The Lord of The Rings films were for the most part just shortened versions of the books. Unlike the Hobbit, which was a short book that was stretched into 3 films.
Because *everything* just has to be a trilogy or longer these days for films if they expect to do more than one x_x Nooooo, can't only do two. It MUST be three or more unless the first 1-2 completely bomb.
The Illuminati nothing about the hobbit was truely short. it had so much info and lore on just a few pages... they may have messed it up a lot at places but still well done overall and glad they did it at least and another good trilogy but not the same as lotr. oh well. but the hobbit was the original and it was written for his kids lol. so yah, it's not like some short kids novel today but it's smaller but still the best book he wrote. and one of the best fantasy books all time.
Despite the differences/changes, LOTR is still the BEST movie trilogy ever made! The greatest cinematic achievement ever! Well done, Peter Jackson and his team!
@@Milamberas45 `Frodo looked up at the Elf standing tall above him, as he gazed into the night, seeking a mark to shoot at. His head was dark, crowned with sharp white stars that glittered in the black pools of the sky behind.`
@@Milamberas45 You are free to believe what you want to believe, interpret. I interpret this as his hair was black since there is not a single mention towards it being blond.
They completely ruined Faramir in the movies. He was the polar opposite of Boromir, never tempted by the ring like Boromir was and offered help freely.
I actually prefer movie Faramir, he is more flawed and have a personal struggle between pleasing his father and do what is actually right. In the books he appears as just a perfect character with no flaws and does not seen as a real character but more as a checkpoint for Frodo and Sam before they enter Mordor
Having the elves at helms deep goes against one of the major themes of the saga, that the elves are leaving and men need to take matters into their own hands
Also, how would the elves get there so quickly? It's not like they knew a battle was coming at Helms Deep and the Hornberg is a long way from Lothlorien...
I felt Jackson added needlessly, while cutting what actually happened in the books. but I most resent his making Faramir decide to bring Frodo and the ring back , rather than, as in the books, nobly helping them on their way to Mount Doom. Wasn't much impressed with his making Elrond try to prevent Arwen's marrying Aragorn, either.
Yes, lol, imagine that these are Half-Elves with a LONG history of marrying humans and Elrond just ups and tries to prevent Arwen from being her self. Peachy! He'd only ruin the entire point of his own existence then, and the "rejoining of the two lines to make the White Tree grow again". And Faramir is miles away from how book-Sam describes him as "more like a Wizard". This is not about book details or film details or the art of crafting a movie. This is about important information about history which sometimes only comes through in fictional stories, as long as the people get it right. You're raising a whole generation on this information, who at the moment have no clue about who the bad guys actually are - and who end up thinking that "sex is evil like the Orcs" and that all the good guys are white and pretty.
I don't think either of those things were much of an issue. A lot that he added was good for the overall story. But yeah I can't imagine why Elrond wouldn't want his daughter marrying Aragorn in this situation...oh wait he gives pretty good reasons for that. Not wanting his daughter to outlive everyone she loves and become a lonely existence. And really it gave Faramir more personality and made things more consistent. If Faramir is so unaffected by the ring then instead of helping Frodo he should be taking the thing into Mordor. The films gave Faramir some more depth and an actual character arc.
Arwen did not become a lonely existence. She chose mortal life and died, about year after Aragorn. The "good reason" for Elrond was just another Jackson's additon. Book Elrond was not happy about her decision but respected her choice, didn't try to lie to her just to make her leave Aragorn. As for Faramir - there are many character who does not appear to be affected by the ring despite having it near for a long time and knowing it - Pipin, Merry, Legolas, Gimli, Sam. It took months to corrupt Boromir so he would try to take it away from Frodo. Faramir spend two days with Frodo and Sam at most. Also, he didn't know much about the ring. Making him to take Frodo to Minas Tirith after one glance at the ring does not make him more human, does not give him personality and character arc. It simply makes him extremely weak, much more than his brother.
I think Peter Jackson was trying to make the films relate to people today. The books are kind of campy and sing-songy. written during a different generation with different beliefs and in some cases values. Jackson tried to make the films relate to people today who would be the ones watching the movie. I would dare say that the average man would probably behave more like film Faramir moreso than book Faramir. Of course, the purist crowd doesn't like this and I dislike this myself because it does make it seem like every human character in the films is just greedy and lusts for power, but I think I may be in the minority in how i feel about this character change. We also have to remember that probably at least half the people who watched the films, never read the books. I didn't even read the books myself until after watching the films.
@@Flaris Faramir is just an asshole in the films until he suddenly isn't anymore for plot reasons. The whole Osgiliath arc is terrible and just slows the film down.
This was the change I most hated. Aragorn's character respectable and honorable, and killing a messenger is pretty low, plus they approached the gate under a white flag of truce.
You didn’t talk about Faramir! In the books he wanted nothing to do with the ring-he told Frodo not to show him Isildur’s Bane-and not to even tell him what it was! In the movies he wants to take it to Denethor and only after he witnesses the rings evil does he let Frodo and Sam go.
Peter Jackson did try and create a comprise about the wars happening in the Northern front. There's a scene in the extended edition between Legolas and Gimli in which when preparing to ride to Dunharrow from Edroas Gimli says that he wishes he could muster a legion of Dwarves to accompany. Legolas replies that his kinsmen may not need to ride to war as he fears war already marches on their own lands. Jackson confirmed in the DVD commentary that this was indeed a nod to the battles happening up in the northern front of Middle-earth. He also explains that while he wished to show these battles onscreen to show that the War of the Ring was a truly global conflict they did not have the budget nor time to show this on screen.
and that comes from the book. Tolkien also had the luxury of writing appendices which also only briefy mention it. This is the point of Hobbit, Gandalf encourages Thorin to retake his realm and kill smaug, because he knows Sauron is plotting his return. If there are no strong realms in the north the Sauron will have one less problem.
Lines spoken in the movie are often not spoken by the same character in the book. For example, Gandalf does not tell Pippin about the decline of Gondor, and such phrases as "here the hammer-stroke will fall hardest" are actually spoken by Beregond, who does not appear in the movies.
Guys they did the best they could. And I think they really did pretty good. It could’ve turned out a lot worse but they had good actors and a incredible director which made it still a wonderful film trilogy
Man I really missed Glorfindel in the movies, one of the oldest elves in middle earth able to even give pause to the mighty nazgul. Also I would've liked the original version of battle of helms deep where Erkenbrand the lord of the castle comes to save the day.
the Helm's Deep battle is indeed a downgrade. Rohan only having 300 soldiers fight against 10k Uruk-hai is so ridiculous. a small medieval town in 12th century Europe would have more than 300 soldiers garrisoned to protect it. but this is the biggest army Rohan ever faced and they only have 300 soldiers in the movie? the books version is indeed much better. having 2k soldiers against 10k orcs makes things more plausible to even the odds.
some of the changes in the films actually make sense when making a film such as cutting out certain battles, and shortening the time it takes for Gandalf to find the truth about the ring. I think cutting Tom Bombadil was ok as well. He adds some interesting lore to the world, but the films were fine without him.
I agree. I understand those changes, but there are other changes that are not good, and serve no purpose that makes sense. Adding characters and taking away from other characters is one change that does not improve the movies. It doesn’t save time, since the time given to an added character could have been kept with the far superior character, and the minor or nonexistent character simply cut out. I’m speaking of Gamling ( mentioned only in passing in the books) being given lines and situations that belonged to Eomer.
One major difference is the armies of southern Gondor were already fighting, when Aragorn came with the Army of the Dead, and drove the Corsairs to the river, where they mostly drowned. Aragorn sailed north with a couple thousand soldiers, and more men started marching north to Minas Tirith. The Army of the Dead was released, and never went to Minas Tirith. I figure this also played an important part of the book because they're able to march 7,000 soldiers to Mordor while still leaving the city in better defense than before the battle.
Ten biggest differences off the top of my head - 1. Frodo's character. In the books, he can speak Elvish. He's smart, courageous and good all the way through. He never gives in to the Ring until the very end. In the movies, he is a weak ass who needs to be saved by Sam again and again. 2. Faramir's character. The part in the movie where Faramir is going to take the Ring to his father is weak sauce and akin to Luke Skywalker wanting to kill his nephew. No damn way. 3. Eomer. Major character in the books is reduced to minor role in the movies, for time's sake, I get it. I don't like it. But I get it. 4. No Scouring of the Shire. For time reasons. Understandable. But unfortunate. 5. Helm's Deep. Elves weren't there. Many more Rohirrim were. Also, the army of Isengard was a mix of wild men (Dunlenders) and orcs. In the movie, to support a machines-vs.-nature theme, the army from Isengard was entirely made up of Uruk-hai, which is asinine. If Saruman could breed/create 10,000 Uruk-hai in a year or two, he only needed to hold off another year or two before taking over the world. 6. Elrond seems racist against men. Idiocy. Elrond is half human and his brother is the patriarch of the entire Dunedain line. 7. No sons of Elrond and Dunedain accompanying Aragorn. Leading to somewhat comical scene where only Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli jump from the ships. 8. No Tom Bombadil. Minor thing to me, but still a difference. 9. Frodo sends Sam away before Shelob's lair. See point #1. 10. Sauron gets destroyed fighting the Last Alliance when Isuldur luckily cuts off the Ring. Stupid. Sauron was slain in an epic battle against Elendil, Gil-Galad and Isuldur. Isuldur cut off the Ring after Sauron was slain. Sauron losing the Ring would not have destroyed his physical form, the Tower of Baradur or his army at that point.
To be fiar they were always potrayed as characters in over their heads and pretty foolish (Pippin especially), though they had their moments of cleverness, as for Eomar threating Gimli in the books it was becasue Gimli was very hostile towards him after he speaks ill of Galadrial
Their characters did grow as the books advanced, and were quite capable in the end when they faced the last army (not in the movie) when coming home to the Shire.
That was the biggest disappointment of missing the shire stuff at the end IMO. Really hammered home the changes when they come back to a previously peaceful shire and just take command as 2 hobbits who have literally been to hell and back and 2 hobbits who are now massive (for hobbits, Pippin was 4.5ft) due to the entwater and fully armoured and battle capable.
what about the battle of Pelennor fields? it all far different from the book version (Role of Faramir, the Walls of pelennor, lack of Dol Amtoth forces and others allies, the srmy of deads, elladan and elrohil and the dunedain missing, the fight with the mumakil, the absence of the esterling army, beregond is not there too..) there is much to say about that battle even if it is clearly a masterpiece
You can't completely transcend a book into movie, that's impossible, a lot of things that work in the books (like making everyone so perfect and flawless all the time) don't work in the movies and a lot of things that work in the movies don't exactly work with the books, like creating more drama (which is more believable because people in real life are like this) I think that PJ did a pretty great job making the most epic trilogy in human history ever made. Yeah, I read the books and I loved them so much in a bookish way but I also loved the movies because it made me realize that Middle Earth is real and beautiful, common guys, look at all these beautiful scenery shots in the movies, like New Zealand is Middle Earth in disguise...
FRODO NEVER TOLD SAM TO GO HOME. That stupid scene where Frodo gets "corrupted" by Gollum and turns his back on Sam WOULD NEVER HAPPEN. Frodo was completely good, noble, and faithful to the very end. The slaughtering of his character by P Jackson is unforgivable.
If anything Tom bombadil was one of the chief characters, in the book, Frodo and his friends travel into a forest where they encounter old man willow, had it not been for Tom, Sauron would’ve taken over middle earth. Not to mention Tom states he was the first being in middle earth.
all good points, but there are more and worse. They didn't mention how the films really changed Galadriel's character. in the books the fellowship was washed in her peace and beauty and she made them feel at ease and they loved her. the books mostly skips that focuses more on her temptation of the ring at the mirror, which did happen and they nailed that scene pretty well, but they missed her overall character. Among the worst changes was King Theoden. In the books Theoden immediately wanted to ride to war against Saruman after Gandalf freed him from Wormtongue's corruption.. It didn't take prodding from Gandalf and they didn't go to Helms Deep to take refuge. They rode to war and only went to Helms Deep to aid the Rohirrim already there against siege. also the entire families didn't go. only the warriors. but worst was the way they changed Theoden's character. he was kind and respectful of Merry and it won Merry over to join Rohan and serve this good king that he loved. and let's talk about Faramir and Osgiliath. They completely ruined Faramir's character. He never sought to take the ring to gondor. and frodo and sam were never taken to Osgiliath. Best line in 2 towers the film was when Sam said "by all rights we shouldn't even be here". very true. they should not have been Sam, you got that right. but the worst change of all was that they skipped arguably the single most important chapter in the entire series....they skipped "the choices of Master Samwise". it was pivotal in the books because it was the one time in the whole saga that the power of the ring was revealed. We only saw Frodo struggling under the weight of the ring, in both book and film, because by Return of the King, the story more followed Sam and his thoughts than Frodos. so we viewed the struggle more through Sam's eyes. In the chapter, "the choices of Master Samwise", after Frodo was captive of the orcs and Sam had the ring, we see immediately the seduction and pull of the ring. It made Sam see himself as the conqueror, Samwise the Strong. The ring was seducing him to use it and become a mighty conqueror. He was nearly overtaken by the power of the Ring, but resisted in the end and realized that only Frodo could bear the ring. it showed the power of corruption of the ring, but it also gave us insight into what Frodo had been going through all along, that was not fully revealed until then. And not to mention, the one thing i really did not like about the films, the ruined the most beautiful relationship of the truest of friendships that led two hobbits all the way from the Shire to Mordor...Sam and Frodo never separated and Frodo never chose Smeagol over Sam. they certainly differed on Smeagol, but they never broke. They had a loyalty and brotherly love that was among the greatest friendships in all of literature. Overall though, i do agree that the films were great. they brought wonderful visuals to a story i have loved my whole life. i had dreamed of them making it into a live action films for years but also worried they would butcher it. overall they did a great job and i love the films, but just love the books still alot more.
I was bummed that they left off the hobbits clearing Saruaman and his ruffians out of the Shire. The important point is that the hobbits were able to do it themselves, without dwarfs, elves, wizards, or men. It said something about confidence in solving one's own problems although they may seem bigger than you that I think Tolkien was trying to get across....instead the end kind of dragged and dragged after the climax with too much tearful good bye stuff at the Grey Havens.
And another thing... how Sauron's defeat by Isildur was portrayed. This is the book: ... I was at the Battle of Dagorlad before the Black Gate of Mordor, where we had the mastery: for the Spear of Gil-galad and the Sword of Elendil, Aeglos and Narsil, none could withstand. I beheld the last combat on the slopes of Orodruin, where Gil-galad died, and Elendil fell, and Narsil broke beneath him; but Sauron himself was overthrown, and Isildur cut the Ring from his hand with the hilt-shard of his father’s sword, and took it for his own. ... That paints a clear picture of military victor over Sauron, not some lucky strike on Sauron's hand by Isildur.
So you don't know much about the LOTR or anything else. 1) Bilbo found the ring at 33 and Gandalf suspected the ring at his 111th birthday. When Bilbo had such a hard time giving up the ring and his changes after, then it took Gandalf 17 years to figure it out. 2) Glorfingal was a great character and Arwen wasn't needed and stole a major scene from Frodo who after being stabbed was still able to resist the ring and riders and Elrond sent the flood. 3) If Jackson didn't understand Bombadil then he had no idea what he was changing. The Hobbits went through the barrow mounds and had found some Hobbit blades from hero's who had fought the witch king of Agmar. Merry uses this blade along with Eowyn. It also showed the ring wasn't powerful when they are saved. 4) The scene with Aragorn being swept into the river was a waste of screen time. 5) The Faramir part was BS 6) The battle of Bywater was very important in the story. It shows how the adventures of the Hobbits have changed them and causes a change in their society. The loss of it was terrible. 7) Sauron didn't have a physical form it took him longer to regain it since he put some much of himself into the ring.
And Bilbo's birthday was pronounced "Eleventy-first" I was immediately turned off the movie when they changed the language. The way the book used language gave more depth into what the Hobbits were like as a people.
Condensing the books into the films was necessary and, for the most part, well done. The only egregious loss was the scouring of the shire and the battle of Bywater. It showed that evil was not from Sauron but lived after his downfall. Merry and Pippin have been transformed forever, from carefree young Hobbits, to warriors and leaders, the burden of which will never leave them. It is an allegory for the loss of innocence in the Shire, and it will never be the same.
I read that they cut the scenes of the Hobbits having to fight in the Shire, because they felt after all that Frodo and the others had gone through they didn't need to get home and deal with more villains. You could call it "Give a Hobbit a break". "They don't need to be after having adventures right in the heart of the Shire, there's plenty more to be doing" as Sam's Gaffer might put it.
Aragorn had the Narsil all the time in the books. In films it's a big gamechanger when Elrond brings gives it to Aragorn. In books was the sword remake long time before Araragorn was even alive.
7 лет назад
The movies do have their differences from the source material, but they do respect the spirit of the book.
Ghan-Buri-Ghan and the pukel men. Good point. That whole sequence taking the road down the Stonewain Valley ramped up the tension before the Pellenor. Another missed trick in the movies.
Arwen was given more of a part because there were so few women in the movie. Though she's special and come from a very special lineage, she is just a love interest in the book. Bombadil serves the purpose to show that some beings in Middle Earth are NOT effected by the ring. Maybe Beorn wouldn't have been effected either, he's another old creature, a shapeshifter..and HUGE like Treebeard, when the Hobbits were in his house he had trouble accommodating their size.
Boromir was killed by random Orcs in the book but was killed by Lurtz (who was created for the movie) in the film. Not to mention in the books he was killed at the beginning of The Two Towers, not the end of The Fellowship of the Ring.
The Fellowship was an almost perfect adaptation. I was relieved to have no Bombadil - I always skip most of his chapters, though I love the barrow wights . Giving a greater role to female characters was necessary, so cutting back on Eowyn made no sense. Faramir was one of my first literary crushes, so the movies were a big disappointment. Jackson totally mangled the ents. The warg battle almost made me skip the final movie. And yet the films nailed by far the hardest part of the novels in the degraded yet pitiable figure of Gollum. Talk about a serious Oscar fail in ignoring Serkis's performance.
one thing that bugged me in LOTR movie is- in beginning when gandalf knocks the door- bilbo immediately opens it (within 1 second) but in the hobbit movie (3rd part)- bilbo takes atleast 6-8 seconds to open the door
I agree the Northern Theatre thing is a bit disappointing not to involve-however in the Return of the King, Gimili and Legolas mention how 'war has marched on these lands'
One difference that irks me, is where Aragorn got the swords to give to the Hobbits on Weathertop. The Hobbits in the books got their swords from the Barrow Downs. The Barrow Downs is important because it shows that not only living creatures but the dead were after the ring. Tom Bombadil also rescues them
Glorfindel is my favourite character from the books so I was very disappointed when I saw that Peter Jackson had left him out of the fellowship of the ring as he played a pretty massive part in the first book before he was killed by a balrog.
Glorfindel never took Frodo across the river even in the books. He finds the group with the injured Frodo, yes, and takes him *to* the river. But he stays on the bank and fights the Wraiths while Frodo gets *himself* across the river on his horse. It's one of the ways that Frodo's character is shown to be stronger than you first think.
There's also the fact that anyone in the books with the willpower can use the Ring, not just Sauron, hence Sauron not even imagining that they would try to destroy it; the fact that the Ring gave its user the power to dominate and overthrow the wills of others, not just turn the wielder invisible (that's probably a side effect of not actually being strong enough to use it, see Tom Bombadil and Sauron); Faramir's total overhaul; the differences that do nothing but disrespect and dishonor the source material are wayyyyy too numerous to mention. The Warg ambush was cool, though.
There are many more differences between the movie and the books 1) there are no undead in the books. Instead, Aragorn summon his kinsmen from the North to join the battle for Gondor 2) Elrond does not give Anduril the sword to Aragorn on the eve of the battle for Gondor as shown in the movie. Instead, Aragorn wields it since the very beginning of the of the adventure. 3) the deleted scene depicting the negotiation with the mouth of Sauron shows also a major difference difference with the book. The mouth of Sauron is not beheaded by Aragorn, but allowed to retreat behind the black gate,
I love all the add-ons or the diminishes in the films from the book--it's still a great Trilogy, though. Imagine if Peter tried to make all the details from the book, it would be a hell of possibly 15 movies.
Katie Burnett love is not self seeking... so... saying all you need it love isn't exactly a brilliant statement... now what exactly is love and whose love is all we need? trust a fellow man. love one another. hope for a better future. faith to believe. now we are talking. :)
10 Lake-Town Welcome (Bard role changed) 9 Thunder Battle Smash Fest 8 Beorn's Introduction (No two by two entrance) 7 No Enchanted River or Sleeping Bombur 6 Radagast the Brown 5 Were-Worms 4 Four Dwarves Stay in Lake-Town 3 White Council and Dol Guldur 2 Tauriel and Kili Love Interest 1 Azog the Defiler instead of Bolg
Funny thing, Wereworms. People always get them wrong. They were a thing of legend and myth. However, if they were real and true to their name they would be a species of dragon-men. Why? Because "worm" is another term for dragon in the Hobbit, and "were" implies man. Like how the word Werewolf means Manwolf, Wereworm would likely mean Mandragon.
WARNING: CONTAINS SPOLERS FOR THOSE STILL ABOUT TO READ THE BOOKS! Long rant about PJ's ineptitude and whimsical use of the first true epic fantasy novel. You have been warned. THOU SHALT NOT PASS (if thou wantest to read the books yet!) Ignore the first three. for refrerence: PJ = Peter Jackson No. 7: warg rider attack "One of the cooler additions..." Really? Cooler? Possibly. Most useless and contrived, just to add a few more minutes to something that was alrerady obviously overblown in length? Definitely! Adding a bogus story about Aragorn being split off and falling into a gorge, thus making him some kind of superhero able to survive a hundred yard drop into a fucking river? Stupid, useless, totally immersion breaking. PJ = self-absorbed overblown asshole. No 6: There is so much wrong with the Battle of the Hornburg that it would warrant an own "What's different in this battle between movie and books?" video. Let's just consider these additional one-shot elves. They are about as useless as a crateful of handgrenades. Pull the pin, throw, get some flashy bang, and then they are gone. Total waste of time and money to put those elves in there. In the fantasy reality with 300 additional Lothlorien elves and long-bows they would have picked off those 10.000 orcs or more at their leasure. By mid afternoon, half of the drawing up army would have been killed by these elves' archery. The Hornburg was an incredibly formidable fortress, not that stupidly designed uselessness depicted in the movies. Anything with such a stupidly designed wall to give the attackers the greatest advantage of frontage while limiting the defenders ability to shoot at attackers was stupid beyond belief. No moat, no steep, switch-backing ramp to the main gate, no useful crenelations, no defenses set up, nothing. Even the dam to the Hornburg was totally ignored. Just simply, no, aaargh, no, stupid architecture, stupid archery, stupid 'cool' movie fighting, stupid shield sleighing, stupid, stupid, stupid. AND NO! FUCKING NO! THE DWARF WAS NEVER HURLED. PERIOD. NEVER! FUCKING PERIOD! NOOOO! Gimli was THE one outstanding hero as he nearly single-handedly defended the caves of the Hornburg from an orc assault. Not some stupid comic-relief character. No. 5: Glorfindel was one the few remaining elven lords who actually remembers the light of the two trees. He stood toe to toe fighting with Balrogs during the Silmariliion and won. He alone could easily have sent multiple of the Ring Wraiths packing and running with a wave of his hand. Only the combined might of the Nine together gave him some trouble when he still had to take care of Frodo. HE was sent out to rescue the hobbits, not bloody Arwen. To make a long thing short: he is real elven bad-assery personified. Legolas, Arwen, even Elrond are mere waifs compared to him. It was Glorfindel (and Elrond), with a tiny bit of help from Gandalf who summoned the waters of the river. He was among the host who first defeated Sauron. What does P.J. do? He effectively removes him completely from the movies. Asshole! Arwen simply WAS a love interest of Aragorn. Yes, she was the driving force behind Aragorn's quest to become King of Gondor reborn. But nothing more in the books. Totally contrived and simply pandering to the masses to get the romance quotient in. Stupid and bleegh! No. 4: Yepp, just so. Frodo had nicely settled into Bagg's End for a nice, long, comfy period. He also discovered the life-stretching effect of the ring's influence. This was a reason of concern, because he started to become the target of gossip among the hobbits of the shire, because he was claimed to have too much of too many good things. Supposedly nearly limitless riches, a beautiful home, and seemingly unchanging youth. The ring had a LOT of time to work its magic and draining influence on Frodo, but, like many hobbits, when it comes to the clinch, despite their seemingly wobbly, fatty exterior, they are MUCH more resilient in their willpower. He even used the ring a few times, to escape his unloved relatives. Gandalf takes a huge load of time to find out about the ring. So another thing PJ totally ignores, therefore cuts out without any reason while he adds other total BS. No. 2: Tom Bombadil is a hugely important character. Without him we could have instantly dropped and ended the fellowship then and there. The movie would have been over by the thirty minute mark. Without him, the hobbits would simply have died in the Old Forest when they stumbled into the grip of old willow. Without him, they would have died in the barrow-wraiths tombs. Without him, the hobbits would not have had the blades which shone in blue light in Moria, giving them far fewer hints that they were about to be attacked. He is the reason why Merry had a blade able to harm the witchking in front of the gates of Minas Tirith. Without it, the blade would simply have gone through the witchking and Merry would have simply died. And Eowyn as well, as the witchking would not have been temporarily distracted by the piercing damage to his knee, which gave Eowyn the chance to swipe of his head. Period. End of story. So, yeeeah, right, PJ decides this character does not advance the story at all, so he simply removes him. FUCKING BULLSHIT . Skin that bastard. No. 1: saving the Shire. Yepp, this was one of the biggies. The Shire was devastated by Saruman's forces during the nearly two years that the hobbits were gone. It also signified the end of Saruman. It establishes the younger hobbits as forces to be reckoned with. It marks the beginning of withdrawal of Frodo from any combat. It makes Samwise, Pippin, and Merry become heroes to the hobbits of the Shire, It makes Samwise's still somewhat bumbling character be able to finally ask out his own love-interest. It shows off the changes the hobbits have gone through on their journey, their toughening up, their assertiveness, nearly everything about them has changed since they left the Shire. Saving the Shire shows off all these changes, and demonstrates how Tolkien saw these lovingly bumbling people be forced to save themselves. No more external help required. The list here simply goes on and on and on and on... hate, Hate, HATE PJ for this! AAARGH! Stupid Hollywoodish happy end. AARGH! And now my own, personal number one ultimo character conversion from hero to asshole by PJ. Faramir, the mellow, friendly, settled, wiser, younger brother to Boromir, the one who first experienced the dream of Rivendell, which finally sent Boromir on his quest north to find Elrond, was a helper in dire straits. He deduced nearly everything about Frodo's quest simply by speaking to him. Faramir was well schooled and educated, much less inclined to battle and glory than his older brother Boromir. Faramir had begged his father to be allowed to venture north, but Boromir bullied in and pushed himself forward like the glory-hog he was. That was also the ultimate downfall of Boromir. He was overcome by the desire to own and use the One Ring. He always sought glory for glory itself, not by performing deeds which bestowed glory by being helpful. Faramir, when he discovered that Frodo carried the Ring, instead of simply taking it off him, or dragging him to war-torn Osgilliath and there being exposed to Ringwraiths again, provided them with much needed supplies, a guard towards the four way path, and even sent out scouts to prevent orcs from finding the travellers. Faramir is one of THE most pivotal characters the split fellowship meets in the third book. He is kind, good-hearted, wise, strong of will, an epitome of the old stewards, maybe even of the old Kings of Gondor. Yet PJ decides to make him a near villain. For that and all of the above I despise PJ and his overblown asshole style of movie making. Should he and I ever meet physically they will probably have to drag me off his bloody pulp by multiple guards. He adds totally boggus, bullshit add-ons to a great book, slanders the characters, massively changes the basic story, and fucks up one the most loveable, cherishable characters. Exchange the total time wasted on BS for the real story, and he could have made it better. He should be strung up by his balls with rusty fishhooks for taking such liberties with the books. Phew, rant over. Now I'm feeling better. (wipes off drool from chin) ;-)
Don´t forget how they killed off Saruman instead of having him killed by grima in the shire who then in turn was shot by the hobbits. You know, the part in the books that show how much frodo has grown in a totally different way then merry and pippin? Aaand the fact that galadriel gave sam a goddamn rope in the movies. A FUCKING ROPE like they use every fucking day! Give him that magic earth stuff to REBUILT THE SHIRE AND SHOW HIS CHARACTER (You know when he had the ring and he wanted to make the whole world a garden but then dismissed the thought because it was the ring talking? and then later he could have kept the stuff for his own garden but instead chose to repair the shire???) KANKRA IS NOT JUST A GIANT SPIDER! She is sooo evil but all she was in the movies was this overgrown spider. Not even sauron could keep her, sure he saw her as a pet of sorts and fed her some orcs every once in a while but she is SO EVIL Grima throws the palantir at gandalf. Saruman is not amused SAURON IS NOT A FLASHLIGHT Sam and Frodo wearing their Orc-rags and everyone bowing to them (pretty clothes later) Sentinent trees anyone Lothlorien is not silvery? I mean yeah at night and one of the company says that he always thought silvers and blues to be the elven colours but lothlorien is green and gold in daylight and they say how that seems extremly elvish Sam moving into bag-end. SAM MOVING INTO BAG-END WITH HIS WHOLE FAMILY Frodo having bad days when he remembers what happend. Like reeeally bad. Magic PTSD That Bilbo left with Dwarrow when he left the Shire. They never say who it is but he leaves with dwarrow and they help organize the smial. Frodo meeting Gloin in Rivendell Gimli and Eomer: Arwen vs Galadriel?
At Weathertop the film portrays it as if Sam, Merry and Pippin alerted the Nazgûl by lighting a fire. The book describes it as more entrapment/being watched from the moment they were there. The book also has numerous more encounters with Nazgûl nearby that puts fear/dread onto all others, you get a sense of this from the full also but I think the book has these villains as more sinister. For me, as mentioned many times in these comments the biggest grievance is how Faramir’s character was fundamentally changed by being seduced by the ring in the film
Luis Vazquez it shouldn't be just an Honourable Mention. The character assassination of Faramir is outraging, has no purpose, and is one of the biggest mistakes the film has made. Book Faramir is relatable and easily my favourite character, and in the movie he's just a Dick.
It's never possible to film a book as written, and this kind of cutting down happens with every book that's adapted to film. Doesn't matter who makes the film, how great they are, that book's going to get whacked down, and purists are going to piss their pants with the tantrums. But if any of them had half a billion dollars and made their own version, all the OTHER purists would piss on THEIR heads, because of course the film wouldn't live up to their expectations.
And that's why Amazon will do the series. I hope that Amazon will add all the missing details in the films, but more than anything, faithfully represent how epic the War of the Ring was.
In the films I got really annoyed of the later scenes with Frodo and Sam, mostly because of whiny Frodo. In the books Frodo is older than the other hobbits and acts wiser and more foresightful. He makes all the important decisions and always has their destination in mind. He knows, that he needs Gollum, but that he can't trust him as well. I hated how Gollum plays Frodo off against Sam in the film. This is just so totally different from the book Frodo.
Yeah I always skip the Frodo and Sam parts of TTT and ROTK, much more interested in the War of the Ring story, I don't bother with 'The Ring' until they're entering Mordor
@@Jongen. But in the movies he still looked weaker and unwise and I hated the fact that Sam had more screentime showing how he saves Frodo and looks stronger than him. Then give him the ring and forget Frodo, he isn't crucial. I was so sad and mad to see that Frodo was kinda underrated in the films.
Jérémie Campeau-Poirier Well. Star Wars Original Trilogy: Episode 4: good Ep 5: great Ep 6: weak Nolan’s The Dark Knight Trilogy: 1st movie: good 2nd: great 3rd: ok PJ’s The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy: The Fellowship of the Ring: great TTT: great TROTK: amazing No comments
Honestly, surprised the Ents, the oldest and wisest beings currently living, were made to look stupid. Of course they knew what Saruman was doing and did not need to be tricked into acting. Also, another significant part of the rescue from the Nasgul was Frodo was not in that bad a state. He actually rode the horse by himself and despite being weak and in a lot of pain still stood up to them
Yes, the Entmoot and the ents exploding into rage was one of the greatest moments of the book. Really hated that movie hobbits 'tricked' them into going to war. it was scriptwriter's cliche
Totally agree. For me, the Ents' incandescent fury in the books at the end of several days of scrupulous caution and careful deliberation made their anger frightening and powerful. I don't see the cinematic purpose in making them look like dupes instead. Even worse, in rejecting "hastiness" and then going on to do something very hasty indeed, the Ents look like shameless hypocrites. Nothing could be further than that from Tolkien's concept. I was bitterly disappointed.
It in the books it never described the Ents as having branches and leaves. Their skin was bark-like and the number of fingers and toes varied. They could resemble a tree because of their skin and when they stood very still. And yes, they were among the oldest and wisest creatures in Middle Earth, not dunces. Remember at the beginning in the movie of the Fellowship Galadriel is talking about feeling a change in the air? That's actually a quote from Treebeard at the end of book The Return of the King.
@@djolley61 That's a good point. It's also mentioned that Morgoth made trolls as a corruption of ents, so the two should probably be similar. The ent design in the movies was pretty cool though.
Gamer Girl "Well, it still only counts as one!" You may recall that, during the Battle Of Pelennor, in the third film, Legolas jumped up on to a oliphant and killed its crew, then killed the animal. He landed back on the ground and stood looking smugly at Gimli, who said "Well, it still only counts as one!" (Gimli and Legolas were in a competition, started at Helm's Deep, to see who could kill the most enemies.)
Frodo was 51, Sam was 39, Merry was 37, and Pippin was 29. Though I think Frodo was still supposed to appear younger than most of them cuz he had the Ring for nearly 18 years
One of the big differences that always bugged me was that Aragorn had the sword reforged, Andruil, from the start of their journey from Rivendell in the books and they save it until the last movie for a dramatic scene.
It makes sense from a characterization stand point considering that movie Aragorn is considerably different from his book counterpart. Movie Aragorn is much more the reluctance hero, and considerably less confident in his own ability to become king which the sword represented. Book Aragorn on the other hand had always intended to become king but was waiting for the right moment to reveal himself. In both instances Anduril is an important symbol of their acceptance of the role of king, the key difference being the point in which the accepted their role.
Well, that's what makes a drama, dude - dramatic scenes. Tolkien himself said his books were "peculiarly" unfilmable, and he was right. They simply do not work as he wrote them. Jackson made his own choices (and I don't agree with all of them), but by and large he knew what he was doing, and it turned out about 1000x better than it could have. Fancy Cher as Aragorn? Or the Fellowship carrying "food concentrate" instead of lembas? How about Arwen being raped on a stone altar? All of these have appeared as possibilities in the past. Be glad we can quibble over things like sword forging dates, and not whether Sam really should have murdered Gollum in order to give Frodo a reason to kill him before throwing himself into the volcano!
I think what's really funny with that scene is that when the camera pans up Anduril looks the friggin' Star Destroyer from the opening scene of Star Wars "A New Hope." It just keeps going and going and going... I lol at that every time I watch it.
I am a bit surprised by this list: looks like they were really nitpicking some stuff while missing some of the really big changes. The really important one was the omission of the scouring of the Shire. For me some of the biggest changes were: 1. Character of Faramir (as mentioned by many) - in the book he is the opposite to his brother Boromir: he does not care that much for power and glory, he is caring and kind, and he does not succumb to the Ring. I understand that the director wanted to show the corrupting power of the Ring, but this kind of ruined Faramir's character. 2. Eowyn and Faramir story was omitted. Personally, I really liked the character of Eowyn, who was the only female character in the book to participate in the major action. They included the scene of healing in the extended edition, but we do not get to see how her story resolved - notably, how she realised that she was only infatuated with Aragorn, and how she fell in love with Faramir. This was important to provide the closure for these characters' arc, and also to reinforce the book's idea that there is more value in growing and caring than in seeking glory in a battle. And I feel that these scenes were omitted only to make more room for scenes with Arwen, which brings me to 3) 3. The invented subplot about Arwen dying form Sauron's influence in the 3rd movie. For me this a) did not make any sense, and b) convoluted Aragorn's character - Aragorn went on a perilous quest in order to protect all people of Middle Earth, and now it looks like he is fighting in the 3rd movie only to protect Arwen. So, if Arwen were OK, would Aragorn simply quit midway through the movie? I don't think we needed this extra motivation for Aragorn, especially since I felt it took time which could otherwise been used for other characters' stories. 4. The power/ impact of Nazgul. In the book the main power of Nazgul is that they induce fear and despair, and people literally stop fighting. In the movie it looks like their main power is, basically, fighting. E.g., in the battle for Minas Tirith they are dangerous mostly because they can fly, rather than (as in the books) because their presence makes people simply want to crawl away and hide. For me, it made Nazgul much less powerful and fearsome. 5. Traveling of Elves in 2nd and 3rd movies. The main characters spent weeks traveling from Rivendell or Lothlorien to Rohan, fighting orcs along the way. Now a group of Elves (2nd movie) and Elrond (3rd movie) make this journey in a blink of an eye, completely ignored by the enemy. Also, if Elrond was OK with leaving Rivendell unprotected for X weeks to deliver the sword to Aragorn, why would not he then stay for the battle of Minas Tirith? Wouldn't a powerful Elvish king be a valuable ally? In the books it was clear that he and Galadriel needed to protect the Elvish kingdoms and the rings, plus fight the war in the North, but not in the movie. 6. The motivation of Merry and Pippin. In the books it is established that they are Frodo's best friends, are aware of his decision to leave Shire, and willingly join him from the beginning. In the movie they are accidentally dragged into Frodo's journey - a small change, but, for me, it really undermines these characters. 7. Finally, as mentioned by some, Frodo's character was re-worked into scared and whiny character! While in the books he does fight, in the movies he always screams for help and is constantly saved by other characters.
eyrena I do agree with nearly every of your points (ESPECIALLY Faramirs and Frodos characters). However I don't really understand the third one. You say that Arwen was dying from Saurons influence and that Aragorn might appear to have fought in the war because of that. But I understood it in that way that she suffered, since she gave her immortality to Frodo. Her fragility comes from becoming human. Now, even if she was suffering from Saurons presence, how would Aragorn know? He thinks (which he tells Eowyn) that she travels far away to the undying lands. These are the lands elves come to when they die. So why would he need to fight Sauron for Arwens stability if she was already wandering in the elves' 'heaven'?
Eowyn and Faramir are included in the extended version as you say and their relationship is resolved. However they are just seen holding hands in their final scene. It's enough for me. My biggest gripe is with Faramir's character and how he is supposed to be the opposite of Boromir in that he doesn't want conflict or personal power/gain, and most of all understands that the ring is not a solution to win the war, as in taking it for Gondor. His portrayal in the movie completely undermines him and what he stands for in the books. Even though he let's Frodo ultimately go it's just too late, for me at least.
I can think of a few more big differences: -Saruman treated as Sauron's right-hand man in the movie, instead of the somewhat minor villain he was in the books -Denethor made suicidally stupid and borderline evil in the movie, rather than a good man who had simply gone mad from despair -All the characters cut from RotK, including Beregond, Imrahil, Elladan, and Elrohir
They completely ruined Faramir's character by having him take the Hobbits to Osgiliath. They treat him as this weak, misfit little brother of Boromir when in reality he's an extremely critical piece and a noble man.
Totally agree with 2 and 3, though Saruman was definitely more than a minor villain, especially in the Two Towers. His role if Fellowship of the Ring is overblown in the movies though.
@@robertwilliams4682 He's a major character, but in terms of being the central antagonist, he wasn't a very dependable ally to Sauron in the books. He spent more time plotting against Sauron.
Faramir's character and actions are completely changed - in the book Faramir knows that he should not stop Frodo's quest and has the wisdom and strength to send him on his way. Sam does NOT abandon Frodo until he believes Frodo is dead. Sam would never have left Frodo, even if told to do so (as he was in the film) - he would have followed him no matter what. These changes in character I think are the worst changes - both Faramir and Sam are portrayed as absolutely true and able to resist all corruption, and I really wish Jackson had kept that.
While I do hate what Jackson did to Sam and Frodo's relationship, I have to ask: why do you think that Sam is portrayed as absolutely able to resist all corruption? If you read Tolkien's thoughts about it, he sees Sam as "conceited" for the role he played as servant to Frodo, and unable to understand the spiritual aspects of the Quest ("bringing love to the unloved"). Although it is not something he chose, he does end up with all the material power and glory as Patriarch in the Shire, plus Hero of Hollywood. The latter portray him that way because they relate to something that is there in his character, even though it was not Tolkien's message to have that side of him win. Not seeing yourself as the true equal of someone you should, is probably as bad as (if not worse than) trying to be a God. From the looks of it, Sam is ruled by some old-school "pre-emptive strike" mindsets.
Agreed. That was the absolute worst part of the film adaptation for me - changing Faramir. Completely off the subject, the films should have shown that Denethor had a Palantir and was under the influence of Sauron and this was why he was behaving totally irrationally. They could have added a tiny clip of it just before his demise - it would have created an excellent dramatic moment, not taken terribly tmuch time (a few seconds) and it would have explained a huge amount about his behaviour and motivations.
If I recall correctly, Denethor despaired after Sauron forced the Palantir to show him the corsair ships heading toward Minas Tirith. What Sauron didn't let him see was that the ships were carrying Gondor's allies. It parallels the story of Theseus' return home, where he forgot to change his sails. Seeing the black sails, which were meant to signal that Theseus was dead, his father killed himself in sorrow.
I agree! Having Sam leave Frodo is the worst change followed by Faramir’s character change. Both unnecessary. Gandalf told Sam, never leave Frodo and he promised he wouldn’t.
This seems made by someone who has read the books, but doesn't know what they really are ABOUT. They just linger on the accessory but forget the really important stuff, like: - Aragorn claims all the time to be the true king and heir of Gondor and doens't hesitate to take his place. In the movies he is reluctant doubtful. - Frodo is a responsible hobbit, who takes it upon him to take the ring to Mordor and to destroy it, fighting valiantly along the way. In the movies, he is a whiny helpless ass who takes on a quest of which he doesn't seem to grab the depth of. - Merry and Pippin are perfectly aware of what Frodo is supposed to do and help him willingly (and so does Frederik Bolger), planning ahead WITH GANDALF Frodo's escape. Merry fights bravely with the rohirrim and isn't treated as a child, and so does Pippin with Gondor. In the movie they are just two rascals who are dragged into the plot for fun. - Boromir is a brave, honest man who joins the Fellowship and is always of great (sometimes even dire) help. He only is corrupted in Amon Hen, and doesn't oppose Aragorn as his king. In the movie he is an asshole ready to sucumb to temptation from the beginning. And that is just the Fellowship. Other important deviations are (come people have said them already): - Faramir's character. - Theoden's will to fight. - Denthor's caricature. - The scourging of the Shire. - F...ING TOM BOMBADIL.
Couldn’t care less about Bombadil, but I agree with your other points. Also would add that Eomer is one of my favorite characters from the books, but barely there in the movies. Most of his lines were not included, and those that were included were given to other characters. Some of his lines were given to Gamling, a character mentioned once, in passing, in the books. His friendship ( almost a bromance) with Aragorn is not portrayed at all. But my number one most hated change from the books to the movies is the love triangle between Aragorn, Arwen, and Eowyn. Yes, Eowyn had a crush on Aragorn in the books, but all he felt for her was pity, and he made that pretty clear from the beginning. It ruins his noble character to lead her on, as he did in the movies. If he wasn’t leading her on, and was seriously attracted to her, that makes it even worse. It makes him fickle.
I can see why some changes would upset you and I only recently started reading the books but Boromir is my favourite character and him being vulnerable to the ring at all times adds to his character for me. The way people describe the books is that every character is much more stoic and less flawed compared the movies and I think the films making the characters more flawed was a good choice
FRODO DOESNT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL DESTRUCTION OF THE RING. I can’t believe nobody is talking about this. Gollum bites off his finger and ring then Frodo falls to his knees st the edge of the chasm never touching Gollum or the ring again. Gollum dances around then “he stepped too far, toppled, wavered for a moment on the brink, and then with a shriek he fell. Out of the depths came his last wail Precious, then he was gone.” They never tell anyone Frodo wasn’t going to destroy it. Sam let everyone celebrate his “heroism” but if Gollum hadn’t misstepped, Frodo would’ve kept it. I believe that’s part of why Frodo left Middle Earth. That burden.
"Frodo doesn't have anything to do with the actual destruction of the ring". Accept for bringing it all the way to mount doom, which is like 99% of the process.
Frodo probably had that burden of knowing that there was a part of him that wanted to keep the Ring and that he gave in to that feeling at the very end, but I think it's not fair to say that he didn't have ANYTHING to do with the destruction of the Ring because he was the one who brought it there in the first place, with the intent to destroy it and he suffered many hardships to do so.
I thing that the biggest difference is that in movies is whole story presented as centerpieces of the whole world, but in the books war of the ring is only the final episode of the long fight with the evil.
+ohinek007 When I read The Silmarillion, I thought that the wars between the Noldor and Morgoth made the War of the Ring look like a Sunday School picnic. When he was overthrown, the elves deemed that evil had been ended forever, and it was not so.
The movies were great adaptations, but even the wisest cannot get everything in the book covered in a movie. The books rule them all; nevertheless, love LOTR forever ❤️
It would make a great tv adaptation to do every single thing in the books. Each book being a season, you'd get I think 12 season? I can't remember how many "books" exist within each book
@@BPanio if I remember right it was two books per novel so 6 seasons. That is a good length for a TV series but you would still want to kinda blend books 3 through 6 together since after fellowship the books only follow one set of characters per book. (Focusing on Aragorn and he’s group in book 3 then Frodo and Sam in book 4 for example).
The personalities of Bilbo, Gimli, and Merry (all MAJOR characters) were largely changed. Those three characters were way better in the books. Anyone agree?
The most bothering difference of book and films was that in the movies they turned Frodo from courageous hobbit with iron will into a coward and wimp. Movies basically wiped out all his moments of bravery when he fights back most terrifying creatures (either by not making the scene or altering it, in book he slices with his sword ancient Barrow-wights, he fight back the Nazgul at Weathertop striking at Witch-king and basically scaring him off crying out he name Elbereth which being a hallowed name drives off dark creatures, he attacked Troll in Moria stabbing his foot preventing from breaching the door to chamber they were in, dominates Gollum and is far less trusting of him than in movie: "You revealed yourself to me just now, foolishly. Give it back to Sméagol you said. Do not say that again! Do not let that thought grow in you! You will never get it back. But the desire of it may betray you to a bitter end. You will never get it back. In the last need, Sméagol, I should put on the Precious; and the Precious mastered you long ago. If I, wearing it, were to command you, you would obey, even if it were to leap from a precipice or to cast yourself into the fire. And such would be my command. So have a care, Sméagol!' Sam looked at his master with approval, but also with surprise: there was a look in his face and a tone in his voice that he had not known before. It had always been a notion of his that the kindness of dear Mr. Frodo was of such a high degree that it must imply a fair measure of blindness. Of course, he also firmly held the incompatible belief that Mr. Frodo was the wisest person in the world (with the possible exception of Old Mr. Bilbo and of Gandalf). Gollum in his own way, and with much more excuse as his acquaintance was much briefer, may have made a similar mistake, confusing kindness and blindness.")
I think this is the most prominent change from the books--the character of Frodo (and with it his dismissal of Samwise in Return of the King). The second most prominent to me was the change of the character of Faramir.
I don't see "far less trusting" in that quote, except if meant as less trusting of himself. I see that he actually cares for Sméagol as a person and tries to explain why he should protect himself from the imperial vortex... cough.... energy drain of someone Sméagol puts on a pedestal (disregarding their possible emotional baggage in that, is what is termed "foolish"). Also that at this time he is still in the mindset of what he believed before about who Gollum was, from the story he was told. But that story came from a time before the three peoples merged into "hobbits" and it would seem that the less merged peoples are, the more homophobic they are.
+Adina Ispas: my point was that book Frodo was in general less naive, he wasn't as easily manipulated by Gollum like in movie, and wasn't entirely soft. He could be harsh when needed as seen on the quote when he resorts to threatening Gollum to keep him in line, but book Frodo also knows full well that Gollum is treacherous and can't be really trusted. Of course he felt pity for him, though earlier before meeting him even Frodo spoke harshly that maybe it would be better to kill him. Frodo knew well that Smeagol did lots of bad things in his time and he was cautious, but in the same time he decides to use his help.
Personally, I always thought that was one of the more unbelievable things in the books. A bookish hobbit who's never been outside his own little country and never in his life even picked up a sword suddenly becomes a fierce warrior? LOL, give me a break. Things that look good on the page can become completely ridiculous on the screen, and nobody would have bought Frodo becoming some fierce guy when he'd clearly never done anything more serious than learning Elvish and running from the local farmer's dogs.
People get mad over the fact that Glorfindel was left out from the film (it would have been aswesome to watch him on the big screen, but anyway). But what I consider a bigger change and annoys me is giving Arwen a great act of bravery Frodo did. In the Fellowship, Frodo stood against the 9 Nazgul at the Ford of Bruinen, despite being stabbed by a Morgul blade in order to protect the Ring. That part make the reader understand why Frodo was the perfect Ring-bearer & what was he disposed to do in order to fullfill his mission. Such act of bravery was given to another character that didn't even appear in that part, no she was even mentioned. I love the movies though, but there are some changes I can't stand like this one or making Frodo a jerk when he sent Sam home, such make up only distorsionates Frodo's personality. Don't get me wrong I love book Frodo & movie Frodo, but come on, book Frodo is a completely badass character, and the movies changed him quite a bit
The creative team probably decided to give Arwen a bigger role to draw in the female audience. You know how that goes these days. Even though Tolkien was a man who lived in a time when most women didn't even work outside the home, I suppose things are changed to be more relative to today's society at the expense of altering original content.
@Will Goetz BS. the movie was made nearly 2 decades ago, so what are 'these days'? it's like they said in the video, they took scenes and actions from other characters to give to arwen to flesh out her character and give her a presence in the movies (which is not unusual for book adaptions), because she didn't have that in the books, but a lot of her information is in the additional notes. they couldn't have left her out in the movie, but they also couldn't just add her as a 2d plain character, because who would believe or feel aragon's and her love, and her choice to become human and die eventually? exactly. her character would have been bland boring and unnecessary. they didn't force a romantic subplot (like in the hobbit) because the romance was already there, even if more prevalent in aragon's past, they just made the best out of it. and lotr was published in fucking 1954/5 lol, not that i can see how women's labour is related to arwen anyway, did she work 9 to 5? or do you think women were irrelevant to history in tolkien's time so they weren't included? even though they were, you know, they didn't make éowyn etc. up..
@@XLightChanX I never said I personally disagreed with what they did for the movie, so you can relax in knowing that I am not a sexist pig. I was simply explaining why I believe they gave her a larger role. And even the 1950s is way different than the late 1990s in terms of how women were viewed, so I still stand by what I think was the reason for expanding Arwen's role. That said, I think it was a GOOD thing that they did it. So relax, it's just RU-vid, all friends here who enjoyed the Tolkien universe 😁
From a storytelling standpoint, I appreciate the choices Jackson made to adapt the stories to film. One huge difference that works in both mediums (book vs. film) and their respective approaches to the story is Gandalf's attitude toward the Mines of Moria. In the books, he prefers them to Caradhras, and actually argues with Aragorn that they should go under the mountain. In the movies, however, he fears it, foreshadowing his "death" and the guilt it causes Frodo. FOTR is definitely one of my favorite books and movies.
I think giving Arwen more screen time was a PC thing to make the female audience happier. Society even a decade ago or so when the movies came out was much different than it was when Tolkien wrote the books.
changes in faramir and aragorn's characters. Faramir never tried to take Frodo and Sam to Gondor. He understood their mission better than Boromir because he was as his father said a "wizard's pupil." He also wasn't cruel to Gollum and never had him beaten but treated him as gently as possible at Frodo's request. I cannot watch that scene because it is such a departure from his character. Aragorn was never reluctant about taking his throne, just waiting for the appointed time after the defeat of Sauron.
Jeez, I have to reread The Forbidden Pool because that horrible movie scene is so stuck in my mind over it! Then, all this nonsense about reluctance to be who you are is carefully plotted in order to instill a false fear in people about doing the same. It's more nicely consumerist that way: "there is no Perfection, you can only do so much before you are accused of trying to be a Nazi God". That's bullshit. And Faramir is one of the Beneficial Spiders in the story, who protect the Cave of the initiates. His job is about protecting the meek (Fish) from disrespect and oppression from the powerful, but that doesn't mean beating up their fantasy ideals!
Jackson never understood that the most interesting characters in LotR are not internally conflicted or morally compromised. Without being arrogant, Tolkien's Aragorn never doubts himself. It is clear from the dreams that Faramir--not Boromir--was the one intended by the Valar to attend the Council of Elrond, because Faramir is pure of heart and therefore he aids Frodo on his way, even when he recognizes Frodo has the One RIng. Similarly, Tolkien makes clear that no two, other than Sam and Frodo could have found the way to Mount Doom-because they remain true to each other. Tolkien's Frodo NEVER would have sent Sam away (as Jackson had him do on the Stair) and Sam NEVER would have gone. And again, Arwen never starts for the Havens: she and Aragorn have been "all in" with each other 20 years before Bilbo leaves the Shire. Aragorn will have no other woman and therefore his line will die with him...unless, somehow, he becomes King of Gondor and Arnor. For her part, Arwen will have none other than Aragorn. Jackson, like most of Hollywood, thinks only conflicted characters are interesting. The millions of LotR readers disagree.
His character was designed to show that humans aren't doomed to give into their greed. But that we have a choice and we can choose to be better then our urges and not give into Evil. Having him be overcome by the Ring ruins what Tolkien was saying with Faramir.
There is a scene I don't like (and many people I've spoken with) was in the extended version (spoilers) where the Witch King overpowers Gandalf. Gandalf was able to go toe to toe with Sauron (if he had chosen to but he was forbidden to do so) so the Witch King would have been no trouble. There is also the two Orcs that capture Frodo (Shagrat and Gorbag) have their roles reversed in the film. Shagrat says "That shiny shirt-that's mine!" while Gorbag is all for following orders whereas in the book its the other way round. What makes it worse is in the EE we see Shagrat escaping the fight with the shirt and then the Mouth of Sauron reveals it at the gate meaning Shagrat didn't keep it after all. Finally, Aragorn killing the Mouth of Sauron. Not only was that not in the book it is completely against protocol you shouldn't harm or kill a herald (even if he is a douche. To me the Mouth had the personality of a door to door sales man). Mind you they killed the emissary in 300 as well.
Killing the herald, yeap, totally! They made all these "good guys" look like total fuckers in the movies. I seriously don't mind anymore if the whole of Middle-earth goes to hell, because with good guys like these, it's already there.
*Juilce* Gandalf and the other wizzzards are demi gods, as is Sauron. Back in the 1st and 2nd ages the gods fought and irreparably changed Middle Earth. As a result the wizzzards were sent to guide the other races, but not to directly get involved with the fighting and ruling. That is why when Gandalf returns from the dead he is given the power to break Saruman's staff, as he had broken the rules and tried to rule.
There was another big difference between the books and the movies which you missed but, as a lifetime fan of the books, this disturbed me when I first saw the movies. The Fellowship of the Ring and the Return of the King were very similar to the books which I was pleased to see. But the Two Towers was dramatically different in many aspects which were unnecessary in my opinion . The most striking example was towards the end of the film. In the movie Faramir, temporarily swayed by greed for the ring, took Frodo forcibly to Gondor before realizing the error of his ways. This never happened in the books and, even now, I am somewhat mystified as to why Peter Jackson felt the need to include it
I think that choice was made to essentially show a version of Boromir that was still susceptible to the temptation of the One Ring, but unlike Boromir he had the chance overcome it before it was too late. It also brought Frodo and Sam closer to reuniting with other members of the Fellowship without even knowing it, setting up some dramatic irony for the audience to feed on.
Best films ever in my opinion. You didn't talk about the full differences with Helms Deep though; Haldir is never there/never dies, he remains in Lorien; they are helped by the Dunedain instead of elves; it's not Eomer who arrives at the end with cavalry, he's already in Helms Deep, instead it's Erkenbrand.
I missed a lot of little things, too... I don't like the way Frodo accidentally put on the ring in the Prancing Pony in the movie, and there's a little part in the Two Towers where Merry and Pippin pretend they've got the ring to trick an orc into hauling them away from the orc camp as the Rohirrim attack. I really wanted to hear Pippin quoting Gollum in that accent. But what bugged me most is the way they rewrote character motivations throughout the story. Suddenly Aragorn was a reluctant monarch, Elrond was opposed to his daughter marrying Aragorn, Denethor didn't wanna ask Theoden for aid and Theoden didn't wanna send it, Frodo actually told Sam to leave and Faramir was a wuss and started to take the hobbits back to his daddy. For those who don't know, Aragorn had been preparing for decades to become king, his marriage to Arwen was just waiting until he did so, Denethor had already sent for aid and Theoden just hadn't sent it because he was depressed over his son's loss and had believed Wormtongue's lies, the only time Frodo was mean to Sam was when the ring messed with his head and he was always sorry, and Faramir was a rock and completely his own man despite his father's rejection and did not try to take Frodo and Sam anywhere except to their hidden base nearby. Oh, and for a bonus, Frodo did not start squawking like a bald eagle after the Nazgul stabbed him, he could talk and even yelled at the Riders to go back to Mordor and leave him alone.
bohemianwriter1 In 'The New Tolkien Companion' by J.E.A. Tyler which was written long before the Jackson movie came out (1976) periodically updated since then. "In the ensuing downfall of Numenor, Sauron's mortal body was destroyed, but his spirit survived and fled back to Middle-earth, shapeless and vengeful. He was never again able to appear in a pleasing form, but instead became the Dark Lord, terrible of aspect, black and burning hot, with a single lidless Eye 'rimmed with fire... glazed, yellow as a cat's... and the black slit of it's pupil opened on a pit, a window into nothing.' " For me that pretty much described a black shapeless mass with a burning eye in the center of it which is how I always thought of Sauron before there was ever any mention of an LOTR movie.
I was thinking more in line with a spìrit or a shapeless mass like you said. Like the Witchking of Angmar. Unfortunately, I saw the movies before reading the books. But after the movies, I was hooked, and read the whole saga from Silmarillion to LOTR. I found The Hobbit within my first week in Belfast as the last book.
He doesn't necessarily have a body - he has a host. That's the complex part. "Sauron" is in fact a representation of Melkor (the Primordial Ox), but the host is the "Sauron" who was initiated by Melkor. The whereabouts of this host are likewise unknown, but you have to look at the clues: Smaug/Sméagol all mean the same thing, Gollum thinks the Precious is his birthday gift... Then, if you recall that Melkor's fate was to remain bound to Arda, then he would most likely have a physical body, except that no-one politically important back then would see it as impressive in any way. The ability to appear "Fair" would've been gone (i.e. he could not appear as the Lightbody vessel anymore). The movies did a bang-up job of reversing this information for the masses, as they tried to make Sam the Hero and Frodo the wimp (as opposed to the Lightbody vessel that Gandalf intuits and Sam SEES with his own eyes!) - so in a weird way I have to thank them (alongside the Gnostic texts) for making things clear... It's Sam who, by antagonizing Gollum (the *anti-closet* initiate), succeeds in gaining all the worldly power he thought he didn't want - by keeping his love for Frodo a secret and not evolving past the original hierarchy. By contrast, Gollum is unabashedly into his Fish Songs and what he wants is to be trusted by a real person, but everyone is so into their domination that it only entrenches his mistakes. There is one moment where Sam concedes to Gollum for "following the same master" where things seem like they're looking up.
Yes, he has a body! Tolkien describing Sauron's physical form during the time of the books: "Sauron should be thought of as very terrible. The form that he took was that of a man of more than human stature, but not gigantic. In his earlier incarnation he was able to veil his power (as Gandalf did) and could appear as a commanding figure of great strength of body and supremely royal demeanour and countenance." (Letter #246) Sauron is forming his physical body at the time the Istari come to Middle-earth: "They are said to have first appeared about the year 1000 of the Third Age, when the shadow of Sauron began first to grow again to new shape." (Letter #144) And: "They [Istari] are actually emissaries from the True West, and so mediately from God, sent precisely to strengthen the resistance of the ’good’, when the Valar become aware that the shadow of Sauron is taking shape again." (Letter # 156) Sauron at Dol Guldur has now formed his physical body before fleeing from the White Council: "This is not one of the Úlairi, as many have long supposed. It is Sauron himself who has taken shape again and now grows apace; and he is gathering again all the Rings to his hand; and he seeks ever for news of the One, and of the Heirs of Isildur, if they live still on earth." (The Silmarillion) Gollum describing Sauron's physical hand, having seem him personally: "'Yes, He has only four on the Black Hand, but they are enough,’ said Gollum shuddering" (TTT - The black Gate is Closed) The Orcs of Cirith Ungol anticipate Sauron physically coming for the Hobbits himself: "'And the prisoner is to be kept safe and intact, under pain of death for every member of the guard, until He sends or comes Himself.'" (TTT - The Black Gate is Closed) Denethor explains to Merry that Sauron remains within Barad-Dur until his victory, at which time he'll come forth: "'He will not come save only to triumph over me when all is won. He uses others as his weapons. So do all great lords, if they are wise, Master Halfling. Or why should I sit here in my tower and think, and watch, and wait, spending even my sons? For I can still wield a brand.'" (ROTK - The Siege of Gondor)
I was under the impression that Sauron HAD a body in the past, it was destroyed when the ring was taken, and was in the process of developing a new one during TLOTR.
In the books, Frodo trusts gollum way, way less than it appears in the films. He is not mean to him but it had always remained clear to Frodo that he could not trust Gollum and he reminded him several times of it. I wish they would have included the battle of the shire after they returned too! I would have loved a 4th movie on that whole aftermath alone. Merry and Pippin really showed their strengths in that last stretch. It made me think of them in such a different light after years of watching the films, then reading the books.
If I had made the movies I would have made afourth movie as well, with the third movie ending with Aragorn taking leave of the hobbits in Rohan. The Scouring of the Shire would be the fourth movie. And the first few minutes will be how the Shire was invaded with ruffians and Saruman. Then, there will be the battle of the Scouring of the Shire, with the four hobbits returning, and ending with Frodo going to the grey Haven's.
So I'm probably in the minority of people who don't care Tom Bombadil is not in the movies, why? Well as I'm re-reading the Lord of the Rings and having just got past Tom Bombadil's chapter, once again I must ask....what does he exactly bring to the plot, it feels more like a plot cul de sac than anything else. Plus Gandalf and Frodo both know this is Sauron's ring, the most evil thing on earth and Tom treats it all like a big joke. Doesn't that kinda kill the power of the ring is this weirdo can just put the ring on and nothing happens and he sees through Frodo when he puts it on...I don't know, maybe I'm missing something here but Tom Bombadil always felt like a distraction from the main story. Perhaps that's why I prefer in the Two Towers extended edition where it's Treebeard reciting Tom's lines to the tree that traps Merry and Pippin because it makes more sense from a film perspective Treebeard would have power over trees.
That's EXACTLY right, so tell me why did they need to make the Ring into such an all-powerful, all-corrupting device when it's NOT? The "weirdo" being able to see through - doesn't that tell you anything? You are so manipulated by Hollywood's dualistic propaganda that you fail to connect with what is important about the identities presented in these stories.
And this is the mentality that plauges today. 'Brings nothing to the plot' Why does everything these days have to move the plot forward? What happened with world building, immersion, just some extra details? 'kill the power of the ring' No, no and no. The ring was never supposed to be all-mighty, that's PJs thoughts not Tolkiens.
His big thing is that he gives them the daggers that are enchanted and capable of breaking the spell that makes the Witch King Immortal. I agree though, the fact that the Ring has no power over him is too hard to explain.
I agree. There were other changes that I didn’t like, but I’m glad bombadil was cut. I’ve reread TLOTR several times. After the first time, I mostly skip the Bombadil part. It’s just boring and silly. It feels like reading a great book, stopping just when it’s really getting started, reading a bit of a totally different book, then beginning the good book again. The only part of the Bombadil story that has any impact on the story are the swords found in the barrow. Otherwise, the old forest and Bombadil feel like a waste of time to me.
It’s a shame the writers couldn’t script the complexity of motivations, AND the immense dignity, surrounding Denethor. Instead they simplistically reduced him to a caricature of a movie Bad Guy. What a loss.
