Was this faithful to the books?

>>79508728
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

no.

No, they cut all the sex scenes.

As far as film adaptions go it was one of the better ones.

In spirit yes.

Autist Tolkien faggots will complain that they didn't stop to sing enough songs and that useless characters who only show up once and have no real impact on the story aren't included.

>>79508728
The fact that Aragorn is the most important character on that poster while Frodo is shunted off to the side speaks for itself.

>>79508728
as much as it could be yes. it gets all of the important scenes really well, and inputs dialogue directly from the book without making it sound weird.
it leaves out a lot of stuff you'd like to see as well though. and some changes were iffy. a big one that bothers me was pippin tricking treebeard/ents to march on isengard rather than them deciding it on their own.

>>79508728
in spirit and overall story? yes
in details? no, many were changed, but most of those decisions were good from filmmaking perspective. book is great, but it's a book, different storytelling rules apply, unaltered it would make for an unwatchable film.
it was the best adaptation we could hope for desu

Faithful to the books? Not particularly.

The greatest cinematic adaptation in history? Yes.

The films were basically flawless. Stuff they changed from the books served the movie in a positive way. The only real negative opinions of these films are matters of book faithfulness ("I don't like that the army of the dead were used more in the movie than in the book") and meme arguments like "Gimli was comic relief" even though it suited the movie's version of the character and made his heartfelt moments stronger.

How do Rohan and Gondor fund their armies?

http://www.theonering.com/complete-list-of-film-changes

There is essentially a novel written on the changes that were made.

If you think that constitutes a faithful adaptation, you're a literal retard. A faithful adaptation has no bearing on the overall quality of the film.

>>79509672
do you know what the word adaptation means?

>>79508728
replacing Erkenbrand with Eomer in TT actually made more sense than the book where some random fuck shows up with gandalf.

>>79509719
Yes, and it doesn't automatically mean shelling the source for screen adaptation. You're a literal moron. Again, this is a question of weather or not it is faithful. Not Did it have to be? Is it good that it is? It's simply not faithful.

>>79509584
I found Gimli funny in the books as well.

There was the retarded hobbit SS army run by hobo saruman that was cut thank god

>>79509850
tell me why you did not enjoy saruman's victorian england weed plantation run by mafia goons
it had a very potent message about the futility of protecting one's homeland at war and realising how war has changed what you were fighting and dying to preserve

No, they cut all the tax scenes.

>>79509639
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism

>>79508728
No, but they're still good movies. And the books are still better.