Originally Posted by theimp98
over all i was happy with the lotr movies. They did a good job in many ways. I hated the story changes, there was no need for those. Aslo the way they changed the dwarf(that one really made me mad). i would stil give them A for effort.
I disagree, somewhat.
In the books, Arwen just basically pops up at the end to marry Aragorn; all of their backstory is in the "Tale of Arwen & Aragorn" in the Appendices. Jackson basically wove the "Tale" into LOTR. His giving Glorfindel's role to Arwen eliminated one minor character. Jackson did film the relationship between Eowyn and Faramir, but he had to cut that part out for the theatrical release. I've not seen it, but I'm told that it was restored in the Director's Cut.
I do understand why people don't like the idea of the Elves coming to Helms' Deep, but that was Jackson's way of showing that ALL the Free Peoples of Middle Earth were fighting against Sauron. In the book, Gandalf talks at the end of the battles at Lorien, in Mirkwood, and at the Lonely Mountain, but film is a visual medium---Jackson had to show
us, rather than tell us.
I agree that the use of Gimli as comic relief was overdone.
While I'm sorry to have lost Tom Bombadil, I understand why he was cut out. The story is long and complex enough, and the Bombadil episode doesn't really add much to it.
What I am sorry to have lost is the Scouring of the Shire. I believe that it was important to show how much Merry and Pippin had grown up during their adventures. The Shire had been, essentially, a Protectorate before, and now the Hobbits were ready to manage their own affairs, and M&P, as the heirs of the two most important Hobbit families, were in an excellent position to manage the transition--as they proved when they dealt with the ruffians.
In short, Jackson had
to make changes to the story as presented on the screen. A mere transcription of the books would not have worked because film and prose are two very different arts.