Discussion on LOTR plot changes ...as opposed to removed scenes

[Stupendous Man]

Lord of the Rings.


Hopefully everyone on the forum will see this
movie soon.

I highly recommend it ...but even if you dont enjoy it
thoroughly -its a conversation piece.

TOPIC : What plot points where changed in LOTR ?

I think it would be interesting to note where the movie deviated from the text.

There were a few .. and we should list and debate them/

Heres the only plot deviation that irked me ...

Sauramans motives

In the movie Sauruman has decided to betray the Free People
of Middle Earth to serve Sauron.

Im sure this wasnt the case in the book.

In the book Sauruman does not wish to serve the dark lord ..
he wishes to replace him.

In the book Sauruman wants the ring for himself.
With the ring he believes hell have the power to
rule the world.

Its why he builds his own army of orcs and mercanaries.

Also they really dropped the whole Sauraman of all colors plot line. His renouncing of the title the "White".
Which diminishes Gandalfs role in the upcoming movies unless
they explain this in "The Two Towers".


There are others ...lets name those plot deviations people.

[Stupendous Man]

wow ... just reread this post .
Someone remind me to spell check before I post in the future .

I appologize to any and all english teachers on the forum.

[Maxie Zeus]

Saruman
In the book Saruman does forge an alliance of convenience with Sauron, and in his encounter with Gandalf begins by urging cooperation with Sauron. During that discussion he gradually insinuates that Sauron could be "controlled" by himself and Gandalf, and by the end it is clear that he wants to displace or dominate Sauron by coming to have the Ring himself.

So the movie is not out of line by showing Saruman to be a minion of Sauron, and by the end (if you listen closely) has begun to intimate that Saruman is going to betray Sauron--at least, Saruman is ordering his Orcs to bring the Ring to him instead of ordering it delivered to Sauron. So that doesn't seem to me terribly out of line.

One reason it looks like a departure from the book: Saruman's desecration of Isengard is portrayed as being ordered by Sauron, when in fact its transformation from garden to factory has actually been completed by the time Gandalf arrives.

And, of course, all of the scenes with Saruman are added by the filmmaker; in the book Gandalf only recalls his conversation with Saruman, and Saruman himself only appears at the end of Book III.

Other changes:

The Hobbits
1. Frodo knows all about Bilbo's plan to leave the Shire.

2. Twenty years pass between Bilbo's departure and Frodo's.

3. Gandalf does not order Frodo to immediately leave, does not make plans to meet him at the Inn of the Prancing Pony, and months pass between their conversation about the Ring and Frodo's departure.

4. Pippin and Merry know all about the Ring, the Dark Lord, and help Frodo make his plans. Frodo, Sam and Pippin are journeying to Buckland to a new house where Frodo is supposed to take up residence when they are waylaid by Black Riders.

5. Farmer Maggot has been eliminated.


The Journey to Rivendell
1. The hobbits pass through the Old Forest when leaving Buckland. They are waylaid by Old Man Willow and rescued by Tom Bombadil. After spending a day or two with Bombadil they leave, only to be trapped by a Barrow-wight and again rescued by Tom.

2. The Inn is a much friendlier place, and the innkeeper (Butterbur) is an old friend of Gandalf's.

3. Strider is bearing the broken Narsil, not an unbroken sword.

4. The Riders do not storm Bree when breaking into the Inn, but are let in by stealth and secrecy.

5. Episodes in the marshes and the Troll-shaws are eliminated.

6. The company are met by an elf-lord, Glorfindel, not Arwen. The entire company makes the trek to Rivendell together.


Rivendell
1. Vast expositions at the Council are cut; meeting scenes between Strider and Arwen and Strider and Boromir are invented and replace feast scenes in the book.

2. Hostility between elves and dwarves is latent and mostly unexpressed in the book. There is no scene where people start yelling at each other.

3. At Rivendell, Frodo has not resolved to go back to the Shire, only to change 180 at the council. Neither Pippin nor Merry are hiding (like Sam) off to the side.


The Journey South
1. The wolf attack is eliminated.

2. The snowfall over Caradhras is not obviously Saruman's work; insofar as it is imputed to an evil agency it is imputed to Sauron.

3. Gandalf and Merry solve the riddle of the Moria door, not Frodo.

4. The first night in Moria Pippin drops a rock down a well, instead of knocking a skeleton in. A tapping signal is heard to emanate from the well.

5. Moria is known to have been empty for ages; Balin's expedition is an attempt to recolonize it, and is already believed to have ended in failure when the company reaches Moria.

6. The battle in Moria is a running affair; there's only brief attack in the chamber of Mazarbul and there is no cave troll, only a very large Orc. There is no daredevil leap across a crumbling bridge.


Lorien and after
1. Both Frodo and Sam look into the Mirror of Galadriel.

2. Galadriel gives gifts to all members of the company.

3. At Rauros there is a debate about whether to press on to Mordor or detour to Gondor. Frodo goes off alone to think and is followed by Boromir (in the movie, their encounter is portrayed as a chance meeting).

4. No one sees Frodo after he flees Boromir; in movie he runs into Strider, Pippin, Merry, and a couple of Amway salesmen, I think.

5. The passing of Boromir is written of in the opening chapter of "The Two Towers."

[Calhoun07]

I am not going toe to toe with Spirt and Maxie here, but do we know what was cut from the movie? I mean the stuff we will see later on the DVD, not all the stuff you're talking about. As far as I know, the DVD is going to restore quite a bit cut footage that just made the movie massively long for a theatrical release, so I am wondering how much cut stuff you are discussing here will be on the DVD?

[James]

Interesting!

I'm reading the differences with one eye open (as I intend to re-read the book this week! :D ).

I think the major changes to the beginning were through neccessity. To make another break in time and accelerate the story again by 20 years would have made the beginning very disjointed.

I think the change to the Hobbits banding again was due to pacing and to help seperate the Hobbit's identity and motivations far more easily. Merry and Pippin's introduction to the trek again highlights their light hearted approach that continues on through the movie.

Again, it's translating to a different medium. What works in a book will not always work in film - a device which can only approach from the perspective of the aural and visual. Because of this, parts have to be changed, otherwise the concept will not hang together in it's new enviroment. Often, pacing is the major problem to be addressed. Films tend to work at a regular pace. If they become irregular, they often become uncomfortable. A book can afford to readdress pace, time and concept as much as it likes - quite often the more it does the more interesting it becomes. Film rarely has such luxury if it's to be appreciated.

Likewise, if you adapt a film to book well, you add to it what a film can't try capture - the thoughts, direction and description that no audio or visual can have a hope to describe.

As such, films which dare tear away from the novel often become the better than those that attempt a literal translation. Blade Runner is a perfect example of a film that strayed far from the book and became an art in itself. Perhaps that's the crux. While Potter will always be a rather weak but faithful translation of the book, it will likely to be forgotten.

But if you add a bit of imagination and alter what needs to be altered (and that can mean a little more than deleting scenes), you can make something thats based on the book but can stand alone from the book..

Again with Lord Of The Rings we are yet to know which catagory it will fall into....

[Failure]

I was disappointed by them leaving out the gifts from the elves part most. Lembas! Lembas! What are Frodo and Sam going to eat in the next two movies? And all the hobbits got little camoflauge cloaks right? Wasn't that how Merry & Pippin got away from the orcs in the book? Actually, I guess it's not a big deal, but lembas have always stuck out in my mind, because I've always wondered how they would taste.

[The Mad Hatter]

Ah, thankee Maxie, I was wondering the differences between the books and movies myself.

[Maxie Zeus]

Clown Prince was asking about this topic, so I'll bump the thread for him.

:)

[James]

How about the end?

Considering Bormoir wasn't meant to die until episode 2 and granting that film is a different medium to the book - did the film just fizzle out?

It can be okay for a book to do the same as it can be working on so many levels - a film does not enjoy the same privilage or patience from it's critics.

Should Mr Bean, Merry and Pippin's fate been left unresolved? Should we have been left with the assumption that the fellowship had not just failed but died with the exception of Frodo and Sam? The resoloution at the end of this film could have resolved in the beginning of the next and ended this film on a little more of a teaser...

As it stands, FOTR is neither a film on it's own or a strong continuation into the second part....

[killercroc]

If I remember right Sauron never actually made an appearance in the the books. I count that as a plot change, cause it changes his effect pretty fundamentally.

[The Mad Hatter]

I think he showed up in the Shire during Return of the King, but I'm going by my unreliable memory here...

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by SJJ
How about the end?

Considering Bormoir wasn't meant to die until episode 2 and granting that film is a different medium to the book - did the film just fizzle out?

Boromir's death and the decision of Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas to chase the Orcs occurs in the first chapter of TT, so basically the film just attaches the first chapter of TT onto the end of FotR. Actually, it might have been a bigger "fizzle" if it had the FotR book's end, where it is just Sam and Frodo going off, and we see nothing of the other members after Boromir accosts Frodo. Instead of a cliffhanger or a major plot change (which is what the movie ends on) it would have just looked like the movie forgot about the other 7 characters.

I think Jackson decided the film needed some kind of punctuation rather than a year-long "teaser." If TT follows the book you'll get the teaser effect at the end of that film: Frodo in the Tower of Cirith Ungol, Sam unconscious in the lair of Shelob, and Gandalf and Pippin riding to Minas Tirith.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by killercroc
If I remember right Sauron never actually made an appearance in the the books. I count that as a plot change, cause it changes his effect pretty fundamentally.

Sauron made four quasi-appearances that I can remember:

1. The Eye appeared in the Mirror of Galadriel, as it does in the film.

2. While wearing the Ring to escape Boromir, Frodo climbs feels the Eye searching for him, and there is a sense of narrow escape.

3. Pippin, after looking in the palantir, recounts his confrontation with Sauron.

4. When Frodo stands on Mount Doom, the POV (still in the omniscient 3rd person narrative voice) shifts to Barad-dur and describes Sauron's anger and fear as the "devices of his enemies" are made clear to him, and describes him as bending his entire will and thought upon the Mountain.

It is Saruman, not Sauron, who shows up in the Shire at the end of RotK.

[Maxie Zeus]

In the books, Gandalf does not know that there is a palantir (a Seeing Stone) in Orthanc until the end of Book III (halfway thru TT) when it is hurled down after his confrontation with Saruman. In fact, even after he takes it from Pippin he is not entirely sure of the nature of the Stone until after Pippin steals and looks into it.

[The Mad Hatter]

It is Saruman, not Sauron, who shows up in the Shire at the end of RotK.

Oh, shazbot! You're right. As a child I always got Saruman and Sauron mixed up, and a bit of that lingers to this day.

[killercroc]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus


Sauron made four quasi-appearances that I can remember:

1. The Eye appeared in the Mirror of Galadriel, as it does in the film.

2. While wearing the Ring to escape Boromir, Frodo climbs feels the Eye searching for him, and there is a sense of narrow escape.

3. Pippin, after looking in the palantir, recounts his confrontation with Sauron.

4. When Frodo stands on Mount Doom, the POV (still in the omniscient 3rd person narrative voice) shifts to Barad-dur and describes Sauron's anger and fear as the "devices of his enemies" are made clear to him, and describes him as bending his entire will and thought upon the Mountain.

It is Saruman, not Sauron, who shows up in the Shire at the end of RotK.

That's right. But I can't remember the third one. It doesn't describe what he looks like does it?

Though it was pretty cool when he was personified in the beginning of the movie, it does have a pretty drastic effect on his presence. It's like since we've seen him we understand he can't be any more terrible than that. It's like it lessens the fear you feel for him.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by killercroc


That's right. But I can't remember the third one. It doesn't describe what he looks like does it?

Don't have the books here, so I can't quote. But it describes Pippin bending over the palantir, freezing, and screaming. Gandalf and others run up. Gandalf takes Pippin aside and questions him. And Pippin describes what happened.

In Pippin's story, he describes seeing things in the palantir. But it is unclear if he 'sees' Sauron in the same way. If I recall correctly, Pippin says something like: "I saw tall battlements and things flying around them. Then one of them flew toward me. I tried to get away because I thought it was going to fly out at me. It covered the stone and everything black. And then he came and questioned me. He didn't talk, he just looked and I understood. He said. . . ." So there is no description of Sauron, and in fact there is some sense that Pippin was just registering a presence thru the palantir.


Though it was pretty cool when he was personified in the beginning of the movie, it does have a pretty drastic effect on his presence. It's like since we've seen him we understand he can't be any more terrible than that. It's like it lessens the fear you feel for him.

Yeah, I thought that was a mistake though it is accurate to Tolkien, who describes Sauron as coming out during the War of the Last Alliance as a great warning clad in burning black armor. It's a cool image to imagine, but much less impressive to actually see. Sauron has a much more powerful hold on the imagination when he's just left as a vast and brooding presence on the horizon.