Jump to content
LOTROCommunity

POLL: What's closer to the books - the movies or LOTRO?


What's closer to the books - the movies or LOTRO?  

39 members have voted

  1. 1. Question is in the title.

    • The Peter Jackson LOTR movies.
      30
    • Turbine's LOTRO.
      9
    • Others, no opinion, or just let me see the results.
      0


Recommended Posts

I rather have no Tom, but also no elves riding goats. But that's just me of course.

Something not there, specially when it's fun but not essential to the plot like the whole Tom+Barrows part, is less intrusive than stupid additions like goats which invade the whole world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Tom but no Goats whatsoever!

I suppose though, we should consider ourselves lucky that we didn't get Radagast on a bunny-sled!

I'd take Radagast and his bunny-sled anytime over the goats all over Middle Earth. At least he only appears as specific moments, and is not all over the place. And at least it globally fits the lore, those bunnies he speaks of in the movie really exist in Tolkien's works.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've still got my fingers crossed for Rohan War Goat Steeds in HD expansion.

That would maybe have annoyed me back in 2007, 2008 or even 2009... but now, seriously, I couldn't care less.

They could add flying dragon mounts that fart fire that I would laugh at it :)

Lore wise, the game is beyond possible recovery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That would maybe have annoyed me back in 2007, 2008 or even 2009... but now, seriously, I couldn't care less.

They could add flying dragon mounts that fart fire that I would laugh at it :)

Lore wise, the game is beyond possible recovery.

I'd have to say much as MoM was a good expansion (certainly compared to what followed) it did introduce the two things into the game which still irritate me the most, RK and f**king goat mounts. Excluding stuff like the store/F2P and the atrocious lag obviously.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for me, LOTRO has Tom Bombadil and Goldberry and PJ's movie has not, so my vote is a simple one.

Sorry, but I have to pick up on this. I just found it funny that what makes it a simple decision on what is the closest to LotR is the inclusion of the least LotR-ish part of the books :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I have to pick up on this. I just found it funny that what makes it a simple decision on what is the closest to LotR is the inclusion of the least LotR-ish part of the books :P

I'm not a Tolkien expert by any stretch of the imagination but didn't he pretty much admit that Tom Bombadil was a short story he had lying around that he kind of patched into LoTR.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a Tolkien expert by any stretch of the imagination but didn't he pretty much admit that Tom Bombadil was a short story he had lying around that he kind of patched into LoTR.

Something like that. He was a bit of mystery that was intentionally left unexplained and to feel out of place with the rest of the story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a Tolkien expert by any stretch of the imagination but didn't he pretty much admit that Tom Bombadil was a short story he had lying around that he kind of patched into LoTR.

The adventures of Tom Bombadil is a collection of 16 poems about Middle Earth, in which Tom only appears in 2 of the poems

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Tom_Bombadil

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot of 'artistic license' taken in the movies but that's nothing compared to the game. Apart from a few npc and place names, it's difficult to see much correlation between the books and the game.

Not to mention the limitations. Middle-earth is supposed to be huge. LotRO is a massively shrunken version. I remember seeing a line from an NPC at the ferry in Buckland who said 'the Brandywine Bridge is 20 miles away!'. So I turned 90 degrees and saw the same bridge a small jog away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They both have their limitations, and can't really be much like the books. But I give credit to Peter Jackson for trying to do the books credit. He just had to cut a lot, and he made some changes to the story for different reasons. But I think he was trying to do the books justice - and did.

The designers also tried, and maybe early on were about as true to the books as you could be IMO, but not sure now if this is a priority.

tldr; they both fail : ) but both are still great

Link to post
Share on other sites

What Peter Jackson cut isn't so much of the issue for me.. it's some of the junk he added in or some of the changes.. and if he wouldn't have spent so much time on some of the nonsense, he could have put more actual book stuff in. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom is definitely NOT needed for the flow of the story, same for the passage in the barrow downs. There were more important things to show, and so did Jackson.

What could have been left out is elves at Helm's Deep, even though I personally kinda like it, it shows the long friendship between elves and humans is not over. It was still not needed. What I suspect is that because there was no really dramatic death in that battle on the heroes side (no hero died), Jackson wanted to give Haldir a heroic death to compensate. One other thing is pleasant in that addition, the elves have FANTASTIC armor and weapons, and I'm glad to be able to see them a bit more.

What I miss the most is not Tom, no, not at all. What I miss is the sacking of the Shire and the return of the heroes. I feel that element was important to understand the changes in the four Hobbits. Jackson could have cut out some of the crap at the end of the third movie shorter (the long wedding and overlong whiny emotional sequences) and replaced it with that, or just added it in the expanded version instead of just making Saruman fall from his tower on a spiked wheel. That is my biggest annoyance with the movies. Everything else, I can accept without much of a problem.

But I still think the movies are closer to the book than LOTRO can ever hope to be. Middle-Earth online, the original project, would possibly have beaten the movies, but not LOTRO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...Apart from a few npc and place names, it's difficult to see much correlation between the books and the game.

Duh. Sorry, but if that was my perception, there's NO WAY I would still be playing LOTRO after six years. OK, it's all opinion, but all I can do is disagree.

...

What I miss is the sacking of the Shire and the return of the heroes. I feel that element was important to understand the changes in the four Hobbits. Jackson could have cut out some of the crap at the end of the third movie shorter (the long wedding and overlong whiny emotional sequences) and replaced it with that, or just added it in the expanded version instead of just making Saruman fall from his tower on a spiked wheel. That is my biggest annoyance with the movies. Everything else, I can accept without much of a problem.

...

Yes! I really wish we could have had that in the film. It's a key feature of LOTR that no-one goes home unchanged after the great events they've been caught up in. I suppose we didn't get it because you can leave it out and what's left is still a good story. It's not the same story though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...