[Dominus]

Please be aware that this post may contain spoilers for those of you whom have not read the books, or seen the movie... however, if you don't like to be left in the dark... read on... http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif

I'm posting this because I saw a lot of discrepancies of which many were big.

I'm going to post the two biggest ones I saw, so you can add more at your discretion.

1. As you know, after the party, Bilbo leaves and some years pass before Gandalf tells Frodo he must leave. In the movie however, it seems to be but a few weeks from the party before he goes. He also doesn't sell Bag End, or go to Crick Hollow.

2. After running from the ferry, the hobbits seem to reach Bree in a record time of about an hour (estimation), totally passing over the Barrow Downs and Tom Bombadil. The sheer insanity of it all, they left out Tom Bombadil!!!!!

Constitui!

[This message has been edited by dennizm (edited December 19, 2001).]

[Rhaegar]

Come on, they HAD to delete the whole Bombadil storyline. It would have been absolutely ridiclous on the big screen. As it is, most people acknowledge that the Bombadil plotline is the weakest segment of the whole trilogy. It is quite tedious.

[Cadfael]

The Bombadil plot was very important, but you have to have read 'The Silmarilon' to understand... but of all the poeple of Middle-Earth, he was the only one to be totally immune to the Rings power of corruption... and I think a 'watered down' version would have been good, he is actually one of the 'gods' of Middle-Earth... a Valar.

[mundanemies]

I have a more personal problem with this yellow booted bluepant, but that's with me and my fellow barrow-wights...

I can certainly understand the exclusion of TB. Though it actually is a very important bit in the book (mostly because what dennizm says)he is also a diversion that can be easily cut off. It cuts out well!

There were several other discrepancies, but to me the movie worked really well. I loved the movie! But here goes some:

Arwen "steals" Frodo's Big scene at the River whatsitsname. She gets to be the defiant one and the one that saves tha day. Frodo's stand and bravery in face of certain death is missed. It's one of the big points why to me Frodo would be the real ringbearer.

OK, where's the moment when we see that Sam and Gimli are to-TAL-ly smitten with Galadriel? It's a very poignant moment with Gimli's distrust with elves.

Why do Merry and Pippin suddenly just start following Frodo? It was a bit odd.

Shortening of time and cutting of excess makes it look a bit hasty, but not exceedingly so. I was most impressed by the script with it's fine loanings from the other Tolkien-materials as well as surprisingly true adaptation of the original dialogue.

[Alucard]

Really though, the truth is, you could take most any film and nit-pick it to hell. When looking at a film that's being adapted from a very well-known author who has a following of fantasy fanatics, it's even easier to tear it apart. But in all honesty, do you think it could have been done much better? No film (or book for that matter) is ever perfect, and expecting such is just setting yourself up for disappointment. But I thought jackson did a damn fine job with the story. There were many years of work put into this film, and the quality certainly shows (I still can't get over the sets).

I, for one, even though i have my gripes (which are very, very minor) don't want to pick this one apart. I thought it was a damn fine film in all regards, which is a very rare thing to see. The fact that it's a fantasy movie, which directors never seem to get right, only makes it that much more special.

And of all things, jackson managed to take a novel which I'm not a fan of and turn it into a film that really captivated me. That's quite a feat in my eyes. (I actually can't wait to see it again).

[James Barclay]

Personally, I think the cuts weren't severe enough. What must be remembered is that this is a film from a script, not a reproduction of a book in its entirety (if you do that you get Harry Potter).

What's important to a book can't always be translated and I felt the excisions of Bombadil and the Wights were both good calls. I'd have made less of Rivendell and Lothlorien too, and indeed some of the preamble before Frodo et al head for Bree.

All that said, though, it was a lovely film and the three hours disappeared all too quickly. The Mines of Moria sequence will surely go down as one of the best cinematic sequences of all time.

[wastra]

To be correct, Tom isn't really a Vala, although that is a theory of Tolkien enthusiasts. His character existed before Lord of the Rings in the form of a collection of silly little fairy tales called "The Adventures of Tom Bombadil" written by Tolkien for his children based on a little doll they owned called "Tom."

In the story itself, Tolkien calls Tom an "enigma." The two most plausible explanations are that he is a "nature spirit" such a were the eagles, or a Maia (lesser angellic being), which I consider to be the most likely based on Tolkien's world. The Idea htat he is a Vala (usually considered to be Aule) is not really plausible since Tolkien tells us in the Silmarillion that the Valar have removed themselves from the confines of Middle Earth and will not return in physical form until the end of all things.

[Eventine]

The Green Books Q&A at www.theonering.net (http://www.theonering.net) is a good resource to look at for TB info.

And as far as Dominus' comments go, sure they were big discrepancies but we always knew this wasn't going to be a 100% faithful adaption. PJ warned everyone TB wasn't going to be in it at least a year ago.

[Barbarossa]

Is it completely faithfull?
Should it be?
CERTAINLY NOT!

For all the purists: It's a movie, it has to work as movie, and for a movie to work it has to entertain, and finish before people drop off their chairs.


If you want a illustrated version of the book, get a good painter and comission one.
I think it kept true to the story as far as possible.

I for once love books and I lave movies, but each has to work in it's own way not as an imitation of the other.

For example one of my favorite films of recent years, was L.A. confidential. I loved the book, and I loved the film, though the changes would peopkle like the LOTR purists faint in horror. They dropped about half the story lines changed a lot of characters, left out others. But my point is, it worked, it was a good story as a movie, a different on, if realted one, but most importedly a good one.

Did I have a few nits with LOTR to pick, certainly, mostly in the charcter development area, but all in all it worked pretty well.

[This message has been edited by Barbarossa (edited December 20, 2001).]

[Cadfael]

I agree that the movie cannot possibly be %100 faithful to the book, and I realise that somethings had to go... but I disagree with Tom Bombadil going... in the book, every character at some point is given the choice of refusing the Ring... only one of them never hesitated in refusing... old Tom. http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif