor, and the Wild Men, for instance) was spot on.

That said, the characterization of not only certain characters but certain races as a whole (hoom hom the Ents) was just completely off. As we've discussed a bit in the LOTR Read-Along (shameless plug), the book versions of Merry and Pippin are quite different than the movie versions. (And we haven't even gotten to Faramir yet :rage: ). A lot of others have summarized things quite well in this thread, so I won't be too repetitive, but I think the overall takeaway from the PJ movies is that they look great, but over time I've come to recognize a lot of flaws in the interpretation/characterization of...well...a majority of the characters. It's like PJ nailed the outward appearance of characters/races, but completely whiffed on their internal spirit/soul/persona.
Fangorn Forever

Istari Steward
Points: 2 032 
Posts: 1089
Joined: Thu May 21, 2020 3:10 pm
To be honest even that (which I consider, as the outward appearance, the most basic) is a pretty big achievement in Hollywood. As has been mentioned, things like the orcs in the Hobbit (or Thorin) don't even get the visuals right. Guess we gotta be thankful for what we get.

Loremaster of the Herd
Points: 1 555 
Posts: 955
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 4:18 am
Could someone summarize for me what's wrong with the movie!Ents? It has been a long time since I've seen them.
In the deeps of Time, amidst the Innumerable Stars

Chief Counsellor of Gondor
Points: 2 090 
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri May 29, 2020 3:09 am
@Androthelm I can't speak towards their physical appearance because I don't remember until I get to those chapters in the reread. However, their entire portrayal is also off.

John Rhys-Davies voices Treebeard and as much as he did fine with Gimli, his voice didn't represent what I pictured with Treebeard. It felt to me in the movies PJ took the Ents slow talking/communication and slow action to mean they're stupid. That in essence they are just trolls 'slow and stupid' but not wicked.

When Treebeard tells the hobbits about their names in Entish and their language I love it because I connect to their idea that names represent a story. A story of that person's life:

'For I am not going to tell you my name, not yet at any rate.' A queer half-knowing, half-humorous look came with a green flicker into his eyes. 'For one thing it would take a long while: my name is growing all the time, and I've lived a very long, long time; so my name is like a story. Real names tell you the story of the things they belong to in my language, in the Old Entish as you might say. It is a lovely language, but it takes a very long time to say anything in it, because we do not say anything in it, unless it is worth taking a long time to say, and to listen to.' The Two Towers - Treebeard

I've always loved that quote as sort of the Ents version of saying "don't be hasty, think before you speak." Which is pretty good advice and something that we can use more of in the world! But it's a great quote because it shows yes the Ents take a long time to decide matters, but it's because they're deliberative and they 'think before they speak'.

Where I think the movie Treebeard is there for PJ to laugh...haha slow stupid tree 'we have agreed you are not orcs!'. Completely misses the point Treebeard was making when talking about his language. Then they have to be duped to march to Isengard. Which, on one hand ok, that is forgivable in the sense that it was a moment for Pippin to not simply be the 'comic relief.' But it did make the Ents portrayal wrong having to be duped into war by seeing the cut down trees, as if Treebeard didn't know what Saruman's orcs were doing.
A Loquacious Loreman.
he/him
Tis the season of Sean Bean prequel shows

Loremaster of the Herd
Points: 1 555 
Posts: 955
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 4:18 am
That's fair @Boromir88 -- I'm thinking of doing a movie rewatch once the reread finishes each book. That's definitely an angle I hadn't considered, but it rings unfortunately true from what I remember. Isn't the book pretty explicit as well that part of the reason Treebeard thinks Merry and Pippin might be small orcs is that... he is well aware of the damages Orcs have done to the edges of the forest already?
In the deeps of Time, amidst the Innumerable Stars

Elven Enchanter
Points: 2 265 
Posts: 1451
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 2:15 am
I'm currently watching the movies with my roommate and I have to constantly remind myself that the book and the movie are two completely different forms of art. We just finished watching TTT and while I certainly am enjoying them, I also haven't read the books in about 6 years, so I think, for the first time, I'm able to experience the movies as a movie (though Faramir still pisses me off).

The movies have their strengths and their weaknesses, and as much as I wish Gimli hadn't so much comic relief, the jokes fit for the most part, which is not always true when it comes to comic relief.

It'll be interesting to see how my thoughts on the movies shift once again as we get further into the books with the read-along.

Guard of The Mark
Points: 128 
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2020 5:10 pm
As far as humans go, I would say Rohan fared better than Gondor, though I still think it could have been better. I was disappointed with how weak both Rohan and Gondor were portrayed as being. Yes, they were in dire straits and difficult situations, but I remember them being a lot more brave about it in the books!
Honestly, this may be me nit-picking but for a state that's located so close to the border of Mordor, and so likely with a lot of experience of fighting, the Gondorian military is portrayed as being atrocious in Return of the King. In hand-to-hand fighting, in at least the theatrical version, I think the last time I watched it I counted one measly random soldier (i.e. not Faramir) who successfully manages to kill an orc in hand-to-hand fighting and that was during the night attack at Osigiliath, and he is killed immediately afterwards. Everyone else is just immediately cut down as if they were paper. The old men at Helm's Deep are portrayed as better fighters. Interestingly, the Gondorian archers are portrayed as very effective both in the theatrical and extended editions.

As for Rohan In TTT, Helm's Deep is pretty much saved by the elves so it does diminish the efforts of the Rohirrim to some extent, but still at least their military aren't as incompetent in hand-to-hand fighting as the Gondorian military.

New Soul
Points: 54 
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2020 8:02 pm
@Boromir88 Just a note on your criticism of the movie ents. I’m in the middle of rereading The Two Towers, and the first order of business in the Entmoot is indeed taking quite a long time to establish that the hobbits are not orcs.

I don’t think the film Ent’s personalities are portrayed much differently than the books, really. However, I think it’s more in Merry and Pippin’s frustration with them in the film. While the book Hobbits do try to inspire Treebeard to action, they also genuinely respect his advice of “Don’t be hasty.” In the film, Merry treats the ent’s non-hastiness as a vice to be overcome, and the sequence of the events of the movie reinforce this idea.

The one thing that does make Treebeard look “dumb” is that he and the other ents seemed oblivious to what Saruman was doing. In the book, Saruman had already driven away Skinbark, and his folk had already made up their mind to retaliate. I do think that the scene where Treebeard discovers Saruman’s deeds is well done, though, and perhaps worth the compromise cinematically.

Chief Counsellor of Gondor
Points: 2 090 
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri May 29, 2020 3:09 am
@Quickbeam, thank you and welcome to the New Plaza. :smile:

Several of us are currently doing a read along and are just about finished with Book II of Fellowship of the Ring's discussion. I believe next week we start The Two Towers, but please feel free to join the previous discussions:

FOTR Book I discussion: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=352

FOTR Book II discussion: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=456
A Loquacious Loreman.
he/him
Tis the season of Sean Bean prequel shows

Scavenger
Points: 111 
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 3:04 am
Over all, I like the portrayals. The Elves were pretty but stuck up, the hobbits were adorable, the various races of Men were interesting, if a little lacking in complexity. The Dwarves were... Dwarves.

My issues are more with individual characters than the races as such, with one small exception for the Ents (for reasons stated better by @Boromir88) and a big exception for the Orcs and goblins in the Hobbit movies. Hate, despise, yuck, blargh. The Orcs in LOTR are ah-mazing, I love the diversity in appearance and character and the fact that they're (almost) all real people with make up makes them feel lifelike in a way that the ones in The Hobbit do not. CGI ruined so much there :(

Other than that I'm just upset that they cut out so much of the Orc dialogue. I know it wouldn't have mattered to the story, but... give me Ooorcs XD
Per viam, puto quod opus est mundo tumultus orcorum.

Guardian of Imladris
Points: 273 
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2020 6:00 pm
I have to say that I am amazed at the abundance of criticism in this thread. Therefore I would like to say something positive at this point aswell. Just as it is with any Batman movie that either a Batman actor or Joker actor is taken apart, it is a matter of interpretation, that's why it is totally fine (in my opinion) that a Joker can also be portrayed by a Jared Leto, as a jewlery wearing gang boss. The interpretation is up to the script author and/or of course the director, as in our case Peter Jackson.

I might be one of the few here who seem to regard the films as a complete success and who still enjoys them the fullest to this day. Again and again the films manage to get me excited about the Lord of the Rings world and in fact they were the reason for waking my interest in the Lord of the Rings in the first place.

Regarding the topic of the thread, also a few positive comments on my part: I think the differences between the races are beautifully presented, as are Rivendell and Caras Galadhon. Of course, one can say that a Haldir, for example, is not that significant in the books, but I have to admit that the arrival of the elves in Helms Deep is one of the most epic scenes in the trilogy.

In summary, I do not want to claim that negative criticism should not be uttered, I find it sometimes only a little exaggerated if one feels the need to criticize three films in the smallest detail, instead of simply viewing them as a successful interpretation of Peter Jackson, which litereally opened the gates for millions of people into Tolkien's universe.

Edit: As a brief anticipation: I actually just noticed that there are multiple positive comments in the lower part of this thread :googly: :winkkiss:
"Mae govannen mellon nin."

Chief Counsellor of Gondor
Points: 2 090 
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri May 29, 2020 3:09 am
Greetings Legolas! I tend to be critical towards the movies when the topic is asking to compare them to the books, or whether they are accurate portrayals to what Tolkien wrote. If that's the discussion, then in my opinion, Jackson's adaptation isn't accurate. The movies are visually stunning, but scratch the surface a bit and we're seeing Jackson's interpretation/vision.

Having said that, all art is subjective and just because something is not "like Tolkien", doesn't make it automatically bad or that I didn't enjoy it. I think comparing the movies within their own industry, and particularly in the fantasy/adventure genre of the film industry, than the LOTR movies are in a league of their own. They are certainly the movies I've watched the most, and still enjoy watching them. I think I enjoyed watching the Appendices in the extended editions even more than the actual films, to be honest. :googly: It might be, I'm just a weirdo, but I appreciated learning about the creative decisions and all that went into making the films. There are still many decisions I will criticize, but I appreciated learning why Jackson & team made the choices that they did.

Anyway, for myself, it all depends on the question. :smile:
A Loquacious Loreman.
he/him
Tis the season of Sean Bean prequel shows

Post Reply