With the recent despite praise from actor Andy Serkis and Billy Boyd), many have gone back to the original Lord of the Rings trilogy as a point of comparison. The films are some of the most influential in the fantasy genre, yet for every fervent fan singing their praises, there is also a stubborn Tolkienite ready to explain why the movies fail.
While The Lord of the Rings films are masterworks of cinema and still resonate with audiences two decades after their release, there's no denying that the movies take strong liberties with the source material. Many of the changes are justified, but there are others which Redditors have gripes with.
Gimli's Flanderization
Gimli is a fan-favorite character in the Lord of the Rings' trilogy thanks to his stoicism and unlikely friendship with Legolas. These aspects of the character lend to some of the series funniest moments, yet some Redditors, such as sparkyclarkson, "didn't like the extent of the comic relief."
Many Tolkien fans feel that Gimli is played too much for laughs in the movies and doesn't get to shine all that much as a warrior. These complaints are justified, considering how much more toned down Gimli is in the books, but John Rhy-Davies' delightful performance makes up for the lack of nuance in the character.
Spoiling The Surprise Of Denhelm
Redditor Return of the King may have resulted in the battle with the Witch-king not being as exciting as the book version, but it's an otherwise minor change.
While the film's choice to reveal Dernhelm's identity may have resulted in a lack of shock for audiences, it did help cement one of the best friendships in the Lord of the Rings. The characters of Merry and Eowyn only interact with each other a few times in the books, yet by uniting to keep each other's identities a secret as they accompany Theoden to Gondor, the two establish a palpable sense of camaraderie.
Denethor's Lack Of Nobility
In The Lord of the Rings books, Denethor is portrayed as a King Lear-type, a powerful leader with noble intentions who ultimately gives in to despair. It makes him a tragic character, yet this is not the case with the movie character.
While the movie version of Denethor is still a captivating villain thanks in large part to John Noble's performance, TheMiasma_ critiqued the character for being "just a lame antagonist who's bad because he's crazy and powerful and bla bla bla." The change works to heighten the idea of power's ability to corrupt, but there's no denying it lacks the weight of book Denethor.
The Removal Of The Scouring
The Return of the King is notorious for having a very drawn out ending, and this is especially the case with the book. It famously goes on for chapters after Aragorn is crowned king, and one of the most pivotal moments is the scouring of the Shire. It's integral to the history of the Hobbits, and according to Willpower2000, "It feels as if the films are incomplete" without it.
Though the movie version of Return of the King definitely looses a bit of weight by excluding the scouring, it's exclusion from the text makes sense. The narrative's main thrust ends with the Ring's destruction, and having another side plot tacked on at the end of the film would've killed the already dirge like pace.
Aragorn's Reluctance To Be King
Aragorn is a noble warrior who is shown to run away from his destiny as heir to Arnor and Gondor, only begrudgingly taking on the role as he learns what being a leader means during the War of the Ring. It's the reason he's one of the best Lord of the Rings characters, but Jonlang_ believes "the movie Aragorn isn’t the book Aragorn."
Compared to the character's movie version who seemingly lacks motivation in the eyes of the most critical Tolkien fans, book Aragorn is committed in defeating Sauron in order to prove himself worthy of the throne. He still approaches the monarchy with humility, but it's clear that the throne is something he aspires for unlike in the movie.
The Emphasis On Spectacle Rather Than World-Building
Reddit wandererinthesky cites "The 'Blockbuster-ification' of the story" as the worst change made to The Lord of the Rings movies. It's a broad critique but understandable, considering how much more emphasis is placed on the action in the movies compared to the books.
While it's true that the massive battles in the movie and the removal of world-building make Peter Jackson's film trilogy far less rich than the books, the change works to ensure the movies resonate with audiences. It's safe to say that people wouldn't be citing the series as peak cinema had Tom Bombadil made it onto screen.
Frodo's Lack Of Heroism
Frodo Baggins is one of the best fantasy film protagonists thanks to his innocence and fortitude, but not everyone thinks highly of the Hobbit. Willpower2000 argued that the films removed "much of Frodo's agency" as a character, and cited it as the biggest issue with the adaptation.
Though some have used Frodo's lack of manliness and bravado to argue he lacks heroism, the character still proved himself in his adventures across Middle Earth. He might not have been as brave as his book counterpart, who stood up to the Nazgul, but he still actively chose to take the One Ring to Mount Doom despite the danger.
Sam's Pity For Smeagol
While the movie versions of The Two Towers and Return of the King do an excellent job of portraying the vitriol between the characters of Sam Gamgee and Smeagol/Gollum, "leaving out the scene where sam takes pity on smeagol and decides not to execute him" was considered by gabbagool to be a grave error on the part of the filmmakers.
On the surface, the removal of the scene doesn't feel like much of a loss. It doesn't detract from Sam's characterization and likability, nor does it create a massive plot hole. However, the inclusion of the scene would have helped stress why the races of Middle Earth were able to defeat Sauron and earn "salvation."
Faramir Lacks Noble Qualities
Faramir is one of the noblest and most selfless characters in The Lord of the Rings books, someone who befriends Sam and Frodo quickly and can resist the power of the Ring. The character's film version showed none of these qualities and was instead a massive jerk who was driven by a desire to please his father.
Because of the stark contrast in Faramir's characterization, Redditors such as unpopular Lord of the Rings opinions on Reddit.
The Reduced Sense Of Scope
Though The Lord of the Rings movies detail one of the most cinematic wars in the fantasy genre, some have complained about how small the whole conflict feels. Redditor wandererinthesky specifically noted how "The geography is greatly reduced in scope, time and seasons aren't regarded at all in the films and the cultural details of Middle-earth are ignored."
While many of the details the Reddit listed are superfluous to the narrative, they all aid in giving Middle Earth depth. More importantly, the age of seasons helps audiences understand how drawn out and bloody the conflict is, whereas in the movie, the inability to perceive the age of time makes the war feel less consequential than it actually is.
