🧙 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 ;)

discrepancies bet. movie & book

bilbofan

Registered User
Joined
Jan 10, 2002
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Location
brooklyn
I'm wondering about the hobbit's feet that I saw in the movie. Having read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, I expected really furry feet. The feet of the characters in the movie looked just a little hairy.
From the book, I expected that when Frodo puts on the ring and sees the faces of the black riders, they would look more distinct, like real faces but ghastly white, not nebulous as they appear in the movie.
Also, is it Arwen who arrives to take Frodo from his comrades and onto her horse? I seem to recall some male elf doing that in the book.

Here's more: In the movie, only Frodo looks into Galadriel's
mirror-water; in the book, Sam Gamgee also does. At least, that how I remember it.

Another thing: At the end of the movie, Frodo pulls Sam onto the boat by his hand; in the book he pulls him up by his hair. In addition, when Frodo first pulls away from the shore, Sam sees him--that is, in the movie. In the book, Frodo has the ring on, and Sam just sees a boat moving off, as if by itself; he understands that Frodo is in the boat but invisible because of the ring.

This last thing is just something I'm wondering about. When the members of the Fellowship are fighting with that big, burly creature in the room with the dwarf's grave, how do they get rid of it? All I could make out was that one moment they were fighting with it and the next moment it was gone.
 

bilbofan

Registered User
Joined
Jan 10, 2002
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Location
brooklyn
Thanks, Harad.

I thought the movie was nice. I guess I just expected to be more spellbound. I'm thinking that in the effort to be "true to the book" and include as many events as possible, the producer had to abbreviate all the scenes. I think I'd have prefered scenes that were fewer but longer, richer in detail and having more suspense and drama.
 

bilbofan

Registered User
Joined
Jan 10, 2002
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Location
brooklyn
I'd like to see it again too, but I'll wait till it comes out on video.
Why does Arwen have a scratch on her face?

I never root for the bad guy, but the man doing Saruman still impressed me most from all the actors.

P.S. What is your experiment, and why is your question enclosed in quotes?
 

bilbofan

Registered User
Joined
Jan 10, 2002
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Location
brooklyn
Yeah, I guess my enthusiasm leaves something to be desired.

This much I can say, though: I was bitterly disappointed to learn the producers were bypassing The Hobbit and going straight to the Rings Trilogy. I personally enjoyed The Hobbit the most.

I wonder how The Lord of the Rings would work as a TV series?
That would allow more fully developed scenes.
 

WARDNINE

Registered User
Joined
Jan 9, 2002
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
I think Miss Tyler got the scratch on her face when the tree limb whacked her while riding...
It's an easy scene to miss....
 
R

ReadWryt

Guest
Maybe I've missed something in my readings of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, but I don't recall anything that said that all Hobbits have hairy feet...

Also, how can it be that, when "Fan" is short for the word "Fanatic" someone can be one but not the other?
 

WARDNINE

Registered User
Joined
Jan 9, 2002
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
(Sound of buzzer)...
"They are inclined to be fat in the stomach; they dress in bright colors, chiefly green and yellow, wear no shoes, because their feet grow natural leathery soles and thick warm brown hair like the stuff on their heads (which is curly)...."
 

bilbofan

Registered User
Joined
Jan 10, 2002
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Location
brooklyn
Yep, Harad, that must be it. The Hobbit has lots of wit and humor, even when scary things are happening, like when the trolls are planning to kill Bilbo and the dwarves, but can't proceed until they decide whether to mince them, sit on them and squash them, or...hm, can't remember the third choice. I also found the Hobbit more fast-paced.


I've never before been part of an oline forum, and I must say I'm enjoying this first experience.
Hello, WARDNINE and ReadWryt!
 
O

Oridin

Guest
Hairy feet

Originally posted by ReadWryt
Maybe I've missed something in my readings of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, but I don't recall anything that said that all Hobbits have hairy feet...

Also, how can it be that, when "Fan" is short for the word "Fanatic" someone can be one but not the other?
"Simple as one might say."
Tolkien mentioned the hairy feet in the history of the hobbits. It can be found in the beginning of TLotRs and the complete history of middle earth by C. Tolkien.
 
O

Oridin

Guest
Tv

Originally posted by Harad
Probably needed 6 hrs to include everything from the book in the movie.

One problem with suspense is, having read the book, you have a pretty good idea whats going to happen.

I found (and lots of others too) that I liked it even more the second time around. Guess I got over comparing it with the book in real time ...
"Tv series wouldn't do LotRs justice by any means unless you had the cash to produce the visual effect needed for such an ambitious story. A mini-series would fare much better, bigger budget and time to create this work of art. Maybe 3 months might do, if a daily airing was possible. Just think of Merlin, Alice in Wonderland, etc. If they can do them stories. Why not LotRs?":cool:
 

Legolam

Ad astra per aspera
Joined
Dec 30, 2001
Messages
435
Reaction score
0
Location
Edinburgh, Scotland
I definitely enjoyed the film the second time round. The first time I was too busy nudging my friends and saying "that's not in the book", "dang, they missed out 4 chapters" :D

The second time I caught all the little things, like the trolls when Arwen meets up with them, and PJ's cameo.

Can't wait till the DVD!!! :p
 
S

Spiff

Guest
I have a question for people who have seen the movie, preferrably more than once. When Gandalf fights Saruman his staff is taken and he is flung up to the pinnacle of Orthanc where he stays for several days. Then Gwalhir comes and rescues him, this is done differently in the movie than the book. The part I don't understand is that when Gandalf jumps he holds nothing, but in later scenes he has his staff back. I don't know if I missed something or it was just a fluke on Jackson's part. Any ideas? (I personally loved the movie, no it's not the exact story in parts but it's still a cool story and well done, fun to watch. The thought of that on DVD :) )
 
R

ReadWryt

Guest
I really do suspect that Gandalf was at least wise enough to know how to hack a branch off a tree and make a new staff, and that he indeed would have done this. It's just a staff...a tool. It's not a Magic item, and it's not crucial to the story that we see the actions of Gandalf making a new staff...although it would have made for less confusion for the audience. This will go on the record as something all the folks justifying added scenes to reduce confusion will want to avoid because it's a case where an altered scene lacked the added footage to reduce confusion.
 

Thorin

LOTR Purist to the end
Joined
Aug 20, 2001
Messages
1,402
Reaction score
15
Originally posted by ReadWryt
I really do suspect that Gandalf was at least wise enough to know how to hack a branch off a tree and make a new staff, and that he indeed would have done this. It's just a staff...a tool. It's not a Magic item, and it's not crucial to the story that we see the actions of Gandalf making a new staff...although it would have made for less confusion for the audience. This will go on the record as something all the folks justifying added scenes to reduce confusion will want to avoid because it's a case where an altered scene lacked the added footage to reduce confusion.

I was under the impression that the Wizard's Staff was an important part of the Istari. They are classified and numbered as official objects like the rings and palantiri. When Gandalf denounced Saruman, he split his staff, thus renouncing Saruman's power as a Wizard. A lot of the spells came from Gandalf's staff, though it could have been his own power.

It doesn't seem logical that Gandalf could replace it with your average tree branch...

When Gandalf perished and came back, he was made as the new head of the Istari, so it would seem logical that the Valar would give him a new staff.
 

Greenwood

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil
Joined
Dec 26, 2001
Messages
1,596
Reaction score
3
Location
New York
They are classified and numbered as official objects like the rings and palantiri.
That may be true, but I do not recall any such statement in LOTR. Can you give a citation to substantiate this. (Hey ReadWryt!! I am supporting you. :) )
 

Thorin

LOTR Purist to the end
Joined
Aug 20, 2001
Messages
1,402
Reaction score
15
No. But I may have come across something in UT....Digging it up for you, however, would probably be futile seeing as it is a post-humous work and not straight from LoTR which you seem to favor....I will find what has made me feel the way I do and post it anyway...Maybe not exactly like an official item list ranked up there with the rings, but I 'm pretty sure that there was mention of the 5 staffs of the wizards, and with the destruction of Saruman's staff, I was led to believe that the staffs themselves played an important part in the power of the wizards...

Notice, Greenwood, I said "I was under the impression.." Not I KNOW for sure! Don't crucify my lack of backing up my opinion with research and state what a lousy teacher I am! :D
 
Last edited:

aragil

Just another loremaster
Joined
Aug 27, 2001
Messages
1,852
Reaction score
4
Location
Secondarily Beautiful State of Washington
Saruman asks what all would make Gandalf happy- he says something along the lines of '..and the staffs of the five wizards'. It's in the chapter Serutan spelled backwards is mud.
I'd also like to point out that Grima and Hama both think that the wizards' staffs are important- Grima explicitly states that all staffs are to be left at the door, and Hama notes that a staff in the hands of a wizard could be more than a walking stick.

ps. Welcome back Thorin. See, this is fun!
 

Thread suggestions

Top