Support NeoGAF

Solidsoul · Apr 30, 2017

Was just curious what were some notable changes Peter Jackson made to LOTR in the films that were different in the book from people who have read and watched both?

I know it's tempting to say "EVERYTHING IN THE BOOK WAS BETTER" but I'd like to try and be objective. You can throw out things from The Hobbit as well but due to the overwhelming negativity about those films in here I'm sure we won't see much of that.

Personally I kinda feel like the stuff with Saruman attacking the Shire after the ring has already been destroyed kinda makes for a very disjointed weird way to close out the trilogy, I feel it would have been better to do it earlier or not at all (much like the films).

What improvements or changes do you feel we're made in the film adaptations?

I've heard the negatives countless times, only interested in the pro's.

Ithil · Apr 30, 2017

Faramir in general.

SpaceWolf · Apr 30, 2017

neorej · Apr 30, 2017

Leaving out Tom Bombadil.

Saya · Apr 30, 2017

Not adapting the Tom Bombadil parts of the book. It works in the book, but I think it wouldn't work on film.

AnathemicOne · Apr 30, 2017

Tom Bombadil was cut out. As much whimsical and awesome he was in the book(s) it was to the movies' benefit he wasn't present at all.

balladofwindfishes · Apr 30, 2017

Cutting out Bombadil. Slows down the start of the journey a lot. The pace would have been all messed up for the first movie.

Toxi · Apr 30, 2017

Removal of Tom Bombadil.

Nothing undermines the dramatic value of the One Ring's corruption like seeing some random guy completely ignore it's influence right at the start of the journey.

old manatee · Apr 30, 2017

Elijah Wood is cuter than a bunch of words.

SpaceWolf · Apr 30, 2017

Saya said:
Not adapting the Tom Bombadil parts of the book. It works in the book, but I think it wouldn't work on film.

I vehemently contest this point.

Yoda · Apr 30, 2017

In the books Sam is much more of an employee/servant. Hence, he addresses Frodo as Mr. Frodo. Having to two be close friends where one happens to be a gardener, imo makes their relationship more relatable to the viewer.

Crimson_Gold · Apr 30, 2017

Yoda said:
In the books Sam is much more of an employee/servant. Hence, he addresses Frodo as Mr. Frodo. Having to two be close friends where one happens to be a gardener, imo makes their relationship more relatable to the viewer.

I hate how he removed Sam carrying the ring for a bit towards the end though. I get how many wouldn't care, but I felt it was important

Oveja Negra · Apr 30, 2017

No Tom Bombadil. For me, that character always felt waaay too childish and I remember it made me angry the first time I read the books, to the point I wanted to skip those parts, instead I just read them as fast as possible, barely paying any attention to them.

Dahbomb · Apr 30, 2017

It's good that he removed those songs/hyms from the books.

TheXbox · Apr 30, 2017

Cutting Bombadil isn't really an improvement, it's just a necessary concession for the medium. I didn't mind it in the books, at least. Tom is cool.

Cutting the Scouring of the Shire, though? Shitcanning the entire final act of Return of the King? That was an improvement. Hobo Saruman in the Shire is lame. Mount Doom is the better climax.

brawly · Apr 30, 2017

He cut down the ant and hobbits part in the movie. It's still boring but my god it's torture in the books.

SpaceWolf said:
I vehemently contest this point.

Same.

DrForester · Apr 30, 2017

1. Cutting the first half of Fellowship of the Ring. Takes half the book for the Hobbits to get to Bree. I like Tom Bombadil, but cutting him and streamlining the start of the story was a very smart idea.

That being said, I would have been down for Bob Hoskins Bombadil.

2. Having Frodo and Gollum fight over the ring at the end. Far more satisfying that Gollum just tripping and falling in.

Platy · Apr 30, 2017

Also giving a sense of urgence.

Never understood the "THE RING IS DANGEROUS AND MUST BE DESTROYED ! ... I will come back in 10 years with more info" from the start of the book

Brandon F · Apr 30, 2017

Ithil said:
Faramir in general.

I'd agree with this.

Also most battle scenes lasted a mere few pages with little focus on details, helm's deep and moria particularly. Many would consider those standoffs as some of the most memorable scenes in their respective films(legolas ridiculous aside).

Also felt the threat of the wraiths in the shire at the beginning felt more convincing in fellowship. There was a sense of urgency and danger immediately apparent that the book didn't contextual as well.

IdreamofHIME · Apr 30, 2017

Saruman taking over the Shire and enslaving the Hobbits at the end of Return Of the King, so Frodo and the other Hobbits have one last adventure.
Fucking stupid.
How Peter Jackson delt with Saruman in the theatrical versions was shitty too though.
Poor Saruman.

Trickster · Apr 30, 2017

For me it was just the simple fact that he made LotR entertaining.

I read the first of the books, and I just thought it was very boring.

Trojita · Apr 30, 2017

KernelPanic · Apr 30, 2017

its been a while since I read the books but:

- there's more urgency in Frodo and Sam leaving the Shire. In the book Gandalf is gone for years before he returns.
- Aragorn having self doubts about being the king(good character arc) In the book he has no doubts about who he is.
-Saruman vs. Gandalf scene where he gets captured. I don't believe the book explicitly describes this.
- Theoden is more or less possessed by Saruman which makes for a great great scene. In the book Theoden is only being misled by Wyrmtongue(via Saruman).
-Less singing. There's a part in Two Towers where it's several pages of someone singing. Many other parts like that. Hard to read.
I think most of the PJ's changes didn't go against the spirit of the book at all.

Haly · Apr 30, 2017

Aragorn isn't an asshat.

Cuts the 2-3 decades of Frodo fucking around in The Shire to like, one epic montage.

Sgt. Kabukiman · Apr 30, 2017

neorej said:
Leaving out Tom Bombadil.

Yep.
It's always been a stuggle for me to get past that part in the Fellowship book.

Brandon F · Apr 30, 2017

IdreamofHIME said:
Saruman taking over the Shire and enslaving the Hobbits at the end of Return Of the King, so Frodo and the other Hobbits have one last adventure.
Fucking stupid.

Yea, I totally forgot about the final shire reveal in the books. Really did feel forced.

Black_Sun · Apr 30, 2017

TheXbox said:
Cutting Bombadil isn't really an improvement, it's just a necessary concession for the medium. I didn't mind it in the books, at least. Tom is cool.

Cutting the Scouring of the Shire, though? Shitcanning the entire final act of Return of the King? That was an improvement. Hobo Saruman in the Shire is lame. Mount Doom is the better climax.

Talking that way about the Scouring means you missed ones of the points about the book.

I mean I agree it wouldn't work in a movie but disagree that it was something that was bad.

War Peaceman · Apr 30, 2017

I really liked the Scouring of the Shire, but I don't think removing it was bad. It is bad for the flow of the plot. But the way they come back and are total badasses feels earned and rewarding in the book.

I also liked the Elves coming to Helm's Deep. IIRC there are issues with it geographically, but it really gave it a climactic feel.

vainglorious · Apr 30, 2017

I loved the orc generals like Gothmog. And while it may have been a bit on the nose I enjoyed Sauron's manifestation in the movies as a literal eye. The scene at the end of ROTK when Baradur crumbles is a thing of beauty.

SummitAve · Apr 30, 2017

I think the first movie in general, which is easily my favorite, exceeded a lot of the expectations and ideas I had in my head of the series from reading the books. The design of the ring wraiths,all of the shire, the bar scene that introduces Aragon, gandolf and Saruman, the mines, going over the mountains, Gandalf's death. There's a lot of great stuff in Fellowship that was true to the books, and then some.

RipperGrim · Apr 30, 2017

Gimli and Legolas were much more interesting and entertaining in the movies.

tcrunch · Apr 30, 2017

Crimson_Gold said:
I hate how he removed Sam carrying the ring for a bit towards the end though. I get how many wouldn't care, but I felt it was important

Doesn't Sam carry the ring for safekeeping after Frodo gets attacked by the spider?

Yoda · Apr 30, 2017

RipperGrim said:
Gimli and Legolas were much more interesting and entertaining in the movies.

I'm not sure I fully agree with Gimli (and to a lesser extent Legolas) being the comic relief. I felt in the books they had more sincere character development and weren't just relegated to Aragorn's sidekicks.

Mathieran · Apr 30, 2017

I like Aragorn as a reluctant hero rather than the eager one we got from the books.

Man God · Apr 30, 2017

Yoda said:
In the books Sam is much more of an employee/servant. Hence, he addresses Frodo as Mr. Frodo. Having to two be close friends where one happens to be a gardener, imo makes their relationship more relatable to the viewer.

He does that out of habit. It's clear as day in the books that they are best friends.

Ogodei · Apr 30, 2017

Giving Legolas and Gimli more to do. They really don't do much of anything in the books, which is annoying as the only non-humans in the group (since Hobbits aren't human, but are more relatable than the men, who behave more like medieval humans).

Rodney McKay · Apr 30, 2017

Platy said:
Also giving a sense of urgence.

Never understood the "THE RING IS DANGEROUS AND MUST BE DESTROYED ! ... I will come back in 10 years with more info" from the start of the book

Pacing and the way exposition was done in general I liked in the films more than the books, at least what I remember when trying to reread the first book.

The beginning of the book has this MASSIVE info dump by Gandalf that just goes by on and on and on. And then halfway through (or so) when they're doing the ring council at the Elf city, it's again a giant roundtable of people recapping in extreme detail what they've been up to in the past few weeks/months.

yanipheonu · Apr 30, 2017

To be honest, Tolkien and Jackson's versions are so different I hesitate to call one better than the other.

Tolkiens book is a meandering and gratuitous journey through middle-earth with a particular otherworldly feel and covered with Tolkiens Philosophy around storytelling and divinity.

Jackson's version is an enthralling action film that pushes things a lot faster, and does a great job capturing a lot of the book without being too tied down.

Still there are standout Jackson changes.

The Aragorn-Arwin Romance is an obvious standout addition, with the actual book's romance being a footnote.

I also like Aragon getting Anduril later in the series. In the books he gets it in Rivendell and it sort of gets lost in all the drama of the Council Meeting.

ag-my001 · Apr 30, 2017

Scouring of the Shire should have stayed. It was a long term plot of Saruman, and it shows how much the hobbits have grown. Gandalf's job was to inspire, and it's important to see it can happen even without him present.

As for improvements, I'd say the movement of book chapters between movies. Staying with FotR long enough to see Boromir off was amazing in the theater. Better closure while still setting up the uncertainty of the next movie. Moving Shelob to RotK works both for the timeline and for the differences between book structure (follow one PoV at a time) and movie (jump back and forth).

RipperGrim · Apr 30, 2017

Yoda said:
I'm not sure I fully agree with Gimli (and to a lesser extent Legolas) being the comic relief. I felt in the books they had more sincere character development and weren't just relegated to Aragorn's sidekicks.

They didn't feel like much of anything in the books in my opinion, sure Gimli is a basic comic relief in the movies but they also felt like actual friends by the end of it in a very believable way.

ramparter · Apr 30, 2017

Toxi said:
Removal of Tom Bombadil.

Nothing undermines the dramatic value of the One Ring's corruption like seeing some random guy completely ignore it's influence right at the start of the journey.

Back then I considered his removal w blssphemy to the book but now I kinda remember him as a filler to extend the book length.

Kev Kev · Apr 30, 2017

Leaving out the poems/songs that Sam randomly recites in the books. I get it but it would have been way too cringe and forced to keep all that in. It was painful enough reading through a lot of those in the book. However I believe the extended editions have a scene where Sam attempts one of his little performances and it falls awkwardly flat. I personally thought it was perfect given how I felt about them in the books.

RipperGrim · Apr 30, 2017

Platy said:
Also giving a sense of urgence.

Never understood the "THE RING IS DANGEROUS AND MUST BE DESTROYED ! ... I will come back in 10 years with more info" from the start of the book

This as well. I couldn't believe how long it actually took for them to get on the road to leave Shire. The movies had much better pacing which honestly a rare thing when comparing them to books.

cartoon_soldier · Apr 30, 2017

Isn't the Elves coming to Helms Deep a change? I liked that.

Platy · Apr 30, 2017

Oh and .... women.

LOTR books are a sausage fest.

The movies are not exactly feminist ideals, but at least there are MORE women doing stuff =P

KernelPanic · Apr 30, 2017

I kind of liked the changes to Faramir. He is tempted by the ring much like his brother but does the right thing in the end.

Changes to Denethor were more extreme.

Psychoward · Apr 30, 2017

neorej said:
Leaving out Tom Bombadil.

.

Altazor · Apr 30, 2017

Tom fucking Bombadil. Huge fan of the books, never liked that guy and how everything screeches into a halt when he appears. Best thing about him was saving the hobbits from the Barrow Wights, but that's it.

Faramir could've been done better, so I kinda contest his mention from earlier in this thread. I get why he, Boyens and Walsh made the change, but IIRC the whole point about Faramir in the books was how different he was to Boromir in terms of demeanor and that not even winning his father's approval (something he craved) was reason enough to doom pretty much the entire world by taking the Ring to Gondor. (And yes, I know he reached the same conclusion by the end of the movie... but the way they took to get to that point kinda irked me)

What I did like better in the movies than the books was Boromir's death. Sean Bean went out like a fucking champ.

WaterAstro · Apr 30, 2017

Making it video form so I actually care.

There's also no way anyone can visualize how the movies portrayed the art and action with imagination.

zeshakag · Apr 30, 2017

Platy said:
Oh and .... women.

LOTR books are a sausage fest.

The movies are not exactly feminist ideals, but at least there are MORE women doing stuff =P

Was Arwen's scene delivering Frodo to Rivendell in the books? When I was a kid I remember Liv Tyler rolled that clip on TRL and it got me to watch the movie.

Support NeoGAF

What are some improvements Peter Jackson made in the LOTR films over the books?

Banned

Member

Banned

ERMYGERD!

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Kills Photobucket

Member

Well congratulations! You got yourself caught!

Member

Member

Rapid Response Threadmaker

Member

One day I realized that sadness is just another word for not enough coffee.

Banned

Well congratulations! You got yourself caught!

Member

You're a big guy.

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Non-Canon Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads