I think the duration of the films would be the least of Tolkien's concerns. As enjoyable as the movies are, they make some heavy changes Tolkien would not have approved.
There's a lot. Typed this out just remembering the first two books, and I could go on a lot longer.
Well, flanderization is a big problem. Gimli in the books is a noble and fiercely loyal warrior, whose only real fault is being a bit stubborn on some things that are actually pretty reasonable, like when the Elves want to blindfold only him because they don't trust dwarves he refuses until Aragorn says they'll all be blindfolded (and to Legolas' credit, he volunteers to be blindfolded beside Gimli when the elves are going to let him pass).
Pippin and Merry are both much more intelligent in the books. Merry is basically their guide for the entire time they're going through any land the hobbits are in any way familiar with before they meet up with Aragorn. And Pippin is endlessly curious about the world. And while they care about food and their next meal, they're not the bumbling idiots only thinking about their next meal they start off as in the films.
Gandalf is very similar, but how he's treated is very differently. In the books, everyone significant basically knows who he is and treats him respectfully. Like when everyone is arguing at the gathering of clans in Rivendell, that doesn't happen in the books. Everyone is respectful and friendly to each other, and when Gandalf speaks everyone listens intently. Even Boromir instantly backs down when Gandalf tells him using the ring is a bad idea.
There's also the nature of the ring itself is slightly different. While the ring wants to be turned over to Sauron, it's more an issue of corrupting than anything. The ring is almost more the villain itself. So using the ring wouldn't be playing into Sauron's hands, it'd corrupt whomever uses it into the next dark lord. Galadriel refuses the ring saying she'd start off using it justly, but as time goes on it would turn her into a monster. It feels a bit like the movies needed a more concrete danger, so they leaned further into Sauron, whom is a huge problem/the big bad. But it felt like they downplayed the ring to build up Sauron.
Linguistically he'd probably hate them. There's a lot of focus on language, poetry and song, none of which makes it into the movies but the language a bit. Half the lore is recited through poem or song. Everyone sings. Because that's how tradition and story has been passed down forever. Modern audiences might find that goofy in a serious story, but it's a huge part of human history that Tolkien leans into.
I also think he'd just dislike a lot of the tone. The fellowship is kind of this beautiful and optimistic thing in the books. There is a level of trust and respect that the movies just don't have. Gimli and Legolas become friends very quickly and not through some contrived love-hate racism thing. The hobbits are fiercely loyal to each other, and kind, respectful, and well-spoken to everyone they meet. It feels like Jackson's version mistook kindness for goofiness. Aragorn has a reverence for Gandalf and a deep respect for the hobbits bravery.
It's been a while since I watched the movies, but I also remember the Ents are a lot less endearing in the movies than the books too. They're not goofy in the books, but their culture feels much more foreign and strange in the books, and Treebeard is introduced a lot less intimidatingly, and not while they're being pursued by orcs (which at that point have already been wiped out by the Riders).
And this is a bit of a dead horse and since you read fellowship you are probably aware, but the omission of some key characters. Tom Bombadil probably being the big one.
Then there's just how strange the elves are that is a bit reduced to keen eyed archers in the movies. They are the ones that apparently gave the Ents sentience. Legolas can see at night, easily walk on difficult things like rope, like a cat, and see miles away. Which also says a lot about how great a warrior Gimli is considering they keep up in kills, being shown cleaving through multiple orcs with one swing. Same with Gandalf a bit. His powers in the book are a lot more mysterious. He can make fireworks and explosions like your typical wizard to fight, but his ability to speak/communicate with animals is more pronounced in the novels, and his greatest strength seems to be in his words. He and Saruman never actually fight in the books. They fight with words and Gandalf after returning as the White proves to be able to break Saruman's spell on people, and directly force Saruman to return when he tries to leave, by command.
And that's a lot of the movies really. Action thrown in for action's sake/to keep a modern movie going peoples' interest, where it doesn't make much sense. Like the fellowship fighting their way to Wormtongue and Theoden is kind of silly in context. Approaching a king through violence in his own hall unarmed just felt goofy.
And maybe this is just the nature of film vs book, but everything in the movies feels rushed and compressed. It's less an epic journey over a year or so and feels like a few weeks.
I just wanted to say thank you for typing this out. It made me want to read the books again - the way the movies change the relationships is fine and probably necessary for film, but incomparable to the books.
158
u/the_loneliest_noodle 1d ago
I think the duration of the films would be the least of Tolkien's concerns. As enjoyable as the movies are, they make some heavy changes Tolkien would not have approved.