Character changes in the movies

[Radaghast]

Some of the most significant changes the movies made were to the characters, probably the most important aspect of the story, I would say. And I think a few notable characters undergo rather drastic changes, none of them for the better. Thought I'd examine those changes and why I think they're bad. This post may be a little long and will probably go over old ground, but here goes anyway.

• Frodo
  • Age difference: In the book, Tolkien made a point of Frodo starting out on his Quest at age 50, the same age as his older cousin Bilbo did for his Quest of Erebor 78 years earlier. I don't know why this was important to Tolkien, and I've always found it odd that there should be a gap of 17-years between the introduction of Frodo and the time he flees the Shire with the One Ring. But, that's what Tolkien wanted. It's his story and he had his reasons. Peter Jackson didn't care about those reasons and cast an actor who was 18 when filming started (though I heard that Elijah Wood aggressively auditioned for the part). I mention that mostly because I find it funny, that Elijah Wood grew up in almost the same amount of time. The age is not really a sticking point for me, but I would prefer the older, wiser hobbit in the book. Wood looks younger than 18.​
  • Courage is the far more important point here. The book character displays it, the movie character displays a lack of it, other than the undertaking of the Quest:​
    • Weathertop: In the book, Frodo, despite being nearly paralyzed with fear, retaliates against the Witch-king on Weathertop. In the movie, he actually drops his sword and scuttles away on his arse. Everyone else shows bravery in this scene (and of course Strider handily fights off five Nazgûl, leading one to wonder what the big deal about them is, but that's a point for another post).​
    • Barrow-downs:​
      • Book: Frodo momentarily saves his friends and himself from being sacrificed by horrible undead things that are almost just out of sight. Despite Frodo's bravery, the hobbits need Tom Bombadil to save them.​
      • Movie: The scene doesn't exist partly because Tom Bombadil doesn't exist in the movies. But the lack of this scene fits in with Jackson's apparent theme of Frodo being less than courageous. Jackson can't seem to tolerate Frodo having any kind of backbone.​
    • Flight to the Ford:​
      • Book: Frodo rides Glorfindel's horse to elude the Ringwraiths. He shows defiance, despite being in pain from the wound inflicted by the Witch-king on Weathertop but ultimately needs the help of an unseen Elrond and Gandalf.​
      • Movie: Frodo is not cowardly here, so much as utterly useless. He needs to be carried across the ford by Arwen who seemingly has some innate power over the river. The main point is, Frodo is just baggage here and the scene misses the point the book was trying to make and turns it into a boring chase scene.​
    • Moria:​
      • Book: In the battle in the Chamber of Mazarbul, a troll sticks its foot into the chamber to pry the door open. Frodo stabs the foot with his sword, causing it to withdraw, and buying the Company precious time.​
      • Movie: the battle scene is ridiculously protracted and involves a troll apparently targeting Frodo, who runs from the troll and calls for Aragorn. As on Weathertop, Frodo is the only one not being valiant.​
  • Breaking of the Fellowship: Frodo meets Aragorn while 'secretly' getting away from the others. He also sees Merry and Pippin. So Frodo knows they're under attack and just assumes they'll be okay? Why was this change even necessary?​
  • 'Go home, Sam': This is one of the worst changes to the story in the entire film trilogy. There is no reason for it, it makes zero sense and it is not in any way an improvement over the book. The suggestion that Frodo would send Sam home and that Sam would actually listen shows a deep sense of ignorance about both characters. What happened to Sam's promise? Also, the scene has Sam crushing a handful of lembas in his fist when he sees that Gollum has left them strewn about at the foot of the stairs. Way to treat an important source of sustenance!​
• Aragorn
  • Heir of Isildur: Aragorn frets about being 'Isildur's Heir' and that he will succumb to temptation of the Ring just like his ancestor. As he says in the movie, 'The same blood flows in my veins...the same weakness...' This scene is somewhat based on a story out of the Appendix but seems to miss the point of it entirely. Aragorn never frets about being Isildur's heir nor being tempted by the Ring. He only worries how and if he will be able to help defeat Sauron. He even makes a point during the Council of Elrond that he is not Isildur (book not film).​
  • Frodo: In another pointless change from the book, Aragorn encounters Frodo just before the latter leaves the Fellowship. Frodo suggests Aragorn will be tempted by the Ring, asking him, 'Can you protect me from yourself?' and 'Would you destroy it?' Again, the films misunderstand Aragorn and the story in the Appendix completely. Aragorn never shows any inclination towards temptation by the Ring, and the story in the Appendix is an explanation for that. For all the time the films waste on Aragorn and Arwen's loves story, this misunderstanding comes off as, quite frankly, embarrassing.​
  • Stone of Orthanc. I've never seen this remarked on anywhere, but in the movie, after Pippin is found spazzing out from the Palantír, Aragorn takes the Stone and almost promptly faints. This is in direct contrast to the book where Aragorn actually pits his will against Sauron's and takes control of the Stone back from the Dark Lord.​
• Faramir
  • Or Boromir Part II. The book really wants to get the message across that Faramir is not his older brother. But the filmmakers ignored this and made Faramir more Boromir than Boromir. One of the screenwriters said this was changed because if they adapted the book, there wouldn’t be any tension. Yeah, like this one sequence was going to sink the whole enterprise? Also, there are other ways to do tension, ones that actually make sense, and don't change the characters.
• Merry and Pippin
  • In the book, they figure out about the Ring and secretly set up a plan by which Frodo can leave the Shire without drawing any attention. In the movie, Frodo and Sam literally stumble on the pair while they’re out stealing vegetables from a farm. They then follow Frodo and Sam to wherever they go like a pair of stray puppies, no questions asked. I realize it’s necessary to condense time but this is just stupid. A little exposition here wouldn't be hard to do.
• Gimli
  • Is reduced to cheap comic relief. In the book he is anything but. It would be one thing if it were funny, but it just isn't. John Rhys-Davies suffered a bad reaction to his makeup, and for what? Lame dwarf-tossing jokes?

 

[Olorgando]

Good stuff, Radaghast. But if you're planning on doing this for everything PJ changed (and got wrong) you might want to check with mazzly - or one of the mods like Erestor Arcamen or Squint-eyed Southerner might also know it: what the maximum number of characters (or is it keystrokes?) is that you can squeeze into a single post. 😂
'Course, splitting it into several posts is the simple solution; unless you want to push the envelope and see when the post window starts protesting.
For a sec, I thought I had stumbled across one of the posts by @Alcuin , one of our sages; in his case, one where he often starts out that he "really has no time and can only reply briefly". I'm sure you'll stumble across many of his extensive and informative pontifications all over TTF. 😄

 

[Radaghast]

Good stuff, Radaghast. But if you're planning on doing this for everything PJ changed (and got wrong) you might want to check with mazzly - or one of the mods like Erestor Arcamen or Squint-eyed Southerner might also know it: what the maximum number of characters (or is it keystrokes?) is that you can squeeze into a single post. 😂
'Course, splitting it into several posts is the simple solution; unless you want to push the envelope and see when the post window starts protesting.
For a sec, I thought I had stumbled across one of the posts by @Alcuin , one of our sages; in his case, one where he often starts out that he "really has no time and can only reply briefly". I'm sure you'll stumble across many of his extensive and informative pontifications all over TTF. 😄

I thought about making a post focusing on each character but thought maybe I should make one more all-inclusive. Oh well, I guess I'll learn as I go What's TTF?

 

[Olorgando]

The Tolkien Forum, aka this site. I'm one of those here who have very much sympathy for the Hobbits' preference for short names. Ask S-eS or EA. 😂
Might have to to with my having been with a multinational German company for just shy of 40 years (I'm retired now), which due to its size developed a bureaucracy to match that of any government. Abbreviations are rampant there.

So you're warned that I may come up with some short form of your member name (three syllables is borderline) ... 😁

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Oh, Radaghast isn't such a chore to type out, is it?

As to the discussion, I'll say only that the "debates" have been going on since the first movie came out -- almost from the beginning of this forum, and certainly long before I joined. If you'd like to review a few, you could start here:

My God, It Was Horrible!

All you doomsayers were right. It was absolutely horrible. I was crying in the theater. I wanted to walk out, but I didn't b/c my friends were there! All the party is screwed up, out of order, shortened. The trip to Bree was in 45 minutes or so...not 1.30 like it should've been. IT...

thetolkien.forum

There are Parts II and III, if you want to pursue them further. 😂

 

[Radaghast]

LOL. Interesting review 😂

 

[Olorgando]

I've mentioned this several times, but I'll still repeat it here:

My wife and I went to watch "Fellowship" at a cinema in early January 2002. It didn't take long for a howl of "WRONG!" to start ringing in my mind. As it basically got worse with the duration of the film, I decided that I needed to watch it again as simply some blockbuster fantasy film, and forget it had any connection with JRRT. After that first viewing, I could not have told you what happened in the film! So two, at the latest three days later we were sitting in the same cinema a second time ...

 

[Hisoka Morrow]

...and made Faramir more Boromir than Boromir....

What does this mean? Faramir seemed to be more though against the Ring's temp.

 

[Radaghast]

What does this mean? Faramir seemed to be more though against the Ring's temp.

In the book, yes. In the movies, he does the opposite of what the book character does.

 

[Hisoka Morrow]

In the book, yes. In the movies, he does the opposite of what the book character does.

Strictly, half opposite. Don't forget that Faramir was in his place when meeting Frodo, he could take the Ring whenever he want, under the situitation much easier for him than Boromir to do so.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

By "in his place", do you mean "in his territory", "in his position of authority", or something else?

Whatever the case, it's not a question of circumstances, but of character; I've talked elsewhere about the different connotations of what is meant by "natural", so won't go into that here, except to say that Faramir's nature was adherence to higher law, rather than arbitrary law. This is a theme repeated throughout the book.

Yes, movie Faramir eventually relented, but he needed convincing, a trope PJ & Co. continuously inserted into the films: Theoden needed "convincing" that he should keep his alliance with Gondor, Denethor needed "convincing" about the need to call on Rohan, Treebeard needed "convincing" that Saruman was a threat, Aragorn needed "convincing" that he should strive to be king. I'm sure other examples could be found; it nearly amounts to a nervous tic. Why this should be, I don't know; perhaps, as Radaghast indicated, they were under the impression it would make the story more "dramatic".

In any event, the change to Faramir's character from book to movie was so blatantly egregious that even some of the most vociferous defenders of the films admit it was an error.

 

[Radaghast]

Agreed. I would also add that Faramir not taking the Ring is one of the reasons the change makes no sense. Why indeed, considering what he says and does in the film, does he not take the Ring?

FARAMIR
[Unsheathes his sword] So... this is the answer to all the riddles. Here in the wild I have you. Two halflings and a host of men at my call. The Ring of power within my grasp. [Faramir lifts the Ring from Frodo's neck with the tip of his sword.]​

After Sam implores him to let them go, because the Ring has to be destroyed, Faramir ignores him and says, "Prepare to leave. The Ring will go to Gondor." Later, just before they are attacked by the Nazgûl, Faramir gives an order to one of his men: "Take them to my father. Tell him Faramir sends a mighty gift. A weapon that will change our fortunes in this war."

So this is all just a hatchet job on a character for the sake of an action scene. The thing is, you could still have the (or an) action scene and not fundamentally change the character. Also, if he wants the Ring, why not just take it himself and wear the chain around his neck?

Also, this is tangential to the main point, but I've noticed while looking over the script, that Sam says something that's not very accurate:

SAM
Do you want to know what happened to Boromir? You want to know why your brother died? He tried to take the Ring from Frodo! After swearing an oath to protect him, he tried to kill him! The Ring drove your brother mad!​

A few things wrong here. For one, Boromir never tries to kill Frodo, not even in the movie, and he is never driven mad, in the sense of permanence. Sam was not even there so can hardly speak to the state of Boromir's sanity. And his death really has nothing to do with his trying to take the Ring. That might happen anyway, since the party is shortly after attacked by orcs. One thing that often goes unnoticed is that Boromir trying to take the Ring very likely saves the Quest from disaster. Because if Frodo doesn't flee, he, along with the One Ring, probably gets captured. If the Company doesn't split up looking for Frodo, maybe they all get captured or killed.

 

[Olorgando]

Yes, movie Faramir eventually relented, but he needed convincing, a trope PJ & Co. continuously inserted into the films: Theoden needed "convincing" that he should keep his alliance with Gondor, Denethor needed "convincing" about the need to call on Rohan, Treebeard needed "convincing" that Saruman was a threat, Aragorn needed "concincing" that he should strive to be king. I'm sure other examples could be found; it nearly amounts to a nervous tic. Why this should be, I don't know; perhaps, as Radaghast indicated, they were under the impression it would make the story more "dramatic".

From what I've read it might be more an almost neurotic need for "character development" seen by some of the cookie-cutters.
A must-have, irrelevant of its making sense in the context (as it does not for most of the changes in that direction in LoTR the films).