15 Crucial Plot Differences Between Tolkien & Peter Jackson's "Fellowship of the Ring" 

I think I might have to do one 👀

Elrond himself was a half-elf, half man, as his parents, Eärendil and Elwing, were both half-elves, having both Men and Elves as ancestors.

👉🏼🗡️ = 🩹

😂😂😂

Aragorn didn't have severe flaws in his character. That's nonsense intimated by the amateur screenwriters for their adaptation.

@@jachyra9 It's okay to like both portrayals of the character.

@@emperorkane317 - It's okay to like anything. It's not okay to claim that both versions are excellent when one of them isn't.

@@jachyra9well, movie Aragorn is excellent though, and the writers certainly were no amateurs😂

@@frederikkfoglfrey8664 - The three screenwriters had never written a screenplay for a major motion picture prior to this. Fran Walsh only worked on her husband's stupid horror movies, and Philippa Boyens had never written a single screenplay. Not one. So, yes, they were amateurs and it shows.

What does that have to do with Gen X?

@@jachyra9 I feel like the writers were trying to appeal to a specific generational ethic of their day rather than the timeless character Tolkien wrote

@@SpiritLife - Yes. Team Jackson was trying to appeal to a specific generational ethic of the day. But that generation was the Millennials, not Gen X. That's why so many Millennials love these films and attack anyone who criticizes them. It's also the reason why Christopher Tolkien said, '“They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25." That age range refers to Millennials, not Gen X. I'm Gen X and I was already in my thirties then.

@@jachyra9 ahh then I stand corrected. My apologies

@@SpiritLife - No need to apologize. It's just a book and some movies. 🙂

😂😂

😂

Personally, it doesn’t bother me as much as everyone else. They couldn’t give his whole Backstory in the Movies, so by making him grow into the role of king they could give him a more interesting character arc, without it, movie Aragorn would have been kind of flat i think

@@frederikkfoglfrey8664 - But he didn't grow into the role of king. All he did was take a bath and change his clothes. The irony is that Jackson's unnecessary change in characterization resulted in Aragorn not actually having an arc.

How would that not make him a Mary Sue though? The perfect character from the start of his journey to the end.

@@kingkwon8002 - You don't know what a Mary Sue is. Aragorn has an incredible task to accomplish and many challenges to face and overcome as a result. He isn't a female power fantasy or self-insertion character.

@@jachyra9 i am just re-reading the books… i just read “the riders of rohan” and tbh i think book Aragorn is completely full of himself! The way he presents himself to eomer in eomers homeland! Learn some humility man, even if you think you are supposed to be a king!!! I like movie Aragorn much better!

How were any of the changes necessary for the medium? And as far as there being too few women in the book( The Lord of the Rings is a novel ) or books( comprising Tolkien's legendarium ): what number constitutes an adequate amount of women? Because I didn't realize there was a quota. Is this applicable to Little Women in regards to men? How would increasing the number of women in The Lord of the Rings improve the story and the experience of reading it? Color me confused.

There are quite a lot of videos comparing the book to the films. But virtually all of them are pro-Jackson videos and they are hardly in-depth or critical.

Ikr! I was pretty surprised as well that there wasn’t a series of quality on the topic. Obviously there are a lot of one off videos. But none that go scene by scene. I strive to be as detailed as possible. Thanks for tuning in!

Me too Tom Bombadill fighting oldmanwillo the barrow wrights and beautiful GoldBerry I love these characters. And at the end of all adventure the shire is took over by Sharkey where Merry and Pippin are heroes of the shire.

Good point! We’ll mention that more in next week’s episode. 👏🏼

💀

Agreed!

Agreed. But, Treebeard just goes on and on…😮

Who are 'they', here?

Impossible! Maybe a show with each episode covering one chapter. But even then it would be hard, maybe with a narrator…

@@frederikkfoglfrey8664 I just want my damn Tom Bombadil chapter :P

@@Kynokefalos yeah I wouldn’t mind that either

Inaccuracy invokes no emotion. It’s a logical word simply saying that there is an original, and something based on the original. It makes no subjective judgement on the quality of the change. It simply points out the objective truth of if there was a change. If there was a change, then it is inaccurate. A word like “inadequate” would invoke a subjective judgement. Regardless, like I say in the video, I love the movies and the books!

@@factorfantasyweekly Fine, I'll be slightly more precise - 'Inaccuracy' seems to mean that they were aiming for something and missed it. None of these changes could possibly have been accidental. We can note where their target was different than what was in the book (a difference), or whether it was a poor choice of target (bad idea). These are separate ideas. The idea that they were actually aiming at the book and somehow MISSED is silly. It's just not the right word. EDIT: I saw an apparently deleted reply that they were trying to be faithful. They marketed it as faithful, etc. What is there even to say about that? If they were trying to be faithful, they could have… not done something wildly different. Given the efforts made, the differences could not be accidents.

Totally agree!

Problem is, every male in Tolkien's books is basically the same: heroic and stoic. The biggest example fo this being Faramir, who jsut casually dismissed the ring. The same ring Tolkien had spent 2 books warning us about how it can corrupt even the mightiest. But nah, every "stoic hero" can just ignore the ring when it's needed. Tolkien was an extraordinary world builder, and his characters drank from the world he created to become interesting. But in the character development part, Tolkien was mediocre at best. You've got the hobbits and Eowyn. The rest are as plain as a brick. And I say this as someone who has Tolkien in his top 5. His world building was the bread and butter for most fantasy authors. The movies gave much humane inetrpretations of the characters. Check the aniamted version of the LOTR. It's more faithbull to the book. And Aragorn (and basically every character) is pretty boring. Things don't always translate well from books to movies. Another great example being David Lynch's Dune, which tried to be faithfull in some aprts that made no sense, like the constant character narration. The newer ones make more changes, but also manage to be much better movies while still keeping the spirit of the books, just like the LOTR movies.

@simonsalgueiro6217 what and Faramir in Jackson's version is better? The guy is one sided personality: he cries every time his father says something mean to him. At least in the books you see Faramir stand up for himself in front of his father, you see examples of him being noble, you see examples of him being wise (one of those moments is with the ring, and no. He didn't casually reject the ring. He refused to even look at the ring because he knew how dangerous it is). You think the ring being dangerous has to show its immediate effect instantly? Clearly, subtlety is wasted upon you. The ring, in the books, still IS dangerous and can corrupt all, but for some, it can take time for the corruption to take hold (as with Frodo). There is a trait called wisdom, which determines how strong a pull the ring has to that person. Faramir is said to be wise enough that Gandalf became close friends with him (this angered Denethor). Even Tolkien says that Faramir is more wise than noth Denathor and Boromir put together. The funny thing is, that even in the movie, as overpowered as they made the ring, even they didn't always abide by the rule that the ring must affect everyone instantly (e.g. if you're next to it, that means you 100% have to be desperate to take it because we don't understand subtlety here). What about Legolas or Gimli, who casually felt nothing as they were with the ring all that time. Of course, you will make up some head canon to make sense of the nonsensical changes the movies invent because that is all you can do. So each fan has their own headcanons and explanations. Meanwhile, at least in the books, it's a solid one explanation. The ring corrupts everyone but some individuals will be corrupted sooner than others, the ring is not a homing device, it doesn't always 'connect' to Sauron's vision, just sometimes (which is the risk Gandalf warns about). And if you want to talk about good characters? What, you think Frodo in the movies is a good character, lol? The character who Peter Jackson, who single handedly created a whole audience of people who think Frodo's weak or lesser of a hero than the other fellowship members? No one used to think anything negative of Frodo before the movies came out (we have letters from fans of Tolkien to corroborate that). After the movies, there are tons of people who complain about Frodo, which you can see pages and pages of on Google search. People complaining about Frodo character and how he's weak or mean to Sam... funnily enough, in all these complaints they all reference actions Frodo only does in the movies. So no wonder the character is so F'd up and people have to either come up with headcanons as to why this is acceptable in the movies or simply put Frodo at the back of the mind. Jackson made one of the best trilogies, but let's not be silly and portray him as some jesus figure. He still made a lot of mistakes and there are plenty of flaws in characters (that he changed) and events (which you have to create your own headcanons to cope with the mistake).

@@sameehkins5957 Denethor was a super wise leader and was corrupted still by Sauron, and not even with the ring, which exerts a much stronger influence (this according to Tolkien, although as I said, he changed how the ring worked sometimes to move the "stoic hero" trope). Isildur, also a great ruler, brave, fearless, etc, was subdued by the ring. Even Gandalf was scared. What happened in the book with Faramir totally defeats the purpose of the ring. Also, like that other Tolkien simp in the comments, you have to exaggerate things to make a point. Faramir isn't weak in the movies, you alpha wannabes. Neither is Frodo or Aragorn. Anyone who says that has the mental maturity of a child and, therefore, his points should be looked with contempt. They are more realistic and less fictional. Which is ok, you still have the books if you want Tolkien's way of handling characters, which is more akeen the Nordic Sagas he so much loved. But now you've got also the film's interpretation, which works MUCH better for that type pf media. You peeps just have absolutely no clue on how cinema works. Gimli and Legolas are 1) not human, who are canonically drawn to the ring much more, 2) are never alone with Frodo in a way we could see if the ring tempts them, 3) have less responsibilities and worries than Faramir, Aragorn or Boromir. Points 1 and 2 beings key. Boromir gets lured by the ring not because he is weak, but because he is desperate to save Gondor. Aragorn also fears the ring as he has the responsibility of his ancestors, and he knows the ring can tempt him through that. And Faramir is looking to prove himself while also having the same qualms as Boromir. Yea, he may be wiser. But he still should be affected by the rules Tolkien set. And he isn't. As I said, Tolkien was a great world builder, but a mediocre character writter. Funny you say I'm treating PJ as a deity when you are simping extremely hard for Tolkien. I agree some parts should have been left like in the book, f.e, the way Sauron is defeated in the movie at the beginning, and that some parts of the movie felt a bit off (mainly Legolas doing weird action stuff). But it's undeniable PJ managed to make movies that were masterpieces of cinema while also retaining Tolkien's message and world. I can assure you that, if he did what people like you wanted, the movies would be much worse. I guarantee that.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy they're trying to make. They make heroes in media try to turn down power. So that their masters in real life can simply feign disinterest in power and make out that power is being thrust upon them unwillingly. Then all on-lookers will be awed because it's just like a scene in their favorite movie. When the reality is all parties were in on the scam and they real life hero actually does want power. Just how like Trump claimed he never wanted to be president years ago.

@@simonsalgueiro6217 Tolkien was not a professional author. You hear simpletons make that noise all the time; "Some things don't work on screen." The Lord of the Rings, didn't work on the page either. But it was there and I enjoyed it in spite of it's flaws. I enjoyed Peter Jackson's Fantasy Hour too. But only because it was cleverly designed to trigger endorphin releases in my system like a common fiction book is. And not because it was actually meaningful. Also, you should know that most of the things that they tell you don't work on the screen are actually things that they just don't want to go through the trouble to make happen either because doing so would be too much work, take too long, cost too much or irk modern/stupid members of the audience. Like Tom Bombadil. He was left out so that Scumbag Steve wouldn't immediately hate the film and mock Jolly old Tom which is also why all the songs were left out. I don't blame them. It most certainly does date the story to a different era in time and they need to make their money back so they can be forgiven. But personally, I'd prefer if Scumbag Steve didn't enjoy the same things I do.

It’s just about the same character as he played in Ronin😀

Oh definitely, but thus far into the story his is the most severe. Once we get to Faramir in the next movie, that’s more severe.

@@factorfantasyweekly And what about Frodo, Merry, Pippin, Gimli, Eomer, ...

It's not your opinion. Jackson assassinated every single character in one way or another, to one degree or another. I submit the reason why virtually no one cares is down to the actors portraying the characters doing such a great job. It's all part of the toxic goulash that is fans of the movies conflating what they see with what they believe Tolkien wrote, and why they're so threatened by the reality of what Tolkien wrote: it doesn't align with the movies. I really like the movies, especially Fellowship. But my affection can't fix what's broken.

@@jachyra9 I think a lot of people live in a Mandela's effect believing that the Jackson movies are flawless and perfect, extreme faithful to the books, they adore them. But when you say to them that the Tolkien father and son wouldn't approve the movies, their minds break. It's very hypocrisy, and this people is the same that says like a broken disc that Rings of Power is an ugly product.

Funny you mention the flashback to Osgiliath in the Two Towers, because I mention that briefly in next week’s episode… also a couple things inaccurate with that whole thing. But I will also cover it more once I’m to that specific scene. I definitely understand Peter Jackson’s direction. He was making it clear from the start that Boromir is a conflicted human, dealing with many emotions that elves and dwarves don’t really deal with. Kind of giving us the view of the race of men that makes us understand their struggle. But in the book he’s a lot more put together in the beginning like Aragorn. Only after some time does he get corrupted. But as for his reaction to Aragorn seeing him cut himself, it’s more so to foreshadow the plot point of Denethor resisting a king in Gondor. “No more than a broken heirloom…” is pretty much Boromir saying “we are strong enough on our own, we don’t need help!” Which is opposite to book Boromir who actually comes to Rivendell based on a prophetic dream about the sword that was broken, and he even tells Aragorn in the book that it would help his people if the king (and the sword) returned to Gondor. It’s pretty interesting! Again, this is all stuff I cover next week. 👀

Yes, Amazon’s version of things make you really appreciate Jackson’s films. 💀 Even without RoP though, I still love Jackson’s trilogy!

"Jacksons adaptation was and will always be the best adaptation of the books." Are you a fortune teller? Cool. Can you do me a solid and predict the winning lottery numbers?

I positively disliked what Amazon has done... But those liberties were prefigured in the free range Jackson gave himself.

The BBC radio play from 1980 cut the same bits from Fellowship that Jackson did. The only part the movie did better than the radio play was when Aragorn made the decision to follow the orcs, instead of Frodo and Sam. BBC: Forth the three hunters! Jackson: Let's hunt some orc. That might be my favorite line from the movies.

Yes, I do believe the changes they made still held in tact the quality of the film. Good writing, good acting, good storytelling. You’re correct, most adaptations that change stuff often butcher the quality. Rings of Power for example. 💀 Jackson still did a great job keeping quality. 🙏🏼

Whether it doesn't seem as bad doesn't mean it isn't bad. Maybe it didn't piss you off because you don't understand The Lord of the Rings.

@@factorfantasyweekly - Nope. You are seriously hallucinating.

@@jachyra9 You seem to assume that just because someone likes the movies means they have some apathy or lack misunderstanding of the books and Tolkien. There are millions of diehard Tolkien fans who are probably bigger and more dedicated fans than you who love both the films and the books.

How did The Hobbit not piss you off. I found the scenes with Radagast just horrific. The orcs chasing the Gandalf and the dwarves, along withe the troll cave scenes were way too cartoonish and childish. A lot of the added sequences, the river ride fight, dwarves fighting the dragon, and others, were totally unnecessary.

Are you joking?