Ok, we have often debated about certain little modifications to the movies that have not sat well with us, or commented on some of the ones we are ok with. I'm curious to know how you guys feel about most of these, whether they detract from your e xp erience of watching the movie because you know the books so well. I'm going to compile a personal list (by no means complete,) of the changes that I can live with or actually enjoy, and those that I certainly could live without. Feel free to add your own or comment on these.

FOTR: Changes or omissions I did not like.

- exclusion of Gil-galad from Elendil's confrontation with Sauron
- exclusion of the Barrow wights and the proper origin of the swords the hobbits carry (however, this would have required the inclusion of Tom Bombadil - see below, under things I liked)
- Nazgul are portrayed as innefective pushovers during the attack on Weathertop, and Aragorn is made out to be much too powerful by comparison
- misrepresentation and misconception of Sauron as just the Flaming Eye
- inclusion of Arwen at the Fords; carrying Frodo across the river herself; summoning the power of the river (in the books, this last bit is done by Elrond and Gandalf, not her)
- way over the top wizard fight between Saruman and Gandalf (not even close to what happens in the books)
- Saruman's apparent complete subservience to Sauron (not accurate at all)
- exclusion of Saruman of Many Colours and Voice of Saruman
- exclusion of Radagast the Brown
- Gimli hitting the Ring with his axe at the Council (this is just plain silly)
- Aragorn's fearful avoidance of his heritage and destiny as future king (fundamental change to the character from the books)
- Narsil not reforged into Anduril at this time, as in the books (see above)
- exclusion of the warg attack on the Fellowship while travelling through Eregion
- wall-crawling orcs in Moria (c'mon... :rolleyes: )
- exclusion of the orc chase into the borders of Lorien

FOTR: Changes or omissions I did like or did not mind.

- no Old Forest or Tom Bombadil (though I felt their absence, inclusion of this segment is not vital to the overall story and would have lengthened the movie considerably)
- Saruman's creation of the Uruk-hai
- the moth at Isengard (a nice nod to Radagast)
- additional scenes with Aragorn and Arwen at Rivendell (very helpful and natural in establishing our understanding of their relationship)
- modified and extended fight segment with the troll and orcs in the Chamber of Mazarbul
- the stairs of Khazad-dum sequence
- the character of Lurtz and the subsequent confrontation with Aragorn at Amon Hen

TTT: Changes or omissions I did not like.

- misrepresentation of the Ents as slow, dumb, and unresponsive to the depradations of Saruman until being basically tricked by Merry and Pippin into seeing it
- entire warg attack on the Rohirrim during the Edoras evacuation (this was completetly unnecessary, given the earlier warg attack in the first book, and leads to even worse segment: Aragorn's cliff plunge and fake death to heighten tension)
- Elves appearing at Helm's Deep (major change - this runs deeply contrary to Tolkien's strong theme of elven fading and non-involvement in the affairs of man in the Third Age)
- Super Aragorn strikes again: can toss a fully armoured dwarf across fifteen-foot gap, and can then climb a rope with one hand while holding on to same dwarf again (ok, not really a movie/book change, but stupid nonetheless)
- fundamental change in the nature of Faramir's character (ruining Tolkien's theme of human purity that could still deny the lure of the Ring)
- Sam and Frodo's sojourn to Osgiliath (what was the point of this? Furthermore, a Nazgul senses the Ring there and comes to Frodo, completely contradicting later plot point that Sauron believes Pippin has the Ring)

TTT: Changes or omissions I did like or did not mind.

- visualization of Gandalf's and the Balrog's plunge to the Underdeeps and fight atop Zirak-zigil
- visualization of the search for Theodred's body on his battlefield and his funeral afterward
- dramatic emphasis on the freeing of Theoden's mind from Saruman
- visualization of the retaking of Osgiliath by the armies of Gondor (something only mentioned in passing in the books)
- Arwen at Aragorn's tomb and then going to Lorien to die (beautiful glimpses of the future as revealed by Tolkien)

ROTK: Changes or omissions I did not like (note that obviously I have not seen the Extended Edition yet, so this is only partial and based on some rumoured additions)

- Saruman hurling fireballs at Gandalf and plunging to his death on a spikey wheel (pure cheese and a disservice to Tolkien's writings)
- Arwen's mortal fate suddenly tied to that of the One Ring (simply too baffling to even attempt to comprehend - totally unnecessary invention)
- Elrond brings Anduril to Aragorn at Dunharrow (Elrond would never leave Rivendell. This change is tied to the one mentioned above. In the books, he sends his sons)
- underwhelming Paths of the Dead segment (does not convey the feeling of horror and mystery the books do)
- Frodo sends Sam away on the stairs of Cirith Ungol (completely unbelievable and out of place, given what we know of these characters. Very contrived to set up the later rescue from Shelob. This scene was perfectly written in the books and did not need tampering)
- exclusion of Sam's confrontation with the Stone Watchers
- exclusion of Prince Imrahil and others (Gondor left looking like a one-city kingdom)
- exclusion of the Palantir of Minas Tirith (this omission gives little to no reason for Denethor's madness)
- exclusion of Gandalf's and the Witchking's confrontation at the gates of Minas Tirith (this scene is perfectly written in the books, and timed to coincide with the arrival of the Rohirrim on the field. I know a modified version of this scene will appear in the EE, but a golden moment was ruined by the changes, and the new version is less than ideal, from what I've heard and seen)
- terrible mangling of the dialogue between the Witchking and Eowyn during their fight at the Pelennor Fields (the significance of her being a woman is utterly lost in the cheesy and butchered dialogue we are given, and the prophecy surrounding the WK is accordingly ditched)
- Denethor's idiotic, flaming plunge from the walls of Minas Tirith (totally cheesy and unintentionally humourous. What's with PJ and death-plunges anyway?!?)
- Merry is miraculously well enough to accompany the armies of the West and fight at the Black Gates (books e xp lain that Merry's wounds are grievous due to stabbing the WK earlier)
- exclusion of Aragorn's discovery of the White Tree sapling, and the subsquent revival of the Tree itself
- Aragorn kills the Mouth of Sauron (rumoured EE addition and change from books. Uhmm.. ok, Super Aragorn, we get it already, you're tough :rolleyes: )
- terrible depiction of the destruction of Sauron (beautifully described visual in the books, yet utterly wasted moment in the movie)
- absolutely no character closure for Gimli and Legolas (they simply vanish after the coronation. The inclusion of Aglarond, Ithilien, or even their eventual departure from Middle-earth would have been nice)
- exclusion of the Scouring of the Shire (though admittedly lengthy, this was an extremely important part of the story, and should have been presented, even if in a highly truncated fashion. Would have provide a much better and meaningful ending for Saruman and Grima as well)
- alterations made to the Grey Havens segment (Celeborn and Cirdan do not board that ship in the books; Shadowfax is missing)

ROTK: Changes or omissions I did like or did not mind.

- inclusion of the Smeagol and Deagol scene (something told very early in the books)
- the character of Gothmog is given a face and more tangibility as a character (though strangely enough, he is not named in the movie)
- e xp anded segment detailing the overrunning of Osgiliath by Mordor
- Faramir's charge on Osgiliath (this is not in books, but serves well to illustrate Denethor's contempt for his second son. In the books, Faramir is mortally wounded during the original rout from Osgiliath)
- the Witchking consistenly rides a winged fell beast throughout the movie (in the books, he alternates between this and a black horse. These changes would have been hard to follow in the movie, and the only scene for which the horse visually would have made sense was the confrontation at the gates, which was not filmed)


Well, I think that about covers it. Remember, this is by no means a list of all the changes in the movies... only the ones that I personally feel more strongly about either way.

Wow, Val, you really put a lot of effort into typing that up! I'm not quite so energetic this evening, and I should be cleaning my house, so I'll limit myself to responding just to specific points I either strongly disagree with, or strongly agree with. If I pass over a point in silence, you can probably figure I agreed with you (I do about 90% of the time anyway ).

Valkrist wrote:FOTR: Changes or omissions I did not like.

- Nazgul are portrayed as innefective pushovers during the attack on Weathertop, and Aragorn is made out to be much too powerful by comparison***How did you like it when Aragorn threw his torch at the last one, and it apparently became embedded in the wraith's face, because as he exited the scene, it was still sticking out of his hood?!****

FOTR: Changes or omissions I did like or did not mind.

- Saruman's creation of the Uruk-hai*****That bothered me a bit. Tho Saruman did use Uruks, they were invented by Sauron, and failing to mention that was another example of diminishing one character in favor of building up another. PJ really tried to make Saruman the big villain of the first two movies, with Sauron relegated to secondary status. (What's a flaming eye to do?) Also, their mode of creation was flat out fictitious. Tolkien said in one of his writings, Orcs procreated in the same manner as the Children of Iluvatar, i.e., through sex. Although I don't think any of us wanted to see Orc sex!*****
- modified and extended fight segment with the troll and orcs in the Chamber of Mazarbul****To me, that was a bit of a time waster, considering how e xp anded it was from the book. In the book, all you ever saw of the troll was its foot (described as toeless--I thought the toeless troll foot that steps on Aragorn near the climax of ROTK, and his stabbing of it, was a reference to the earlier troll passage). I thought that time could have been better used for something else--like maybe the warg attack!****

TTT: Changes or omissions I did not like.

- fundamental change in the nature of Faramir's character (ruining Tolkien's theme of human purity that could still deny the lure of the Ring)****Yeah, that was pretty bad, although it could have been worse. "Filmamir" only decided to send the Ring on to Daddy Dearest, instead of claiming it for his own.*****

TTT: Changes or omissions I did like or did not mind.

- visualization of Gandalf's and the Balrog's plunge to the Underdeeps and fight atop Zirak-zigil****That was cool, although I thought that since Gandalf was away from prying eyes, he'd have shown his true nature and abilities, and not just fought the thing with a sword! I guess I pictured it more like Galadriel's big moment in the first movie.******
- Arwen at Aragorn's tomb and then going to Lorien to die (beautiful glimpses of the future as revealed by Tolkien)*****That, plus Galadriel's "our story so far" bit, were really great, I thought, especially underscored by Shore's gorgeous music. These scenes, more than any other, captured the essence of the Elves: beauty and sorrow.****

ROTK: Changes or omissions I did not like (note that obviously I have not seen the Extended Edition yet, so this is only partial and based on some rumoured additions)

- Arwen's mortal fate suddenly tied to that of the One Ring (simply too baffling to even attempt to comprehend - totally unnecessary invention)***Yes, to me, that was the single biggest and cheapest piece of cheese in the entire movie trilogy, and a complete negation of the equally erroneous "Arwen will live for millennia after Aragorn" thesis of the previous movie. PJ just could not wrap his mind, or his story telling abilities, around Arwen's half-elven nature.*****
- Elrond brings Anduril to Aragorn at Dunharrow (Elrond would never leave Rivendell. This change is tied to the one mentioned above. In the books, he sends his sons)*****Yes, he would never leave Rivendell, but even in the books, somebody comes from Rivendell to bring Aragorn's flag. Since PJ never included the Sons of Elrond (barring your theory on those two at the Council), somebody had to bring Anduril, and I much preferred it be Elrond rather than Arwen.****
- Denethor's idiotic, flaming plunge from the walls of Minas Tirith (totally cheesy and unintentionally humourous. What's with PJ and death-plunges anyway?!?)****Yes, completely unnecessary. Book version was much more elegant, and eloquent of the depth of Denethor's madness, that he could calmly lie down while on fire.****
- terrible depiction of the destruction of Sauron (beautifully described visual in the books, yet utterly wasted moment in the movie)****Yes, you and I have discussed this one before, and are in complete accord.****
- exclusion of the Scouring of the Shire (though admittedly lengthy, this was an extremely important part of the story, and should have been presented, even if in a highly truncated fashion. Would have provide a much better and meaningful ending for Saruman and Grima as well)****This omission did not bother me. I always found the Scouring depressing and anticlimactic.****
- alterations made to the Grey Havens segment (Celeborn and Cirdan do not board that ship in the books; Shadowfax is missing)*****And why did PJ have Gandalf show up to haul Bilbo and Frodo in a cart? Book version was much more effective, where Frodo and Sam meet the elves and Bilbo in the woods, and *surprise* Gandalf is waiting for them at the Havens.*****

ROTK: Changes or omissions I did like or did not mind.

- Faramir's charge on Osgiliath (this is not in books, but serves well to illustrate Denethor's contempt for his second son. In the books, Faramir is mortally wounded during the original rout from Osgiliath)****PJ played around with the story a bit here. In the book, Faramir comes to Minas Tirith twice. The first time is similar to the retreat portrayed in the movie, with the difference that Osgiliath is still held by Gondor. Denethor then sends him back to strengthen the garrison. It's after that that the city falls, and Faramir is wounded during the final retreat. Though not by arrows, as in the movie. If I remember, he's thrown from his horse, but it's the Black Breath on top of Faramir's depression that really causes the injury. But PJ gave us a reasonable facsimile.****

Probably the #1 change that bothered me about the movies, much more than ELves at Helm's Deep or things like that, is that Arwen could be talked into leaving Aragorn. That was a total negation of the depth of their commitment, and I'm sure every time somebody spins TTT DVD, Tolkien spins in his grave when that scene plays.

If I remember the Two Towers correctly, Gandalf rides down the shale slope to Helm's Deep with Erkenbrand and his troops, from the West.

As the sun comes up over the Eastern hills, the sunlight is supposed to reflect of of Gandalf and blind the Uruk-hai.

I have to say Valkrist, that I have not read the books completly, but i do I have to dissagree with you on one major thing. When Gimly broke his axe when he tried to destroy the ring, it was to described that the ring cannot be destroyed by anything other then be droped back into the fires of mount doom. If I recall right, In th FOTR, (the book), frodo metions other ways of destroying it, incuding melting it his own fire place, but gandalf tells him that the ring cannot be destroyed by other means. The way done in the movie is exactly the same in the book, only given to gimly at the council of elrond. And yes, Gimly is silly

I know this has been asked befor, but what do u guys think of the frodo age diffrence?

I see people are disagreeing with my point about Gimli at the Council of Elrond, and that's fine, but I will e xp lain my feelings on this a little better.

You see, his action of attacking the Ring with the axe does little more than set him up as the comical buffoon that he becomes for the rest of the trilogy. Given the background on the Ring that the audience has been e xp osed to already by serious characters like Gandalf and Elrond, it really was very unncessary to show us so graphically that it will obviously take more than a simple axe stroke to destroy the Ring. In fact, I find it a little insulting that PJ would feel that he has to show us that... I honestly don't think anyone watching would believe it could be that simple, so why bother showing it?

I also find it very unbelievable that even a young dwarf would act so brashly and with such impudence at an extremely important council being held by his peers. The character of Gimli in the books would never do such a thing, and in fact, he does not... surprise, surprise. To me, that entire bit was over the top and not a little ridiculous, and it really detracted from the scene as a whole. A few simple words by Elrond would have been sufficient to confirm for the audience that the Ring is nigh indestructible, and there really was no need for Gimli to try and play the hero and act like an impulsive idiot. If he had any brains, he should have realized that what he tried would have been the first thing anyone would have already tried. The very fact an entire Council is being held to discuss the fate of the Ring should clue the dumb dwarf that it is not simple!

Just my two cents.

Valkrist wrote:Given the background on the Ring that the audience has been e xp osed to already by serious characters like Gandalf and Elrond, it really was very unncessary to show us so graphically that it will obviously take more than a simple axe stroke to destroy the Ring.

A few simple words by Elrond would have been sufficient to confirm for the audience that the Ring is nigh indestructible

I disagree slightly, in that I was not opposed to some measure to show the Ring's indestructibility. And as you know, Jackson's dictum has been "show, don't tell" (with general positive results, such as us getting to see the actual Ent attack on Isengard, rather than just seeing the aftermath). The movie's set-up of the Ring's power, allure, and indestructibility is much less fleshed out than it was in the book. However, a demonstration of its indestructibility would have been better much earlier in the movie, just after the fireplace scene.

You know, this raises a question I'd never thought about before, in reference to the book itself. How do the Wise know that only the fires of Orodruin can destroy the Ring??? No one has ever tried to destroy it before! It's had precisely 6 owners: Sauron, Isildur, Deagol, Gollum, Bilbo, and Frodo. All were quite smitten with it and would never have tried to hurt it. Gandalf says it was told that dragon fire could destroy Rings of Power, and that had in fact been the fate of some of the Seven, but (and here it becomes complete surmise) not even Ancalagon could have harmed the One.

Olorin1 wrote:You know, this raises a question I'd never thought about before, in reference to the book itself. How do the Wise know that only the fires of Orodruin can destroy the Ring??? No one has ever tried to destroy it before! It's had precisely 6 owners: Sauron, Isildur, Deagol, Gollum, Bilbo, and Frodo. All were quite smitten with it and would never have tried to hurt it. Gandalf says it was told that dragon fire could destroy Rings of Power, and that had in fact been the fate of some of the Seven, but (and here it becomes complete surmise) not even Ancalagon could have harmed the One.

My guess on this is that the knowledge came from Celebrimbor himself, the original maker of all the rings except for the One. The Noldo smith never did fully trust Annatar, the Lord of Gifts (who was in fact Sauron in elven shape,) and so when he entrusted the three Elven Rings to Gil-galad and Galadriel, he likely told them not only of their properties, but of what it would likely take to destroy an artifact of such power. This knowledge would have then been passed down to Gandalf and Elrond as future bearers of Narya and Vilya.

Armed with this fact, it would not be a huge leap to conclude that the One itself, more powerful than the Three, would require nothing short of the fires in which it was forged before it could be destroyed. Remember that even during the Last Alliance, Elrond seemed to be aware of this fact because he vigorously encouraged Isildur to cast the Ring into the nearby fires then. Perhaps any of the other Rings could have been melted by dragon fire, but the One would not.

That's my theory.

Valkrist wrote:My guess on this is that the knowledge came from Celebrimbor himself, the original maker of all the rings except for the One. The Noldo smith never did fully trust Annatar, the Lord of Gifts (who was in fact Sauron in elven shape,) and so when he entrusted the three Elven Rings to Gil-galad and Galadriel, he likely told them not only of their properties, but of what it would likely take to destroy an artifact of such power. This knowledge would have then been passed down to Gandalf and Elrond as future bearers of Narya and Vilya.

Armed with this fact, it would not be a huge leap to conclude that the One itself, more powerful than the Three, would require nothing short of the fires in which it was forged before it could be destroyed. Remember that even during the Last Alliance, Elrond seemed to be aware of this fact because he vigorously encouraged Isildur to cast the Ring into the nearby fires then. Perhaps any of the other Rings could have been melted by dragon fire, but the One would not.

That's my theory.

Plus, by the time of the War of the Ring, it would have been dangerous and difficult on several levels to find a dragon to test whether it could melt the One. Maybe not quite as dangerous/difficult as sending it back to Orodruin, but if you fail, you still end up with the One in the possession of an evil being.

A while back we had a thread about serializing the Silmarillion as either a movie franchise or a mini series. I've always thought the tale of how the Rings came to be forged, and the subsequent war in Eriador, was very interesting and would be neat to see on the screen. Problem is, it's not necessarily a good idea to make the beginning of the story after everyone's already seen the end and knows how it turns out.

Sorry, I have to make my last point about the Gimli axe part...

Valkrist wrote:You see, his action of attacking the Ring with the axe does little more than set him up as the comical buffoon that he becomes for the rest of the trilogy. Given the background on the Ring that the audience has been e xp osed to already by serious characters like Gandalf and Elrond, it really was very unncessary to show us so graphically that it will obviously take more than a simple axe stroke to destroy the Ring. In fact, I find it a little insulting that PJ would feel that he has to show us that... I honestly don't think anyone watching would believe it could be that simple, so why bother showing it?

I think it was good that PJ put that in, and dont see it as insulting. We are only told that the ring cannot be destroyed, and as the audience has heard it, Gimli hasnt. Its logical, we have to destroy a ring, Gimli tries to break it in half with "mine axe" as he would put it. Aswell, even if he was told that the ring could only be destroyed by the fires of Mount Doom, he still wanted to try it, as legolas says in ROTK "have you learnd nothing of the stubborness of dwarves"

And remember, these movies were made for the book fans, and the average joe that never read the book, so he was trying to add simple information.

Olorin1 wrote: The movie's set-up of the Ring's power, allure, and indestructibility is much less fleshed out than it was in the book. However, a demonstration of its indestructibility would have been better much earlier in the movie, just after the fireplace scene.

The way PJ had the movie layed out, if frodo tried to destroy the ring after the fireplace scene, then it would of taken from the movie. Think about it, the firplace and the scene right after it was suspensful and panic. Frodo discovers that Bilbos ring is infact the ring of the dark lord...Quick questions get asked...Frodo gets ready for the journy. IMHO, if you fit it in to one of those scenes, the excitment would dissaper.

Though if those scenes were layed out like the book, where theres no rush for frodo, (he waits a couple of monthes) then the scene could of been done by the fireplace.

[quote=""Valkrist""]

- Saruman hurling fireballs at Gandalf and plunging to his death on a spikey wheel (pure cheese and a disservice to Tolkien's writings)
- [/quote]


while I PARTIALLY agree with you...this was better than completely cutting Saruman out of ROTK like they did in the theatrical version.