10 Problems Nobody Wants To Admit About The Lord Of The Rings Movies

9. The Movies Aren't Particularly Good Adaptations

People tend to talk about The Lord of the Rings movies as though they were definitively brilliant adaptations of Tolkien's novels and The Hobbit movies as though they were the opposite of that. Whilst Peter Jackson clearly took more noticeable liberties when it came time to adapt The Hobbit, it's not entirely accurate to regard The Lord of the Rings as a particularly "faithful" adaptation. Because, quite frankly, it isn't that faithful at all. The most noticeable element inherent to Jackson's films - and the one that kind of renders it as more of an "interpretation" than an adaptation - is the "sword and sorcery" genre approach that the director takes. Tolkien's books aren't anywhere near as bloody and gritty as anything that Jackson renders on-screen; they're a lot lighter, with a focus on language and - let's face it - more "fruity" characters, such as magical weirdo Tom Bombadil. Jackson's decision to render the films with the approach of an action film pretty much ensures that, from an adaptation point of view, they share very little in common with the aesthetics and tone of Tolkien's beloved books. The films are noticeably harder affairs. This isn't a problem if you like the films, of course, but it's time we stopped using Jackson's films as examples of "good" adaptations. It's a lot more complicated than that.