Major Changes from the 📔Book to the Film

[Barliman Butterbur]

Barley! Hey, where have you been? lol

These days I tend to stay "in the general darkness beneath the trees..."

Barley

 

[Firawyn]

These days I tend to stay "in the general darkness beneath the trees..."

Barley

*crosses arms* How very boring.

 

[Illuin]

Originally posted by Firawyn
However, I do agree wholeheartedly...Arwen at the Fords...ACK!

I've read the books 100 gazillion times, but I'll take Liv Tyler at The Ford of Bruinen over some fugly Elf dude any day .

All joking aside, I think Arwen at the Ford of Bruinen was a better choice than Glorfindel for the film adaptation. For one thing, J.R.R. just didn't quite have enough women in his tale . Also, for those who didn't have a clue about an Elf named Glorfindel, he would have come across as being somewhat disconnected from the storyline, unless there was a way to present his background and history quickly, but thorough enough to make an impact. Granted, they went a little Arwen crazy in the next two films (not that I minded ), but as far as The Ford, Arwen was a clever idea that worked real well; mainly because it was the opportune time to introduce the Arwen/Aragorn storyline, without forcing casual movie goers to rummage through the Appendix of the book in order to understand what the heck was going on .

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

...crosses arms* How very boring.

You'd be surprised at what I can see from here...

Barley

 

[Firawyn]

You'd be surprised at what I can see from here...

Barley

Really? Enlighten me!

@ Illuin,

I suppose, those are fair points.

 

[Illuin]

Originally posted by Barliman Butterbur
PJ's movie trilogy of LOTR will be broadcast this Friday/Saturday/Sunday on TBS in high definition. Check your local listings.

Do appreciate the heads up Barley. However, I found it real hard to watch those theatrical versions of The Trilogy. I went straight to the Extended Editions of the films before watching the "short versions" (don't like movie theaters). The high definition was pretty spectacular, but WOW! If I had only seen the theatrical versions of the films, I think I might have sympathized with the purist NPW mentality a little more. Why would a director remove some of the best scenes when editing ? Oh well, look forward to the EE in Blu-ray.

PS - I must say, a few scenes (like the Lighting of The Beacons) in hi-def on a 52" 1080p plasma with the surround sound cranked up were absolutely incredible ! The special effects of The Trilogy still have no rival.

 

[Thorin]

I've read the books 100 gazillion times, but I'll take Liv Tyler at The Ford of Bruinen over some fugly Elf dude any day .

All joking aside, I think Arwen at the Ford of Bruinen was a better choice than Glorfindel for the film adaptation. For one thing, J.R.R. just didn't quite have enough women in his tale . Also, for those who didn't have a clue about an Elf named Glorfindel, he would have come across as being somewhat disconnected from the storyline, unless there was a way to present his background and history quickly, but thorough enough to make an impact. Granted, they went a little Arwen crazy in the next two films (not that I minded ), but as far as The Ford, Arwen was a clever idea that worked real well; mainly because it was the opportune time to introduce the Arwen/Aragorn storyline, without forcing casual movie goers to rummage through the Appendix of the book in order to understand what the heck was going on .

May a 1000 orc arrows pierce your hide.

Arwen at the Fords was an absolute awful idea. It not only took away the oomph of 4 characters, but stuck out like a sore thumb from the way Arwen was portrayed in the rest of the movie.

As for not having Glorfindel to 'present his background' etc, etc, etc...
Must I remind everyone here about Haldir? His role in the books was much less than that of Glorfindel and not only did PJ take him and expand his role, but completely put it out of context in bringing an Elf troop to Helm's Deep.

(GAH! My mind is reeling with the awful liberties that were taken! So many problems on so many levels!!)

The excuses of 'not enough time' and 'not enough of the book character to expand on' are empty and shallow when compared to what PJ DID end up doing with far less and in a much more disastrous way (Haldir, the moth instead of Radagast), than had he merely fudged a little bit on the book characters and put them in the movie.

 

[Illuin]

Originally posted by Thorin
May a 1000 orc arrows pierce your hide.

Arwen at the Fords was an absolute awful idea. It not only took away the oomph of 4 characters, but stuck out like a sore thumb from the way Arwen was portrayed in the rest of the movie.

As for not having Glorfindel to 'present his background' etc, etc, etc...
Must I remind everyone here about Haldir? His role in the books was much less than that of Glorfindel and not only did PJ take him and expand his role, but completely put it out of context in bringing an Elf troop to Helm's Deep.

(GAH! My mind is reeling with the awful liberties that were taken! So many problems on so many levels!!)

The excuses of 'not enough time' and 'not enough of the book character to expand on' are empty and shallow when compared to what PJ DID end up doing with far less and in a much more disastrous way (Haldir, the moth instead of Radagast), than had he merely fudged a little bit on the book characters and put them in the movie.

..........

 

[Thorin]

Okay..after you are finished your violin playing, I would appreciate it if you'd answer two questions please:

A. How exactly is it that Glorfindel is not allowed to do his job in the movie at the fords due to:
1) To much back story
2) Not enough book time to warrant having him in the movie

when....

1) Haldir, a very minor character in the book is given a major role (and a very skewed one at that)

2) Based on PJ's fabrication level in these movies, that he couldn't have somehow written Glorfindel in with some other story.



Second question
Okay..let's remove Arwen.
B. Why couldn't PJ, in taking out Glorindel due to the excuses above, simply made Elrond and Gandalf be responsible for the flood and water horses, and Frodo defy the ringwraiths on his own?

Don't give me the 'there needed to be more screen time with Arwen'. Such an excuse falls by the way side when we see how PJ completely changed her character from one extreme to the other. (Unless you completely agree with having Xen-Arwen at the Fords to begin with?)

Why couldn't he have taken Glorfindel out and kept 90% of it the same. It would have worked.

 

[Illuin]

Originally posted by Thorin
Don't give me the 'there needed to be more screen time with Arwen'. Such an excuse falls by the way side when we see how PJ completely changed her character from one extreme to the other. (Unless you completely agree with having Xen-Arwen at the Fords to begin with?)

Why couldn't he have taken Glorfindel out and kept 90% of it the same. It would have worked.

Like the violin playing? That was a solo rendition of "The Riders of Rohan" by Howard Shore; from Peter Jackson's adaptation…….just kidding .

Ok, since you're putting me on the spot, I'll give you my "objective" opinion. Your idea would have worked great.......for Tolkien geeks like us. However, there was still the hurdle of extracting the Arwen/Aragorn storyline from the Appendix and fitting it in somewhere. The question is....where? Without it, the Éowyn/Aragorn scenario would have been weak and one sided, and the (unaware) audience would have expected Éowyn and Aragorn to hook up, while at the same time feeling jealous animosity towards this unknown, unseen Elf Maiden. PJ's dilemma was his realization that 99.9% of his audience didn't know squat about Tolkien, other than maybe the animated flicks. To us long time Tolkien fans, accuracy would have worked out just fine, but not to others. They would have been put to sleep, and might have even felt let down when Aragorn gave Éowyn the boot (not knowing anything about the relationship between Aragorn and Arwen). You know how the public is; they want to see love stories; and Aragorn and Arwen was the only viable one available, other than Faramir and Éowyn. But who cares about Faramir? Aragorn was the star. You're looking at this strictly from a hardcore Tolkien fan's perspective; and there aren't that many of us.

 

[Mike]

I would have had no problem with Arwen at the fords if she didn't steal Frodo's thunder ... as it stands, one of my favorite scenes from the novel (strangely preserved in the animated film) was taken away so that Arwen could say: "If you want him, come and claim him!"

Sorry. I much rather would have preferred Arwen to stay behind, in that instance, just as Glorfindel had in the book, and just as Legolas did in Bakshi's cartoon.

So yes, I agree with Thorin. It was unnecessary, and made Arwen inconsistent as a character in the following films. From what we see in the first, she should've been kicking orc-butt all the way through.

I have a .pdf of Peter S. Beagle's initial script for the Bakshi film (quite a bit different from the final product); I always wondered what it would have been like were that version the basis for a live-action film. It's very faithful, very skillfully done, and skirts a lot of the problems present in the PJ movie and the final 1978 cartoon. And yes, Glorfindel was there. As was Arwen. And while it might not have been successful as the recent films, I think most would recognize it as a genuinely good movie -- a bit understated, but at the same time, somewhat more meaningful than any adaptation we have now.

As for hardcore fans...all I can say is, people here seem a bit more forgiving than Howard fans, who deride Conan the Barbarian despite its obvious success (and in that case, was somewhat more faithful to Howard's spirit, if not plot and character, than Peter Jackson was to Tolkien's).

P.S. Illiun -- perhaps the audience would have cared more about Faramir, if we saw him as the same character we saw in the books...

 

[Illuin]

Originally posted by Mike
P.S. Illiun -- perhaps the audience would have cared more about Faramir, if we saw him as the same character we saw in the books...

Of course . However, that would have probably taken up at least an hour of film time. Also, I for one can certainly do without the Houses of Healing. If I was making the movie, the Houses of Healing would probably be numero uno on the chopping block.

PS - As far as forgiveness, this is my penance now. If the movies came out in the mid to late 80's, I would have made our fellow fadhatter look like Peter Jackson's personal Mother Teresa.

 

[Thorin]

However, there was still the hurdle of extracting the Arwen/Aragorn storyline from the Appendix and fitting it in somewhere. The question is....where? Without it, the Éowyn/Aragorn scenario would have been weak and one sided, and the (unaware) audience would have expected Éowyn and Aragorn to hook up, while at the same time feeling jealous animosity towards this unknown, unseen Elf Maiden.

Nobody is saying that having Arwen at all was a problem, or that it was a mistake bringing in the Appendix material. The Rivendell scenes were excellent and Arwen was portrayed as Tolkien wrote her. But for PJ to use Arwen so awfully and out of place, taking away the thunder of 4 book characters, making her be some warrior doing EVERYTHING, then to realize (as he admitted himself) that this type of Arwen didn't work and to end up making her completely different (the way Tolkien intended) was just an unnecessary travesty.

This is the problem I and many others have.

 

[Illuin]

Originally posted by Thorin
Nobody is saying that having Arwen at all was a problem, or that it was a mistake bringing in the Appendix material. The Rivendell scenes were excellent and Arwen was portrayed as Tolkien wrote her. But for PJ to use Arwen so awfully and out of place, taking away the thunder of 4 book characters, making her be some warrior doing EVERYTHING, then to realize (as he admitted himself) that this type of Arwen didn't work and to end up making her completely different (the way Tolkien intended) was just an unnecessary travesty.

This is the problem I and many others have.

Well, I can honestly say that buried deep down I would have wanted Tolkien's work followed to the letter. However, I'm just not convinced it would have worked with the general public; or even worked at all in movie format. Like you, I'm a huge Stephen King fan (Salem's Lot being my favorite). Every time Stephen wanted his movies to be redone so they would follow his books accurately, the movies were a complete disaster. Tobe Hooper's Salem's Lot was infinitely better than the remake; as was Stanley Kubrick's The Shining (come on, Mr. Barlow was way cooler in Tobe's version ). Sometimes direct book to movie transfer just doesn't work with the audience, and I think that would have been the case with The Trilogy. You can't please everyone, but on the whole, I think PJ succeeded in pleasing as many people as was possible. Casual Tolkien fans and non-Tolkien fans alike were very happy with the films. The only people who complained were the hardcore, uncompromising geeks, like those who frequent intellectual forums such as this one .

 

[Thorin]

Well, I can honestly say that buried deep down I would have wanted Tolkien's work followed to the letter. However, I'm just not convinced it would have worked with the general public; or even worked at all in movie format...Sometimes direct book to movie transfer just doesn't work with the audience, and I think that would have been the case with The Trilogy.

I don't think even the most ardent purist was expecting a 'follow to the letter' translation to film. There was no way to do it and some things would NOT have come across well on film (Tom Bombadil anyone? ..Though I would have loved to see what PJ the horror-meister would have done with the Barrow Downs...I think he could have put that in there somehow even without Bombadil).

What we didn't expect to see was complete fabrications and utter distortions of what was taken from the book that only made the film WORSE (granted, some fabrications worked very well).

Like you, I'm a huge Stephen King fan (Salem's Lot being my favorite)

Yes, Salem's Lot along with The Stand, Pet Semetary, Christine and It are my favorites. Pretty much the last 10 novels King has done have sucked in my opinion when compared to the rest (Duma Key comes close to capturing the King of old, though)

Every time Stephen wanted his movies to be redone so they would follow his books accurately, the movies were a complete disaster. .

Not always. The Green Mile, Shawshank Redemption and The Mist were exceptions to the rule. All followed the books VERY closely and were great movies. Though I will agree that most of them that followed the books were not great.

However, that doesn't mean that those movies that didn't were good movies. I'm sorry but 'The Shining' was a disaster for an adaptation and the bad adaptation stopped it from having the impact it should have had it been it's own horror movie.

[

 

[Mike]

Of course . However, that would have probably taken up at least an hour of film time.

An hour spent showing us warg battles, elves from Lothlorien appearing at Helm's Deep, pointless slow-motion shots, bad dwarf-jokes, and developing Haldir's characters only so he could die? Worst of all, so that alternate-Faramir could bring the Hobbits on a detour to Osgiliath?

"By all rights we shouldn't even be here"
"I hear ya, Sam!".

Yep, I see your point there.

If you mean The Return of the King, I'm sure moving the first chunk of the Aragorn / Gandalf story line back to the second movie where it belonged would've helped free up some time.

Also, I for one can certainly do without the Houses of Healing. If I was making the movie, the Houses of Healing would probably be numero uno on the chopping block.

Really? In front on Tom Bombadil? The Barrow-Downs? Gildor and the other elves? Farmer Maggot? Lobelia Sackville-Baggins?

Again, one of my treasured scenes from the book was when Faramir and Eowyn watched the tumult over Mordor, and, hurrah hurrah, shared a kiss!

 

[Voronwen]

Again, one of my treasured scenes from the book was when Faramir and Eowyn watched the tumult over Mordor, and, hurrah hurrah, shared a kiss!

That is one of mine, too. Their story is so beautiful, i wish we could have seen more of it in the films (..done well, of course).

 

[Illuin]

Originally posted by Mike
Really? In front on Tom Bombadil? The Barrow-Downs?

Actually, one of my biggest complaints (over ANY other complaint I've EVER heard) was the absence of Tom Bombadil. And The Barrow-Downs? I would give almost anything to see that played out on the big screen. You mean to tell me you would rather see the 'Houses of Healing' over the 'Barrow-Downs'? Wow; we definitely come from different worlds. For me, that was by far the creepiest part of the book, and I'm a horror movie nut. So, to answer your question; absolutely; at least for those two scenes.

Originally posted by Thorin
Not always. The Green Mile, Shawshank Redemption and The Mist were exceptions to the rule. All followed the books VERY closely and were great movies. Though I will agree that most of them that followed the books were not great.

I would throw 'Misery' in there as well (even though in the book his feet were not just 'broken' ).

 

[chrysophalax]

I agree wth Illuin there.

I would have LOVED to see the Barrow Downs, but would have swapped the Glorfindel-wannabe Arwen Overbite scenes, instead of the Houses of Healing, which I liked more for the chance to see Aragorn working his magic as the future King, than for the Faramir/Eowyn romance.


****************************

As a side note: What about Needful Things? Max von Sydow was ca-reeepy!

 

[Thorin]

Actually, one of my biggest complaints (over ANY other complaint I've EVER heard) was the absence of Tom Bombadil. And The Barrow-Downs? I would give almost anything to see that played out on the big screen. You mean to tell me you would rather see the 'Houses of Healing' over the 'Barrow-Downs'? Wow; we definitely come from different worlds. For me, that was by far the creepiest part of the book, and I'm a horror movie nut. So, to answer your question; absolutely; at least for those two scenes.

Considering PJ's knack for creating and distoring scenes, I think he could have put in the Barrow Downs without Bombadil and made it work. I mean, come on. If Arwen could outride the ringwraiths, defy them, cast a spell, bring down the flood and practically bring Frodo back from the world of the undead, surely it is not beyond the imagination of PJ to allow the Hobbits to escape the Barrow Downs on their own. This would have allowed PJ to exercise his horror elements and explain much better how the hobbits got their swords instead of Aragorn magically presenting them out of nowhere.

I disagree with you, Iluin, on Bombadil. Bombadil's character would NOT have transitioned to the screen well at all. As for as movie's go, it would be a serious, and unexplainable side track, a sub plot that would contribute nothing to the story. Excellent for a book, but not for a screen. Considering that this movie making element was the excuse PJ et.al made for so many numerous changes, they would have been the biggest hypocrites to allow Bombadil in and cut out and distort so much other important stuff that they did.

I would throw 'Misery' in there as well (even though in the book his feet were not just 'broken' ).

Yes, that is true. I forgot Misery. Pet Semetary was actually done pretty good too. I still get the creeps when I think how good the actor playing Gage was in the movie in capturing what King wrote from when he came back from the grave. It was almost like CGI...maybe there was some in facial and mouth manipulation, I don't know.