🧙 The Tolkien Forum 🧝

Welcome to our forum! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox! Plus you won't see ads ;)

Differences...

sil

Registered User
Joined
Dec 12, 2001
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Location
Czech Republic
As this thread was named Lotr vs. PJ's Lotr I'd like to know
whether anyone anywhere listed them? Some say they were four
or so, but I could see hundreds!

There the major ones:

- the legend
1) Those who have not read the book have no imagination what
is Middle-earth, who are elves, dwarves or orcs/goblins or
even hobits
2) Sauron-knight was rather Melkor's picture
3) creature Gollum wasn't a creature first-the ring made him
4) Bilbo met and spoke to Gollum (many non-raders say "How do
hobbits know about Gollum?)

- the beginning
1) birthday party and stolen fireworks rocket...
2) there are 4 not 2 hobbits starting the journey, no stolen
vegetables...
3) missing scene when they met elves for the first (dark rider)
Btw there Frodo learned elvish which he used against the
riders
4) Saruman vs. Gandalf (terrible!)

- to the valley
1) they were afraid of Aragorn, riddle was missing, how could
they know Aragorn is Gandalf's friend?
2) Tom Bambadill .... have you been thinking where Aragorn
found the swords he gave them? It'd be hard job bearing
3 even hobbit-sized swords on the road...
3) Gandalf's flashes when he was ambushed by riders
4) Aragorn's fight against riders ... ;) he wasn't that good!
5) Arwen...no!

- Elrond council
1) Aragorn didn't reveal he is Isuldir's heir
2) No love scenes only sadness in their eyes
3) No broken sword on an altar
4) the length...
5) Boromir pictured as an arogant and untrustworthy man.
He had a graet repect for Elrond and the decision of council
indeed. He disliked Aragorn as he didn't know he is his king!
If he had known (as the movie showed) he would have died
for him at once!
6) what for the gods sake is mithril? (and the hunger of
dwarves for it...)

- Moria
1) Saruman and the snowfall
2) Who was for and against the passage throught Moria...
3) octupus...
4) long fight against the cave troll, Stinger injuring it.
btw, there were more trolls and less orcs
5) the first Balrog's challange of Gandalf when trying to lock
the door
6) wobbling bridge

Now I am tired - would anyone go on? ;)

sil
 

Elfarmari

Tingilindë
Joined
Jan 5, 2002
Messages
516
Reaction score
1
Location
New Mexico, USA
One of the changes I really don't understand (other than Arwen) is having Gandalf prefer Caradhras and Aragorn prefer Moria, instead of the other way around. That didn't make much sense to me. Does anyone know the reason for doing this, or adding Saruman as the cause of their trouble?
 
B

B Proudfoot

Guest
Trying to include all about Tom Bombidil would have been a nightmare for the film. Sacrifices have to be made surely? I went to see the film with non-readers and felt shocked when one of them said that the first hour wasn't really required!!! But thinking about it, anybody who tackles and work of this magnitude is always going to get the really rough end of the deal from purists. Don't get me wrong, I am one as a previous reply shows, but I'm also a realist. For me the film adds to my imagination for the last 20 odd years especially the effects used when Frodo puts on the ring! The film hightens my enjoyment of the written word and nothing will ever beat reading it!

"Do you not yet understand? My time is over: it is no longer my task to set things to rights, nor to help folk to do so."
 
R

ReadWryt

Guest
Frodo's adventures in Wraith Space were indeed a pleasant surprise for me. I thought they did a wonderfull job of showing the scary place that the Ring made visible, and it left me thinking in retrospect that Bilbo would have had to have been very brave to go into that every time he slipped on the ring to avoid the Sackville Baggins'...
 

sil

Registered User
Joined
Dec 12, 2001
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Location
Czech Republic
...there was more of it

Originally posted by Nienor
One of the changes I really don't understand (other than Arwen) is having Gandalf prefer Caradhras and Aragorn prefer Moria, instead of the other way around. That didn't make much sense to me. Does anyone know the reason for doing this, or adding Saruman as the cause of their trouble?
Well, as far as I remember Mines of Moria were deserted for a
quite long time, due to something which Gimli, Gandalf and
Legolas were afraid of... (orcs say 'ghash' - 'fire')
Gimli knew in fact there was no dwarf alive - why the scene
on the altar then? In the book they found a lost tomb of a
dwarvish king - one of the ring possessors Durin (I have not read
the book in English so I am not sure about the spelling).

I am still not sure (a friend of mine stole me the book! my preciousss..;-) whether it was Aragorn who was for Moria. IMHO
Boromir was the one - it would have quicken their way to Gonder.

So the answer is - another of the things/changes that do not
make a sense and every reader asks why....
 

sil

Registered User
Joined
Dec 12, 2001
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Location
Czech Republic
Originally posted by B Proudfoot
Trying to include all about Tom Bombidil would have been a nightmare for the film. Sacrifices have to be made surely? I went to see the film with non-readers and felt shocked when one of them said that the first hour wasn't really required!!! But thinking about it, anybody who tackles and work of this magnitude is always going to get the really rough end of the deal from purists. Don't get me wrong, I am one as a previous reply shows, but I'm also a realist. For me the film adds to my imagination for the last 20 odd years especially the effects used when Frodo puts on the ring! The film hightens my enjoyment of the written word and nothing will ever beat reading it!
To that point I agree - as long as TB was a fairytale character
which JRRT added to make the story attractive for children. Tehre
should be a story he wrote (or a poem?) about him.
Nevertheless I heard TB was a puppet Tolkien's son owned - kind
of Dutch man with a hat on with bleu feather.

As for me, I admit hobbits had to be Dutch. Haven't you seen they were smoking all the time and the things they saw then...:D

BTW my view of the movie is probably the same as of the others -
it was not The Lord of The Rings but The Pictures from The Lord of The Rings. Breathtaking sceneries and effects making a hotch-potch together. Non-readers confused and either was I ;)

sil
 

Bill the Pony

Registered User
Joined
Dec 12, 2001
Messages
188
Reaction score
1
Eeuhh Sil, Gandalf wanted Moria, Aragorn wanted Redhorn and Boromir wanted Gap of Rohan.

From 'A journey in the Dark'
There is a way that we may attempt,' said Gandalf. `I thought from the beginning, when first I considered this journey, that we should try it. But it is not a pleasant way, and I have not spoken of it to the Company before. Aragorn was against it, until the pass over the mountains had at least been tried.'
<snip>
It is a name of ill omen,' said Boromir. `Nor do I see the need to go there. If we cannot cross the mountains, let us journey southwards, until we come to the Gap of Rohan, where men are friendly to my people, taking the road that I followed on my way hither. Or we might pass by and cross the Isen into Langstrand and Lebennin, and so come to Gondor from the regions nigh to the sea.'
I can not find a quote that states explicitly whether Gimli believed that Balin was still alive, but Gandalf mentions the possibility
There is even a chance that Dwarves are there, and that in some deep hall of his fathers, Balin son of Fundin may be found. However it may prove, one must tread the path that need chooses!'
'I will tread the path with you, Gandalf! ' said Gimli. 'I will go and look on the halls of Durin, whatever may wait there-if you can find the doors that are shut.'
originally posted by Sil
As for me, I admit hobbits had to be Dutch. Haven't you seen they were smoking all the time and the things they saw then
Ah yes, the old prejudice, just because we legalize the use of soft drugs, that must mean the whole country is constantly high...
Ah well, we've been called worse than a hobbit. I wouldn't mind being one
 

sil

Registered User
Joined
Dec 12, 2001
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Location
Czech Republic
Oh thanx,

how much can be forgoten? Perhaps I should,
instead of for my Czech one, look for the English
book - even names of places were translated
and I cannot follow the discussion here as I would
want to.

Is Tolkien's English tough for a non-native speaker?
I tried to read some Terry Pratchet's books but I was
lost on the first page and I can bet I have not caught
more than 1/3 of jokes there...

sil
 

starlight

Registered User
Joined
Jan 30, 2002
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
The biggest and most diffucult ommissions to the movie are probably stuff that we as readers just assumed happened.

1) There is no mention of the reforging of Narsil, and Aragon carries his old sword out of Rivendell?


2) There is no mention of Galadrial's gift to Sam (the little box with the dirt and the Mallorn Nut) How will Sam heal the Shire without recieving it?

I assume that these events will probably be taken care of in the other movies but......
 

Thorin

LOTR Purist to the end
Joined
Aug 20, 2001
Messages
1,402
Reaction score
15
Originally posted by starlight
There is no mention of Galadrial's gift to Sam (the little box with the dirt and the Mallorn Nut) How will Sam heal the Shire without recieving it?

I assume that these events will probably be taken care of in the other movies but......
Though I believe that the gift giving scenes were edited and will probably be shown in the DVD release, I don't believe Sam will get his box of dirt because the Scourging of the Shire and events following are not in the movie.

Because Sam plants his seeds to restore the Shire to what it was before the scourging, my guess is that is not included as well.
 

starlight

Registered User
Joined
Jan 30, 2002
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
What!!

No Scourging of the Shire?! ...... I'm hurt ...... deeply....

Thats the saddest and most beautiful part. Where darkness can hurt the most innocent. Where Merry and Pippen realize what they have been trained for. Where Sam can use his skills as a simple gardner to heal the hurt that has happened. Where the last death of the war falls a the dorstep of bag end. :(

(ok, realing it in now)

I'm waiting as fast as I can for the DVD because I want all those precious scenes that fell on the cutting room floor. Sad really. I don't care that the movie is 4 hours long.
 

Eol

Registered User
Joined
Dec 23, 2001
Messages
638
Reaction score
0
You've all missed the biggest change...

This change was the major shift in the alliances in the film. They changed Saruman from a self-serving double (and triple)-crosser to being a simple tool of Sauron. So instead of having Sauron and the baddies on one side, Gandalf and the goodies on the other, and Saruman playing them off against each other, we get a VERY simplistic Good vs Evil. Can't wait to see what they make of that later on. Also that "Make me an army" thing was pointless and just wasted film.

I was also wondering why the need for the Sauron-is-an-ethereal-eye bit? The book refers to the eye, but it doesn't by any means mean that he IS one. Nor does it say he wasn't in corporeal form.

Also, much as I thought the effects for the great battle at the beginning were cool, there was this problem in that it seemed that Sauron was all powerful and that the ring finger being snicked off was more accidental. Other things in the movie tended to compound this "Sauron is invincible" bit. He was VERY powerful, but remember that the Numenoreans defeated him while he had ring (ok, more precisely, he barely resisted knowing he would fail, so he hid the ring and worked on treachery instead). The point is, there were great people who could stand up to Sauron. In fact Sauron fears that one of these may seize the ring and defeat him.

Also in the book the ring wasn't removed until AFTER Sauron was defeated. Elendil fell, and Narsil broke beneath him. Isilder fights Sauron and kills him. Then, with the hilt-shard of Narsil, cut the ring from his finger "as a weregild for his father and brother".

Remember also that Sauron was a Maia, as was Gandalf and Saruman. They were all of the same kind. Both powerful elves and men can and did stand up to them. The problem was more that the side of good was just outnumbered and that in time Sauron would eventually wear them down (remember also that when Aragorn revealed himself to Sauron in the Palantir and showed him Narsil re-forged that Sauron was afraid).

Oh well, I personally was disappointed. The movie is there to sell product and has more to do with marketing than telling the story. Just toss it in the same pile as Dune, The Haunting, and a myriad other movies that "supposedly" are true to the original book.

Eol - The Dark Elf
 
H

Harad

Guest
This change was the major shift in the alliances in the film. They changed Saruman from a self-serving double (and triple)-crosser to being a simple tool of Sauron.
Its a pleasure to see all these old chestnuts taken out for roasting.

Where were Merry and Pippen being taken?
 

sil

Registered User
Joined
Dec 12, 2001
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Location
Czech Republic
Eol: I agree, especially with your last paragraph. Tolkien's was THE
WORK and Jackson's a movie...pity.
BTW I have been thinking 'bout book to movies remakes and it
is obviously hard to find a good pair. Perhaps 'Conan I',
'Pets Cemetary' or '1984'...

Harad: To Saruman. Hi reckons one of them could have the ring for
his dark purposes. Therefore, in the book of course, he
commanded Skurut-hai not to harm hobbits and not to
search for anything (he wants to keep it secret!).

But in the movie Merry and Pippen are them most worthless
characters. Just Disney-like babbering 'really funny, isn't it
dear' persons without a goal and sense. Intro with the dragon
rocket... :( makes me sick.

sil
 
R

ReadWryt

Guest
I'm still trying to puzzle out the 14 foot tall Sauron in the begining of the film...what the heck was THAT about?
 

sil

Registered User
Joined
Dec 12, 2001
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Location
Czech Republic
Well, I did not so mind personalising Sauron as a knight.
I reckon it might be a cross-joint of Sauron and
Melkor. Could you see the helmet as there were three
spikes, it reminded me about his crown where sillmarils
were embedded...

For people who hadn't even heard the legend it was
a great scene indeed - but asking me "Who was that big
fellow?" they run me into trouble :) ... after all,
the movie was not so great as I expected and not so bad
as I worried. Taking it as another version of LOTR
makes me feel better...

sil
 
R

ReadWryt

Guest
Oh, don't get me wrong! I felt that displaying Sauron in Armour was a great way to avoid the inevitable arguments that "That is not what Sauron looks like!" no matter HOW they portrayed him, but he was not gigantic in any way. It's just another example of how a director of cheesey horror movies goes for what he knows when attempting to instill fear in his audience...
 
H

Harad

Guest
1) There is no mention of the reforging of Narsil, and Aragon carries his old sword out of Rivendell?
Aragorn has no "old sword," either in the book or the movie. In the book Narsil is reforged in Anduril after the CoE. In the movie the reforging is TBD. The book, yes the perfect book, has problems explaining what Aragorn's real weapon was before CoE.

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=57490#post57490

Harad: To Saruman. Hi reckons one of them could have the ring for his dark purposes. Therefore, in the book of course, he commanded Skurut-hai not to harm hobbits and not to search for anything (he wants to keep it secret!).

But in the movie Merry and Pippen are them most worthless characters. Just Disney-like babbering 'really funny, isn't it dear' persons without a goal and sense. Intro with the dragon rocket... makes me sick.
Sil: I dont know what you are trying to say here. In both the book and the movie Saruman tells his troops to capture Hobbits. In both the book and the movie M&P have minor roles in FOTR. The movie even expands their roles by having them take a hand in rescuing Frodo at Parth Galen.

If you referring to my point about Saruman, I am merely casting asparagus on the "idea" that Saruman in the movie is a complete toady of Sauron. Why then would he bring the Hobbits back to Isengard instead of taking them to Morrrrdorrr?

I realize this is a movie-bashing thread, but occasional doses of reality might help.
 
A

armeda

Guest
I just saw the movie and I loved it. The feeling I got from the movie was the same and most of the scenes and places were almost exactly how I had them pictured in my mind. You all have brought out some good points. Putting that aside, what I thought should have been brought more, sort of on a comedic side note, is the fact that hobits are Always hungry. They are constantly mentioning it in the book but only noticed one scene in the movie. Also the scenes with the elves and Lady of the wood. No mention of the hobits having a crush on her. No mention of the mistrust and dislike between Drarves/Gimli and the Elves and the fact that they insisted he be blindfolded when they left and the anger. How all agreed to be blindfolded. All in all, they did a wonderful job. They could have messed it up real bad.

Armeda
 

baraka

Elven Craftsmen
Joined
Dec 27, 2001
Messages
360
Reaction score
1
Location
Outworld
When i see these posts about changes in the movie, how come no one ever notices that PJ changed the name of Bilbo´s book. Am I the only one who notices it, or people just don´t care. Can someone please explain why was the change necessary.
 

Thread suggestions

Top