PDA

View Full Version : Secenes from the LOTR books that I was dissapointed they left out in the movies


SFFWorld.com
Home - Discussion Forums - News - Reviews - Interviews

New reviews, interviews and news

New in the Discussion Forum


Zsinj
November 16th, 2003, 12:23 PM
Now, don't get me wrong here, I absolutely love the LOTR movies!! They're awesome! Everything in those movies is exactly how I imagined it in the books!
However, they're were several scenes in the books, which I think were awesome, that they diidn't include in the movies, so I was a bit dissapointed. Here are some of the scenes:

-When Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin enter the Barrow Downs and are attacked by the Barrow Wights, and Frodo slays the Wights with the Witch King's sword.
For me, this was a very creepy and very memorable part from the books, and it would have rocked if the would have included it in the movies.

-When the Fellowship is attacked by a pack of wargs, and Gandalf saves them by killing the wargs with his magic missiles.
This scene was action packed, and would have been great if it were in the movies!

-And finally, one of my favorite scenes from the books that would have been mind-blowingly awesome if they would have put it in the movies: The scene where Gandalf battles the Balrog and descends with him into the underworld, where there were as he put it, "Creatures dark and foul and horrifying beyond all comprehension." (I can't remember exactly how ol' Stormcrow said it, but it was somewhere along those lines)
In the movie, it just showed Gandalf and the Balrog battling and descending into the depths of the earth, which I think was done very well, but there was no scene with them battling in the underworld.
I guess why they didn't include it is because perhaps Jackson thought it was dangerous to do an interpretation of that scene in the movie because it's not very well described in the books, so he probably didn't want to do the wrong interpretation and mess it up. Plus, this scene has thrilled and haunted me with it's mystery ever since I read it, because I never really knew what the creatures were, and I guess that's part of the fun, to keep it a dark and chilling mystery. :)

Among the scenes that I was dissapointed that they didn't put in the movies,however, there were some scenes that I was rather glad they didn't put in:
Such as the scene with Tom Bombadil and Goldberry. Some people here may disagree with me, but I thought those characters were annoying and just plain stupid. Too airy-fairy for my tastes. Or as Michael Moorcock would call it "pixieshit"! :D
Also the scene with the bathing song. That was retarded beyond comprehension!

AuntiePam
November 16th, 2003, 03:17 PM
I agree with you that Jackson has done a great job interpreting the book.

I'm just now reading it for the first time and I'm getting a big kick out of comparing the book and the movies.

Who would have thought that Aragorn was such a chatterbox? I prefer the silent, brooding movie version. He's talking way too much in the book.

I like the way Merry and Pippin are written though -- they're much more resourceful than in the movies, where they seem to be used for comic relief more than anything else.

I'm surprised at all the changes and additions though. You'd think Rings fans would be upset, but from everything I've seen, most of them are happy with it.

Evil Agent
November 16th, 2003, 05:37 PM
This is a long-debated topic, but I think that the thing is, in the end, no one will get THEIR version of LOTR. It's a VERY good adaptation, done by hundreds of devoted fans and an extraordinary director, and if he got even HALF of it right we should be happy. And I think he got a lot more than half of it right.

There are LOTS of little differences I would love to see in the movies, but the changes also make sense. Faramir's character cause a lot of controversy, but ultimately it plays well on the screen (whereas a virtuous and perfect Faramir which is interesting in the books, might seem boring or unrealistic on film).

And there are so many good things that DID get in the film ("What's taters precious?", as well as a million other lines).

I disagree with you about the Balrog battle, I thought what they showed was AMAZING, and didn't even expect that much. Gandalf barely describes any of it in the book, so I didn't even think we'd see it. The fall was beautiful! But it wasn't overdone either.

But that's why we have the books. The movies are not a replacement, just another tribute to the BOOKS. Like any book or calendar of Tolkien art, but to the next degree. If you really want to experience The Lord of the Rings, in the end, you READ it. The movies could never be perfect.

PS I like the bath song! :)

Ouroboros
November 16th, 2003, 05:40 PM
My main beef with Jackson's LOTR is not really what he omits, but rather what he alters:-

Something in me cringes at the idea that the work of the great man was altered just to include more tits and ass / girl-power in the main line-up: clearly the reason Glorfindel was bumped in favour of a more active Arwen. A worse decision was saddling her with a terribly unimaginative one-liner when confronting the horsemen at the entrance to Rivendell ("If you want him ... come and get him!").

However, on balance I adore Liv Tyler so much that I am letting this one slide. I'd rather watch her hamming it up than another silken-haired pretty-boy elf :D

My main problem is that they significantly altered the character of Fararmir in the second movie. In the books he is not like Borromir: he is his brother with the moral weakness burned away- he may even make a comment to effect that even if he found the One Ring lying in the road he wouldn't pick it. Now compare that with the movie Faramir: he actually starts carting them back towards Gondor under guard ....

Zsinj
November 16th, 2003, 07:28 PM
This is a long-debated topic, but I think that the thing is, in the end, no one will get THEIR version of LOTR. It's a VERY good adaptation, done by hundreds of devoted fans and an extraordinary director, and if he got even HALF of it right we should be happy. And I think he got a lot more than half of it right.

Excellent point. Nothing's perfect.


disagree with you about the Balrog battle, I thought what they showed was AMAZING, and didn't even expect that much. Gandalf barely describes any of it in the book, so I didn't even think we'd see it. The fall was beautiful! But it wasn't overdone either.

Nonononono! You've gravely misunderstood me, I think! I thought the battle with the Balrog was absolutely, mind-blowingly awesome! A truly epic battle scene if I've ever seen one!:eek:
And I agree with you on the fact that we're lucky Peter Jackson even put it in there. Personally, I didn't think it was going to show it, and boy was I surprised when it did!
So, I'm not saying the battle with the Balrog was done badly or anything, in fact I think it's one of the greatest scenes in movie history! I just was kind of dissapointed that Jackson didn't include the underworld scene. Sorry I didn't properly clarify myself on that before. :)



Something in me cringes at the idea that the work of the great man was altered just to include more tits and ass / girl-power in the main line-up: clearly the reason Glorfindel was bumped in favour of a more active Arwen. A worse decision was saddling her with a terribly unimaginative one-liner when confronting the horsemen at the entrance to Rivendell ("If you want him ... come and get him!").

Yes, Mr. Jackson may have screwed up a bit on that part of the saga and maybe got a bit trigger-happy with the girl-power aspect, but hey, at least it's not as bad as some of the feminazi crap you find in the Mercedes Lackey and Marion Zimmer Bradley books! ;)

Evil Agent
November 17th, 2003, 01:32 AM
Okay, about the Balrog scene, I understand now... that would have been cool. I know that there WAS plans to show it when it had been extinguished, and became "a creature of slime", but they scrapped that idea.

As for Arwen, I think that her ride to the Ford was one of the worst changes. Not so much because of her, but because I think that scene is much more powerful in the book, WHEN FRODO IS ALONE. But hey, she did okay. I also agree, however, that her one liner was pretty weak, but so was that of the Witch King ("Give up the halfling, She-Elf!", what's with that?!?). What happened to the awesome part of the book (AND the cartoon), when they just keep saying "Come back... come back... to Mordor we will take you... come back!"

Oorag
November 17th, 2003, 02:33 AM
Originally posted by Ouroboros
A worse decision was saddling her with a terribly unimaginative one-liner when confronting the horsemen at the entrance to Rivendell ("If you want him ... come and get him!").
Yeah, I never much cared for that line, but when you think about it, Arwen was just luring them into the water, so what else should she have said? Since it served a purpose in the plot, I wouldn't really call it a one-liner. The trailers built it up more than the movie itself did.


My main problem is that they significantly altered the character of Fararmir in the second movie. In the books he is not like Borromir: he is his brother with the moral weakness burned away- he may even make a comment to effect that even if he found the One Ring lying in the road he wouldn't pick it. Now compare that with the movie Faramir: he actually starts carting them back towards Gondor under guard ....
Introducing a human who did not lust after the ring would sabotage key plot elements. If Faramir was beyond temptation, why wasn't HE the ringbearer? Plus, having Faramir suffer the same dilemma, but succeed where his brother failed, makes him a more dynamic character.

Keade
November 17th, 2003, 05:55 AM
Originally posted by Oorag

Yeah, I never much cared for that line, but when you think about it, Arwen was just luring them into the water, so what else should she have said? Since it served a purpose in the plot, I wouldn't really call it a one-liner. The trailers built it up more than the movie itself did.


Introducing a human who did not lust after the ring would sabotage key plot elements. If Faramir was beyond temptation, why wasn't HE the ringbearer? Plus, having Faramir suffer the same dilemma, but succeed where his brother failed, makes him a more dynamic character.

faramir might come as a dynamic character as the result but him taking frodo and sam all the way back to gondor...that was a bit much after it took the fellowship ages to get that far. but faramir did realise his mistake at the end

Ouroboros
November 17th, 2003, 06:17 AM
Originally posted by Oorag
Introducing a human who did not lust after the ring would sabotage key plot elements. If Faramir was beyond temptation, why wasn't HE the ringbearer? Plus, having Faramir suffer the same dilemma, but succeed where his brother failed, makes him a more dynamic character.

I didn't intend to suggest that Faramir is totally beyond temptation, but Tolkien's Faramir is certainly a morally stronger alter-ego of Borromir. The 'wouldn't pick up the one ring if it was lying in the road' comment is also an expression of the fact that he is smart enough to recognise that he would be corrupted if he took it: he accepts that he could not be the ring-bearer.

IMO, Frodo & Sam's encounter with Faramir and his outliers as recorded in the books is an expression of this, and IMO Jackson's changes to the character and plot (i.e 'let's cart them back to Gondor') were really for no good reason.