Moria: 📔Book vs. Film (analysis and comparison)

[Radaghast]

In the book, the Moria chapters are probably my favorite in the entire book. Among other reasons, it's nice to see the whole Fellowship together in action and, as a consequence, it's sad to have to see them break up. This is also one sequence that didn't really need to be changed much at all. But it has been changed, quite a bit. And I feel the movie flubs it, and rather badly. Movie fans might love it, but for me, the flaws just leap out. So I wanted to make a post focusing on these flaws and how they correspond to the book. I dunno, maybe I'm being pedantic here, but it's something I kind of wanted to get out of my system for a while now.

Anyway, without further ado, here's an itemized list of things that I think are wrong with the film sequence along with comparisons to the far superior book sequence. These points all refer to the theatrical cut. I've not seen any special or extended editions:

• First of all, even the reasons for going into Moria differ between book and film. In the book, Gandalf argues for going through Moria, correctly reasoning that there are no other safer options. The decision to go through Moria is forced when the Fellowship hear the howling of wargs not very far off. In the movie LotR: FotR, Gandalf fears Moria — because he somehow already knows there is a Balrog there — but when the Fellowship are foiled at Caradhras, he is shown to be indecisive and leaves the decision entirely to Frodo (way to exhibit leadership there, brah!). The wargs are left out of the first film, and transplanted to the next. Thus, a potentially awesome sequence and a chance for Gandalf to display some wizardry is left on the cutting room floor for reasons I can't even begin to fathom. Of course, in the next film, the wargs look nothing like wolves and are in a scene that doesn't occur in the book. Anyway, moving on...
• In the script, I don't see the attempted colonization of Moria by Balin mentioned anywhere, so this whole thing with Gandalf reading from the book found in the Chamber of Mazarbul seems like it would come out of nowhere to one who has never read The Lord of the Rings. And, going further back a bit, that Gimli thinks that there would be "roaring fires, beer and red meat on the bone" might seem completely stupid to anyone who has read LoR. But, I guess in this alternate universe, Balin really did have a colony there? And with all that good stuff Gimli mentions? So, does this mean in this alternate take the dwarves only recently disturbed the Balrog? If so, how does Gandalf know about it? And how are the dwarves reduced to skeletons so quickly? Or did the screenwriters just honestly not know what they were doing? Whatever the case, I'm confused and I can't see the rationale for any of the changes here. Some insight and clarification here would be much appreciated.
• Next, we come to Pippin and the well. In the book, he drops a stone. In the movie, it's an armored skeleton attached to a chain wrapped around a bucket, for some reason. For some other weird reason, Pippin has to twist the bolt or arrow sticking out of it. Also, in the book, the dropped stone isn't immediately followed by the attack by orcs. The Company treks for quite a while between Pippin's stone and the attack in the Chamber of Mazarbul, and it's never even that clear that Pippin's stone is what alerts the orcs to the party. I don't have a problem with the film condensing this. I do have a problem with the movie 'upgrading' the stone with a suit of armor and making Pippin look even more like a dipwad than he's already been shown to be to this point. It's a relatively minor complaint but I wanted to be thorough as possible.
• The orcs attack after the skeleton falls down the well. There is a prolonged fight in which everyone fights. Everyone, that is, except Frodo, the principle character in the book. Sam, in particular, seems eager to show his mettle, and is able to dispatch orcs with ease with his frying pan (leading me to wonder why we should be concerned if orcs can be dispatched with hobbit-sized cookware). Frodo is less eager. When he does fight, he is defensive at best, and runs whenever possible. Granted, it's a troll he's running from, so it's somewhat understandable, but the impression of cravenness he gives off is, for me, hard to not see; like it's something Peej wants to emphasize. Frodo even calls out to Aragorn for help. To me, it just comes off as a little, I dunno...pathetic? I honestly don't see the reason for making Frodo to be a useless wuss in this movie. Finally, the troll impales him, or seems to. Frodo passes out, and it's at this moment that the fight comes to a dead stop. The timing is just impeccable and convenient. Every last orc in the room has been slain and the party has time to gasp at the apparent death of Frodo and then mourn...until he comes to and they discover he is okay... aaand there isn't a mark on him, thanks to his mithril shirt. This is nonsense, but more on that later. Finally, though, the timeout the orcs have gracefully granted is over and the next orc sortie approaches the chamber, causing the Fellowship to finally flee.
• In the book, Frodo actually takes the troll out of the fight by stabbing it in the foot. The fight is not so long as the Company flees the Chamber as soon as they are able. Actually, that first battle is described in one paragraph:

How many there were the Company could not count. The affray was sharp, but the orcs were dismayed by the fierceness of the defence. Legolas shot two through the throat. Gimli hewed the legs from under another that had sprung up on Balin’s tomb. Boromir and Aragorn slew many. When thirteen had fallen the rest fled shrieking, leaving the defenders unharmed, except for Sam who had a scratch along the scalp. A quick duck had saved him; and he had felled his orc: a sturdy thrust with his Barrow-blade. A fire was smouldering in his brown eyes that would have made Ted Sandyman step backwards, if he had seen it.​

• The Lord of the Rings, "The Bridge of Khazad-Dhûm"

• An "almost man-high orc-chieftain" then enters the Chamber, stabs Frodo with a spear and pins him against a wall before the orc his felled by Aragorn, who picks up the unconscious Frodo as they all flee. Frodo shortly comes to and tells Aragorn that he is okay and to let him down. This might not offer the opportunity to milk as much drama as humanly possible, but it sure makes a heck of a lot more sense and there would be ways to dress it up a little. Also, it would make the action more frenetic, a definite plus, I think. Anyway, later, after the party has escaped Moria, we see that the spear-thrust was turned by Frodo's armor, but it still left a "blackened bruise", and that the rings of the shirt had been driven through a leather coverlet "into the flesh." This is in stark contrast with Frodo bearing a full-on thrust with a spear wielded something nearly the size of an elephant and not suffering so much as a scratch. Apart from this not making any physical sense — a mithril chain shirt would not prevent the wearer from, say, being bludgeoned to death let alone prevent any injury — if movie-Frodo suffered no harm whatsoever why does he make that "Oh, doodie, I'm dead" face after he is seemingly impaled? And if an orc not quite as tall as a man could drive steel rings through leather to inflict the flesh, what might a much-taller-than-a-man troll do? Did Peter Jackson actually read the book or just skim through the Cliffs Notes?
• The party is surrounded by orcs and it seems they're done for. Even if the orcs are incompetent, they're just too many. But then the orcs perk up and hear something in the distance, and they all flee. Gimli laughs, assuming they are running from them (Peter Jackson can't seem to resist the urge to make Gimli look like a fool, I guess). Also, it turns out, they can climb surfaces like roaches, an ability not seen before or since. I guess it's to make them seem more threatening. But after we see their kryptonite seems to be frying pans, the effort seems lost. Anyway, as it turns out, that they're fleeing from the Balrog. So, doesn't that make the approach of the Balrog actually rather...fortuitous? Even in consideration of incompetent orcs?
• The party flees the Chamber, then hear the (timely) approach of the Balrog. They then stand there for a full 46 seconds (not counting the time it takes the orcs to sense the Balrog's coming) before Gandalf finally pulls his proverbial thumb out of his proverbial backside and tells them to run. 46 seconds is a substantial slice of time to get a head start on the still unseen and slowly approaching Balrog, but the Fellowship just waste it standing there staring. This might build tension at the moment, but after all is said and done it just fails to make any logical sense. Also, at any point during this lengthy pause, orcs could have shot at them from behind pillars and whatnot (they probably would have missed, badly, but at least it wouldn't have been for lack of trying).
• Gandalf tells Aragorn to "lead them on. The bridge is near." Okay, call me pedantic if you will, but this line is out of place. In the book, Gandalf says this because he stays behind to try to keep the Balrog from following them. In the movie, Gandalf doesn't stay behind. To make this even more ridiculous, Aragorn seems to want to push past Gandalf to fight the Balrog, then is shocked when Gandalf pushes him back. WTH? Why is Aragorn trying to go against Gandalf's orders? Why is Gandalf even giving him orders when he hasn't split with the group? He could have just said, "There's the bridge! Keep going!" Done. Stop trying to follow the book when it doesn't make sense to, FHS.
• "The bridge is near". Well, near enough. It is also on a level with where they currently are as clearly seen in the screen grab below, which shows Gandalf and Aragorn's point of view. So, why then do the Fellowship then descend several sets of stone stairs to get to the bridge? I've looked at this scene a bunch of times and still can't make heads nor tails of it. Can someone shed any light? Or is this something the filmmakers inserted later to try to draw more action out of the sequence and/or to give tribute to the Indiana Jones franchise?

• Does this collapsing stairs scene add anything in particular to the film? Or does it just serve to make the orcs look even more incompetent? Seriously, they can't hit any of the Fellowship while they're vulnerable and moving relatively slowly while trying not to fall off a collapsing stone staircase, while Legolas can shoot them right between the eyes when they have cover and are in almost total darkness. I'm sorry, but it's just too ridiculous for me to accept. I just...can't.
• As the party descends, the stairs crumble behind them. It's implied that the pursuing Balrog is what's causing this destruction. But if the stairs are crumbling behind them, how then is the Balrog following them? We know those wings (which it shouldn't have because the Balrog does not actually have them in the book) are useless and that it can't fly, so what's the deal? It is also nowhere in sight when the Fellowship are on the stairs. The crumbling stairs look incredibly fake to me, incidentally; they strongly put in my mind the impression of styrofoam.​
• Did anyone in the audience actually fear that any of the Fellowship would fall? Please, these are just fake thrills and a massive waste of time, time that could have been better spend elsewhere, such as Gandalf's firestorm against the Wargs.​
• The Balrog then magically appears behind the Fellowship just before they are about to cross the bridge. Again, this doesn't add up with the crumbling stairs, nor does it jive with the slow pace of the Balrog. Even with 46 seconds spent gawping in its direction, the party still seems like they should have had a good head start.​
• In the film, after Gandalf causes the Balrog to fall into the chasm, its whip wraps about his legs and he stumbles and clutches the edge of the abyss. Only, the whip doesn't stay wrapped around his legs. So, Gandalf just lets go for...no visible reason whatsoever. Why? Just...why? Of course, in the book the whip attached to the weight of the Balrog is what drags Gandalf down. So, once again, on the one hand we have nonsense, and on the other, perfect sense.​

The main point in all this is to wonder, wouldn't it just be better to hew to the book? What's wrong with the book sequence that it had to be changed so drastically? None of the changes seem to me to be justified.

 

[m4r35n357]

I feel almost no urge to watch the films these days. I watched them all (three years after they came out) on TV as I am not a cinema person, and am patient At first I was impressed by the cinematography and casting (especially Gollum), and still am. But I assumed that I remembered the story from long ago - and I did not!

A couple of years later I re-read LotR and was astounded at how completely and utterly inaccurate (in virtually every point!) the films are. The contrast is stark. By ignoring the Scouring, it is no longer even a film about Hobbits, it is just another run-of-the-mill D&D comic violence extravaganza.

As for The Hobbit - I now pity any child who tries to read it - they will almost certainly feel like the book is a rip-off compared to the film, virtually none of the film characters are in it, and virtually none of the film events happen in the book!

 

[Radaghast]

I feel almost no urge to watch the films these days. I watched them all (three years after they came out) on TV as I am not a cinema person, and am patient At first I was impressed by the cinematography and casting (especially Gollum), and still am. But I assumed that I remembered the story from long ago - and I did not!

A couple of years later I re-read LotR and was astounded at how completely and utterly inaccurate (in virtually every point!) the films are. The contrast is stark. By ignoring the Scouring, it is no longer even a film about Hobbits, it is just another run-of-the-mill D&D comic violence extravaganza.

I had the same basic experience. I don't recall the time that lapsed between my last reading of the book and seeing the movies but I think it was probably about ten years. Initially, I planned on not even watching the movies, fearing they would ruin my own vision of the book (which they ultimately almost kind of did), but then for some reason I got the urge to see how they handled the scene in The Prancing Pony and Frodo's song and dance number (which, of course, they eliminated altogether and put something stupid in its place). In the second movie, I was disappointed by the lack of Huorns (which appear in other editions). I think I pretended to like the third movie because I didn't want to dislike them and didn't want to seem biased. I then reread the book and, like you, was surprised by how much I had forgotten, and how much my mind had conflated the book with the movies, not to mention how many things the book did wrong.

 

[Elthir]

Janet Croft did a comparison of the Moria scene as well, in her essay: "Mithril Coats and Tin Ears: "Anticipation" and "Flattening" in Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings Trilogy
(book: Tolkien On Film).

In part she argues that "Jackson's preference for horror and fight scenes actually reduces tension and suspense" and quotes Shippey's commentary on the increasing tension in the chapters involved.

Does this collapsing stairs scene add anything in particular to the film?

Not to the film in my opinion, but if eye rolling can be considered exercise . . .

 

[Radaghast]

Not having read her piece, I would agree just from that description alone.

I will say some of the mood of Moria is well-captured, even if most of the scenes are too well-lit (Jackson tends to light scenes that call for near darkness way too brightly) but the whole affair seems rather staged, the best example being when everything stops to focus on Frodo's fake death scene.

Janet Croft did a comparison of the Moria scene as well, in her essay: "Mithril Coats and Tin Ears: "Anticipation" and "Flattening" in Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings Trilogy
(book: Tolkien On Film).

In part she argues that "Jackson's preference for horror and fight scenes actually reduces tension and suspense" and quotes Shippey's commentary on the increasing tension in the chapters involved.

I found the essay on the web and actually had to check about one part, where she quotes the book and then the corresponding movie lines, to see if it she wasn't joking:

Gandalf’s original lines at the point the Company is lost are precise and in character: “I do not like the smell of the left-hand way; there is foul air down there, or I am no guide” (306; II:4). It is grating to hear this reduced to Jackson’s colloquial “When in doubt, always follow your nose” (Fellowship, scene 34: “A Journey in the Dark”). It makes Gandalf sound like Toucan Sam™ chasing after Froot Loops™.

• Janet Croft, "Mithril Coats and Tin Ears"

Of course, it isn't a joke, sadly and I can't believe I don't even remember the line from the film from how utterly cringe it is. Another part of the essay particularly caught my attention:

A director better known for suspense, rather than horror, might have handled the Moria sequence of the film differently. Imagine Alfred Hitchcock directing this section, perhaps even in black-and-white. He would have made the most of the spooky emptiness of the vast corridors and stairs, the slow building of tension, the half-seen shadows out of the corner of the eye, and the ominous sounds in the dark. The silent forcing of the door in the Chamber of Mazarbul, the frightening, bewildering battle in the dim dusty light, and headlong race to the gates would have been well-suited to Hitchcock’s style, and the Balrog would most likely have remained a menacing unfocused shadow in his hands, rather than a CGI monster with a well-defined shape. Directed like this, it could have been much truer to Tolkien’s original vision.

• Croft, "Mithril Coats and Tin Ears"

This is another part I agree with, particularly about the Balrog. I didn't mention this in my list of faults because it's just personal preference, but I was never impressed by Jackson's rendition of the Balrog. It reminded me even at the time of the titular character from the Diablo video game. There's just nothing very original, compelling or scary about it; to me it's just a big, fiery roaring cartoon character. The film also misinterprets what the book says about the Balrog, and I'm not just talking about the 'wings'.

 

[Boffer Balsashield]

Ugh, Frodo's fake death scene is so cringeworthy - overblown and (because he wasn't even bruised by the blunt force trauma) cheap, I feel. When I sit down to watch LotR, I always watch the Shakey purist mod, but unfortunately, apart from tightening up the scene with the Watcher in the Water, I think he made few changes in Moria. Probably there was little he could do with it, I suppose.

 

[Olorgando]

Another part of the essay particularly caught my attention:

A director better known for suspense, rather than horror, might have handled the Moria sequence of the film differently. Imagine Alfred Hitchcock directing this section, perhaps even in black-and-white.

— Croft, "Mithril Coats and Tin Ears"

I really like the idea of filming "in-the-dark" scenes in black-and-white. When light conditions are sufficiently low, we actually only see in b&w in real life.
But as to suspense, and building of the same, what immediately comes to my mind is the first "Alien" film, which I have in a boxed DVD set of the first four films, all starring Sigourney Weaver. It's from 1979, so 42 years old by now. Instead of hyperventilating non-stop thrills and spills and whatnot, it keeps the creature off-camera for most of the time ("Sauron-the-searchlight" has more screen time than does the title character in that franchise's first film).
Of course, special effects in 1979 still had a long way to go; makes me think it might be good for directors not to have too many toys to play with.
Viggo Mortensen once griped that the TH trilogy was just overloaded with CGI; well, PJ had gotten his hands on far more toys to play with than he had even for RoTK, in which he nearly drove the animators insane (as per the EE).

 

[Culaeron]

As for The Hobbit - I now pity any child who tries to read it - they will almost certainly feel like the book is a rip-off compared to the film, virtually none of the film characters are in it, and virtually none of the film events happen in the book!

I can't agree more. My grandchildren are now getting old enough that they're asking "Grandpa" if they can watch the movies with him. I've only shared M4's Bilbo-centric edit with them, which has removed Bolg, Radagast, Tauriel, love triangles, etc. That way when they read the book they won't be too shocked at the differences.

 

[Boffer Balsashield]

My kids read The Hobbit before the movies came out, and when they wanted to see the movies, I put on my purist edit of them, rather than the original.

 

[Goldilocks Gamgee]

We know those wings (which it shouldn't have because the Balrog does not actually have them in the book) are useless and that it can't fly, so what's the deal?

Well, actually, in the books the Balrog does have wings...

The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall; but still Gandalf could be seen, glimmering in the gloom; he seemed small, and altogether alone: grey and bent, like a wizened tree before the onset of a storm.

But otherwise, I totally agree with this post! The crumbling stairs were infuriating, just because they were so unnecessary. Also - though this is very minor - I severely disliked it that Aragorn was the last to leave after Gandalf's fall. I know I'm being petty, but in the book it says:

The fires went out, and blank darkness fell. The Company stood rooted with horror staring into the pit. Even as Aragorn and Boromir came flying back, the rest of the bridge cracked and fell. With a cry Aragorn roused them.

'Come! I will lead you now!' he called. 'We must obey his last command. Follow me!'

It was Aragorn that roused them! In the movies, Boromir has to call out to the Ranger, rousing him. Very minor, but very annoying.

 

[Elthir]

Leaves

Galadriel's lament: yéni únótime ve rámar aldaron!
long years numberless as the wings of trees!

Cloud

The Notion Club Papers: "A great cloud coming up slowly out of the west was eating up the stars. As it approached it opened two vast sable wings spreading north and south."

Sails

Tal Elmar: " . . . in greater numbers they come then: two ships or more together stuffed with men and not goods and ever one of the accursed ships hath black wings."

Darkness

The Return of the King: "Over the land there lies a long shadow, westward reaching wings of darkness."

Whatever the properties or nature of the shadow about the Balrog, it need only reach out like wings
(or look like wings at one point), to be referred to with the word wings.

I needed a good Balrog "wing" post 🐥

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Me two!

 

[Elthir]

 

[Radaghast]

Well, actually, in the books the Balrog does have wings...

The previous reference says they're "like wings". Tolkien switches from simile to metaphor. If he stayed with simile the text would possibly be awkward.

I would say they are wings but more in a metaphorical sense rather than physical appendages. They're wings of immaterial darkness that the Balrog can extend and presumably retract. They don't enable the Balrog to fly.

It was Aragorn that roused them! In the movies, Boromir has to call out to the Ranger, rousing him. Very minor, but very annoying.

Doesn't Boromir ask to let them grieve a bit? And then Aragorn warns that the place would be "swarming with orcs" come nightfall?

 

[Goldilocks Gamgee]

Doesn't Boromir ask to let them grieve a bit? And then Aragorn warns that the place would be "swarming with orcs" come nightfall?

He does, but before this Aragorn is the last to leave the place of Gandalf's death. In the books, Aragorn is the first. I think the book version makes him look more stronger, more self-controlled. Doesn't really matter, though.

 

[Boffer Balsashield]

• In the script, I don't see the attempted colonization of Moria by Balin mentioned anywhere, so this whole thing with Gandalf reading from the book found in the Chamber of Mazarbul seems like it would come out of nowhere to one who has never read the book. And, going further back a bit, that Gimli thinks that there would be "roaring fires, beer and red meat on the bone" might seem completely stupid to anyone who has read the book. But, I guess in this alternate universe, Balin really did have a colony there? And with all that good stuff Gimli mentions? So, does this mean in this alternate take the dwarves only recently disturbed the Balrog? If so, how does Gandalf know about it? And how are the dwarves reduced to skeletons so quickly? Or did the screenwriters just honestly not know what they were doing? Whatever the case, I'm confused and I can't see the rationale for any of the changes here. Some insight and clarification here would be much appreciated.

Actually, the dwarf colony was implied by Gimli just before they're spied by the crebain: "My cousin Balin would give us a royal welcome." That might be confusing to someone who hadn't read the books, but someone who has would know exactly what he was talking about.

 

[Goldilocks Gamgee]

And how are the dwarves reduced to skeletons so quickly?

Sorry, I was just watching Star Wars with my little brother, and so I thought that IF the Dwarves had been attacked recently, they could've been burned to their skeletons, like Owen and Beru (see above).

 

[Erestor Arcamen]

Sorry, I was just watching Star Wars with my little brother, and so I thought that IF the Dwarves had been attacked recently, they could've been burned to their skeletons, like Owen and Beru (see above).

 

[Radaghast]

Sorry, I was just watching Star Wars with my little brother, and so I thought that IF the Dwarves had been attacked recently, they could've been burned to their skeletons, like Owen and Beru (see above).

Did their corpses show burns? Honestly just asking.

 

[Thorin]

Well, actually, in the books the Balrog does have wings...

Actually, In Deep Geek on YouTube has a good recent video on this using Tolkien's works to show that Balrog's didn't have wings in Tolkien's world. It is a good video. Check it out.