FotR movie vs. book

It had been a very long time since I read the LotR, so I started rereading it recently. I must say, I hadn't realized there was such a discrepancy between the first movie and the book. Right now I'm at the flight to the ford, and almost nothing has matched up with the movie. I understand that film, being a different medium, can't tell a story in the same way as print, but the number of differences so far has been shocking.

I like the movie, don't get me wrong. But it almost seems like a different story altogether from the book. I understand why they would want to make certain changes, like turning Merry and Pippen into more comical characters, and not having Aragorn carry around a broken sword, and making the flight from the shire more dramatic. I also understand why so many things had to be left out. But it might cause a problem if I run a LotR game for people who've only seen the movies.

Does anyone else think the first movie could have stuck a lot closer to the book?

I couldn't agree with you more fat buddha. Personally I think changing the characters was there biggest mistake. I can see the cuts in the story line to fit the time constrants. IMHO to have properly done the books to movies it should have been stretched out over six movies not three. There are six books in the trilogy and each could have gotten its own movie. Oh well.

Fellowship of the ring was closer then The Two Towers was to it book. I thought TTT was pretty bad about twisting the story line to fit a Hollywood mold.

Visually the movies have been stunning but they lack alot of the depth of both character and plot.

mcb

I've heard the second movie stuck less to the book than did the first, but at this point I can't really see how that's possible. I guess I'll just be even more scandalized when I get to The Two Towers.

I'm with you on the six movie idea. It would be nice if, years down the road, LotR was made into a miniseries with the express aim of staying as close as possible to the source material.

On the other hand, I am excited about the prospect of PJ and co. doing a movie based on The Hobbit. That book seems like it would translate more easily to the big screen than LotR.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fat buddha
I'm with you on the six movie idea. It would be nice if, years down the road, LotR was made into a miniseries with the express aim of staying as close as possible to the source material.

---

Ye gods. I think I'll skip the nights they cover Frodo's life between the time Gandalf leaves and comes back. What is that, 17 years? :)

I actually think they sticked very wel to the book. The only difference is that some people are missing along with the very long introduction, which would have been unsuitable for a movie I think. But beside that the essential story parts are all there.
The most significant part which differs is the missing 'Bombadil' part, but to be honest it does not tell anything about the actual 'Ring'-Story and therefore would only have made those wonder who do not know the book. I think the first movie is the best bookadaption I ever saw. I also think it was good to give Arwen the part of Glorfindel so that the viewer gets to know her better. In the book she only has a margine role yet gets to marry Aragorn - in the movie the audience learns more of her and there is new character like Glorfindel which only has a small part. And for the story it is irrelevant whether Glorfindel finds them or Arwen, I think.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ineti
Ye gods. I think I'll skip the nights they cover Frodo's life between the time Gandalf leaves and comes back. What is that, 17 years? :)

---

Oh, come on! Those 17 years wouldn't take more than a few minutes to cover. Nothing much happened during them. They could flash "x years later" at the bottom of the screen at the beginning of the next scene and just about get the same effect.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
And for the story it is irrelevant whether Glorfindel finds them or Arwen, I think.

---

Perhaps, but I didn't like how the movie had Arwen sneak up on Aragorn and put her sword to his neck. Also, at the ford, it was Arwen confronting the ringwraiths instead of Frodo. The first movie didn't give Frodo much of a chance to show his bravery.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fat buddha
The first movie didn't give Frodo much of a chance to show his bravery.

---

But was that really necessary?

Don't you get an equally interesting, albeit slightly different development arc for Frodo by not establishing him as a dormant bad-ass?

It's a change that might be unnecessary to some, but I don't feel as if it hurts the over-all story. Therefore, no harm done, IMO.

I think it's amazing that they've stayed this close to the books! The main story is all there, and lots of deeper information is hinted at, and that makes people want to know more and read the books.

Obviously, I would love it if they went and made a 15-hour version of it, but I'm content with the movies so far. :D

I think the Fellowship of the Ring is more faithful to the book, but really The Two Towers isn't that much more at variance. If you just ignore the Elves at Helm's Deep, I'd say they are about equal. A lot of stuff in TTT is from the RotK actually, such as when Grima talks to Eowyn after Theodred dies, the things he says are actually said by Gandalf in RotK, and all the love scenes with Aragorn and Arwen (which I've heard recieve a lot of flak as being 'invented' by PJ) are actually in the appendix and couldn't seriously be told without doing as they did. In the book, you see Arwen at Rivendell, hear about the standard she sends to Aragorn, and then they are married at RotK's ending and you are like "whoa, where'd she turn up from?" So in the movie you need some backround on her, otherwise your normal movie-goer would think "gosh, why did he snub Eowyn's advances like that? They should have married!" ;)

I think I like FotR better than TTT... but they are so different, it's hard to say that. They were originally written to be one book, the Lord of the Rings, so I just tell people "Lord of the Rings is my favorite!" and don't worry about trying to figure out which of the trilogy I like best. :)

So, in closing, since I guess I've sort of rambled incoherently... I'm absolutely fine with how they've done the movies and love them, but I totally see where people come from when they complain about things they did or didn't do. We are all LotR fanatics here! :D

Well actually I think TTT is a complete different thing. It was much worse than FOTR, although I still liked it. Besides several bad fx effects, I did not agree to the changes. E.g. why did the Ents first of all say no? There is no need for it. However the Ents talk days to come to that conclusion and when Fangorn sees the killed trees they are all present within seconds and march towards Isengart. But why was that change made?

The next and even worse thing is the change with Faramir. He becomes far more "evil" than in the book and is actually destroyed. and then this very bad move at then end. The attack of the Nazgul with the ring only one arm length away and it is driven away by one single arrow? HELLLOOOOO??? That was real bad.

Aragorns fall and ride through wilderness was also unneccessary and I do not see why that change was made.

And why does Elrdon hate Aragorn so much? That is much different in the book, hey, after all he's Aragorns Great ( times 10 ) uncle.


The only thing I like about the changes is the help by the Elves. I think that was a good change, although it changes the story significantly. It takes much of the sadness of the book.


But FOTR showed the very essence of the book adequately with enough scenes for the fans to say, "Hey I know that!". I do not know about the English version but in the German one, around 50% of the dialogues were original quotes of the book, which was very good.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
E.g. why did the Ents first of all say no? There is no need for it. However the Ents talk days to come to that conclusion and when Fangorn sees the killed trees they are all present within seconds and march towards Isengart. But why was that change made?

---

Because having a subplot that essentially consists of a bunch of characters sitting around and agreeing with one another is boring and pointless in a movie.

Quote:

---

The next and even worse thing is the change with Faramir. He becomes far more "evil" than in the book and is actually destroyed.

---

I've found the character quite interesting. Again, having a subplot that consists of a bunch of characters agreeing with each other is not particularly exciting. I liked the final exchange between him and Frodo, which was an interesting take on how the two characters relate to one another.
I'm not sure what to make of Faramir leading them to Osgiliath, but I'm willing to wait for RotK before judging this change in plot.

Quote:

---

The attack of the Nazgul with the ring only one arm length away and it is driven away by one single arrow? HELLLOOOOO??? That was real bad.

---

Dramatic license in story-telling. I didn't hear anyone complaining about one man killing hundreds of orcs single-handedly in FotR.
Just because it was in the book, doesn't make it any less OTT and unrealistic.

Quote:

---

Aragorns fall and ride through wilderness was also unneccessary and I do not see why that change was made.

---

In part because it showed how Aragorn's love for Arwen is a very important aspect of the character, almost a driving force.
But mostly because it provided a segueway into the Arwen flashback and allowed the other characters (Legolas, Gimli, Theoden and especially Eowyn) to react to his "death". This way you realized just how they relate to him, without having people flat out telling you.
It was quite clever, I thought.

Quote:

---

And why does Elrdon hate Aragorn so much?

---

???
It's not that he hates Aragorn, but that he loves Arwen more. TO him Aragorn is pretty much some teenage punk coming to take away his "precious".

Now, one might argue whether giving Elrond such a "regular father's" motivation is a good idea. I didn't mind it, as it grounded the other-wise aloof elves in reality.

Quote:

---

It takes much of the sadness of the book.

---

How so?
Book-elves: "Well, there's this evil demi-god, which we fought together ages ago, and this fallen wizard about to conquer all your lands. Good luck with that, we're off to Ibiza!"

Movie-elves:"Well, there's this evil demi-god, which we fought together ages ago, and this fallen wizard about to conquer all your lands. We could just disappear or show some back-bone and help you one last time, despite risking our immortality for an earth we won't live in anyway."

The elves fighting and dieing at Helm's Deep makes them noble, when you realize what they've given up.
There's nothing sad about a bunch of elves leaving, if you don't realize what is being lost to M-E because of it. The elves in Helm's Deep helped the audience realize this.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
Well actually I think TTT is a complete different thing. It was much worse than FOTR, although I still liked it. Besides several bad fx effects, I did not agree to the changes. E.g. why did the Ents first of all say no? There is no need for it. However the Ents talk days to come to that conclusion and when Fangorn sees the killed trees they are all present within seconds and march towards Isengart. But why was that change made?

The next and even worse thing is the change with Faramir. He becomes far more "evil" than in the book and is actually destroyed. and then this very bad move at then end. The attack of the Nazgul with the ring only one arm length away and it is driven away by one single arrow? HELLLOOOOO??? That was real bad.

Aragorns fall and ride through wilderness was also unneccessary and I do not see why that change was made.

And why does Elrdon hate Aragorn so much? That is much different in the book, hey, after all he's Aragorns Great ( times 10 ) uncle.

The only thing I like about the changes is the help by the Elves. I think that was a good change, although it changes the story significantly. It takes much of the sadness of the book.

But FOTR showed the very essence of the book adequately with enough scenes for the fans to say, "Hey I know that!". I do not know about the English version but in the German one, around 50% of the dialogues were original quotes of the book, which was very good.

---

I can't say that I know exactly what thought processes Peter Jackson and his co-adapters went through, but from a dramatic standpoint, many of the changes make sense.

Film, as a medium, is all about heightened drama, and characters being met with challenges which change them. I am aiming these comments at the supposition that PJ and crew aimed at a highly-successful, dramatic adaptation rather than one which scrupulously adhered to the novels. Prose can tell us so much more about the inner workings of characters, while in films, everything must obviously be spelled out through action or dialogue.

Having the Ents immediately agree with the Hobbits equals no drama.

I'm not sure why the Ents were all on hand at Isengard, but then, some small amount of time may have passed from Treebeard's summons and their arrival, they might have been following him because they were curious about the Hobbits, or the ones who came out of the wood might have been others than those at the Entmoot.

Having Faramir recognize that the ring is evil and do nothing but talk to the Hobbits for several hours in the cave, then let them go, unharmed and unhindered, is neither dramatic (for a film, that is), or showing any character development. The Ring is evil - the book can constantly tell us how it is manipulating people and corrupting them, but if you can't show it affecting someone (and that person overcoming the ring's corrupting influence), then it lacks the drama that a film requires.

No idea why the Nazgul was so eager to flee, but then, the thought of a bunch more arrows killing its hell-hawk and stranding it in the middle of Osgiliath (a city on a river - which Nazgul despise), might have been motive enough.

Having Aragorn separated and go through some sort "rebirth" gives him the chance to: a) have a flashback about Arwen, b) appear to be supernaturally fated or lucky, and c) gives him the "hero reborn" aura that just hanging around with the Rohir might not have given him.

I personally never got the notion that Elrond hated Aragorn - it certainly doesn't come through in the Fellowship film. I thought it was more that to him, his fatherly love for his daughter took precedence over Aragorn's love for her, and he advised her as to best avoid a life of heartache and loss because she would marry a mortal. I mean, the tale of Beren and Luthien is a pretty sad one, and well-known to the Elves.

I also agreed with the change of having the Elves show up, as it was nice to see a reuniting of the Free Peoples. Not sure why Haldir said "Master Elrond sends his greetings" rather than mentioning Galadriel, but there you go.

Gee, Joe -

You wrote point-for-point exactly what I was composing, and posted it while I was still busy typing away.

Cool to be on the same wavelength!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Dizzy
Don't you get an equally interesting, albeit slightly different development arc for Frodo by not establishing him as a dormant bad-ass?

---

I personally prefer the way Frodo is depicted in the book. I find the movie version less compelling. That's just my opinion, though. Like I already said, I think the movie was very good. But I think I would have liked it more if less had been altered.

I hope this won't be taken negatively.

I saw in an interview with PJ about TTT where he said he basically took the story of TTT and made the movie the way he would like to see it as someone watching from the theater seats.

As far as I am concerned PJ has been very faithful to the story, maybe not the books but certainly the overall story. Changes have to be made in the book-film transition. I personally like the Helm's Deep debate with the Elves. In my thinking it is easier to do Helm's Deep the way the Prof. did in print then on film. Just look at it you have, what, maybe 100-200 Rohir defending the Deep being attacked by thousands of orcs. Now, the readers attention will be held because in the book it is well written and very dramatic. The movie-goer will see that same small force beating 1000s of orcs, even with the help of Gandalf and Eomer's men, and they'll snort and say "yeah, right." Even I was wondering if they would bring in re-enforcements when I saw the movie. Actually seeing a scene with ones eyes make it more "real" then reading the same scene in a book.

And the thought of breaking the story down to it's six components...?!! They would still be filming the blasted thing and it would have a release date of 2012 and wouldn't end until 2018! Anyone want to wait that long???

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Durall
Gee, Joe -

You wrote point-for-point exactly what I was composing, and posted it while I was still busy typing away.

Cool to be on the same wavelength!

---

:D :)

Doesn't happen very often, that I'm on a similar, let alone the same, wavelength with anyone.

You'll be added to my Buddy List, just for that. ;)

First of all I'm a big fan of the films, but have had a few issues with bits here and there.

Nobody can ever persuade me that Aragorn bitch-slapping a whole bunch of ringwraiths at weathertop does anything but turn the RWs into comical sidekick characters. Every time they show up, they get their arses handed to them on a plate, often by opponents they should realy be able to eat for breakfast. But never mind, most people don't seem to notice, so I suppose it's not a major problem, but weathertop irritated me.

In TTT I was annoyed at the length of the ARwen interlude, but some of you here have made some very valid points as to why this was necessery in the film, and you've changed my mind. Fair enough, the Arwen/Aragorn/Elrond relationship did need establishing more firmly and that was a good way to do it. Likewise with faramir, although the ringwraith getting smacked down by a single arrow was daft.

However whatever little niggles I might have here and there, PJ won me over permanently with his portrayal of one character - Golum. That was some of the best character development I have ever seen in a film, and is just all the more amazing that it was a CG character.


Simon Hibbs

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simon_hibbs
Nobody can ever persuade me that Aragorn bitch-slapping a whole bunch of ringwraiths at weathertop does anything but turn the RWs into comical sidekick characters. Every time they show up, they get their arses handed to them on a plate, often by opponents they should realy be able to eat for breakfast. But never mind, most people don't seem to notice, so I suppose it's not a major problem, but weathertop irritated me.

---

Would these be the same Ringwraiths that:

a) Farmer Maggot set his dog on?
b) Were asking for the Shire in Gondor? (despite that the Witch-king used to rule Angmar, a land very close to the Shire)

I dunno - they didn't come across as comical sidekicks to me, but weren't perhaps as scary as they should have been.

I wasn't sad at all at the two movies, since I already knew PJ was going to change a bunch of things.

BUT...the same complaint about the Ringwraiths...

Jason, let me try to humbly answer your questions:

1 - I do not think they were driven away by the dogs...they were simply looking for the hobbits and ignored the dogs (although I do not remember this part in the books).

2 - The Shire, in the time when Angmar was the Cold Evil Kingdom from the North, wasn't know to anyone, except a few rangers. The Shire (and the Hobbits as well) were always a mystery, merely a legend to many...in that age, of course.

My problem is...the Ringwraiths were the book's most terrifying foes. Aragorn (in the movies) should not run away from them! Why didn't him finish them off?

In the book, the merely passing of the ringwraiths (even in their fell-beasts - hopefully wichtking is not on this board) was enough to scare the souls out of the bodies of the men. I understand Arwen not fearing them, but...the rest...I don't know, maybe it's because I like the RW a lot.

Cheers,

Helegond

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Helegond
1 - I do not think they were driven away by the dogs...they were simply looking for the hobbits and ignored the dogs (although I do not remember this part in the books).

---

Farmer Maggot, when asked by the Ringwraiths about Baggins, gave them no answers and said something to the effect that his dogs chased them off.

Quote:

---

2 - The Shire, in the time when Angmar was the Cold Evil Kingdom from the North, wasn't know to anyone, except a few rangers. The Shire (and the Hobbits as well) were always a mystery, merely a legend to many...in that age, of course.

---

True, but having them look as far off as Gondor (south of Dol Guldur) when the Shire, Gollum, and all of the events concerning the Ring's recovery were in the north, sort of makes them look inept, in my eyes at least. They traded freely in Bree and were known there, and even the Eorlingas/Rohir knew of them from their time back North, before settling Rohan.

Your opinion obviously varies in this, but considering the vast distances, it seems almost like asking about Vancouver in Panama.

Quote:

---

My problem is...the Ringwraiths were the book's most terrifying foes. Aragorn (in the movies) should not run away from them! Why didn't him finish them off?

---

Perhaps because he had four frightened (and one very wounded) Hobbits to take care of, and had no idea how many Nazgul were around, or what other forces they might have brought.

If he had stayed and fought, he might have died, and thus failed the mission of keeping the Ring safe, and bringing it to Rivendell.

Quote:

---

In the book, the merely passing of the ringwraiths (even in their fell-beasts - hopefully wichtking is not on this board) was enough to scare the souls out of the bodies of the men. I understand Arwen not fearing them, but...the rest...I don't know, maybe it's because I like the RW a lot.

---

On the other hand, they're not so invulnerable that Legolas isn't able to take down a hell-hawk mounted Nazgul in flight with a single arrow shot, as he did while they were nearing the Falls of Rauros.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Helegond
My problem is...the Ringwraiths were the book's most terrifying foes. Aragorn (in the movies) should not run away from them! Why didn't him finish them off?

---

Wait, your question doesn't really make sense... they are the most terrifiying foes, so why didn't they die?

If I recall, the Nazgul drew off almost of their own will, relying on Frodo to succumb to the power of the Morgul Blade. But Hobbits are made of sterner stuff, and Frodo held to life steadily. When they found he had not yet fallen and had nearly reached Rivendell, they attacked; but were too late.

I'm nearly sure that the Nazgul could have slain Aragorn if they really had wanted to, but they didn't feel like exerting their strength at that moment. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Helegond
In the book, the merely passing of the ringwraiths (even in their fell-beasts - hopefully wichtking is not on this board) was enough to scare the souls out of the bodies of the men. I understand Arwen not fearing them, but...the rest...I don't know, maybe it's because I like the RW a lot.

---

Scare the souls out of the bodies of men? They could really freak people out (take, for example, in Return of the King when they arrive, chasing Faramir), but that after they had revealed themselves.

They didn't scare the souls out of the Gaffer or Farmer Maggot; but if they had flown back to the Shire on their Fell Beasts, I'm sure they could have. ;)

To me, the Ringwraiths were done very well in the movie. It's hard to ask for a more accurate depiction of them! But of course, everything is open to debate and varied opinion. :cool:

P.S. Does anyone know if there are rules in the game to account for the Nazgul's dislike of fire? Thanks! :)

I don't recall any. But, most legends of undead creatures do say that they are afraid of (can be destroyed by) fire. Then again most creatures fear fire. Even Man ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Phantom
I don't recall any. But, most legends of undead creatures do say that they are afraid of (can be destroyed by) fire. Then again most creatures fear fire. Even Man ;)

---

True... true... :D

I would probably make an Intimidate test, and add a high bonus from Wielding An Object Target Has Cause To Fear. Whoa, I just answered me own question. ;)