Remakes Blogfest - The Lord of the Rings

Hello Lovelies,

Today I wanted to take a moment to step outside of my normal format and join in on a little fun. If you're not aware, Alex J. Cavanaugh and Heather M. Gardner are hosting a little thing they're calling the 'Remakes Blogfest' today. And yes, I AM releasing this a day early, but only because of my normal blog format of leaving a day or two between posts. Either way.

The idea behind this blogfest is to identify those books/movies/tv/etc. that you feel actually improved when they were remade. Now, while most people think about remakes across the same medium (example provided The Thing from Another World (1951) versus The Thing (1982)), remakes also count with regards to adaptations from the original source material. And, while most would probably expect me to delve into the horror scene with something like The Thing, Dawn of the Dead, or some other title, I decided to go a different route.

Lord of the Rings.

To those that don't know, I'm a huge Lord of the Rings fan. I've actually read the entire series three times now, quite literally have the One Ring as my wedding ring, and have drawn massive inspiration from the concepts, styles, designs, characterizations, and more in a number of ways. A lot of the time, the inspirations are only more obvious personally due to their involvement in my game design for Dungeons and Dragons. Once in a grand while they're noticeable in any fantasy series that I work on, but that is what it is.

Now, while both the books and movies are enjoyable, I feel that the movies are actually a large improvement upon the original source material. Before anyone screams 'Blasphemy!', allow me to explain. There are a few areas, particularly in the range of tone and characters (both entire characters and character design), that the movies really improve upon in comparison to the books and really make it the high-epic fantasy story that we all know and love.

First and foremost, let us talk about the tone.

To those of you that have never read the books before, allow me to clarify that the books are much slower and longer than the movies. Now, I'm sure those of you who have tried to marathon the extended movies like I have are shouting "THOSE THINGS ARE ALREADY OVER 11 HOURS LONG! HOW CAN THEY BE ANY SLOWER?!"

The answer? The original books were only half-fantasy-epic.

The original intent behind the books had less to do with high-adventure and had more to do with world creation. To those unfamiliar with Tolkien's history, the books were partially written in the trenches of war. They were an escape. Tolkien devised and created this massive, incredible world with all of these creatures and beings and cities and customs and the books themselves ended up being an exploration of that world. Literally. The books are essentially a mashup of a geographic travel guide that talks at length about the world and people that are being met and experienced with just a hint of 'Oh yea, war and evil.' There are certain sections of the books that are as much of a slog as actually going on a trek across the world. While there are plenty of amazing visuals and a hell of an adventure story, there's also plenty of areas that feel like 'a review of middle-earth's foliage in a million words or more'.

The movies, in turn, decided to largely cut this element out. While there's plenty of huge, sweeping shots to show off the landscape and the travel, it's nothing compared to the books. The movies, instead, focus on the adventure of this fantasy epic.

Now, while many will likely agree with me that the movies improved in this element, I feel the next section needs clarification because of the focus. There were a number of characters in the books that were either glazed over or entirely removed. The one that I'm going to focus on has actually gotten a lot of heat for NOT being in the movies. I'm outing myself as a horrible person (supposedly) for supporting that the character in question is not present, so fire away if you hate me for it.

Without further ado, let's talk about Tom Bombadil. 

As previously mentioned, the original books are an exploration of the world of Middle Earth. There are plenty of characters that make little to no impact and simply don't need to be explored within a cinematic version of the film. However, there is also ONE character that makes WAY too much impact while doing LITERALLY nothing. Insert Tom Bombadil.

Tom Bombadil, to those unfamiliar with the books, is a character that shows up in the middle of 'The Fellowship of the Ring'. He is a 'merry fellow' the lives in a small valley with Goldberry. Frodo and Sam meet him on their travels and, if there's one thing Tom is good for, its bringing the story to a grinding halt. While the entire scope of the story is about the travels across Middle Earth and the overwhelming threat that is the One Ring along with Sauron and his armies, Tom is introduced as a character that not only doesn't care about this, but genuinely isn't effected and can even SOLVE the issue. In essence, this character is basically a God and we spend a significant period of time with him just fucking around. This character not only isn't influenced by the One Ring, but literally has power over it like no one else short of Sauron does.

So what comes of this character that surpassed all others in power? LITERALLY NOTHING. He just...is there. They meet him, they dick around, and they leave. He serves absolutely no purpose within the story other to introduce himself as existing. I genuinely have no idea what Tolkien was thinking with Tom's introduction, but if there is one character that is not only worthless but annoyingly worthless within the scope of everything, it is Tom Bombadil and I'm very happy the movies ignored him.

Finally, I want to talk about characterization.

Briefly speaking, the movies did a better job of providing more memorable characters for most of the individuals in the story. I clarify most because there were a few missteps. As stated, the books were largely exploration focused rather than epic focused. This caused one character in particular, Aragorn, to somehow be examined and subsequently ignored when he shouldn't have been. The books touch on Aragorn's lineage, his age, and the fact that he has a pretty amazing history as both the one true king and a hardened ranger, and yet make Aragorn into this incredibly placid character that doesn't act as much as is acted upon. He doesn't push forward in the same ways as he does in the movies and is largely just pushed along by the plot. It's an incredible miss.

HOWEVER, if there is one thing that the movies do make a mistake with, it's in the characterization of a specific few. Merry and Pippin, characters that seem almost interchangeable within the films, are actually explored in a more in-depth manner and really make a name of themselves singularly. They deserve special mention. The character that doesn't deserve as much love but goddamn does he get it is Legolas.

Oh fuck me Legolas.

While there's nothing really wrong with Legolas in the books or even with the initial characterization in the first movie, something happened somehwere in Hollywood that turned Legolas into this God. I don't know if it had something to do with the actor or the actor's agent or Peter Jackson or what, but Legolas becomes this Mary Sue character that can do no wrong, essentially has super powers, and is so 'critical'(?) that is literally shoehorned into a story HE'S NOT EVEN INVOLVED WITH, i.e. the Hobbit movies. While it's one thing to note that Tolkien was not focused on specifics of any given battle outside of the fight itself, it's another thing to have Legolas shield-surfing down stairs or murdering an entire team of Oliphaunt riders ALONG with the Oliphaunt. 

In short, much like Tom Bombadil, it just feels so out of place in comparison to everything else. Honestly, the wizard is more believable.

And so, ignoring God-King Legolas, I feel that the Lord of the Rings movies are overall superior to the books. While, again, the books are by no means bad, the necessary trimming and cleaning up of the story really helps to make it the fantasy epic that we know and love today. It does a tremendous job of filling in areas that need it, cutting off areas that aren't needed, and just giving us a wonderful tale of adventure, fun, magic, and heroism.

I hope you all enjoyed. What was your favorite parts from the books and movies? Was their one you liked better? Share in the comments below.

- RB

(Additionally, I have no idea what happened with the copy paste of the links to the other authors, but I hope you'll forgive its odd appearance and join these authors as they explore their favorite remakes.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

1. Ninja Captain Alex J. Cavanaugh
2. Heather M. Gardner
3. Diane Burton - Adventure & Romance
4. Christine Rains
5. Tamara Narayan
6. Juneta @ Writer's Gambit
7. CineMarvellous!
8. Tossing It Out
9. Stories I Found in the Closet
10. Spunk On A Stick - Diane
11. Pat Hatt
12. The Write Game
13. PepperWords
14. XmasDolly aka Marie Moody
15. Writing Off the Edge
16. Sharon M. Himsl - Shells, Tales and Sails
17. The Warrior Muse
18. Michelle Gregory at Dust Kittens in the Corners
19. Elizabeth Seckman. Author
20. Birgit
21. The ToiBox of Words
22. Shah Wharton
23. Spacerguy
24. Michael Abayomi
25. Stephen Tremp Breakthrough Blogs
26. Madly-in-Verse

You are next... Click here to enter

'Aliens' Movie Adapation Review

[Amazon Link]

If at anytime you felt concerned or worried that the first 'Alien' movie to book adaptation set the bar for what was to come, let me assure you that it was the black sheep of the family. Sitting at the head of the table, on the other hand, is the 'Aliens' adaptation.

Whereas the first one ran far too slow in many parts, the pacing in this story is on the dot. Where there was too little or too much detail in any given scene, 'Aliens' paints a picture and lets you admire it without forcing your face to the canvas. When the original quoted a largely out-of-date screenplay for a movie so many were familiar with, this adaptation adds select scenes that were left out of the original movies but only so as to benefit the story and not confuse the reader.

To those unfamiliar with the 'Aliens' movie, this story picks up 50+ years after the original 'Alien' story. Ellen Ripley, the last survivor of the Nostromo disaster highlighted in the first story, is discovered and revived from cryogenic sleep. Despite briefly returning to Earth, Ripley is forcibly thrust back into the terror. Planet LV- 426, now known as Acheron, has since been colonized and begun to be terraformed in the interim, only to mysteriously go dark shortly after Ripley wakes up. Now, with a squad of Colonial Marines at her side, Ripley returns to LV-426 only to discover how truly unprepared even the military is to face the monsters that led to the Nostromo disaster. With time ticking down to destruction and aliens around every corner, Ripley and the few survivors must find a way off of Acheron before the clock hits zero.


To those who have seen the movie, easily some of the most memorable and enjoyable experiences include the marines and seeing how the aliens function in a more natural dynamic. The book delivers well on both.

For the marines, the novel expands upon not only interpersonal relationships, but the marines are given more character then is even present in the original movies. Off handed characters like Spunkmeyer and Frost who are forgotten against big characters like Hudson and Sanchez are given more scenes and more personality versus 'stock marines'. Smaller, subtle interactions like Hicks training Ripley are given more personable details and help to show both of these people as human beings, not just survivors. And conniving little shits who are constantly searching for their next big meal ticket like Burke demonstrate their thought process in a way no movie can truly reveal.

The same mastery of omnipotence that can only come from a book delivers well within the context of the Aliens as well. Entire creatures, like the 'worker drones', that were left out of the movie make a sudden appearance and add clarity to several unanswered questions. Certain untold features about how the creatures hunt and immobilize their prey are also expanded upon; namely the creature's 'stingers' that only appear in the original script of the movie. Plus, you get just a taste of what the colonists truly faced when dealing with the scourge that overran them.

The only complaint I can make, and this is a minor one: the language. First, allow me to clarify: while I'm sure any of my regular readers are well enough aware that I can be a fucking foul mouthed motherfucker, I don't have some bizarre love of curse words. That said, one of the most iconic lines of the film is "Get away from her you, bitch!" which, in the adaptation, is altered to "Get away from her youuuuu!" Doesn't quite have the same ring. Pretty much all cursing has been removed, which just seems out of place. The book is by no means child friendly, particularly with people regularly being gutted and eviscerated, so it just seemed an odd choice to do this. While it doesn't truly retract from the experience, it just jumps out as being odd.

With that said, I highly recommend this title. Having read all four (with the other two reviews to come), Aliens was easily my favorite of the series of adaptations. It's well paced, fun, breathtaking, and engaging. It expands upon all the right things, makes addendums to small inadequacies that didn't quite add up, is overall exactly what I'd hope for when I think of a movie to book adaptation. If you enjoy horror and action, give it a read.