Major Changes from the 📔Book to the Film

Thorin said:

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. ... This would ... 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.

Click to expand...

Bombadil might have worked on film if he was slightly less, er.., 'merry'. I can think of a number of British actors who could have pulled it off with dry humour, making the film take a breather between the horror leading up to Buckleberry Ferry and their arrival at Bree (another dark scene). To cut out Farmer Maggot (effectively) AND Tom Bombadil was, IMO, a mistake.

In truth, the story needed twice as many film episodes to do it justice. The makers of Harry Potter films have hit rather late on this idea (seeing their gravy train coming to an end and finding a way to delay it) and will be splitting book 7 into two films, hopefully doing the story more justice.

Originally posted by Eledhwen
In truth, the story needed twice as many film episodes to do it justice.

Click to expand...

I think even just one more film would have worked. Including Bombadil and the Barrow Downs, they could have ended the first film arriving at Rivendell; with the cliffhanger being 'will Frodo make it' - the second when Aragorn, Éomer and Co. climb the Deeping-coomb and first witness the ominous massive forces of Isengard heading towards Helm's Dike - the third at the Seige of Gondor (or right after Frodo is stung by Shelob and is thought to be dead). This would allow the final film ample time for a flawless denouement of the Return of The King.

@thorin, I know I'm bringing up a rather old and moot point, but can you just explain how PJ's Theoden was "cowardly" ??

childoferu said:

@thorin, I know I'm bringing up a rather old and moot point, but can you just explain how PJ's Theoden was "cowardly" ??

Click to expand...

Not cowardly, I think; just low in self-esteem and a kingly arrogance that made him somewhat blind to wise counsel. In the film he is reluctant to go to the aid of Gondor until PJ goes for the visually impressive hilltop beacons instead of the red arrow. In fact, in the film Gandalf forces both Denethor's and Theoden's hands on this. Denethor by hijacking his beacon comms system, which resulted in Theoden's hand being somewhat forced (through being honour bound) by this direct plea from Gondor.

Illuin said:

I think even just one more film would have worked. Including Bombadil and the Barrow Downs, they could have ended the first film arriving at Rivendell; with the cliffhanger being 'will Frodo make it' - the second when Aragorn, Éomer and Co. climb the Deeping-coomb and first witness the ominous massive forces of Isengard heading towards Helm's Dike - the third at the Seige of Gondor (or right after Frodo is stung by Shelob and is thought to be dead). This would allow the final film ample time for a flawless denouement of the Return of The King.

Click to expand...

I think you are missing the point of film:

It's not to create a series of 'The Perils of Pauline' type serials where you have to wait a year to see how the cillfhanger works out - that woud never work in this day & age. People would have been SO pissed walking out.....

Film construction demands a payoff with a climactic ending, no otther way to do it.

And besides, it's a TRILOGY, not a Fourology.

The cost to get approval for such a huge project would never allow something so drastic as re-dividing the movies into extra pieces to take place.
I mean, what would they name the extra movie - that alone would be a huge problem in having a movie that was made up & not the name of a book.

Making an extra movie can only be done now with The Hobbit because of TLOR's great sucess & the chance to make double the money on the OINE part Hobbit.

Originally posted by Bucky
It's not to create a series of 'The Perils of Pauline' type serials where you have to wait a year to see how the cillfhanger works out - that woud never work in this day & age. People would have been SO pissed walking out.....

Film construction demands a payoff with a climactic ending, no otther way to do it.

And besides, it's a TRILOGY, not a Fourology.

The cost to get approval for such a huge project would never allow something so drastic as re-dividing the movies into extra pieces to take place.
I mean, what would they name the extra movie - that alone would be a huge problem in having a movie that was made up & not the name of a book.

Click to expand...

Well, I would have preferred another installment; one more. I'm sure they could have found a way to divide the four up and end on the right notes. They made three, what's one more? Too much was left out in my opinion. I am happy with the three they made, but where can you go from there? Where?

"Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do? Eleven. Exactly. One louder."

I hope GDT takes Hobbit to 11 ... on my own scale of course

It seems at the end Bucky your point is that it's easier to split one book into two than three into four, which I wish made less sense because I really like Illuin's restructuring but you do have a point considering the naming. And regardless of how much LOTR is or isn't a trilogy that is what it's known as

Well, I think we're just dealing with Hollywood, marketing & public perception....

Not now, but then, when billions hadn't been made.

To get a studio to sign on for three movies without seeing one penny of profits was a huge gamble.

The studio & the general public knew The Lord of the Rings trilogy and that's the only way they were going to finance the project, plain and simple as that.

Prince of Cats said:

I hope GDT takes Hobbit to 11 ... on my own scale of course

It seems at the end Bucky your point is that it's easier to split one book into two than three into four, which I wish made less sense because I really like Illuin's restructuring but you do have a point considering the naming. And regardless of how much LOTR is or isn't a trilogy that is what it's known as

Click to expand...

I have seen a boxed set of paperbacks that divide tLotR into seven parts (7th part being the appendices). With the hindsight of massive box office success, this might have been an option. Unfortunately, with what Mr Jackson did with the extended edition of the Return of the King, I suspect that if this had been done, we may have seen more of his artistic licence than Tolkien's genius.

The title thing would be easy for Tolkien nerds like us, you just call the third one The War of the Ring, which is what Tolkien was leaning toward for the title of RotK since it didn't give away the fact that the King did in fact return before the ending. It fits brilliantly with ending around the siege.

I know I'm late in responding but, I just recently re-read the trilogy. I then sat down to watch through my copies of the Jackson films. However, I was unable to make it through even the Fellowship of the Ring because of the way Jackson depicted Aragorn's character in Rivendell. It was the polar opposite of Aragorn. That was an unforgivable sin for me, and I knew if that bothered me as much as it did. I did not even know what I would do at least in the Two Towers, and do not even get me started on the Return of the King.

Haha Sulimo - not everyone will appreciate your perspective but I'm the same way; it's difficult for me to get through the movies. I also feel that the casting, especially of Elrond and Arwen, prevented immersion for me. They would probably be more fun if I wasn't so familiar with the text (and hadn't seen a Matrix movie)

First of all, I loved the movies.... just to make my pov clear. :*p But, when that is said...

Peter Jackson (PJ) altered the personality of a lot of characters and changed story-plots in many chapters, hence making a completely different story.
Imo, what PJ, and his screen-writers, made was NOT Tolkiens The Lord of the Rings, but "just" another great story, based on Tolkiens original version. PJ, and his staff, did a great job, in making an awsome trilogy and will probably make an equally awsome The Hobbit movie... in the same manner.

Read the books, see the movies, love them all but please do not compare them. They are not the same stories and can not be compared... In my humble opinion...

I think you are right Peeping-Tom. I typically feel that way when I watch a movie made from a book such as The Shining. However, I personally feel that I am just too emotionally invested in Tolkien's story to view it objectively.

However, to further credit your perspective I do find it interesting that Tolkien did build his stories from an assortment of older tales. He studied there evolution over time, and the various "adaptations" of the various sagas such as Sigurd in the Scandinavian Volsunga Saga becoming Sigfried of the Nibelungenlied, who is also Sigfried in the Wagner Opera. All are reiterations of the same story, but still greatly altered over time being presented to a new audience.

I am curious if Tolkien would view it in this manner, or if he would be outraged. I personally think that Peter Jackson's films would grate on his nerves, from what I understand of his meticulous personality, but I could be wrong.

I enjoyed the movies when they first came out, especially the Fellowship. I think the settings are wonderful and there are some scenes that I just love. However, last month I reread LOTR and then watched the movies and I couldn't stand it. I hated how PJ changed the personalities of my favorite characters, like Aragorn and Faramir. Rereading the books was so much more emotionally sastifying and enjoyable. I think it will be a long time until I will want to watch the movies again. Why did PJ have to take out so much of the good stuff and then put in his own ideas? I feel like the heart of the books was lost.

I had the same feeling, Starbrow. I will admit *hangs head in shame* that I did not even read LOTR for the first time until I had watched Fellowship of the Ring. Then I read the books. Then I watched the other two. EEK!

I'll still watch the movies and such, but it's more about an appreciation for the visual references. Weta (PJ gets very little credit here, it was all the Weta crew!!) did a wonderful job bringing Middle Earth to life. I often wonder if someone else directing would have made the difference. Roland Emmerich for example. Or J.J Abrams.

Now there is a man who knows how to keep the integrity of a story and characters together. I was very impressed with Abrams work on Star Trek.

Some of the changes in LOTR were necessary, and I understand that. But like you were saying, Starbrow, the changes with characters like Faramir and Aragorn were just...disappointing. (Any other word I might have used TTF would BLEEP out.)


:*eek:

Illuin said:

… PJ's dilemma was his realization that 99.9% of his audience didn't know squat about Tolkien, other than maybe the animated flicks. ...

Click to expand...

🤯
Whaaaaaaaaaat?!?!?!? Book sales of LoTR had passed 50 million by the time the films came out. And the really big bang came in the late 1960s, when the Ace Books pirate (paperback) version seems to finally have forced JRRT's publishers' (US, and UK for the rest of the world) hands to bring out paperback versions (apparently sales had been solely hardcover until then). Sales then quickly busted the one and two million marks. So we're talking 30 years between the books really taking off and the films, and the demographic pushing this sales explosion was centered on college students. Those from the late sixties would have been around 50 years old when the films came out, many millions more decidedly younger. So I would guess that the reader base would easily still be at 40 million. Now I have no idea how box office values in US dollars translates into behinds actually taking the seats. Probably ticket prices would be a tad lower in many countries than the 15 Euros here in Germany (I didn't see "Fellowship" until early January 2002, so roughly a week after the Euro became bills and coins legal tender). But roughly 10 dollars per filled seat should be the right ballpark. With 20/20 hindsight that would have been about 87 million people watching "Fellowship" (I don't know what kind of numbers they were expecting). Now if only 0.1% of that audience had actually read the book, as that 99.9% ignorance implies, that would mean 87 thousand book readers had watched the film. Er … what were the other 39,913,000 book readers doing?
*must … stop … hyperventilating … must … stop … hyperventilating … must … stop … hyperventilating … must … stop … hyperventilating …*

Hi all, new to the forums, been an avid Tolkien fan since I was very young when my father introduced me to the Hobbit.
To add my 10 cents I think PJ did a fantastic job bringing Tolkien to the screen, he did make changes I wouldn’t have made but I think there’s a necessity in film making (or rather profitable film making) to ensure there are certain beats hit, humour, romance and at times needing to dumb things down for non rabid fans like us, my wife had never read a book but became a fan through the movie, had the movie been 100% faithful to the book I’m sure she like many other would have left the cinema confused as to what just happened.
My main beef with changes have always been
1/ the scouting of the shire and how they dealt with Saruman
2/ not explaining the time things are taking, more expedition on when Frodo first gets the ring and when Gandalf returns would have explained how Bilbo suddenly ages 20 years when we see him next in Rivendell.
3/ Arwen, not necessary but as mentioned above all popular movies need a romance angle.
4/ Bear wargs, so glad he fixed that in the Hobbit films.
Anyways that’s my first post out of the way, please be kind, glad to be here!

Welcome to the forum, Mr. (Miss? Mrs.?) Fish! I hope you'll be happy here.

I don't generally comment in the film forums, as my interest lies in the books, but I'll just say here about your No. 3, that a number of successful films have done without a romance plot. One that comes to mind is "Master and Commander", in which, IIRC, the only women in the film appear in the opening scene. "Saving Private Ryan" contained no love story, and going back decades, neither did "The Longest Day", and both of those did phenomenal box office.

It could be argued that the three I named are all war films, and atypical, which is true, to an extent; but many a war movie has crammed a romance into the mix, for better or worse. For an example of the latter, see "Pearl Harbor".

As you go through older threads here, on this and the book forums, you'll find several on the "Arwen Question", often centering on the great Arwen vs. Eowyn debate. Try "Arwen: Why I Hate Her", for an example. Entertaining reading.

Again, welcome to the forum, and may you make many interesting posts!

PS: If you'd like to introduce yourself, and perhaps say something about your areas of interest, there's a forum for just that here:

The Scouring of the Shire was one of my favourite chapters. It’s probably the most fun section to read but it’s also very poignant. Things begin and end in the Shire.

The Hobbits have grown in confidence.
Their home was preserved in their minds as perfect, but nothing remains unchanged.
No part of Middle Earth was exempt.
I like the pettiness of Saruman - you destroyed my home so I’ll destroy yours.
The carnage also allows Sam the gardener to prove his skills.

It’s a section of the book that makes the story more complete.