Poll: Changes in LOTR Movies

[Jedi_Master]

Re: Tom Bombadil. I agree he had not place in the films, and that his inclusion breaks up the pace of the novel. I don't agree that he "undercut the threat of the Ring", in fact he actually enhanced its threat, showing that even a force of nature like Tom could not withstand the power of the Ring forever. It was an evil that could not be ignored or hidden, it had to be destroyed.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Aragorn versus Sauron. In the book and movie, Sauron does not appear. But they filmed Sauron returning in physical form to duel Aragorn. I would have been happy with that. Gollumn describes that Sauron physically exists (he has four fingers on his black hand) so I see no reason why he wouldn't come forward to kill Aragorn in his moment of final triumph. Particularly if he suspects Aragorn has the Ring on him! And it would have made for a big climax. I can only imagine the confusion that non-book-readers felt when they saw Sauron in the Prologue and he's just a flaming eyeball for the rest of the series.

Honestly, I feel that the climax of the film feels hollow without Sauron at the Towers of the Teeth. Throughout the first two films there are hints that Aragorn is going to have to confront Sauron (Arwen comes right out and says it in Fellowship, for instance) and he'll do what Isildur did not, and the films are building toward that conclusion. Then it doesn't happen because Jackson changed his mind in the editing room, and Aragorn has his boss fight with a troll instead. Here's an instance where I feel that Jackson should have stayed with his original instinct, even though it wasn't Tolkienian.

 

[RoJoHen]

Oh, man! That would have been awesome! Frodo gets to the Crack and walks in and there's Sauron waiting for him! So he puts on the Ring and he grows this golden armor all over him and they have this huge fight!

I was more thinking that he would see a Wraith or shadow or something waiting for him in the cave. Something to give a little more substance to Frodo's line, "I can see him...with my waking eyes!"

 

[Marsden]

My opinions:
* Tom Bombadil served no real narrative purpose in the novel, IMO, and would've served even less narrative purpose in the film.

I disagree. He served two purposes: 1. He saved Frodo and his party from the Old Forest and 2. he added to the world building going on during the events of the story. The second one might not count as a narrative purpose, though. But you are absolutely right about not serving a purpose in the film because they barely mentioned the Old Forest.

The whole first Book out of six was just getting Frodo and the ring to Rivendell, I'd say well over half of that was cut, so Tom, Gildor, Glorfindel, the Old Forest, and a lot of other things went with them.

Re: Tom Bombadil. I agree he had not place in the films, and that his inclusion breaks up the pace of the novel. I don't agree that he "undercut the threat of the Ring", in fact he actually enhanced its threat, showing that even a force of nature like Tom could not withstand the power of the Ring forever. It was an evil that could not be ignored or hidden, it had to be destroyed.

I don't mind much about most of the changes made in the film in many cases there was either no real reason to include is or including it would not "enhance" the viewing experience.

The big one that does get me is not including the "original" return to the shire in the books, for me it was the ultimate pay-off of their journey (from just existing in the shire to being willing to fight for it), though I think you would have had to cut a lot out of the film to include an additional at least 20mins to half hour to tell it right.

I agree, I was very disappointed about no Battle of Bywater and getting rid of Sharkey.

I don't know what exactly Jackson was going for, but from the Hobbit point of view that whole "War of the Ring" was going on over there and didn't really matter. So Frodo saved the known world. What made him more important in the Shire was his saving them from Sharkey. That seems opposite, but it's actually much more realistic, I've seen many situations where big important things "over there" don't matter as smaller things "here" I really would have enjoyed Pippen and Merry gaining their prominence of the Shire, but I guess that was too secondary to the movies.

 

[Gaith]

With LotR, I think the filmmakers made pretty much all the right calls. The Scouring of the Shire is an awesome surprise finish to the book, and could definitely have worked in a miniseries, but didn't belong in the movie at all. I have some quibbles - not nuts about the Ghost Army, and the brief scene of the Witch King breaking Gandalf's staff should have remained in the theatrical - but overall, I'm almost completely pleased with the trilogy. (EE FotR, theatrical TTT and ROTK. )

If they make the decision to include Arwen as a character, then she needs to be a part of the story and not pining away back in Rivendell. Have her join Aragorn in battle and through the entirety of ROTK.

Oh, helllllllllll no! The poignancy of their separation was key to Aragorn's struggle.

 

[Kemaiku]

Dol Guldor is the fortress in the southern tip of Mirkwood that Sauron/the Necromancer hid in during the Hobbit.

Gollum was captured by orcs and taken to Mordor where he was tortured in Barad Dur and he saw Sauron face to face.

Because Sauron had a body.

He had a shadow form. The first time he lost his body, the Ring was borne back with him to Mordor, where he was able to connect with it and form the armour body.

Had Frodo failed and the Ring, touched the Eye, he would have had a new body again, but only then.

Until then Barad Dur had enough of his power and influence to allow a 'something' to manifest, described in the books as a shape more than anything.

So there could have been no fight, unless Sauron had the Ring back. And at that point everyone would be fucked, Aragorn would be a splat on the ground in seconds.

 

[suarezguy]

I like cutting Tom Bombadil, expanding Arwen's role (but not to the point of reuniting with Aragorn earlier) is OK and I like that they didn't give Sauron a physical form to fight.
I would have preferred if Gollum had just tripped and fell, with Frodo unambiguously not reforming back, and don't like the film version of Farmair, it's OK to make him more imperfect but he seems too stubborn for too long and then lets the heroes leave without seeming to have a strong additional reason.

 

[RoJoHen]

and then lets the heroes leave without seeming to have a strong additional reason.

Sam's awesome speech is all the reason he needs.

 

[FPAlpha]

You know.. i actually prefer the movie Shire version to the book (please don't stone me! ).

It was nice to see that there was a small corner of Middle Earth that was totally unaffected by the world changing events.. those Hobbits still tended to their gardens, had their parties and met in the pub in the evening. A fulfilling life unaware how close they came to utter terror.

I especially liked the scene of the "veteran" Hobbits returning home, sitting down in the pub and just looking beat thinking about all the horrors they've seen and endured but soon enough their true nature returned and they started to heal and were able to enjoy life again.

 

[Lonemagpie]

Tom Bombadil - Would have seen the movie laughed off the screen, and the trilogy probably never completed. He's a literary device who needs to stay in that medium.

Scouring of the Shire- TBH I sometimes wonder if they were kind of holding it back as a potential spinoff/sequel. But there really just wasn't room for that.

It bugs me that they left the death of Saruman out of the theatrical cut, and changed Shelob so that she doesn't speak.

 

[Mr Light]

I don't remember Shelob speaking in the book

 

[Starbreaker]

The death of Saruman would have worked better at the end of TTT. I agree with what Jackson said in the commentary. You can't have the beginning of the movie be the death of a villain from the last film. The ROTK SE is so long that it really don't matter at that point. I actually think the Wormtongue/Saruman scene is great, but I only saw the theatrical edition once and I've seen the SE a dozen times, so whatever.

 

[Beagleman]

You can't have the beginning of the movie be the death of a villain from the last film.

Kinda ironic now, isn't it...

 

[Lonemagpie]

I don't remember Shelob speaking in the book

I do. Mind you it's been a few years...

 

[Gaith]

The death of Saruman would have worked better at the end of TTT.

We already had the successful defense of Helm's Deep and the sacking of Isengard by the Ents; to add another victory in Saruman's death would have been too much. Same goes for putting it at the beginning of RotK. Book readers will know that Sarry gets his; for film-only audiences, I kind of like the uncertainty of his situation, trapped in his tower, but still dangerous should he ever get free.

 

[FPAlpha]

Yet it was never mentioned or even alluded to that Saruman survived the Ent Assault and movie audiences have no idea what became of Saruman and Wormtongue.

It is a decision made by Jackson which i believe is one of the few very wrong ones. It's not like he was saving the character to make LotR 4: The Return of Saruman.

 

[JarodRussell]

Another change that I found slightly annoying: Anduril and Narsil, which goes hand in hand with Aragorn's state of mind. In the book, he was ready to be King and face Sauron, which is why he got Narsil at the beginning of the journey from Rivendell. And every time it's described how Narsil causes fear in the orc armies. I liked that.

Then, in Return of the King, I disliked how they handled the undead army and the appearance of the Black Ships at the battle of Pellenor. It's so AWESOME in the book, but the execution in the movie is lacking.

In the book, the ships arrive at the harbor, and the orcs are eagerly awaiting reinforcements. And then, suddenly, the ships fly the flag of Gondor. Then Aragorn, and 30 other Dunadain, jump into the battle. And Aragorn holds Narsil high in the sky, and it reflects the sunlight to make it look like it's in flames. And then Aragorn and Eomer meet on the battlefield, much like - in the new film - Dain and Thorin meet on the battlefield (I was actually really glad they did that).

The sequence in the novel is so cinematic. I can't believe they didn't include that.



Come to think of it, how they handled the confrontation between Gandalf and the Witchking also annoyed me. In both the theatrical and the extended edition, the confrontation feels badly edited into the battle. In the book, the build up and the confrontation was again much more cinematic. It happens right after Grond breaches the main gate. The Witchking rides through the gate, he is invisible, so you can see the fires of the battlefield burning through his metal crown. And Gandalf awaits him, prepared, not surprised.

 

[Mr Light]

I agree the army of the dead was not done as well as possible in the movie. It was super creepy and scary in the book but goofy looking in the movie.

I also love-love-love the Witch King scene in the book... BUT I do prefer having Minas Tirith actually get invaded by the enemy as it happens in the movie.

 

[RoJoHen]

Man, it's been such a long time since I read the books. I don't remember any of this stuff.

 

[Gaith]

Yet it was never mentioned or even alluded to that Saruman survived the Ent Assault

Why wouldn't he have? Isengard the tower wasn't shown to be at all damaged, IIRC.

and movie audiences have no idea what became of Saruman and Wormtongue.

House arrest, man. He didn't have enough eagle-buddies to escape.