Differences between the Books and the Movies

[julian4239]

I can recall one scene where Frodo meets up with Aragorn, right before he leaves the fellowship.  I don't think that's in the book.  I know there's a good reason why Jackson did this.

What other significant scenes were not in the books?

[Mithrandir]

What other significant scenes were not in the books?

One immediately comes to my mind: Tom Bombadil wasn't in the movies! Though he wouldn't quite fit in the movies, it is a character that has some importance. Indirect importance, to be correct.

After the 4 Hobbits left the house of Tom Bombadil, they were trapped inside a barrow (on the Barrow Downs). Without Tom Bombadil, they wouldn't have been rescued and thus the quest would've failed there. So Peter Jackson also decided to leave the Barrow Downs from the movie. But without the treasures from that barrow, the Hobbits wouldn't have a Númenórean sword. And without a sword of such made, Merry wouldn't have been able to harm the Witch King. And without that wound from Merry, Éowyn would have been slain and the captain of the Nine Riders would've been able to continue battle. And I fear that the outcome would've changed as well...

Long story, but I think that was a very significant change from the books.

[LOTRfan1414]

Well I was annoyed that PJ totally took out the Scourging of the shire, which is one of my favorite parts in ROTK, and how he put Arwen instead of Glorfindel in the flight to the Ford.

[Camlost]

Big one for me, but one oddly that I wasn't too upset about, was the arrival of the elves at Helms Deep.

Arwen galloping to the Ford at Rivendell worked as well, even though it wasn't in the book.

One that didn't work for me was when the Lord of the Nazgul got the better of Gandalf at Minas Tirith. What was the point with that one?

[Andúnië]

In addition to those already mentioned:

• The absence of Hurons/forest at the gates of Helm's Deep
• The portrayal of Faramir
• The replacement of Glorfindel and Erkenbrand

Some changes did not particularly affect the rest of the story so much, but others were very irritating. Also, the timing of events in the film was rather compressed.

[Berenthel]

The biggest disappointment I found in the movies was that it mentioned nothing of the wars going on in the northern provinces of Middle Earth, such as the battles going on in Arnor, and the goblin attacks on Lorien.

[shinningstar]

My friends and I began discussing noticeable differences between the film and the book, and we wondered why changes were made. I remembered when Merry and Pippin fooled around with Gandalf's fireworks. It's in th emovie but not in the book.

[Camlost]

Worst bit of dialogue for me was at the end of the Fellowship, when Aragorn says something like 'let's hunt some orc...'

It just didn't sound like Aragorn for me, but I'm being picky.

[Mithrandir]

One that didn't work for me was when the Lord of the Nazgul got the better of Gandalf at Minas Tirith. What was the point with that one?

I totally agree with you on that one! Breaking the wizard's staff...

The biggest disappointment I found in the movies was that it mentioned nothing of the wars going on in the northern provinces of Middle Earth, such as the battles going on in Arnor, and the goblin attacks on Lorien.

Big one for me, but one oddly that I wasn't too upset about, was the arrival of the elves at Helms Deep.

I believe Peter Jackson chose to let some Elves join the battle at Helm's Deep, so it would be more clear that all the good races were fighting against evil. There wasn't enough time in the movies to elaborate on the various battles in Middle-earth. So this was his solution... But if you follow this reasoning, I don't understand why there weren't any Dwarves (who were at that time also fighting the enemy at the Lonely Mountain).

I can totally understand some of the changes: Arwen instead of Glorfindel makes sense, since Arwen had to play a role at the end (but is rarely even mentioned in the FotR) and Glorfindel wasn't really important for the story. Introducing a new character like Erkenbrand is also too much effort for little gain. The scourging of the Shire is important, but not for the main story of the Lord of the Rings.

It was (at least in my opinion) unnecessary to change Faramir's character. But on the other hand: we wouldn't have seen the battle at Osgiliath without Faramir taking Frodo, Sam and Gollum there.

As a famous Dutch soccerplayer once said: "Every advantage has its disadvantage"

[Camlost]

I agree Mithrandir.

Expanding on the Aragorn/Arwen relationship worked for me. And I was happy with the change from Glorfindel for the reason you mention.

And yes, a company of Dwarves would've made a spectacular addition. Why not? The Elves weren't there so putting the Dwarves in would have been fine with me.

I always remember in the Hobbit how impressive the Dwarf army sounded at the Battle of the Five Armies. Would've been good to see!

[julian4239]

Any one pissed off on how Faramir is portrayed in the movies?

[Camlost]

Yeah, a little. He seemed to be too hard-nosed in the Two Towers, but I think that he was more like the Faramir we all know in the Return of the King.

I hated the 'Frodo in Osgiliath' bit, come to think of it. I'd rather they had dwelled in Ithilien a bit more. I don't think Ithilien was presented in quite the way I imagine it from the book. Sweet-scented pine trees and herbs, all that stuff. It was a beautiful place (one of my favourites in the books) and I don't think this came across.

One good thing - you get more of an appreciation of Denethor's favouring of Boromir in the film.