Movies most faithful to their source material

[Batman1980]

Lord of the Rings 1-3 and Star Wars 1-6.
*RUNS AWAY*

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

Lord of the Rings 1-3 and Star Wars 1-6.
*RUNS AWAY*

well Star Wars would not count since the books were only done to complement the movies.

LOTR is a interesting choice. Hardcore fans will tell anyone that too much was change or was left out of the movies. I personaly would not call myself a hardcore fan even if I do read the books once a year now for the past 30 years. I was ok with what they did in the movies. Too much in the books would not have made sense to add in the movies.

One example is having Arwen find Aragorn and the Hobbits instead of Glorfindel. In the movie it did not make much sense having him appeared there for the few minutes needed and never seeing him again in the movies. Sometimes changes are needed

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

Lord of the Rings 1-3

Well, I wouldn't say that. I think Jackson and company tried to stay "true" to the spirit of Tolkien and adapt the screenplay as best as the could to the books (which were exceptionally hard to make into a cohesive movie). However, Tolkien would probably be turning over in his grave if he could have seen how Faramir was depicted, the army of elves at Helm's Deep, Gandalf's refusal to go through Moria unless it was absolutely necessary, Frodo sending Sam home, the army of the dead fighting at Minas Tirith, Elrond showing up at Dunharrow, Arwen rescuing Frodo, Frodo and the other hobbits constantly falling down, etc.

[Mouse]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

Lord of the Rings 1-3 and Star Wars 1-6.
*RUNS AWAY*

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

well Star Wars would not count since the books were only done to complement the movies.

LOTR is a interesting choice. Hardcore fans will tell anyone that too much was change or was left out of the movies. I personaly would not call myself a hardcore fan even if I do read the books once a year now for the past 30 years. I was ok with what they did in the movies. Too much in the books would not have made sense to add in the movies.

One example is having Arwen find Aragorn and the Hobbits instead of Glorfindel. In the movie it did not make much sense having him appeared there for the few minutes needed and never seeing him again in the movies. Sometimes changes are needed

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Well, I wouldn't say that. I think Jackson and company tried to stay "true" to the spirit of Tolkien and adapt the screenplay as best as the could to the books (which were exceptionally hard to make into a cohesive movie). However, Tolkien would probably be turning over in his grave if he could have seen how Faramir was depicted, the army of elves at Helm's Deep, Gandalf's refusal to go through Moria unless it was absolutely necessary, Frodo sending Sam home, the army of the dead fighting at Minas Tirith, Elrond showing up at Dunharrow, Arwen rescuing Frodo, Frodo and the other hobbits constantly falling down, etc.

I read "The Hobbit" and am nearly finished with "Fellowship of the Ring" book and am I wrong or didn't Frodo live in the Shire for 50 years AFTER Bilbo left? Making Frodo about 58 years old when he starts his quest to destroy the ring? Not right after Bilbo's party. I think I remember that correctly... havn't picked up the book in a few months now as I find it hard to read J. R. R. Tolkein's work...

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Mouse

I read "The Hobbit" and am nearly finished with "Fellowship of the Ring" book and am I wrong or didn't Frodo live in the Shire for 50 years AFTER Bilbo left? Making Frodo about 58 years old when he starts his quest to destroy the ring? Not right after Bilbo's party. I think I remember that correctly... havn't picked up the book in a few months now as I find it hard to read J. R. R. Tolkein's work...

I think it was something like 17 years after Bilbo left that Frodo left the Shire with Sam.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Mouse

I read "The Hobbit" and am nearly finished with "Fellowship of the Ring" book and am I wrong or didn't Frodo live in the Shire for 50 years AFTER Bilbo left? Making Frodo about 58 years old when he starts his quest to destroy the ring? Not right after Bilbo's party. I think I remember that correctly...

I am one of the weird people who read LotR every year (just getting ready to start again next week). When the Fellowship of the Ring begins, Frodo will be 33 and Bilbo will be 111 at "The Long-Expected Party". Bilbo disappears at the party and Frodo leaves the Shire 17 years later at age 50 to begin the journey to destroy the ring.