Lord of the Rings: Movie vs. Book

[skatalite]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

I'm not sure how many fans of the book are forum members, but now that it appears the movies will finally be released on BD, in what ways do you feel the differences in the movies added in a positive manner, or deviated too much from the books? There are many differences between the two, and obviously the movies could not contain all of the themes (Tom Bombadil, Barrow Downs, Old Forest, Scouring of the Shire, Field of Cormallen, etc.).

But, concerning the material that was in the movies, two positive differences were:
(1) Having the elves fight at Helms Deep;
(2) The Army of the Dead did not withdraw at Pelargir, but continued to fight at Minas Tirith.

Conversely, two major flaws of the movies compared to the books:
(1) Faramir's initial decision to send the Ring (and Frodo) to Minas Tirith. Tolkien would probably roll over in his grave at that one, as Faramir was, along with Aragorn, his idea of a good Numenorean. Faramir (from the book): "I would not take this thing, if it lay by the highway."
(2) Frodo would never have sent Sam home.

Anyone else have thoughts on this matter?

I thought having the Elves fight was a negative thing. It was great to see on film, but when it comes to the story, it didn't make sense. The whole point of the Humans fight by themselves was to show their strength and growth.

A positive thing was leaving out Tom Bombadil. After reading and re-reading and re-re-reading the books, I still have no idea what to think of him as far as a character or literary device. I'm hesitant to call him a Maia, since the ring had no effect on him. Putting a character like that in the film would've confused the hell out of everyone.