Peter Jackson has improved Tolkien

[Gerbil]

Damn, too much quoting! Final section I promise

Is everything in the movie an improvement on Tolkien. Of course not. But while I can be accused of misleading readers here with my thread title, I have yet to have any of you clearly articulate why I am wrong.

Well, certainly in the most recent posts it's because the thread hasn't really been used to discuss it, just for good old fashioned flaming I am sure some valid points were made earlier in the thread though.

Tell me why Tolkien's Boromir is so much better than the character Sean Bean gave us?

Because here he's ludicrously inconsistent, too down to earth, and his actions weaken the ring's power immensely. Having him actually get his hands on the ring was utter stupidity.

Tell me how much better it was to have Frodo leave everyone without a word?

Because he was one of the few who truly understood what he was in for, and he did not want to bring his friends both within the power of the ring, and also to (from his point of view) certain death. Would any of them, knowing that the Ring was the one means of both winning and losing the battle for Middle Earth, have let Frodo knowingly head off into Mordor alone?

Share with us why the highlighting of Aragorn's insecurity and temptations was a bad thing.

Because he didn't have any in the books. Bear in mind he's about 60 years old or so at this point as well, past youthful doubts of his own abilities. He has spent his life building up for this moment, when he (and all the goodies) shall either triumph or be destroyed forever.

Tell us why Tom Bombadil was necessary to the story?

He's not, he's an aside, with a plot twist of huge importance later on in the story. Also, he's an enigma planted specifically by Tolkien for various reasons. Finally, he's a much-loved character that many of us miss. Personally, I'm glad he was left out simply because I can't see how they'd portray him as anything other than a bouncing twat. From Hobbiton to Bree the whole story is so compressed I doubt they could have wrangled in even the Downs and made sense. That their alternative provides no sense either is just a pain.

Finally, and if it's one thing that annoys me, it's Frodo and the damn ring. I reckon if you bumped into him on the streets he'd be like:

'Hi, I'm Frodo. Here, do you want this ring?'

He tries to give it away every available opportunity. Combine that with people refusing, and / or touching it and returning it, we have a ring that must smell terrible or something, everyone is so desperate to keep away from it.

Oh, and of course at the rate he's going, Frodo will have used up more lives than a cat by the end of it.

What you need to understand BB, is not that one is better than the other (since direct comparisons are almost impossible given the amount the story has changed under PJ's guidance), but that film requires a vastly different approach to book. Things get compressed, things get expanded, things just change completely.
PJ has given us some astounding visuals to accompany the book, and I reckon many of us will find it hard to read the book in future without seeing Elijah, or PJ's Moria etc. He's given us a great action / adventure film with some truly deep moments. Certainly by normal cinema fair, it's an epic.

Compared to the book though, the film is like a beautiful girl's slut sister. Easier to get into, but ultimately less satisfying