Lord of the Rings: Movie vs. Book

[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?

[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.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by skatalite

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.

I agree. Like yourself I have read the books many times (at least once a year since the mid-80's), and I still don't know how to picture him. In his "Letters", Tolkien describes him as vital to the story despite the flack he took from critics for having him in the story. Depictions of him by artists, even Alan Lee, do not satisfy my idea of how he would have appeared, much less Goldberry!

[Duffy12]

I LOVE the books and only read them every ten years or so to keep them as fresh as possible.

My major letdown from the movie was not having more of the 'Black Riders' pursuit of the hobbits in their trek to Rivendell. That was one of my favorite parts from the books.

Another one was how the 'Witch King' turned out in his final incarnation at the battle of 'Minas Tirith'. ( UGH )

Plus leaving out the Witch King and Gandalf's confrontation at the city's gates!!!! How the hell did Jackson screw that up by leaving it out of the movie!?

There are a lot more but I guess that I will just have to except it and hope for a reboot in ten years in glorious 3D.

Now Ralph Bakshi's version(as flawed as it is) does include some scenes that were left out, plus I feel his version handles some scenes MUCH BETTER such as the Ringwraiths attack on Weathertop and the Frodo's stand at the ford to Rivendell.


BTW. I feel that Jackson including the Elvis at Helm's Deep was a mistake, but I just imagine the Battles of Beleriand when I watch that part of the movie.

.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

[U] leaving out the Witch King and Gandalf's confrontation at the city's gates!!!! How the hell did Jackson screw that up by leaving it out of the movie!?

The confrontation of Gandalf and the Witch King at the gate of Minas Tirith is a hugely important scene in the book, and it hard to imagine why Jackson did not include that in the movie. It was the conflict matching the two greatest equivalent powers that existed in Middle Earth; Gandalf, a Maiar sent as the representative of "good" from Valinor confronting the greatest emissary of evil from Sauron. The movie portrayal of Gandalf waiting to die with Pippin in the courtyard was certainly a disappointment!

[Sith4Brains]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

[U]

BTW. I feel that Jackson including the Elvis at Helm's Deep was a mistake, but I just imagine the Battles of Beleriand when I watch that part of the movie.

.

He probably wanted Aragorn to say "Elvis has left the building".

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by Sith4Brains

He probably wanted Aragorn to say "Elvis has left the building".

That is such an AWESOME screw up, I am not even going to bother editing it.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

That is such an AWESOME screw up, I am not even going to bother editing it.

...still laughing!

[Gaius Marius]

I like not including the Scouring of the Shire at the end of RotK. To me, it has always felt anti-climatic.

I also agree with Faramir in TT. When he sent Frodo to Minas Tirith, I was surprised! It was uncharacteristic of him from the books.

I happen to like the Elves at Helm's Deep.

I also like how Boromir was handled in the movies. He was a more sympathetic and noble character. The flashbacks with Denethor/Boromir/Faramir were great in highlighting their relationship.

[Pondosinatra]

LOTR was based on a book???

[jbig31]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

I LOVE the books and only read them every ten years or so to keep them as fresh as possible.

My major letdown from the movie was not having more of the 'Black Riders' pursuit of the hobbits in their trek to Rivendell. That was one of my favorite parts from the books.

Another one was how the 'Witch King' turned out in his final incarnation at the battle of 'Minas Tirith'. ( UGH )

Plus leaving out the Witch King and Gandalf's confrontation at the city's gates!!!! How the hell did Jackson screw that up by leaving it out of the movie!?

There are a lot more but I guess that I will just have to except it and hope for a reboot in ten years in glorious 3D.

Now Ralph Bakshi's version(as flawed as it is) does include some scenes that were left out, plus I feel his version handles some scenes MUCH BETTER such as the Ringwraiths attack on Weathertop and the Frodo's stand at the ford to Rivendell.


BTW. I feel that Jackson including the Elvis at Helm's Deep was a mistake, but I just imagine the Battles of Beleriand when I watch that part of the movie.

.

I agree-one of my favorite parts as well. Tolkein described it so vividly right down to the finest details-actually felt like I was with them. I liked Farmer Maggot's character too!-too bad all we see/hear of him is his sickle and yelling to stay out of his fields.

And yes, Gandalf confrontation with the Witch King was a huge mistake to leave out.

All in all-I think PJ did an outstanding job balancing what he could put in a movie and still make it true to the original source-and still make sense to those who have really no clue to the entire story. I know that a lot of us die hard fans that love the books and read them regularly wish that he could have put everything into it-but in reality it just doesn't work.

[Kryptonic]

I've read the books seven or eight times (can't remember) and I must say, many of the changes are either perfectly suitable for Jackson's translation or are improvements on the overall story. For example I loved the additional character development for Faramir. Him saying "Oh I don't want the ring" just seemed off in the book, but I loved his internal struggle in the film.

[Grand Bob]

Also, poor Glorfindel can't seem to get a break - he is replaced by Arwen in Jackson's film and Legolas in Bakshi's version. He is rather important in the book, not only saving the Fellowship by drawing the Ringwraiths away from the Bridge of Mitheithel and allowing Frodo to use his horse, but was also an important councillor at Rivendell and present at the Council of Elrond.

[skatalite]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Also, poor Glorfindel can't seem to get a break - he is replaced by Arwen in Jackson's film and Legolas in Bakshi's version. He is rather important in the book, not only saving the Fellowship by drawing the Ringwraiths away from the Bridge of Mitheithel and allowing Frodo to use his horse, but was also an important councillor at Rivendell and present at the Council of Elrond.

I appreciate changing him to Arwen much more than Legolas. Jackson and crew had to set up the love interest. For the ladies, of course.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by skatalite

I appreciate changing him to Arwen much more than Legolas. Jackson and crew had to set up the love interest. For the ladies, of course.

Yes, I can see why he put Arwen in Glorfindel's place; there was certainly a need for more female roles in Tolkien's male-heavy plot. Likewise the extra scenes with Eowyn and Aragorn, especially in the extended edition. Two non-book parts I liked included Eowyn relating her dream to Aragon, and of course the one where she makes him some soup! I'm also glad they added more of Eowyn and Faramir in the Houses of Healing in the EE.

[skatalite]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Yes, I can see why he put Arwen in Glorfindel's place; there was certainly a need for more female roles in Tolkien's male-heavy plot. Likewise the extra scenes with Eowyn and Aragorn, especially in the extended edition. Two non-book parts I liked included Eowyn relating her dream to Aragon, and of course the one where she makes him some soup! I'm also glad they added more of Eowyn and Faramir in the Houses of Healing in the EE.

Yeah, they added quite a bit with the Extended Editions. Overall, I'm pleased with the visionary result. I appreciate both entities, film and book, separately. You kind of have to, since it's impossible to make a film version of the trilogy.

I've often said, if someone ever makes "The Silmarillion," I'd like to see it as an HBO series or something. Even if the movie were six hours long, it would never do it justice.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by skatalite

Yeah, they added quite a bit with the Extended Editions. Overall, I'm pleased with the visionary result. I appreciate both entities, film and book, separately. You kind of have to, since it's impossible to make a film version of the trilogy.

I've often said, if someone ever makes "The Silmarillion," I'd like to see it as an HBO series or something. Even if the movie were six hours long, it would never do it justice.

Well they could do parts of it.

For instance 'The Children of Hurin' would make one great movie. However if the Tolkien estate still holds the rights to 'The Silmarillion' they would never allow it to be filmed.

[skatalite]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

Well they could do parts of it.

For instance 'The Children of Hurin' would make one great movie. However if the Tolkien estate still holds the rights 'The Silmarillion' they would never allow it to be filmed.

True that. At some point they'll want money and will sell some rights. It's mostly his son who is the most outspoken.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by skatalite

I've often said, if someone ever makes "The Silmarillion," I'd like to see it as an HBO series or something. Even if the movie were six hours long, it would never do it justice.

The Silmarillion is undoubtedly the "densest" fiction I have read; Moby Dick is easy reading by comparison. As Tolkien's true passion, and something he worked on from his teen years to his death at age 81, an entire cosmology and world are contained in its pages. If it is ever filmed, it will be an intense undertaking!

[skatalite]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

The Silmarillion is undoubtedly the "densest" fiction I have read; Moby Dick is easy reading by comparison. As Tolkien's true passion, and something he worked on from his teen years to his death at age 81, an entire cosmology and world are contained in its pages. If it is ever filmed, it will be an intense undertaking!

I'd go the animated route, honestly. If it were live action, it'd far surpass the cost "Rome" was.