Differences between the movies and books (and how to explain them)...Parts 1,2

[ket_the_jet]

Here are a few thoughts:

-I didn't mind them not including the Barrow-Wights in the movie. The movie seems to take care of how the Hobbits get the swords in an efficient manner, and they get to Bree after facing enough danger.  But I've come to the conclusion that there are problems with the movie version.  Why is Strider carrying four Hobbit-sized swords?  How does he know there will be four?  But the other major problem that occurs when the Barrow Wights are left out is that the significance of Merry's sword on the Pelennor Field is gone.  His sword had a devastating effect on the Captain of the Nazgul for the reason that it had been made by those who had been fighting the Kingdom of Angmar which was ruled by the person who became the Captain of the Nazgul.  Tolkien takes an event that happens near the beginning of the first volume and gives it significance for an extremely important event in the third volume.  Of course, if you had not read the book and were becoming familiar with the story for the first time through the movie, you would probably not be aware of this and you would think that Merry's stab at the back of the Witch King's leg could have happened with any old sword.

-In the book, Frodo's Barrow-Blade is shattered when he is cursed by the Black Riders. Would've explained the need for Sting!

-Why did Legolas tell Boromir that Strider was Aragorn, Son of Arathorn...I would've rather seen Elrond do that like the book.

-Boromir expresses Denethor's thoughts on the King in the movie. In the book, Aragorn and Boromir grew to be buddies, and Aragorn was going to Minas Tirith with Boromir once they got to that area (before Gandalf's plunge).

-The first flying Nazgul is seen before the group gets to Moria. It would've introduced the Fell Beasts long before when you are wondering "Why didn't they just fly to the Shire?"

-Why doesn't Glamdring glow as well?

-In the books, dwarves are known for their endurance. In the movie, Gimli is a whiner and can't keep up. That sucks.

-Aragorn is a total #$&*@! to Eomer upon their first meeting: Aragorn tells Eomer who he is. "I am Aragorn, son of Arathorn, Elessar, the elf stone, Dunedain, heir of Isuldur. This is the sword that was broken...Will you aid me or thwart me? Choose swiftly." I know they didn't introduce Anduril, but they still could've had Aragorn as a badass instead of a reluctant hero.

-Changing Treebeard's character neither simplified the story for film nor did it save time. In the book, he knew of Saruman cutting down trees, and even Boromir's recent death.

-Gandalf should have relayed Galadriel's message to Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas. It would've been way more badass to know the Paths of the Dead scene was coming and not because of douchebag Elrond.

-Theoden is unheroic in the Two Towers. The exorcism scene was lame enough (why not just have his mind poisoned by Grima?) He's one of the coolest characters in the book, and this change ranked bigger to me than Faramir's change. Gandalf is the one who suggested Helm's Deep...that would have been nice to see. And riding out to meet the orcs at Helm's Deep? Theoden's idea.

-Gimli falls off of a horse. WHY?

-I want to see some Dunlanders at Helm's Deep!

More thoughts later.
-wtk

[Chang]

good points.... i dont have answers....

[MR. Lurtzy]

-Why doesn't Glamdring glow as well?

Peter Jackson said that he completely forgot about it while making the movie.

[ket_the_jet]

Peter Jackson said that he completely forgot about it while making the movie.

Really? What a #$&*@!!
-wtk

[MR. Lurtzy]

It's such a minor thing... compared to some of his other travesties.

[Anautikus]

I'm sure a lot of changes were done for dramatic effect. I mean, Jackson was even considering the Aragorn-Sauron fight scene until further sensibility. It's Hollywood; what do you expect? However, I think the movies had strong points enough to stand alone as great works of their times. I just hate to think about the errors when watching the movies though; it ruins the magic of cinema.

[FingolfinFinwe]

I'm able to accept most of the changes while watching the films.  The only one that I can't get over while watching is the Army of the Dead toasting the entire Sauron army at Minas Tirith.  If PJ had put Sauron at the black gates I would have most likely disowned the film.  But as it is, most of it is so well done that I am able to overlook most faults.  PJ did capture the spirit of the books very well imo.

I can't freaking wait for The Hobbit movies.  Hellboy 2 is one of the most entertaining movies for me to watch, so I'm a fan of GDT as a director.  Is it 2011 yet?

[ket_the_jet]

The only one that I can't get over while watching is the Army of the Dead toasting the entire Sauron army at Minas Tirith. 

That is the easiest example of deus ex machina in film. There is some impossible situation and...bam! all of the sudden it is fixed!

Kind of like when a spy is getting tortured and is about to get shot and you hear a shot from off-screen...and the sidekick saves the day!
-wtk

[jdizzy001]

Another difference in the book that was not portrayed correctly in the movie was the decision to delve into moria.  In the book it was Gandalf's idea to pass through moria and aragorn's idea to travel over the mountain.  In fact a large portion of dialogue on the mountain was gandalf trying to convince frodo to go through moria instead of over it.

[ket_the_jet]

Another difference in the book that was not portrayed correctly in the movie was the decision to delve into moria.  In the book it was Gandalf's idea to pass through moria and aragorn's idea to travel over the mountain.  In fact a large portion of dialogue on the mountain was gandalf trying to convince frodo to go through moria instead of over it.

Yeah, that is a difference but I understand from a movie making point as to why they did it that way. They had to have Saruman and Gandalf, the two wizards, both know the "great evil" there as foreshadowing and also to set up the fact that Gandalf was going to supplant Saruman.
-wtk

[Beregond25]

You forgot the scouring of the shire. I mean the hobbits just march into the shire and everything is just fine? Definitely not how it happened in the book. And Saruman didn't die on top of his tower.

[ket_the_jet]

You forgot the scouring of the shire. I mean the hobbits just march into the shire and everything is just fine? Definitely not how it happened in the book. And Saruman didn't die on top of his tower.

I only did parts one and two, which represented The Fellowship of the Ring and part one of the Two Towers. I haven't had the time or patience to continue.
-wtk

[MR. Lurtzy]

Scouring would have made the movie too long.

[FingolfinFinwe]

And it would have seemed very anticlimactic to the audiences.  Not sure it would have gone over well.  But certainly it's something I would have enjoyed myself.

[ket_the_jet]

Scouring would have made the movie too long.

Oh man would it have. They would've had to break Return of the King into two movies for me to think putting that into the movie was a good idea (still wouldn't have been!) I think the end of the movie is pretty drawn out (like the book) but in worse format because you can't "put a movie down."
-wtk