Most complete list of the changes in the movies

[Shanamir Duntak]

Take a look at that: ARG! (Worth seeing) (http://www3.tolkienonline.com/movies/changes_index.cfm)

If only half of this is true, then dec 19th will be a SAD day. It's the most complete list and it says where every bit of info comes from.

[webwizard333]

If that's true than Entcon will not be that fun during the movies. :(

[bmilder]

Of course it will be fun.

Anyway I wouldn't dwell on these changes... I'm sure Peter Jackson knows what he's doing. There are always changes from book to screen. I'm confident LotR will be great.

[IronParrot]

I've seen that list before.

I decided a long time ago that I'm going to see the movie as a movie independent on the novel.

It's been said many times: it's not made for LOTR fans. It's made by LOTR fans.

[IronParrot]

The only change I'm really particularly displeased with is the cutting of the Scouring of the Shire, which is something I've complained about for a year or two now. But the directorial decision is probably to focus the story more on the quest to destroy the Ring rather than how the entire War of the Ring affects everyone.

It would be interesting to see how this affects the Mirror of Galadriel sequence, though.

[anduin]

I found that link quite depressing. I can almost see how this movie is going to turn out....get the feeling of it....and I don't like it one bit. Certainly not the feeling I get from watching the most recent trailer. I am hoping that by taking scenes out of context and analyzing them to death is what is causing my uneasiness.

[IronParrot]

You can take the movie adaptation of almost any novel, and you would end up with a longer list of changes. (Relative to the size of the novel that is.)

[Darth Tater]

Hmm, the list has grown since last I checked. What bothers me the most is the apparent abasement of the Gandalf character. I think I'll start a thread about that soon. BTW, Scouring of the Shire is not necessarily cut, though Saruman does die (SPOILERS::::::::::) On the spikey wheel.

[Shanamir Duntak]

Anyway.. I guess you're right IP
The flaming nazgul is what bothers me the most I think... They're dead... they ain't supposed to care about fire damnit.

[Darth Tater]

LOL, my : and ) turned into a smilly face when there's nothing to be happy about here

[Samwise of the shire]

SO WHAT? Most of the cons that he had there was "It does not go with Tolkiens original script" NO DUHHHH whatcha espect?Perfect dialogue?Perfection all the way through?I read most of the stupid complaints in a previous list and I laughed and now I am just plain ticked at some of the stupidity that is going on about these little changes.We cant have everything in the movies and there have to have some stuff changed it is just plain stupid to say "just because of these changes it's gonna be a bad movie"Get used to it! IT IS A MOVIE NOT THE BOOK and yes the book is better then the movie and that is why they changed some stuff was so that the book would remain the best book ever written.
The fairly ticked off
Samwise of the shire

[bmilder]

As I said in the other thread, I agree with you completely, Sam.

Who cares about the minor changes from the books? I want to enjoy the LotR movies for what they are, not criticize every little deviation from the original plot. You know they had to cut things; no one but a die-hard Tolkien fan would sit in the theater for 6 hours a movie as every little subplot and singing break is recorded. They have to alter it to appeal to a wider audience.

[IronParrot]

When I write my review of Fellowship after I see it, I will probably be basing very little of my evaluation on the faithfulness of the adaptation.

Mostly to keep it consistent with my reviews of all the other films I've seen where I did not read the work they were based on.

[Darth Tater]

Minor stuff doesn't bother me, but lots of minor stuff does. For example, there's so many terrible small things being done to Gandalf's character I'm affraid it'll destroy the character a as a whole.

[hairymonkeyboy]

I was also pretty worried about all the stuff they seemed to be changing with Gandalf, but then I reminded myself who was playing the role. My money is on Sir Ian to pull Gandalf off with aplomb. The main problems I'll have are if the scourging of the shire is entirely omitted (but I reckon they'll sort something out, although not nearly as well as the books - obviously) and if legolas slides down the stairs on a shield shooting orcs!

[webwizard333]

Legolas might as well get a surf board, a swim suit, and got to a beach :p . I think he does look a little bit like a surfer hmmmmm....

[Samwise of the shire]

But you have seen Gandalf as he is in the book and you said that the movie will have so much change in them that it would'nt be like LOTR so you should'nt have any problem there. Like Bmilder says just sit back and relax wait until the movie comes out then we shall see what we shall see(and not read)
Sam

[ladyisme]

I look at it this way, if the movies are true to the books wonderful, if not then the world can always use three more comedies. :D

"The road goes ever on and on down from the door where it began."

[webwizard333]

Lady Isme: Excellent way of looking at it! When I see the movies I'll bear that in mind.

[Ñólendil]

The Scouring of the Shire might still be in there, you know. Ever thought maybe Sandyman or the Sackville-Baggins will take Saruman's place?

[Fat middle]

but what to spoil a major evil guy when you can save him to the end?

his empalement must serve some purpose in PJ's mind. i hope it's not only for his thirst of blood :(

[webwizard333]

Maybe Grima will be in charge of the Scouring if there is one, I certainly can't see the hobbits doing that on their own.

[galadriel]

I agree with all you optimistic thinkers. Some things that are great in a book simply can't be done well in movies, and vice versa. Other changes are minor things that don't really matter. It's one thing to have fun nitpicking, it's another thing to be miserable because of all the little differences. As long as Peter Jackson stays true to the characters, plot, and themes, which I'm almost certain he will, then there's nothing to complain about. Cheer up!

[thephantomcat]

I think that some of you people need to take a deep breathe before and after you read that list. I've read that list at least five times. I always read it carefully and take note of both the credibility meter and the sources listed and the sometimes present footnote at the bottom. The recent addition of the pro and con section demonstrates bias as well as leaving the credibilty meter at the end and in small, unreadable print. Notice that most of the truly horrifying changes have low credibility or have ignored several debunks from people who are very credible (meaning the actors themselves like Christopher Lee.). Also this is to Mr. Alacron the black or whatever his name is (forgive me but my memory escapes me.). Regarding the "intertwining" story lines destroying the so-called joy or tension of discovery, you should do some research on filmmaking. A director you might have heard of generally regaurded as the master of suspense (his films include Dial M for Murder, Psycho, and Vertigo.) coined a technique generally refered to as the "bomb on the bus" effect. Meaning tension is derived from the audience knowing that the characters are in immeadiate danger or peril while not being aware of the fact. I didn't alike alot of the comments, but that one sounded the most silly since the only other alternative would be to split each of the movies in half.

[Beryl]

Well, when I first heard the rumor that the movies were being made I was wildly excited. Having thought about it, I've swung the other way.

Have you ever seen a movie after reading the book that you thought was done well? Silence of the Lambs excepted.

Of course I'll see the movies. And I hope I can enjoy them. The disappointing part will not be seeing someone elses vision of what the characters and lands look like.

It will be all the changes that have to be made to accomodate the translation to film. Tolkiens story is perfect as written. Any changes cannot be for the better. Not to fans of the books.

But still, it will probably be as close as we can ever get.

[thephantomcat]

I'll admit that I haven't read a lot of books and then seen the movies, and the few that I have I have had mixed feelings. I loved the book Congo and hated HATED the movie because they changed certain elements like the characters intentions and the entire motivation of the main characters. I loved the movie Hannibal even though they cut out my favorite parts because the movie stayed true to the intent of the book. It seems to me that Peter Jackson has his work cut out for him. I REALLY hope he succeds and wins over alot of the people who don't seem to like the idea of the movies at all. That's my two cents.

[thephantomcat]

This isn't the first time I've heard someone post about not being able to see other people's visions of what Middle Earth should be like. I get the impression you have decided you don't like Peter Jackson's or don't plan to yet you haven't had a chance to see it is final form. Stuff needs to get cut out, dialogue needs to be rewritten, and cgi elements need to be used at some point or time.

[Hobgoblin]

This is my first post, and instead of rambling on for pages I'll just get right to the point.

If you look at a few images dealing with LOrd of the rings you will come across pictures of Saruman in a brightly lit, grassy, wooded area.

To my knowledge Saruman never leaves his tower until he escapes and heads to the Shire to make Frodo and the gangs life a living hell.

So in conclusion: Why is Saruman standing in a forest on a sunny day?

Answer: Because the scowering of the shire is in the movie.

BOOHYAH!!!

As for other changes from the book to movie, I think most of them are understandable, Lurtz is a big question mark, but when we see the movie all our worries will be answered.

In Jacksons defence I feel that his interpretation is in a way a retelling of a Legendary story much like our own history. Tolkien wrote the story much like a historian would a history of a major event. If you were to go back in time to our own worlds history you wouldn't experiance the same event as you would if you had read it in a historical book. PJ's movie is like another retelling of Lord of the rings. And that to me is just fine.

Unless of course there are way too major of changes that detract from the real story.

Nuff said.

[Comic Book Guy]

If I was to retell the Lord Of The Rings right now to a group of people, of course I would end up leaving things like Bombadil and maybe the scouring of the shire because they have no real point to the main plot, which is to destroy the ring. But the reason I would leave all that out is to stick to the plot and save time, same as Peter Jackson.

But I would not end up changing things such as Merry and Pippin at party, Wizard-kebab, Mean Faramir etc etc because theres no real point to them. I guess nobody has an idea why this needs to happen.

P.S Wonder what would happen if there was a web chat with PJ and Tolkien Purists?

[Ithildin]

I'm just trying to keep in mind that none of these "changes" are going to take place for sure.

I would actually like it, though, if they did the "intertwining story-line" thing. That's one of the few things that I wish Tolkien would have done differently in the books...I've tried (by flipping back and forth between different parts of the books) to figure out exactly what was going on with one group of characters at the same time as other things were going on with other groups of characters. I wasn't able to get a very clear picture, though.

I'm also pleased, for the most part, with the actors they've chosen to play the different parts.

Still, I'm very concerned that some of my favorite characters' personalities will be changed in the film. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

[thephantomcat]

Ithildin,

Check out your appendixes in ROTK. Their should be a timeline somewhere in there where the events are listed in chronological order. It also raises the question of how will PJ handle the shadey line between T2T and ROTK. Notice that some events discussed in T2T actually occurs during the events of ROTK and vice versa. THAT'S what keeps me up at night and not any of the "changes."

I'll say this again. I can't remember where I saw this, but I'll look. The name Lurtz isn't going to be uttered in the entire film. He should come across as nameless Uruk-hai #1.

The Phantom Cat! :cool:

[Darth Tater]

Sadly, I'm pretty sure the Saruman outside pic is from film #1. All the leaked pics cept one of Sam at the end of ROTK are from film one. And we know for sure that Saruman is dead before scouring. Oh and Comicbookguy, Tom Bombadil is important, if not necessary to the plot, but the scouring is necessary. It's what the whole book is about, not the distruction of the ring.

[Comic Book Guy]

I suppose i should have thought about what I was posting more carefully Darth Tater, So I guess the real plot is something to do with how the ring affects everybody or something like that.

[samwise of the shire]

The MOST complete list of changes? Well if it was the MOST complete list then would'nt it have information on the scouring seeing as it's one of the coolest funniest and important parts in the book. Was'nt it on the list? If it was'nt then it should have said "most complete list of changes in FOTR" if it was ok then why are we having this argument?Just wondering.
Sam
Ps. I might decide to check out the list later if time allows
[COLOR=green]
Pps.In what way is TB important in the movie? Strider provides the swords(Where from?Well duhh Is he a nobel of Rivendell or is'nt he?),so arms are'nt a problem in the movie.
And how many times does TB make an occerance in the book?Once,and think he's not mentioned again and people who want to see an interesting movie will be expecting him to pop up again and when he does'nt well...,and if he did it'd be even WORSE then Legolas sliding down stairs on a sheild.I mean where would he pop up again? In Moria?Uh uh.
Sam

[Ñólendil]

Bombadil 'pops up again' several times. One of my favourite Michael Martinez articles is his defense of Tom Bombadil. It is called If I only had a Bombadil (http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/tolkien/52486)

I think Hobgoblin's got the right idea (welcome!), save that I don't agree with his last comment: 'Unless of course there are way too major of changes that detract from the real story.' Folks, we are dealing here with a translation and that is indeed 'nuff said'. This is a movie. It is not Peter Jackson's intention to make (or it was not, in a sense he's made them) an exact replica of the Lord of the Rings set into a visual context. He's trying to make an entertaining movie based on the heroic romance. If purists go to the theatre ready to shout out in outrage at all the 'mistakes', they will indeed shout out in outrage at all the mistakes. I hope they won't be surprised to find that nothing comes of it.

There's two logical things to do. Either go to the movies and try to appreciate it as a movie, or don't go.

I've tried (by flipping back and forth between different parts of the books) to figure out exactly what was going on with one group of characters at the same time as other things were going on with other groups of characters. I wasn't able to get a very clear picture, though.

Read the Tale of Years in the Appendices! In the Great Years section it gives you a month by month, day by day guide to what's happening. Should fix all your problems :)

Ooops, guess Phantomcat already said that.

[Ithildin]

Thanks, PhantomCat and Inoldonil! I had never actually read all the way through the appendices. That timeline should clear up all my confusions about the chronological order of LotR.

Hmm....the only catch is going to be finding my copy of Return of the King. We've just moved and I can hardly find my own nose right now. :p

[samwise of the shire]

Well actually he only POPS up in person once and is only MENTIONED twice or something like that.It's not enough times for a movie,unless you wanted the whole thing ruined by him popping up where he dont belong.I would prefer him not being in the movie then him being moved to another part where he does'nt need to be,and any way TB was a pleasant side trip and nothing more he only adds to the mystery and not the story so stick to the story is all I ask,the MAIN story no little sidetracks.
Sam

[Darth Tater]

Galadriel doesn't have that much more time in the books then Tom, why don't they cut her and replace her with Arwen?

[Ñólendil]

Good point Darth, Galadriel is definitely a detour in the plot, and she only pops up once. We don't really need her in the movie. What's she good for anyway?

[IronParrot]

Good news regarding the Scouring:

I've been flipping through E!Online's monthly updates, and in the June section I found this little gem.


Q: The Return of the King has a very long denouement, with fully one third of the book coming after the destruction of the Ring. I worry that the filmmakers may have cut or severely shorted the Scouring of the Shire and the Grey Havens episodes. Any word on that?
Stu Minnis, New Rochelle, New York

A: LOTR conceptual artist Alan Lee showed me his sketches of the Grey Havens buildings and boats. Elijah Wood (Frodo) and Ian Holm (Bilbo) said they count their "farewell" scenes (when they say goodbye to their friends before going to the Grey Havens) as among their favorite to film. Sources tell me the Scouring of the Shire has made the cut, albeit with a few tweaks.

[ladyisme]

I'm glad to hear it, altough I am a little curious about those "tweaks".

"The road goes ever on and on down from the door where it began."

[Darth Tater]

Hrmm, "tweak, no Saruman" "tweak, Sauron shows up and kills Merry and Pippin" "tweak, Galadriel comes and saves the day"

[samwise of the shire]

I have'nt seen pictures or read any news but I have seen TWO pictures of Sam coming through the gate at Bag End and picking Elanor up and it's taken in dim light as if it's evening,so that's why I have a suspicion that the Grey Havens happen and there are the gifts of Galadriel and I do beleive there is a Mirror and remember Sam sees trees of the Shire being cut down so I think there will be a Scouring of the Shire.
Btw,Galadriel does'nt just "pop up" once she pops up twice once in the first book and then again in the third in The Grey Havens,and so her thread is'nt left untied like Tom Bombadil's. And we know who she is but who is Tom Bombadil? Like Goldberry said "He is". Great explanation:rolleyes:.
Sam
PS."Tweak"Merry and Pippin decide to leave Boromir to the orcs and follow Frodo to the dead marshes and get lost but Gimli hicthhikes on a passing winged beast and saves them from being sucked into the swamp.

[ladyisme]

I had a good laugh over the "tweaks" that you posted.
:p :D

"The road goes ever on and on down from the door where it began."

[thephantomcat]

Darth,

Now, you're just being silly. Galadriel is much more important to the story than Tom B and you know it.


Always,

The Phantom Cat :)