Differences Between LotR Books vs. Movies

observer

 

I thought it would be interesting for those who follow the books and movies. 

http://www.jackflannel.org/lotr/

1. It was both Bilbo and Frodo's birthday party--Bilbo's 111th and Frodo's 33rd (FOTR p.44,55). Jackson failed to mention Frodo's birthday.
2. Tolkien states, regarding the arrival of Gandalf with his fireworks, that "not a single squib or cracker was forthcoming" (FOTR p.46). Jackson has Gandalf set of a few fireworks for the children of Hobbiton as he rides into town.
3. Gandalf sets off the "dragon" firework (FOTR p.51-52). Jackson has Merry and Pippin set off the "dragon" firework.
4. There is a flash of light--thanks to Gandalf--when Bilbo disappears. This helps to explain Bilbo's vanishing act (FOTR p.52,54). Jackson has Bilbo simply disappear.
5. Bilbo leaves the Shire with Dwarf companions (FOTR p.62). Jackson has Bilbo leave Hobbiton alone. Forgivable though the thought of Bilbo walking to Rivendell alone is somewhat reckless.
6. There is a 17 year span of time between Bilbo's departure and Frodo's departure from Hobbiton (FOTR p.72). Jackson makes it seem like, at most, a year has passed. Forgivable, yet that cuts out all the time during which Aragorn and Gandalf track down Gollum, Gandalf searches the archives of Denethor, etc.
7. Gil-galad and Elendil smote Sauron (though they died in the process). Isildur merely cuts the Ring from the defeated Sauron's hand (FOTR p.83,319). Jackson leaves Gil-galad out and has Sauron unharmed up to the point at which he has Isildur cut the Ring from his outstretched hand.

And many more.....

Umbrood

Not to forget.

Jackson leaves out the entire old forest chapter, including Tom Bombadil, wich kinda saddened me a bit.

Still, this is probably one the best attempts at moving books to the screen that I know of.

In fact The two towers were actually better then the book in my opinion.

Thillian

I think it was a complete misstep, but honestly I didnt expect anything from megalomaniac King-Kong style director Peter Jackson. i wonder who was chosing the actors for hobits (pippin&merry) but they were awful. Legolas style reminded me good old arcade games and his whole role was downgraded to some super fast killing machine. And i'd rather don't mention return of the king with over-sentimental melodramatic (how many?) four, five endings. Should be rather called Return of the Shawshank Redemption by Peter Zemeckis.

SioBabble

To faithfully put the entire trilogy on film is probably not possible, it needs to be read, not seen.

However, having said that, I think Jackson did a pretty good job of capturing a lot of LotR and putting it on film.

I have to agree though that some of the things he did were unfaithful to the film...Aragorn being the reluctant king in the film, for example, and leaving out the Scourging of the Shire...which was important thematically, and I suspect was removed due to the Hollywood tradition of the "happy ending".  RotK was overly sentimental, and the absence of the Scourging of the Shire is the strongest indication of it.

observer

I thought Peter Jackson's King Kong was good. 

And ya, leaving out the scourged Shire was a bad move. 

Skava

It would be neat if they made a movie that followed the whole story. Without leaving anything out or adding anything in or moving stuff around....

That would be one looooong movie though. I would watch it, but maybe that's just because I love the books.

Yeebo

I liked King  Kong too actually.

 

I dig the LoTR movies.  I have the super extended versions of all of them.  I can see where some changes were necessarry to pair the books down into movies.  The only problem I have with the movies is some of changes that either changed the overall story or were just plain dumb.

Yeebo's most hated LoTR movie changes (in no particular order).

1. Dwarf tossing, and all references to it.

2. Legolass surfing on a sheild.

3.  The drinking contest between Gimli and Legolass (never happened, and I can assure you elves can and did get f-ed up all the time in the books)

4. Having Frodo turn on Sam near the end of their journey (never happened)

5. Omitting the rape of the shire.

6. Omitting the battle of the shire.

7. Having Aragorn show up with a busted sword at the beginning (huh?)

8.  Whiny old man fight between Gandalf and Sauramen.

Thillian

I wasn't talking about the minor changes from book to movies. It doesnt matter if he skipped tom or added some love story. The problem was with the movie. From terrible acting, to oversentimental scenes. It was more of a comedy than a real fantasy adventure movie.

dragonace

Originally posted by Thillian


I wasn't talking about the minor changes from book to movies. It doesnt matter if he skipped tom or added some love story. The problem was with the movie. From terrible acting, to oversentimental scenes. It was more of a comedy than a real fantasy adventure movie.

Heh... the acting in LoTRo was Oscar worthy compared to that seen in the last three Star Wars movies!

I'll agree that the acting overall in the LoTRo movies could have been better... but for me anyway the main characters all did fine.  I especially like Golum.