I got the idea that if Helm's Deep fell, you could write off Rohan as any kind of useful--or even existing--entity.

Eowyn was dumbed down in the whole movie. When Theoden leaves Rohan in her hands--which she then abandons, the git!--she's in full armor, obviously ready to use whatever means necessary to defend her country. I think in the book that her stewardship ended once they got to Dunharrow (or wherever the encampment was at the Paths of the Dead), but my memory is faulty.

They wouldn't have had to change the speech patterns of all of Rohan to use "Begone if you be not deathless." And her fight against the Witch King was more competent in the book, not so much cringing and ducking. Plus the whole "Oh, silly me, I can't cook" scene. Gah.

What aspects of the book did the film convey most and least successfully

Best: the Balrog. It was the sort of translation that gave the book its due, but came up with something distinctively filmic. Perfect balance. In a different way, Gollum: he is a lot more of a character in the movie, with his own arc and sorrows, but all these are magnification of the book's text, in a way that suits a movie.

Worst: the pessimistic culture (specifically embodied in Eowyn) of the Rohirrim. By rewriting it to make the Eowyn/Theoden relationship receive a resolution, the film reduced the philosophy-of-despair to a couple of excellent references to poetry, and a lot of psychotherapy. Whereas, Tolkien was showcasing a decidedly foreign mindset, giving it its foreign, exciting, occasionally-off-putting glory. The movie version felt about three degrees away from Oprah, all mooshy and modern; the book version was raw and strange and unpleasant and in some ways completely unresolveable.

Actually, I think Dana is right: the complexity of relationships, both personal and cultural, tended to get lost in the movie adaptation. Denethor becomes a pale shadow of himself. Lacking that balcony scene in Book VI, there is no moment when the Rohirrim and Gondor ways of life are contrasted. Actually, all of Minas Tirith was portrayed in a schematic fashion, what with all of the secondary characters being cut from those sequences.

In the book, Theoden's "possession" is not explicitly magic; Gandalf tells him to throw off old age, and he sort of does a double-take, and pulls himself together. It's pretty well implied that nastiness is involved in Theoden feeling so old, but it's more of a "Wormtongue poisoned his mind with cruel words" than an explicit magic spell.

In the books, it was fairly clear during the attempt to cross Caradhras thet it was the mountain itself opposing the Fellowship, while in the movie, they made it seem that it was Saruman's doing.

Yes -- this. This was my biggest problem with the first movie.

Really? That didn't bug me at all. Huh.

Dana, one thing I thought the movies did very well was to convey a sense of the history of Middle-Earth. Not just the history of the Ring, but of the various societies too. And--especially in the EEs--it helped to give the story a real sense of loss at the end, with the Elves leaving Middle-Earth and the age of Men beginning, which to me is one of the most important aspects of the book's story.

Will you talk at all about the theatrical versions vs. the EEs? Because the EEs put a lot of book-stuff back in: Galadriel's gifts, and the song of the Entwives, things like that.

That didn't bug me at all. Huh.

I just don't see why it needed be done. There was plenty of conflict -- even if he didn't give Carhadras the slightly malevolent feel it had in the book, why make it a mano a mano?

Dana, one thing I thought the movies did very well was to convey a sense of the history of Middle-Earth.

Yeah, definitely. Anything where costumes or props were involved, basically.

Will you talk at all about the theatrical versions vs. the EEs? Because the EEs put a lot of book-stuff back in: Galadriel's gifts, and the song of the Entwives, things like that.

I don't know yet. I have two other questions to write, each vaguer than the LoTR one, and I have to figure out how much I can reasonably write and what constitutes a "well developed essay".

I think the biggest improvement in the EEs over the theatrical versions is the extra Faramir stuff in TTT, with maybe the extended hobbit intro in FoTR running second.

A couple other changes that I don't think are entirely necessary and didn't improve it as a movie:

Treebeard not being aware of what was happening to his own forest, and the Entmoot ending with a refusal of help.

Frodo sending Sam away after Gollum set him up.

Sam not being a ring-bearer.

I would have liked to see Sam being tempted by the ring, with the vision of him using the power to turn Mordor into a garden.

A lot of the changes I saw were made to personalize the various conflicts, and to remove ambiguities that would either slow down the action or confuse the viewer. For instance, there's much less looming sense of doom in the movie: there is no Darkness steaming out of Mordor, no gathering of Gondor's forces, and very little competence shown in Minas Tirith.

That, I think, ties back to the need to keep the focus on Aragorn and Gandalf as Heroes who save the day, when in fact it was Aragorn and Gandalf, and the Rohirrim, and Imrahil and the men of Dol Amroth, and the men of Lebennin that Aragorn brought with him on the ships, and the men of the city guard. And the Rangers, who I miss, because they give Aragorn a people and a personal history that isn't just about Elves and isn't just about his Great Destiny.

I don't like the use of the Dead for these reasons as well: they make the final victory of the Pelennor a lot less painful and difficult than it really was. They helped, but then they went away, and it was living men (and women) who won the battle.

Oh, and I'm reminded that a lot of stuff seems to be moved around in order to construct emotional climaxes, if that makes any sense. For instance, they reforge Narsil before they leave Rivendell, and it's not really given much weight in the books, whereas in the movies, it's very tied to Aragorn's own choice and his decision to take on his destiny.

But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Eowyn I am, Eomund’s daughter. You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone, if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him.

But Matt, wouldn't they have had to change the way she spoke throughout the movies, and then how the rest of Rohan spoke, to make it seem like battle didn't make her break out into Shakespeare?

Would it have worked to maintain more of the speech while losing some of the ancient diction?

I am no living man! You look upon a woman! I am Eowyn, Eomund's daughter. You stand between me and my lord and kin, and I will strike you down if you touch him!

I don't think they could use "smite" there.