Did he really change the story?

Rating: 9/10 (19 December 2002)

Warning: Spoilers are present, however if you have read down the comments this far, you already know everything about the movie.
First, off let me say that I have read the books at least 10 times in my life. My entire imaginative life has been molded by Tolkein's marvelous world.
Second, let me say that I really enjoyed this movie, and I give it a 9 out of 10, same as the first film. It is not perfect, but it is really good.
Now to the meat of my comments. Many of the commenters, I have noticed have repeatedly bemoaned the changes made in the film. And there are a fair number of them. The big question though,as a Tolkein fan, should be "Did Peter Jackson change the story?"
Anyone who has ever seriously considered what it takes to adapt a book into a film has to realize that some things will be different. Elements that work very well in writing are impossible to translate to the screen. Visual elements take a much more prominent place relative to dialogue and plot. The film must be adapted for the amount of time available (and Jackson is lucky he was allowed 3 hours). Also, every single person who has read and enjoyed Tolkein's work has a picture in their mind of every character and a movie in their head of every scene. It is impossible to satisfy all of these diverse viewers with every aspect of the movie. Someone will be disappointed with something. Therefore, alterations were inevitable.
So, did Jackson change the story? In my opinion, he didn't. He did change elements of the story, and on the whole they were changed for the worse.

Some that work well:
* cutting out several extra and essentially unnecessary characters and replacing them with other more important characters where necessary (i.e., Erkenbrand replaced with Eomer, in much the same way the Glorfindel was axed to make way for Arwen.) * intercutting the various storylines from the book so that all resolve at the same time. * altering the exact ending and beginning of the film from the book. As long as Minas Morgul, Shelob, and the breaking of Saruman's staff are in at the beginning of Return of the King, I think the changes Jackson made end up with a better movie. * the whole gunpowder blowing up the wall bit. I thought is was interesting and exciting. * the cool bit at the black gate with the elf chameleon cloaks. * Gimli as stand up comic.
Some that are ambivalent or unnecessary, but don't really make much difference in the end.: * having Elves show up at Helm's Deep. If he had to bring someone else in, it would have been better if he brought in the Rangers of the North early. * throwing a Warg attack in for fun. The wargs were the least believable CGI in the film, but you got to see Legolas do that cool quick mount on Gimli's horse, so it was worth it. * More Arwen bits. Liv Tyler does a passable job, but the storyline really feels tacked on. * Aragorn's whole near death experience.
Many that were bad: * Faramir really is a completely different and much less likeable character. * No mention of how Faramir knew that Boromir was dead. * Ditto on Theoden. * No Ent draughts? How are Pippin and Merry supposed to get tall in Return of the King? * Elrond as manipulative father. * Frodo and Sam dragged off to Osgiliath to be seen by the Nazgul and then set free by Faramir the reformed bully.
However, I have to say that all of these items are details. The fundamentals of the story really remain unchanged. I hope and believe that many of the bad bits will be corrected in the next film; Faramir will end up cool, Theoden will go down as a true hero, Pippin and Merry will end up big, etc. But even if they don't, none of these changes ruin it for me. He got a lot of details wrong, but he also go a lot absolutely right:
* Shadowfax running across the heath at Gandalf's whistle. * Gollum/Smeagol, one of the most pathetic, compelling characters I have ever seen in a movie. * Treebeard's eyes and face. * Everything about Eowyn (I get goosebumps picturing her throwing off her helmet before the Lord of the Nazgul, her straw blonde hair blowing in the wind.)
As I look at the chapter titles in my copy of the Two Towers, I note that every major story element not already covered in the first film is covered in the second film, up to chapter 8 in Book III and Chapter 6 in Book IV. As long as the remaining chapters are covered well in the next film, then I would say he did well. And thats really the crux of it all. If Return of the King doesn't cover some of the important material left out of this movie, and correct a few of the more egregious bad changes, then I might have to revise my rating of this film. However, hope springs eternal, so the bottom line is that while Jackson made changes, for bad or for worse, I don't think he ever took liberties.
One last comment: What is the deal with all the people who read a homoerotic subtext into the movies? I think that the relationship between Sam and Frodo is one of the best adapted parts of the films. Look, get it through your heads that these are two hobbits who love each other, in a deep, committed way that has absolutely nothing to do with sex. It comes through so clearly in both the books and the movie. I find the whole aspect of friendship in the books and movies to be one of the most compelling aspects. I, for one, find it wonderful to learn about a relationship between two men that doesn't consist of either superficial back-slapping comradery or sex, but of profound friendship. The friendships between Sam and Frodo, between Merry and Pippin, between Gimli and Legolas; these are the relationships that bring a richness to the work. A very touching and moving film about homosexual attraction could certainly be made, and probably has been, but this isn't it.
Man, I apparently had a lot more to say then I thought. I wonder if anyone will actually read this.