Lord of the Rings

[BuddMan]

Well, many of the locations the film was shot at were inaccurate to the geography in the book, but that's of course understandable as it'd be hard as hell to get everything exactly right, and most people wouldn't pick up on that anyway, even die-hard fans.

One important thing they leave out in the movie though was Galadriel's gift to Sam. In the movie (extended version), she gives him rope. This didn't even happen in the book, and I wonder why they even changed it (the ropes were already in the boat). In the book she gives him a small box with the forest's soil and a seed (what's the tree's name...maliron??), and at the end of the book he uses it to restore the Shire. Another thing they leave out in the movie is the fact that Frodo gives up Bag End to the Sacksville-Baggins. I wonder how they are going to end the movie version as both of those events are very important to the ending of the story. And Strider in the book carried the hilt of the broken sword, which was later remade whole at Rivendell. This doesn't even happen in the movie, so again, wonder how they will work that into the movie.

[Wombat]

So... gimme a good example. Gimme a scene that was in the movie that was SUBSTANTIALLY different from the books, and I'll either give you a good reason why or explain why you're remembering the books wrong.

I think he did an amazing job, and understand why some things had to be changed. I didn't understand why some things were changed when it didn't simplify the story any. My only real complaint was that he made the hobbits seem too childlike. Merry & Pippin stealing fireworks, and then just randomly falling in with Frodo as he's running from the Shire really took away from their maturity. Also, having Arwen get Frodo across the river, when in the book his solitude at the time was a key component to my memory of that struggle. On paper, more of the resiliency and strength of the hobbits shines through by the end of FOTR, while the movie still leaves them to be the childlike people.

That, and I think Hugo Weaving was an awful choice.

Budd: I think I remember the shards being at Rivendell, and being reforged before they left. Still, I was disappointed to see him draw his sword at the Inn.

[Ajax]

Originally posted by Gurm
Ajax,

Final running time, like the first movie, is 179 minutes. Just under three hours - the magic number for a theatrical release nowadays. *shrug*

The total amount of film for this movie is, like the first one, about 4.5 hours, give or take. The total amount of film likely to make it into the "extended version" will, similarly to the first, likely be 3:30 or 3:40.

http://www.theonering.net

Thanks Gurm. Personally I have always loved the Lord of the Rings books, and the movie... Well lets just say they are going to remain my favorites forever. They could make the films 20 hours long, and I would still not get tired of watching them.

[knirfie]

one: the whole Arwen business, where is this in the book?
two: In the caves they are followed by Gollum, where is this in the book?
three: in the caves by the well, pippin throws a stone down to see how deep it is, in the movie he knocks over a bucket and a whole skeleton if i remember correctly (ok, it's just really exaggerated
four: the whole story of leaving the Shire (selling of Bag End, the old forrest, bombadil, Barrow-Downs (where the hobbits got there daggers).
and there are many more small and big differences, all of which i dont want to look/summarize up right now.

And i'm not saying the movie is bad or anything but it doesnt leave much of the story intact. It's made for the masses and thats clearly visible.

[Wombat]

Arwen is introduced in Rivendell, but doesn't really come about until the end of the tale. I understand Jackson bringing her in early though. Handles the love interest, and reduces the cast of characters a little bit.

Gollum: Read again, he's there.

Three: Who cares?
Four: Bombadil/barrows: Sure, we'll just make the movie 2 hours longer for a sidetrack of only minor relevance.

Are you kidding? It preserves the story amazingly well. If by "made for the masses" you mean "wasn't a 20 hour word-for-word match," then fine. Otherwise, hush, the movies are a faithful representation of the book, and I think Tolkein himself would be quite pleased with them.

[Gurm]

One important thing they leave out in the movie though was Galadriel's gift to Sam. In the movie (extended version), she gives him rope. This didn't even happen in the book, and I wonder why they even changed it (the ropes were already in the boat).

'Cuz Sam makes a REALLY BIG DEAL ABOUT IT in the 2nd and 3rd books. And IIRC Haldir specifically tells him about the rope. In fact, Sam spends most of the 1st book bitching because he doesn't have any rope - forgot to bring it with them from the Shire.

In the book she gives him a small box with the forest's soil and a seed (what's the tree's name...maliron??), and at the end of the book he uses it to restore the Shire.

Elanor. Same as the name of his daughter, IIRC.

Another thing they leave out in the movie is the fact that Frodo gives up Bag End to the Sacksville-Baggins.

In the extended version the Sackville-Bagginses make a cameo. However, this got left out as part of the NOT showing that from the time Gandalf says "flee with the ring" to the time Frodo actually leaves is... err... like 9 months.

Most people fail to realize that from the "keep it secret, keep it safe" to "is it secret, is it safe?" is SEVENTEEN YEARS.

I wonder how they are going to end the movie version as both of those events are very important to the ending of the story.

Jackson hasn't yet committed one way or the other to doing the Scouring of the Shire, which is probably why these things were changed.

And Strider in the book carried the hilt of the broken sword, which was later remade whole at Rivendell. This doesn't even happen in the movie, so again, wonder how they will work that into the movie.

You're correct, the hilt was with him - although the shards may have been with Elrond, I'll have to go check that out. I'll get back to you on it. Anyway...

In the book Elrond's sons (Aragorn's adoptive brothers, sorta) meet up with Aragorn at Helm's Deep, fight with him, and go with him to Gondor. They bring the flag that Arwen made.

In the second movie, they also bring the reforged sword. Rumor has it they also bring Arwen, so she can smooch it up with Aragorn. *shrug*

Also they're going to actually show the exodus of the elves from Rivendell to Lothlorien, something that was only in the appendices.

My only real complaint was that he made the hobbits seem too childlike.

Well, two thoughts here.

1. They ARE childlike. Merry and Pippin are still in their "irresponsible tweens". BUT this would have meant that they were children (pre-teens) at the time of the party... since that was 17 years earlier. Frodo is 50. Samwise is in his 30's, IIRC. None of them were "old" for Hobbits. Frodo was "mature", the others were equated with our 18-year-olds... adults but not mature.

2. Yeah, I was unhappy with the whole Farmer Maggot thing, but again... condensed for movie-version.

one: the whole Arwen business, where is this in the book?

They gave Glorfindel's role to Arwen (helping Frodo get to Rivendell). *shrug* One elf Lord is much like another. Only thing is... if you've read the Silmarillion you know Glorfindel is the only being alive to have killed a Balrog.

As for the other Arwen stuff - it's in the appendices. WHOLE LOTTA back story with Aragorn/Arwen. Read 'em, it's good stuff.

two: In the caves they are followed by Gollum, where is this in the book?

"It's Gollum - he's been following us for some time... he must know another way in."

It's there. Read again. Also, he follows them on the river (shown in the Extended Version of the film).

three: in the caves by the well, pippin throws a stone down to see how deep it is, in the movie he knocks over a bucket and a whole skeleton if i remember correctly (ok, it's just really exaggerated

Bingo. "Tom Fool of a Took! Next time throw YOURSELF in and save us the trouble of tolerating you..." (inexact quote)

four: the whole story of leaving the Shire (selling of Bag End, the old forrest, bombadil, Barrow-Downs (where the hobbits got there daggers).

Time compression. Old forest/Tom Bombadil was unnecessary. The Extended Version shows more of the old forest, the meeting with the elves, etc. The daggers come from the elves in the Extended version. They are told that they are ancient and from the men of old... same as they are told about the swords... by the elves... in the book.

As I said above, they COULD NOT SHOW 18 years of time in the first 20 minutes of the film. Sorry.

- Gurm

[BuddMan]

Gurm, I understand why the rope part is important in the movie/book, but it still wasn't a gift from the Lady, there were ropes in all three boats. I'm still wondering why they changed that part and why the part about the box of dirt and the seed was left out as a gift to Sam. Something tells me that the end of the movie is going to be a bit different from the book's ending.

[BuddMan]

Originally posted by Wombat
Budd: I think I remember the shards being at Rivendell, and being reforged before they left. Still, I was disappointed to see him draw his sword at the Inn.

The shards were there, but there was no mention of the sword being remade at Rivendell in the movie. Perhaps it will be a surprise in the 2nd movie??

[Gurm]

Umm read my response above about the sword. In addition, in the extended version, Elrond says "the power of the elves can reforge your sword, but only you can wield it" or some such crap.

- Gurm

[BuddMan]

Yeah, they say something like that, but they never actually say they reforged it.

[leech]

Yes as it states here: "Three small grey boats had been made ready for the travellers, and in these the Elves stowed their goods. And they added also coils of rope, three to each boat. Slender they looked, but strong, silken to the touch, grey of hue like the elven cloaks."

And there was a change in the gift to Aragorn. In the movie, the brooch was given to him already by Arwen, rather than passed to him by Galadriel.

The box of soil she gave to Sam.

It makes no mention in the extended version of the golden belt that she gives to Borimir. Though this isn't really mentented later in the story either.

To Merry and Pippin: "she gave small silver belts, each with a clasp wrought like a golden flower." Indeed in the movie it shows a flower clasp used to secure the cloaks, but the gift to them were swords (in the book, these are the swords that they find in the Burrow Downs) Which of course come into play later on.

Also they never even mention where they got Bill. Which is probably one of the biggest oversights, because once again, that has something to do with the ending. So are we all guessing that they may just end the movie with the destruction of the ring and not mentioning the voyage home?

Leech

[Wombat]

Also they never even mention where they got Bill. Which is probably one of the biggest oversights, because once again, that has something to do with the ending. So are we all guessing that they may just end the movie with the destruction of the ring and not mentioning the voyage home?

I hadn't really thought about it before today, but I wouldn't mind them stopping at the ring. There's so much they already have to cut down on in order to make 3 movies of reasonable length.

My only problem with them leaving all that for a 4th movie is that they've already packed up from NZ and gone home. I doubt they'd get everybody together again - and all the filming sights are tourist hits now.

[leech]

Originally posted by Wombat
I hadn't really thought about it before today, but I wouldn't mind them stopping at the ring. There's so much they already have to cut down on in order to make 3 movies of reasonable length.

My only problem with them leaving all that for a 4th movie is that they've already packed up from NZ and gone home. I doubt they'd get everybody together again - and all the filming sights are tourist hits now.

That's my guess at where they're going to stop, because of all the things that aren't mentioned which are very important to the end. Though they do show in Galadriel's mirror the destruction of the Shire.

Leech

[BuddMan]

Originally posted by leech
Also they never even mention where they got Bill. Which is probably one of the biggest oversights, because once again, that has something to do with the ending. So are we all guessing that they may just end the movie with the destruction of the ring and not mentioning the voyage home?

Leech

Yeah, it looks like there is going to be a different movie ending which I am dreading. I hope it's not too different.

About the rope thing, I just double checked in the book, and I still can't figure out why they would have the Lady give the rope to Sam as a gift. It just doesn't make sense to me why they would change that....

[rugger]

Originally posted by BuddMan
Yeah, it looks like there is going to be a different movie ending which I am dreading. I hope it's not too different.

About the rope thing, I just double checked in the book, and I still can't figure out why they would have the Lady give the rope to Sam as a gift. It just doesn't make sense to me why they would change that....

I am wondering BuddMan, why do you dread them cutting the story off after the destruction of the ring?

Why the obsession to follow the exact flow of the book, to the detriment of the quality of the movie? (having a 1 hour conclusion is simply not an option in a movie)