Top 10 Biggest Differences Between The Lord Of The Rings Movies And Books

[@Marcel-bd9er]

What about Faramir? In the books he helps Frodo and Sam from the start, he doesn't drag them to Minas Tirith only to let them go halfway

[@zachstevens7382]

Marcel Simeonov he also isn't tempted by the ring at all like Sam wise and aragon who don't give into any temptation really.

[@theotherlesscoolaccount359]

Marcel Simeonov You sure? I've read the books and they meet him at around the same point. It's just he stays and becomes a love interest for Èowyn.

[@Frahamen]

Luis Vazquez it shouldn't be just an Honourable Mention. The character assassination of Faramir is outraging, has no purpose, and is one of the biggest mistakes the film has made. Book Faramir is relatable and easily my favourite character, and in the movie he's just a Dick.

[@Highretrogamelord]

Book Faramir is also the author's avatar (Tolkien said that Faramir is like him).

[@theotherlesscoolaccount359]

Frahamen Calm down. "Outraging" is such a ridiculous overreaction.

[@wctrqn]

Despite the differences/changes, LOTR is still the BEST movie trilogy ever made! The greatest cinematic achievement ever! Well done, Peter Jackson and his team!

[@travies0.395]

Facts

[@sciencebrainwiz7051]

You're absolutely right. People say star wars is the best but I fully disagree. LOTR is superior in its cinematic elements

[@jamieolberding7731]

wctrqn 6 months ago (edited) I strongly agree, even though I'm not a huge fan of the LOTR Books I still enjoy the movies much more than the books.

[@tedextra1154]

wctrqn I perfer the hobbit to lord of the rings but I still love Lord of the rings!

[@jamieolberding7731]

@@tedextra1154 The Hobbit trilogy is alright.

[@J2ojuiced95]

The Lord of The Rings films were for the most part just shortened versions of the books. Unlike the Hobbit, which was a short book that was stretched into 3 films.

[@lisamac1986]

The Illuminati I didn't enjoy the Hobbit as much as lotr because of that reason.

[@bradwright9477]

I still think The Hobbit films are flawed but solid films, especially the first two.

[@HalfDemonInuyasha]

Because *everything* just has to be a trilogy or longer these days for films if they expect to do more than one x_x Nooooo, can't only do two. It MUST be three or more unless the first 1-2 completely bomb.

[@ravaprasetyo7368]

I think TLOTR should've been made a TV series to cover more things in the books

[@zachstevens7382]

The Illuminati nothing about the hobbit was truely short. it had so much info and lore on just a few pages... they may have messed it up a lot at places but still well done overall and glad they did it at least and another good trilogy but not the same as lotr. oh well. but the hobbit was the original and it was written for his kids lol. so yah, it's not like some short kids novel today but it's smaller but still the best book he wrote. and one of the best fantasy books all time.

[@qgxii]

In the films I got really annoyed of the later scenes with Frodo and Sam, mostly because of whiny Frodo. In the books Frodo is older than the other hobbits and acts wiser and more foresightful. He makes all the important decisions and always has their destination in mind. He knows, that he needs Gollum, but that he can't trust him as well. I hated how Gollum plays Frodo off against Sam in the film. This is just so totally different from the book Frodo.

[@TassieDinkum90]

Yeah I always skip the Frodo and Sam parts of TTT and ROTK, much more interested in the War of the Ring story, I don't bother with 'The Ring' until they're entering Mordor

[@parkerberry3294]

Hurtz imwas

[@Jongen.]

No it is not. I think Frodo was still strong in the movies, he was just changing because of the ring. And of course with a lot of dangers on the way.

[@envlslon]

@@Jongen. But in the movies he still looked weaker and unwise and I hated the fact that Sam had more screentime showing how he saves Frodo and looks stronger than him. Then give him the ring and forget Frodo, he isn't crucial. I was so sad and mad to see that Frodo was kinda underrated in the films.

[@FrogWalrus]

The film shifted the focus to Sam which turned out fine.

[@TrainerJoshB]

One of the big differences that always bugged me was that Aragorn had the sword reforged, Andruil, from the start of their journey from Rivendell in the books and they save it until the last movie for a dramatic scene.

[@WhichardChris]

It makes sense from a characterization stand point considering that movie Aragorn is considerably different from his book counterpart. Movie Aragorn is much more the reluctance hero, and considerably less confident in his own ability to become king which the sword represented. Book Aragorn on the other hand had always intended to become king but was waiting for the right moment to reveal himself. In both instances Anduril is an important symbol of their acceptance of the role of king, the key difference being the point in which the accepted their role.

[@Serai3]

Well, that's what makes a drama, dude - dramatic scenes. Tolkien himself said his books were "peculiarly" unfilmable, and he was right. They simply do not work as he wrote them. Jackson made his own choices (and I don't agree with all of them), but by and large he knew what he was doing, and it turned out about 1000x better than it could have. Fancy Cher as Aragorn? Or the Fellowship carrying "food concentrate" instead of lembas? How about Arwen being raped on a stone altar? All of these have appeared as possibilities in the past. Be glad we can quibble over things like sword forging dates, and not whether Sam really should have murdered Gollum in order to give Frodo a reason to kill him before throwing himself into the volcano!

[@indy_go_blue6048]

I think what's really funny with that scene is that when the camera pans up Anduril looks the friggin' Star Destroyer from the opening scene of Star Wars "A New Hope." It just keeps going and going and going... I lol at that every time I watch it.

[@joeyclemenza7339]

just works better in film form. from a narrative standpoint, certain things work better in the book as they do in the movies, and vice versa.

[@неболаја]

and aragorn is super arogant in the books, in movie he is humble

[@Sarah-js7qq]

Honestly, surprised the Ents, the oldest and wisest beings currently living, were made to look stupid. Of course they knew what Saruman was doing and did not need to be tricked into acting. Also, another significant part of the rescue from the Nasgul was Frodo was not in that bad a state. He actually rode the horse by himself and despite being weak and in a lot of pain still stood up to them

[@oranbilsen7035]

Yes, the Entmoot and the ents exploding into rage was one of the greatest moments of the book. Really hated that movie hobbits 'tricked' them into going to war. it was scriptwriter's cliche

[@paregoric4619]

Totally agree. For me, the Ents' incandescent fury in the books at the end of several days of scrupulous caution and careful deliberation made their anger frightening and powerful. I don't see the cinematic purpose in making them look like dupes instead. Even worse, in rejecting "hastiness" and then going on to do something very hasty indeed, the Ents look like shameless hypocrites. Nothing could be further than that from Tolkien's concept. I was bitterly disappointed.

[@djolley61]

It in the books it never described the Ents as having branches and leaves. Their skin was bark-like and the number of fingers and toes varied. They could resemble a tree because of their skin and when they stood very still. And yes, they were among the oldest and wisest creatures in Middle Earth, not dunces. Remember at the beginning in the movie of the Fellowship Galadriel is talking about feeling a change in the air? That's actually a quote from Treebeard at the end of book The Return of the King.

[@SingingSealRiana]

Well and the quite poetic dwarves got turned into singleminded drunks and comicrelife . . .

[@orirune3079]

@@djolley61 That's a good point. It's also mentioned that Morgoth made trolls as a corruption of ents, so the two should probably be similar. The ent design in the movies was pretty cool though.

[@WesAllen]

The ages of the hobbits is a big difference. In the films they are all about the same age, in the books Frodo is quite a bit older than the others.

[@masterle4248]

Wes Allen a bit? Frodo is way older than Pippin and possibly the others

[@WesAllen]

Master Le I did say "quite a bit," which indicates a rather large gap.

[@TheSilverPhoenix100]

Frodo is 50 The others I dont think are even considered Adults in Hobbit culture ( I know pippin is 29 and the youngest)

[@jansvoboda2944]

Samwise is also ar least 13 years younger than Frodo.

[@autumnbold5809]

Frodo was 51, Sam was 39, Merry was 37, and Pippin was 29. Though I think Frodo was still supposed to appear younger than most of them cuz he had the Ring for nearly 18 years

[@alanacevedo4928]

Best trilogy of all time hands down

[@haydinio1498]

absolutely agree

[@jeremiecampeau-poirier2636]

even though i agree, the original Star Wars trilogy and Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy are pretty close in my opinion

[@mattiasgow2234]

Alan Acevedo yeah definitely

[@wserthmar8908]

Jérémie Campeau-Poirier Well. Star Wars Original Trilogy: Episode 4: good Ep 5: great Ep 6: weak Nolan’s The Dark Knight Trilogy: 1st movie: good 2nd: great 3rd: ok PJ’s The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy: The Fellowship of the Ring: great TTT: great TROTK: amazing No comments

[@ashleyandmicahenglish5587]

That is until John Wick Chapter 3 comes out...

[@ElZilchoYo]

Most of the changes are there just because otherwise you'd need about 10 films

[@Serai3]

It's never possible to film a book as written, and this kind of cutting down happens with every book that's adapted to film. Doesn't matter who makes the film, how great they are, that book's going to get whacked down, and purists are going to piss their pants with the tantrums. But if any of them had half a billion dollars and made their own version, all the OTHER purists would piss on THEIR heads, because of course the film wouldn't live up to their expectations.

[@lilysdreamworld6386]

I wouldnt be sad about 10 Films ; )

[@raven2402]

agree. tho i wanna buy the book to be more detailed

[@edo4867]

And that's why Amazon will do the series. I hope that Amazon will add all the missing details in the films, but more than anything, faithfully represent how epic the War of the Ring was.

[@darrensingh3873]

Damn man imagine having 10 films. Would be amazing

[@eyrena]

I am a bit surprised by this list: looks like they were really nitpicking some stuff while missing some of the really big changes. The really important one was the omission of the scouring of the Shire. For me some of the biggest changes were: 1. Character of Faramir (as mentioned by many) - in the book he is the opposite to his brother Boromir: he does not care that much for power and glory, he is caring and kind, and he does not succumb to the Ring. I understand that the director wanted to show the corrupting power of the Ring, but this kind of ruined Faramir's character. 2. Eowyn and Faramir story was omitted. Personally, I really liked the character of Eowyn, who was the only female character in the book to participate in the major action. They included the scene of healing in the extended edition, but we do not get to see how her story resolved - notably, how she realised that she was only infatuated with Aragorn, and how she fell in love with Faramir. This was important to provide the closure for these characters' arc, and also to reinforce the book's idea that there is more value in growing and caring than in seeking glory in a battle. And I feel that these scenes were omitted only to make more room for scenes with Arwen, which brings me to 3) 3. The invented subplot about Arwen dying form Sauron's influence in the 3rd movie. For me this a) did not make any sense, and b) convoluted Aragorn's character - Aragorn went on a perilous quest in order to protect all people of Middle Earth, and now it looks like he is fighting in the 3rd movie only to protect Arwen. So, if Arwen were OK, would Aragorn simply quit midway through the movie? I don't think we needed this extra motivation for Aragorn, especially since I felt it took time which could otherwise been used for other characters' stories. 4. The power/ impact of Nazgul. In the book the main power of Nazgul is that they induce fear and despair, and people literally stop fighting. In the movie it looks like their main power is, basically, fighting. E.g., in the battle for Minas Tirith they are dangerous mostly because they can fly, rather than (as in the books) because their presence makes people simply want to crawl away and hide. For me, it made Nazgul much less powerful and fearsome. 5. Traveling of Elves in 2nd and 3rd movies. The main characters spent weeks traveling from Rivendell or Lothlorien to Rohan, fighting orcs along the way. Now a group of Elves (2nd movie) and Elrond (3rd movie) make this journey in a blink of an eye, completely ignored by the enemy. Also, if Elrond was OK with leaving Rivendell unprotected for X weeks to deliver the sword to Aragorn, why would not he then stay for the battle of Minas Tirith? Wouldn't a powerful Elvish king be a valuable ally? In the books it was clear that he and Galadriel needed to protect the Elvish kingdoms and the rings, plus fight the war in the North, but not in the movie. 6. The motivation of Merry and Pippin. In the books it is established that they are Frodo's best friends, are aware of his decision to leave Shire, and willingly join him from the beginning. In the movie they are accidentally dragged into Frodo's journey - a small change, but, for me, it really undermines these characters. 7. Finally, as mentioned by some, Frodo's character was re-worked into scared and whiny character! While in the books he does fight, in the movies he always screams for help and is constantly saved by other characters.

[@Serai3]

The Scouring is NUMBER ONE on the list, dude.

[@diggingholedwarf7077]

Thank you!! Perfect list :) I would also add Imrahil who is quite important in the book.

[@patrickdempsey1045]

Eowyn and Faramir's love story is in the extended edition so cross number 2 out of the list.

[@Erin_Ca]

eyrena I do agree with nearly every of your points (ESPECIALLY Faramirs and Frodos characters). However I don't really understand the third one. You say that Arwen was dying from Saurons influence and that Aragorn might appear to have fought in the war because of that. But I understood it in that way that she suffered, since she gave her immortality to Frodo. Her fragility comes from becoming human. Now, even if she was suffering from Saurons presence, how would Aragorn know? He thinks (which he tells Eowyn) that she travels far away to the undying lands. These are the lands elves come to when they die. So why would he need to fight Sauron for Arwens stability if she was already wandering in the elves' 'heaven'?

[@orarinnsnorrason4614]

Eowyn and Faramir are included in the extended version as you say and their relationship is resolved. However they are just seen holding hands in their final scene. It's enough for me. My biggest gripe is with Faramir's character and how he is supposed to be the opposite of Boromir in that he doesn't want conflict or personal power/gain, and most of all understands that the ring is not a solution to win the war, as in taking it for Gondor. His portrayal in the movie completely undermines him and what he stands for in the books. Even though he let's Frodo ultimately go it's just too late, for me at least.

[@antoninoskomnenos1022]

I can think of a few more big differences: -Saruman treated as Sauron's right-hand man in the movie, instead of the somewhat minor villain he was in the books -Denethor made suicidally stupid and borderline evil in the movie, rather than a good man who had simply gone mad from despair -All the characters cut from RotK, including Beregond, Imrahil, Elladan, and Elrohir

[@logicaldude3611]

They completely ruined Faramir's character by having him take the Hobbits to Osgiliath. They treat him as this weak, misfit little brother of Boromir when in reality he's an extremely critical piece and a noble man.

[@robertwilliams4682]

Totally agree with 2 and 3, though Saruman was definitely more than a minor villain, especially in the Two Towers. His role if Fellowship of the Ring is overblown in the movies though.

[@antoninoskomnenos1022]

@@robertwilliams4682 He's a major character, but in terms of being the central antagonist, he wasn't a very dependable ally to Sauron in the books. He spent more time plotting against Sauron.

[@tibb3t]

Fun fact: Legolas actually has dark hair in the books.

[@olivialim7541]

and uses one knife, not two

[@Milamberas45]

Not really, his hair color is never mentioned...

[@tibb3t]

@@Milamberas45 `Frodo looked up at the Elf standing tall above him, as he gazed into the night, seeking a mark to shoot at. His head was dark, crowned with sharp white stars that glittered in the black pools of the sky behind.`

[@Milamberas45]

@@tibb3t Yeah, objects tend to be dark in the night. From this "evidence" I could also gather that he was black...

[@tibb3t]

@@Milamberas45 You are free to believe what you want to believe, interpret. I interpret this as his hair was black since there is not a single mention towards it being blond.

[@raymedia020]

A day will come when they will run out of ideas BUT IT IS NOT THIS DAY

[@DJNightchild]

THIS DAY WE FIGHT!

[@the-engneer]

This comment didn't age well

[@madmaggie7163]

Faramir's character and actions are completely changed - in the book Faramir knows that he should not stop Frodo's quest and has the wisdom and strength to send him on his way. Sam does NOT abandon Frodo until he believes Frodo is dead. Sam would never have left Frodo, even if told to do so (as he was in the film) - he would have followed him no matter what. These changes in character I think are the worst changes - both Faramir and Sam are portrayed as absolutely true and able to resist all corruption, and I really wish Jackson had kept that.

[@AdinaIspas]

While I do hate what Jackson did to Sam and Frodo's relationship, I have to ask: why do you think that Sam is portrayed as absolutely able to resist all corruption? If you read Tolkien's thoughts about it, he sees Sam as "conceited" for the role he played as servant to Frodo, and unable to understand the spiritual aspects of the Quest ("bringing love to the unloved"). Although it is not something he chose, he does end up with all the material power and glory as Patriarch in the Shire, plus Hero of Hollywood. The latter portray him that way because they relate to something that is there in his character, even though it was not Tolkien's message to have that side of him win. Not seeing yourself as the true equal of someone you should, is probably as bad as (if not worse than) trying to be a God. From the looks of it, Sam is ruled by some old-school "pre-emptive strike" mindsets.

[@Arshabyn7]

YES!!! Faramir is better in the books, wiser, more enigmatic and more honorable. He is the personification of his writer. I love this books character

[@auntieweirdo]

Agreed. That was the absolute worst part of the film adaptation for me - changing Faramir. Completely off the subject, the films should have shown that Denethor had a Palantir and was under the influence of Sauron and this was why he was behaving totally irrationally. They could have added a tiny clip of it just before his demise - it would have created an excellent dramatic moment, not taken terribly tmuch time (a few seconds) and it would have explained a huge amount about his behaviour and motivations.

[@williamjust]

If I recall correctly, Denethor despaired after Sauron forced the Palantir to show him the corsair ships heading toward Minas Tirith. What Sauron didn't let him see was that the ships were carrying Gondor's allies. It parallels the story of Theseus' return home, where he forgot to change his sails. Seeing the black sails, which were meant to signal that Theseus was dead, his father killed himself in sorrow.

[@jessetamez7362]

I agree! Having Sam leave Frodo is the worst change followed by Faramir’s character change. Both unnecessary. Gandalf told Sam, never leave Frodo and he promised he wouldn’t.

[@antonk6359]

0:05 * coughs ... Legolas skateboarding on a shield * cough

[@GamerGirl_2000]

Anton K OMG I love Legolas Greenleaf's skateboarding 'with style'

[@sergarlantyrell7847]

Well, it still only counts as one!

[@GamerGirl_2000]

Ser Garlan Tyrell what do you mean by that

[@MarsFKA]

Gamer Girl "Well, it still only counts as one!" You may recall that, during the Battle Of Pelennor, in the third film, Legolas jumped up on to a oliphant and killed its crew, then killed the animal. He landed back on the ground and stood looking smugly at Gimli, who said "Well, it still only counts as one!" (Gimli and Legolas were in a competition, started at Helm's Deep, to see who could kill the most enemies.)

[@GamerGirl_2000]

MarsFKA WHY are people using that line too First, it was Legolas Greenleaf's FRICKEN line and now its Gimli' s

[@loulie1997]

LOTR are the greatest cinematic achievement of mankind. Ever.

[@zachstevens7382]

Ivy Hoss it was a pretty epic job by tolkien and Jackson.

[@darkshadow851]

Except for the elephant scene... Someone fell asleep during the post production on that one.

[@zachstevens7382]

Barid not sure what you mean... their was no elephants in lotr... ??

[@zachstevens7382]

Michael Curd who is that or what? gollum is the creature from lotr. a golem is a creature statue pole? :/

[@darkshadow851]

Zach Stevens: were*

[@connercone]

One does not simply care if your first

[@victorvondeathstroke]

Director krennic preach👏👏👏

[@riverh6998]

What about their first?

[@noirangel6416]

Director krennic 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏 my man

[@TenTonNuke]

One does not simply misspell "your" and get away with it.

[@secreteee2572]

first

[@ohinek007]

I thing that the biggest difference is that in movies is whole story presented as centerpieces of the whole world, but in the books war of the ring is only the final episode of the long fight with the evil.

[@Wjong459]

ohinek007 ?

[@sybillestahl8646]

+ohinek007 When I read The Silmarillion, I thought that the wars between the Noldor and Morgoth made the War of the Ring look like a Sunday School picnic. When he was overthrown, the elves deemed that evil had been ended forever, and it was not so.

[@IRMentat]

The change of an undead/zombie/ghost army into a giant snot tide that flowed through walls and took a sieged city in moments was a pretty big change.

[@OneWordCapitalD]

From a storytelling standpoint, I appreciate the choices Jackson made to adapt the stories to film. One huge difference that works in both mediums (book vs. film) and their respective approaches to the story is Gandalf's attitude toward the Mines of Moria. In the books, he prefers them to Caradhras, and actually argues with Aragorn that they should go under the mountain. In the movies, however, he fears it, foreshadowing his "death" and the guilt it causes Frodo. FOTR is definitely one of my favorite books and movies.

[@JETWTF]

They completely ruined Faramir in the movies. He was the polar opposite of Boromir, never tempted by the ring like Boromir was and offered help freely.

[@friidrottskarlsson3878]

I actually prefer movie Faramir, he is more flawed and have a personal struggle between pleasing his father and do what is actually right. In the books he appears as just a perfect character with no flaws and does not seen as a real character but more as a checkpoint for Frodo and Sam before they enter Mordor

[@amazingsupergirl7125]

FRODO DOESNT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL DESTRUCTION OF THE RING. I can’t believe nobody is talking about this. Gollum bites off his finger and ring then Frodo falls to his knees st the edge of the chasm never touching Gollum or the ring again. Gollum dances around then “he stepped too far, toppled, wavered for a moment on the brink, and then with a shriek he fell. Out of the depths came his last wail Precious, then he was gone.” They never tell anyone Frodo wasn’t going to destroy it. Sam let everyone celebrate his “heroism” but if Gollum hadn’t misstepped, Frodo would’ve kept it. I believe that’s part of why Frodo left Middle Earth. That burden.

[@Boris_V]

"Frodo doesn't have anything to do with the actual destruction of the ring". Accept for bringing it all the way to mount doom, which is like 99% of the process.

[@aidangriffiths5075]

I like the movies version better

[@andy19il]

Plus if Frodo wasn’t there, Gollum would have never gotten the ring

[@marijanamartinovic1145]

Frodo probably had that burden of knowing that there was a part of him that wanted to keep the Ring and that he gave in to that feeling at the very end, but I think it's not fair to say that he didn't have ANYTHING to do with the destruction of the Ring because he was the one who brought it there in the first place, with the intent to destroy it and he suffered many hardships to do so.

[@andy19il]

Amazing Supergirl That’s like suing Sauron was a nice guy

[@ortegasdl]

This seems made by someone who has read the books, but doesn't know what they really are ABOUT. They just linger on the accessory but forget the really important stuff, like: - Aragorn claims all the time to be the true king and heir of Gondor and doens't hesitate to take his place. In the movies he is reluctant doubtful. - Frodo is a responsible hobbit, who takes it upon him to take the ring to Mordor and to destroy it, fighting valiantly along the way. In the movies, he is a whiny helpless ass who takes on a quest of which he doesn't seem to grab the depth of. - Merry and Pippin are perfectly aware of what Frodo is supposed to do and help him willingly (and so does Frederik Bolger), planning ahead WITH GANDALF Frodo's escape. Merry fights bravely with the rohirrim and isn't treated as a child, and so does Pippin with Gondor. In the movie they are just two rascals who are dragged into the plot for fun. - Boromir is a brave, honest man who joins the Fellowship and is always of great (sometimes even dire) help. He only is corrupted in Amon Hen, and doesn't oppose Aragorn as his king. In the movie he is an asshole ready to sucumb to temptation from the beginning. And that is just the Fellowship. Other important deviations are (come people have said them already): - Faramir's character. - Theoden's will to fight. - Denthor's caricature. - The scourging of the Shire. - F...ING TOM BOMBADIL.

[@leviberg2377]

Beregond as well. Not only does he protect Pippin, but he's ultimately the one who saves Faramir in the end.

[@circedelune]

Couldn’t care less about Bombadil, but I agree with your other points. Also would add that Eomer is one of my favorite characters from the books, but barely there in the movies. Most of his lines were not included, and those that were included were given to other characters. Some of his lines were given to Gamling, a character mentioned once, in passing, in the books. His friendship ( almost a bromance) with Aragorn is not portrayed at all. But my number one most hated change from the books to the movies is the love triangle between Aragorn, Arwen, and Eowyn. Yes, Eowyn had a crush on Aragorn in the books, but all he felt for her was pity, and he made that pretty clear from the beginning. It ruins his noble character to lead her on, as he did in the movies. If he wasn’t leading her on, and was seriously attracted to her, that makes it even worse. It makes him fickle.

[@suf1an658]

I can see why some changes would upset you and I only recently started reading the books but Boromir is my favourite character and him being vulnerable to the ring at all times adds to his character for me. The way people describe the books is that every character is much more stoic and less flawed compared the movies and I think the films making the characters more flawed was a good choice

[@fantasywind3923]

The most bothering difference of book and films was that in the movies they turned Frodo from courageous hobbit with iron will into a coward and wimp. Movies basically wiped out all his moments of bravery when he fights back most terrifying creatures (either by not making the scene or altering it, in book he slices with his sword ancient Barrow-wights, he fight back the Nazgul at Weathertop striking at Witch-king and basically scaring him off crying out he name Elbereth which being a hallowed name drives off dark creatures, he attacked Troll in Moria stabbing his foot preventing from breaching the door to chamber they were in, dominates Gollum and is far less trusting of him than in movie: "You revealed yourself to me just now, foolishly. Give it back to Sméagol you said. Do not say that again! Do not let that thought grow in you! You will never get it back. But the desire of it may betray you to a bitter end. You will never get it back. In the last need, Sméagol, I should put on the Precious; and the Precious mastered you long ago. If I, wearing it, were to command you, you would obey, even if it were to leap from a precipice or to cast yourself into the fire. And such would be my command. So have a care, Sméagol!' Sam looked at his master with approval, but also with surprise: there was a look in his face and a tone in his voice that he had not known before. It had always been a notion of his that the kindness of dear Mr. Frodo was of such a high degree that it must imply a fair measure of blindness. Of course, he also firmly held the incompatible belief that Mr. Frodo was the wisest person in the world (with the possible exception of Old Mr. Bilbo and of Gandalf). Gollum in his own way, and with much more excuse as his acquaintance was much briefer, may have made a similar mistake, confusing kindness and blindness.")

[@joeshaber7984]

I think this is the most prominent change from the books--the character of Frodo (and with it his dismissal of Samwise in Return of the King). The second most prominent to me was the change of the character of Faramir.

[@AdinaIspas]

I don't see "far less trusting" in that quote, except if meant as less trusting of himself. I see that he actually cares for Sméagol as a person and tries to explain why he should protect himself from the imperial vortex... cough.... energy drain of someone Sméagol puts on a pedestal (disregarding their possible emotional baggage in that, is what is termed "foolish"). Also that at this time he is still in the mindset of what he believed before about who Gollum was, from the story he was told. But that story came from a time before the three peoples merged into "hobbits" and it would seem that the less merged peoples are, the more homophobic they are.

[@fantasywind3923]

+Adina Ispas: my point was that book Frodo was in general less naive, he wasn't as easily manipulated by Gollum like in movie, and wasn't entirely soft. He could be harsh when needed as seen on the quote when he resorts to threatening Gollum to keep him in line, but book Frodo also knows full well that Gollum is treacherous and can't be really trusted. Of course he felt pity for him, though earlier before meeting him even Frodo spoke harshly that maybe it would be better to kill him. Frodo knew well that Smeagol did lots of bad things in his time and he was cautious, but in the same time he decides to use his help.

[@indy_go_blue6048]

Remember that Frodo is a Christ personage in LotR, Christ who could say both "turn the other cheek" and "GET THEE BEHIND ME, SATAN!"

[@Serai3]

Personally, I always thought that was one of the more unbelievable things in the books. A bookish hobbit who's never been outside his own little country and never in his life even picked up a sword suddenly becomes a fierce warrior? LOL, give me a break. Things that look good on the page can become completely ridiculous on the screen, and nobody would have bought Frodo becoming some fierce guy when he'd clearly never done anything more serious than learning Elvish and running from the local farmer's dogs.

[@GREENdragon1224]

Having the elves at helms deep goes against one of the major themes of the saga, that the elves are leaving and men need to take matters into their own hands

[@brooksboy78]

Absolutely!!

[@Shawnsiman]

Also, how would the elves get there so quickly? It's not like they knew a battle was coming at Helms Deep and the Hornberg is a long way from Lothlorien...

[@matwar5000]

the films left out the fact that Denethor had his own palantir, which would explain why he had no hope that men would win the war

[@chriscurley7977]

I felt Jackson added needlessly, while cutting what actually happened in the books. but I most resent his making Faramir decide to bring Frodo and the ring back , rather than, as in the books, nobly helping them on their way to Mount Doom. Wasn't much impressed with his making Elrond try to prevent Arwen's marrying Aragorn, either.

[@AdinaIspas]

Yes, lol, imagine that these are Half-Elves with a LONG history of marrying humans and Elrond just ups and tries to prevent Arwen from being her self. Peachy! He'd only ruin the entire point of his own existence then, and the "rejoining of the two lines to make the White Tree grow again". And Faramir is miles away from how book-Sam describes him as "more like a Wizard". This is not about book details or film details or the art of crafting a movie. This is about important information about history which sometimes only comes through in fictional stories, as long as the people get it right. You're raising a whole generation on this information, who at the moment have no clue about who the bad guys actually are - and who end up thinking that "sex is evil like the Orcs" and that all the good guys are white and pretty.

[@Flaris]

I don't think either of those things were much of an issue. A lot that he added was good for the overall story. But yeah I can't imagine why Elrond wouldn't want his daughter marrying Aragorn in this situation...oh wait he gives pretty good reasons for that. Not wanting his daughter to outlive everyone she loves and become a lonely existence. And really it gave Faramir more personality and made things more consistent. If Faramir is so unaffected by the ring then instead of helping Frodo he should be taking the thing into Mordor. The films gave Faramir some more depth and an actual character arc.

[@michalalvova9811]

Arwen did not become a lonely existence. She chose mortal life and died, about year after Aragorn. The "good reason" for Elrond was just another Jackson's additon. Book Elrond was not happy about her decision but respected her choice, didn't try to lie to her just to make her leave Aragorn. As for Faramir - there are many character who does not appear to be affected by the ring despite having it near for a long time and knowing it - Pipin, Merry, Legolas, Gimli, Sam. It took months to corrupt Boromir so he would try to take it away from Frodo. Faramir spend two days with Frodo and Sam at most. Also, he didn't know much about the ring. Making him to take Frodo to Minas Tirith after one glance at the ring does not make him more human, does not give him personality and character arc. It simply makes him extremely weak, much more than his brother.

[@willgoetz1262]

I think Peter Jackson was trying to make the films relate to people today. The books are kind of campy and sing-songy. written during a different generation with different beliefs and in some cases values. Jackson tried to make the films relate to people today who would be the ones watching the movie. I would dare say that the average man would probably behave more like film Faramir moreso than book Faramir. Of course, the purist crowd doesn't like this and I dislike this myself because it does make it seem like every human character in the films is just greedy and lusts for power, but I think I may be in the minority in how i feel about this character change. We also have to remember that probably at least half the people who watched the films, never read the books. I didn't even read the books myself until after watching the films.

[@brooksboy78]

@@Flaris Faramir is just an asshole in the films until he suddenly isn't anymore for plot reasons. The whole Osgiliath arc is terrible and just slows the film down.

[@HafdirTasare]

Noone ever mentions my boy Halbarad, Aragorn's captain and his standard bearer. He knew following Aragorn was his most certain death, but he followed him willingly. Also, we always forget that it was Glorfindel who forced the Nazgul into the river, since he was one of the few living beeings they feared. He was the one who was putting the Witch king on rout during the great battle against Angmar and he is the one who prophesized that no mortal man would ever destroy the Witch-king.

[@monikmtb7997]

People get mad over the fact that Glorfindel was left out from the film (it would have been aswesome to watch him on the big screen, but anyway). But what I consider a bigger change and annoys me is giving Arwen a great act of bravery Frodo did. In the Fellowship, Frodo stood against the 9 Nazgul at the Ford of Bruinen, despite being stabbed by a Morgul blade in order to protect the Ring. That part make the reader understand why Frodo was the perfect Ring-bearer & what was he disposed to do in order to fullfill his mission. Such act of bravery was given to another character that didn't even appear in that part, no she was even mentioned. I love the movies though, but there are some changes I can't stand like this one or making Frodo a jerk when he sent Sam home, such make up only distorsionates Frodo's personality. Don't get me wrong I love book Frodo & movie Frodo, but come on, book Frodo is a completely badass character, and the movies changed him quite a bit

[@tralala688]

This! It annoyed me so much. Frodo is the main character, we need the character development for him much more than we need it for Arwen!

[@codswallop321]

+1 for distorsionates

[@willgoetz1262]

The creative team probably decided to give Arwen a bigger role to draw in the female audience. You know how that goes these days. Even though Tolkien was a man who lived in a time when most women didn't even work outside the home, I suppose things are changed to be more relative to today's society at the expense of altering original content.

[@XLightChanX]

@Will Goetz BS. the movie was made nearly 2 decades ago, so what are 'these days'? it's like they said in the video, they took scenes and actions from other characters to give to arwen to flesh out her character and give her a presence in the movies (which is not unusual for book adaptions), because she didn't have that in the books, but a lot of her information is in the additional notes. they couldn't have left her out in the movie, but they also couldn't just add her as a 2d plain character, because who would believe or feel aragon's and her love, and her choice to become human and die eventually? exactly. her character would have been bland boring and unnecessary. they didn't force a romantic subplot (like in the hobbit) because the romance was already there, even if more prevalent in aragon's past, they just made the best out of it. and lotr was published in fucking 1954/5 lol, not that i can see how women's labour is related to arwen anyway, did she work 9 to 5? or do you think women were irrelevant to history in tolkien's time so they weren't included? even though they were, you know, they didn't make éowyn etc. up..

[@willgoetz1262]

@@XLightChanX I never said I personally disagreed with what they did for the movie, so you can relax in knowing that I am not a sexist pig. I was simply explaining why I believe they gave her a larger role. And even the 1950s is way different than the late 1990s in terms of how women were viewed, so I still stand by what I think was the reason for expanding Arwen's role. That said, I think it was a GOOD thing that they did it. So relax, it's just KZbin, all friends here who enjoyed the Tolkien universe 😁

[@williamgordon4503]

In the movies, Aragorn was wishie-washey about who he is. In the book he is one focused bad azz and had things figured out almost as fast as Gandalf.

[@death-king1834]

Peter Jackson did try and create a comprise about the wars happening in the Northern front. There's a scene in the extended edition between Legolas and Gimli in which when preparing to ride to Dunharrow from Edroas Gimli says that he wishes he could muster a legion of Dwarves to accompany. Legolas replies that his kinsmen may not need to ride to war as he fears war already marches on their own lands. Jackson confirmed in the DVD commentary that this was indeed a nod to the battles happening up in the northern front of Middle-earth. He also explains that while he wished to show these battles onscreen to show that the War of the Ring was a truly global conflict they did not have the budget nor time to show this on screen.

[@jonathanfraser6738]

and that comes from the book. Tolkien also had the luxury of writing appendices which also only briefy mention it. This is the point of Hobbit, Gandalf encourages Thorin to retake his realm and kill smaug, because he knows Sauron is plotting his return. If there are no strong realms in the north the Sauron will have one less problem.

[@martijnstuart95]

I would say Faramir not immediately releasing Frodo and Sam is also a very big change from book to film

[@melanieszelong4664]

changes in faramir and aragorn's characters. Faramir never tried to take Frodo and Sam to Gondor. He understood their mission better than Boromir because he was as his father said a "wizard's pupil." He also wasn't cruel to Gollum and never had him beaten but treated him as gently as possible at Frodo's request. I cannot watch that scene because it is such a departure from his character. Aragorn was never reluctant about taking his throne, just waiting for the appointed time after the defeat of Sauron.

[@AdinaIspas]

Jeez, I have to reread The Forbidden Pool because that horrible movie scene is so stuck in my mind over it! Then, all this nonsense about reluctance to be who you are is carefully plotted in order to instill a false fear in people about doing the same. It's more nicely consumerist that way: "there is no Perfection, you can only do so much before you are accused of trying to be a Nazi God". That's bullshit. And Faramir is one of the Beneficial Spiders in the story, who protect the Cave of the initiates. His job is about protecting the meek (Fish) from disrespect and oppression from the powerful, but that doesn't mean beating up their fantasy ideals!

[@Sigart]

They did need an explanation for why he hadn't just ridden to Gondor long ago to claim his throne.

[@hansondb]

Jackson never understood that the most interesting characters in LotR are not internally conflicted or morally compromised. Without being arrogant, Tolkien's Aragorn never doubts himself. It is clear from the dreams that Faramir--not Boromir--was the one intended by the Valar to attend the Council of Elrond, because Faramir is pure of heart and therefore he aids Frodo on his way, even when he recognizes Frodo has the One RIng. Similarly, Tolkien makes clear that no two, other than Sam and Frodo could have found the way to Mount Doom-because they remain true to each other. Tolkien's Frodo NEVER would have sent Sam away (as Jackson had him do on the Stair) and Sam NEVER would have gone. And again, Arwen never starts for the Havens: she and Aragorn have been "all in" with each other 20 years before Bilbo leaves the Shire. Aragorn will have no other woman and therefore his line will die with him...unless, somehow, he becomes King of Gondor and Arnor. For her part, Arwen will have none other than Aragorn. Jackson, like most of Hollywood, thinks only conflicted characters are interesting. The millions of LotR readers disagree.

[@Rimpelmans]

Surely Far-from-the-book-amir should receive at least a dishonorable mention?

[@ibbeats5183]

“Far-from-the-book-amir” 🤣🤣🤣 thats fucking mint. im so using that 😭

[@robertak2659]

What bugged me is that Merry and Pippin felt more like accidental companions rather than purposeful ones. Plus, with the compressed time you don't see how Frodo planned his departure -- selling Bag End to the Sackville Bagginses and buying the home in Crickhollow (closer to the border for a secret escape). And the meeting with the Elves where he learned about the Black Riders. And the sale of Bag End led into The Scouring of the Shire so I guess it made sense to leave that part out. It still seemed really rushed though.

[@dean7984]

The elves turning from a lighthearted, fun loving and enchanting race to the horrible trope with a rod up their bit the size of Canada.

[@sumymathew3804]

The movies were great adaptations, but even the wisest cannot get everything in the book covered in a movie. The books rule them all; nevertheless, love LOTR forever ❤️

[@BPanio]

It would make a great tv adaptation to do every single thing in the books. Each book being a season, you'd get I think 12 season? I can't remember how many "books" exist within each book

[@CyberNut930]

@@BPanio if I remember right it was two books per novel so 6 seasons. That is a good length for a TV series but you would still want to kinda blend books 3 through 6 together since after fellowship the books only follow one set of characters per book. (Focusing on Aragorn and he’s group in book 3 then Frodo and Sam in book 4 for example).

[@anarbitur]

The deleted scene in Return of the King where Aragon decapitates the Mouth of Sauron didn't happen in the book.

[@MrCouchmen]

Yup and Mouth of Sauron was kinda degradated. + no one can´t hurt or kill a messenger or Herald.

[@gprimr1]

This was the change I most hated. Aragorn's character respectable and honorable, and killing a messenger is pretty low, plus they approached the gate under a white flag of truce.

[@TheZBUCKNER]

Whoa, I'm literally in the middle of my semi-annual LOTR marathon right now.

[@autumnbold5809]

You should have brought up the scene were Frodo banishes Sam for eating Lembas, because that was by far the worst addition to the films.

[@BeeWhistler]

I missed a lot of little things, too... I don't like the way Frodo accidentally put on the ring in the Prancing Pony in the movie, and there's a little part in the Two Towers where Merry and Pippin pretend they've got the ring to trick an orc into hauling them away from the orc camp as the Rohirrim attack. I really wanted to hear Pippin quoting Gollum in that accent. But what bugged me most is the way they rewrote character motivations throughout the story. Suddenly Aragorn was a reluctant monarch, Elrond was opposed to his daughter marrying Aragorn, Denethor didn't wanna ask Theoden for aid and Theoden didn't wanna send it, Frodo actually told Sam to leave and Faramir was a wuss and started to take the hobbits back to his daddy. For those who don't know, Aragorn had been preparing for decades to become king, his marriage to Arwen was just waiting until he did so, Denethor had already sent for aid and Theoden just hadn't sent it because he was depressed over his son's loss and had believed Wormtongue's lies, the only time Frodo was mean to Sam was when the ring messed with his head and he was always sorry, and Faramir was a rock and completely his own man despite his father's rejection and did not try to take Frodo and Sam anywhere except to their hidden base nearby. Oh, and for a bonus, Frodo did not start squawking like a bald eagle after the Nazgul stabbed him, he could talk and even yelled at the Riders to go back to Mordor and leave him alone.

[@billbryce2538]

Nailed it!!!

[@johnshannon9656]

Although I didn't fully love the omissions and changes, the three movies were still stellar.

[@MightyGreedo]

I've read the books close to ten times. The differences that annoy me the most between the books and the movies are : 1. Arwen being a super hero/telepath. 2. Faramir attempting to take Frodo to Gondor. 3. The elves showing up at Helm's Deep. 4. Frodo ordering Sam to "go home" when they were at Mount Doom. 5. The warg scene mentioned in the video above. There were tons of other changes and omissions that Jackson made, but those five items always make me roll my eyes when I watch the movies.

[@Jongen.]

OKAY GO TO A CORNER AND CRY.

[@senzadite9270]

I can't stand, but did people really complaining such minor thing like Warg skirmish?

[@glorialemonade]

I definitely agree even though I love these films

[@zekegore6470]

The personalities of Bilbo, Gimli, and Merry (all MAJOR characters) were largely changed. Those three characters were way better in the books. Anyone agree?

[@michaelpapadopoulos3756]

There is a scene I don't like (and many people I've spoken with) was in the extended version (spoilers) where the Witch King overpowers Gandalf. Gandalf was able to go toe to toe with Sauron (if he had chosen to but he was forbidden to do so) so the Witch King would have been no trouble. There is also the two Orcs that capture Frodo (Shagrat and Gorbag) have their roles reversed in the film. Shagrat says "That shiny shirt-that's mine!" while Gorbag is all for following orders whereas in the book its the other way round. What makes it worse is in the EE we see Shagrat escaping the fight with the shirt and then the Mouth of Sauron reveals it at the gate meaning Shagrat didn't keep it after all. Finally, Aragorn killing the Mouth of Sauron. Not only was that not in the book it is completely against protocol you shouldn't harm or kill a herald (even if he is a douche. To me the Mouth had the personality of a door to door sales man). Mind you they killed the emissary in 300 as well.

[@AdinaIspas]

Killing the herald, yeap, totally! They made all these "good guys" look like total fuckers in the movies. I seriously don't mind anymore if the whole of Middle-earth goes to hell, because with good guys like these, it's already there.

[@AdinaIspas]

Watch "300 Honest Trailer", explains everything. Brilliant.

[@JulOyt]

Gandalf forbidden to fight Sauron? What?

[@uk69uk]

*Juilce* Gandalf and the other wizzzards are demi gods, as is Sauron. Back in the 1st and 2nd ages the gods fought and irreparably changed Middle Earth. As a result the wizzzards were sent to guide the other races, but not to directly get involved with the fighting and ruling. That is why when Gandalf returns from the dead he is given the power to break Saruman's staff, as he had broken the rules and tried to rule.

[@MightyGreedo]

"Aragorn killing the Mouth of Sauron." Ah, right. I forgot about that one. I hate that he does that, too.

[@marcioa1811]

A Lord of the Rings TV series? I want to see that!

[@GamerGirl_2000]

Marcio Angulo Aponte same here m8

[@mirkecWii]

Only if its HBO oor netflix...anything else wouldnt work

[@tenhirankei]

It would need that to do LOTR the justice it deserves, but first they will require several million dollars to pay for the project.

[@rosperothebest]

Maybe Silmarilion

[@scr3aming3agle83]

I dont want another GOT type series where its so different in events that the books dont matter anymore

[@koeimaster]

Best films ever in my opinion. You didn't talk about the full differences with Helms Deep though; Haldir is never there/never dies, he remains in Lorien; they are helped by the Dunedain instead of elves; it's not Eomer who arrives at the end with cavalry, he's already in Helms Deep, instead it's Erkenbrand.

[@benjaminmarlatt6111]

"Peter Jackson stated that omission of Tom Bombadil was simply 'cause he didn't add anything to the story." ... Sooo... kinda like Arwen?

[@willgoetz1262]

I think giving Arwen more screen time was a PC thing to make the female audience happier. Society even a decade ago or so when the movies came out was much different than it was when Tolkien wrote the books.

[@JohnBinarBrainClaim]

Yeah but if the trilogy was made these days, it could have been much worse, considering all the political correctness BS...

[@MW-ty5zw]

Yeh. I remember my older sister being all "GIRL POWER!!!!!" with Kill Bill, Trinity from Matrix and when Arwen focred the 9 to go for a swim.

[@charcruse2541]

Arwen DID add to the story. In the films she saved Frodo, pushed Aragorn to follow his destiny & encouraged Elrond to restore the Sword of Gondor.

[@novy9032]

@@charcruse2541 Eowen would have made a better flag-bearer

[@kenny-loo]

In the books, Frodo trusts gollum way, way less than it appears in the films. He is not mean to him but it had always remained clear to Frodo that he could not trust Gollum and he reminded him several times of it. I wish they would have included the battle of the shire after they returned too! I would have loved a 4th movie on that whole aftermath alone. Merry and Pippin really showed their strengths in that last stretch. It made me think of them in such a different light after years of watching the films, then reading the books.

[@md.ahnafmoin9706]

If I had made the movies I would have made afourth movie as well, with the third movie ending with Aragorn taking leave of the hobbits in Rohan. The Scouring of the Shire would be the fourth movie. And the first few minutes will be how the Shire was invaded with ruffians and Saruman. Then, there will be the battle of the Scouring of the Shire, with the four hobbits returning, and ending with Frodo going to the grey Haven's.

[@tomclancy9574]

Also in the two towers book gollum led frodo and sam into a trap in shelobs lair.

[@jeffrobbins3378]

In the movies there was much more conflict between Frodo and Sam, and between Arwen and Elrond. The famous scene of Sam's Speech in the movie followed a battle between Frodo and Sam. The whole business in the movie of Elrond trying to convince his daughter that staying in Middle Earth would leave her eternally lonely was not in the book. Conflict is really popular.

[@danielpedroso4311]

For me the biggest change was the fact that they never explained why Arwen choosing to live as a human was such a big deal. Arwen (like her father, Elrond) was a half-elf. Half elves are special in the sense that they can choose to live as elves (and therefore be immortal) or humans (which makes them become mortal). Arwen choosing to stay on Middle Earth and marry Aragorn means she’d lose her immortality (and she does in fact die shortly after Aragorn kicked the bucket). In the movie it makes it seem like she’s dying because somehow Sauron’s strength is killing her or something along those lines. Very bullshitty. (Aragorn is also a descendant of Elrond’s brother, Elros, who chose to live as a human and became the first king of Numenor. That technically makes Aragorn and Arwen distant cousins...)

[@bohemianwriter1]

I have read LOTR twice, and the entire series. I can't remember the concept of Sauron having a physical body in the LOTR edition.

[@cha5]

bohemianwriter1 In 'The New Tolkien Companion' by J.E.A. Tyler which was written long before the Jackson movie came out (1976) periodically updated since then. "In the ensuing downfall of Numenor, Sauron's mortal body was destroyed, but his spirit survived and fled back to Middle-earth, shapeless and vengeful. He was never again able to appear in a pleasing form, but instead became the Dark Lord, terrible of aspect, black and burning hot, with a single lidless Eye 'rimmed with fire... glazed, yellow as a cat's... and the black slit of it's pupil opened on a pit, a window into nothing.' " For me that pretty much described a black shapeless mass with a burning eye in the center of it which is how I always thought of Sauron before there was ever any mention of an LOTR movie.

[@bohemianwriter1]

I was thinking more in line with a spìrit or a shapeless mass like you said. Like the Witchking of Angmar. Unfortunately, I saw the movies before reading the books. But after the movies, I was hooked, and read the whole saga from Silmarillion to LOTR. I found The Hobbit within my first week in Belfast as the last book.

[@AdinaIspas]

He doesn't necessarily have a body - he has a host. That's the complex part. "Sauron" is in fact a representation of Melkor (the Primordial Ox), but the host is the "Sauron" who was initiated by Melkor. The whereabouts of this host are likewise unknown, but you have to look at the clues: Smaug/Sméagol all mean the same thing, Gollum thinks the Precious is his birthday gift... Then, if you recall that Melkor's fate was to remain bound to Arda, then he would most likely have a physical body, except that no-one politically important back then would see it as impressive in any way. The ability to appear "Fair" would've been gone (i.e. he could not appear as the Lightbody vessel anymore). The movies did a bang-up job of reversing this information for the masses, as they tried to make Sam the Hero and Frodo the wimp (as opposed to the Lightbody vessel that Gandalf intuits and Sam SEES with his own eyes!) - so in a weird way I have to thank them (alongside the Gnostic texts) for making things clear... It's Sam who, by antagonizing Gollum (the *anti-closet* initiate), succeeds in gaining all the worldly power he thought he didn't want - by keeping his love for Frodo a secret and not evolving past the original hierarchy. By contrast, Gollum is unabashedly into his Fish Songs and what he wants is to be trusted by a real person, but everyone is so into their domination that it only entrenches his mistakes. There is one moment where Sam concedes to Gollum for "following the same master" where things seem like they're looking up.

[@AlphaZaku]

Yes, he has a body! Tolkien describing Sauron's physical form during the time of the books: "Sauron should be thought of as very terrible. The form that he took was that of a man of more than human stature, but not gigantic. In his earlier incarnation he was able to veil his power (as Gandalf did) and could appear as a commanding figure of great strength of body and supremely royal demeanour and countenance." (Letter #246) Sauron is forming his physical body at the time the Istari come to Middle-earth: "They are said to have first appeared about the year 1000 of the Third Age, when the shadow of Sauron began first to grow again to new shape." (Letter #144) And: "They [Istari] are actually emissaries from the True West, and so mediately from God, sent precisely to strengthen the resistance of the ’good’, when the Valar become aware that the shadow of Sauron is taking shape again." (Letter # 156) Sauron at Dol Guldur has now formed his physical body before fleeing from the White Council: "This is not one of the Úlairi, as many have long supposed. It is Sauron himself who has taken shape again and now grows apace; and he is gathering again all the Rings to his hand; and he seeks ever for news of the One, and of the Heirs of Isildur, if they live still on earth." (The Silmarillion) Gollum describing Sauron's physical hand, having seem him personally: "'Yes, He has only four on the Black Hand, but they are enough,’ said Gollum shuddering" (TTT - The black Gate is Closed) The Orcs of Cirith Ungol anticipate Sauron physically coming for the Hobbits himself: "'And the prisoner is to be kept safe and intact, under pain of death for every member of the guard, until He sends or comes Himself.'" (TTT - The Black Gate is Closed) Denethor explains to Merry that Sauron remains within Barad-Dur until his victory, at which time he'll come forth: "'He will not come save only to triumph over me when all is won. He uses others as his weapons. So do all great lords, if they are wise, Master Halfling. Or why should I sit here in my tower and think, and watch, and wait, spending even my sons? For I can still wield a brand.'" (ROTK - The Siege of Gondor)

[@sarahprice659]

I was under the impression that Sauron HAD a body in the past, it was destroyed when the ring was taken, and was in the process of developing a new one during TLOTR.

[@MrMicronano]

The river that swept the Ring Wraiths away was done by Elrond with Gandalf's help. One of my pet peeves was how the Ents were kind of portrayed at lumbering and slow witted when they were some of the oldest, wisest creatures of ME

[@jblank1555]

I liked how in the movie return of the king, what destroyed the ring was frodo and golums fight for possession of the ring..where in the book golum just falls off once he has it

[@RikoJAmado]

The biggest complaint I have always had about the film trilogy is the way that it was broken up. "The Fellowship of the Ring" movie ends right about where the book ends. But then "The Two Towers" movie only covers the first half of the Two Towers book. The second half of "The Two Towers" book is then crammed into "The Return of the King" movie.

[@eyrena]

It bothered me too! Especially since there were already so many events in the 3rd part (including 2 battles), and I felt they had to omit things from the last two books because of this. They should have ended the 2nd movie on cliffhanger(s), like in the book.

[@matthewstephen4014]

That was because the battle of helm's deep was a good place to end the movie

[@justinc882]

Band of Brothers, war of the ring.... holy crap make that happen!

[@TheSilverPhoenix100]

I would kill to see a lord of the rings spinoff where they talk about the conflict in the north

[@rabidrob4210]

Yeah, it is fleetingly mentioned in a conversation between Legolas and Gimli in one of the EE's, but nothing else is mentioned about it,

[@Hav0ck23]

With fucking dunedain.

[@tristan1392]

Oh, we will, Amazon, Netflix and HBO are fighting over the rights right now with figures like $300 million being thrown around the table.

[@giabread]

And suddenly that was all I ever wanted.

[@robhara7911]

Was looking for Denethor being just a madman, In the books he was Cunning, Brilliant he was even described as being like to gandalf he was stern but not unkind. Even sauron can't control him when using the palantir.

[@farhaanj4330]

Arguably, he did go insane when he thought faramir died (in the books too)

[@robhara7911]

@@farhaanj4330 He did go insane when during the battle he looked in the palantir and saw that even if they win the battle of pelenor Sauron has an enormous army still in reserve in mordor. This was the truth an he knew it. Even Sauron could not deceive him in the palantir, Sauron showed him the truth, and he cant handle the truth lol. He went mad after that. What I was saying was before he went mad in the books he was cunning and competent and led the defence of minas tirith.

[@darioluque9079]

Farhaan J Are you stupid? You just want the take the It supposed the film series finished relatively the same way as the genuine material but is in the details in the progression that we can see the details, the differences, And we can see that the character in the film series was made more evil than the original.

[@grahamferris290]

There was another big difference between the books and the movies which you missed but, as a lifetime fan of the books, this disturbed me when I first saw the movies. The Fellowship of the Ring and the Return of the King were very similar to the books which I was pleased to see. But the Two Towers was dramatically different in many aspects which were unnecessary in my opinion . The most striking example was towards the end of the film. In the movie Faramir, temporarily swayed by greed for the ring, took Frodo forcibly to Gondor before realizing the error of his ways. This never happened in the books and, even now, I am somewhat mystified as to why Peter Jackson felt the need to include it

[@nickhelmer]

I think that choice was made to essentially show a version of Boromir that was still susceptible to the temptation of the One Ring, but unlike Boromir he had the chance overcome it before it was too late. It also brought Frodo and Sam closer to reuniting with other members of the Fellowship without even knowing it, setting up some dramatic irony for the audience to feed on.

[@NickSwe]

some of the lines of tom bombadil were given to treebeard, the ent, like when in the film a tree is trying to swallow merry and pippin under its roots and treebeard appears and sends it back to sleep with some sort of poem like phrase, in the book that happened in the forest of tom and it was him that stopped the tree from burying the hobbits under its roots.

[@SG-1-GRC]

I think the biggest things that were changed aren't even listed here. There were quite significant changes to people's characters. Faramir was made to be a much weaker character who made a very bad decision about the ring. Also, there's no mention of his having several dreams about the ring, and his brother only one dream and that these occasions of his people's foresight appearing were the chief prompt for Boromir to travel to Rivendell. In the book it almost seems as if some power for good wanted Faramir to be sent there and not his brother. Faramir, like Aragorn saw the danger of using the ring. Another case of character diminishing is definitely in the cases where the films play down Frodo's wisdom and spunk, although I disagree that it always did him a disservice. There were occasions when his character was allowed to shine, particularly in his fight scenes with Shelob. She only defeats him by being sneaky. Theoden was not initially as noble in the film as in the book, although he did gradually (about mid point in the battle of Helm's Deep) begin to get closer to book Theoden. Arwen was not a warrior elf woman! Even in the Silmarillion powerful elf women used disguise (looking like a vampire) and magic to outdo their enemies, not violence and swordplay! The women of the Rohan using swords was apparently relatively unique. I suppose they wanted to play up the romance between Arwen and Aragorn, but I personally think that very little of value was added to the story by them doing so. If they wanted to have a bit more romance they ought to have dedicated more time to the developing relationship between Faramir and Eowyn whilst they were recovering in the Houses of Healing. Also why did they wait until well into the third movie to reforge Narsil? Elrond sudden appearance and then just bolting off without fighting looks pretty bad. Why would he leave a very sick Arwen, whose fate the film makers have suddenly decided is tied up with that of the ring? Pippin and Merry as re portrayed as thoughtless scamps, Pippin in particular frequently comes across as a dimwit up until the meeting with Treebeard. Merry and Pippin in the books were from well to do families and amongst the better educated hobbits. They were part of Sam's watchful conspiracy, intended to protect Frodo, they did not fall into the adventure by accident but by design. Having said all that the LOTR films are excellent movies.

[@shakymctwitch8615]

Your most glaring omission: the power of Gandalf and who he actually was. Gandalf was seriously OP in the books, is virtually a god (demi-god if you want to split hairs) and is the most powerful being on middle earth along with Sauron. That is a more noteworthy difference for this list than at least half of them.

[@GoddessPallasAthena]

I too, understand why "The Scouring of the Shire" was cut, but it's a shame. Of all the chapters in the book, that's the one that highlights the growth of the four Hobbits that went on the journey, as well as the different experiences the four had from one another. Pippin and Merry, having fought alongside various leaders and armies, had battle and strategy training and put it to good use. They became capable military leaders in the Shire for the Battle of Bywater. The one that was more reluctant for the Hobbits to fight was actually Frodo. He and Sam were isolated for a big part of the trip (with Gollum) and didn't see large scale battle. In fact, even Sam had a little more combat experiences, having saved Frodo from the spiders. In the books, it was one of my favorite chapters because of the clear character development.

[@danielschmaniel3103]

Some of the points weren't actually in the LOTR books. For instance, the campaign in the north and the role the Dunadain played. If I remember correctly, they were mentioned by the other characters but there were not actual chapters dedicated to those events in the LOTR books.

[@JamesMC04]

The war against the Dwarves and Lothlorien and the Men of Dale is mentioned briefly in the Appendices to LOTR.

[@Moviefan2k4]

Another big change from the books, was Frodo and Sam's presence at Osgiliath. The film's writers even made mention of it, having Sam say "By rights, we shouldn't even be here...but we are."

[@eamonob84]

One of the biggest things the movies got wrong was the scene between Gandalf and the Witch King. In the movie, they make it seem like the Witch King is more powerful than Gandalf. In the book, that scene is significantly different.

[@Jimmersaunt]

You didn’t talk about Faramir! In the books he wanted nothing to do with the ring-he told Frodo not to show him Isildur’s Bane-and not to even tell him what it was! In the movies he wants to take it to Denethor and only after he witnesses the rings evil does he let Frodo and Sam go.

[@jameswaterfield]

Personally, I think that the scouring of the shire was probably the most important part, as it shows that the Hobbits have 'come of age' and no longer need to be protected by the Dunadain

[@thenecrosanct4906]

The main difference I am missing from this list is the fact that in the movie Frodo sends Sam away, after Gollum has successfully made Frodo suspicious of him. In the book, only the Ring ever came between Sam and Frodo and then only for a very short moment. Their bond was unshakeable and based on unconditional trust.

[@bohemianwriter1]

They wanted to add extra drama to the movie.

[@thenecrosanct4906]

I know that, but it doesn't make for a better story. There is plenty of drama in The Lord of the Rings already. The entire history of Middle Earth is quite dramatic, to say the least.

[@andreekap6963]

@@thenecrosanct4906 "The entire history of Middle-earth" Yes. But they didn't make the movies about that, they made the movies about the journey of the destruction of the ring, which is far less drama than the history one, to say the least, the appendices.

[@Highretrogamelord]

Here is one: Rhûn, arguably the strongest faction of the evil factions, didn't get enough screen time. Also, Prince Imrahil and the lords of the Gondorian fiefs were missing in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields and so were the Variags of Khand.

[@Wjong459]

I wish they showed more of khand, Rhun and Harad. They are soo cool

[@Highretrogamelord]

Absolutely!

[@chloelouisebotha2563]

The films also left out Bregelad, the Ent who kept Merry and Pippin company during the Entmoot, and a bunch of other things leading up to and regarding Rohan and the Battle of the Hornburg. As was mentioned, Peter Jackson added in the scene where the Eorlingas fought against Warg riders on the path to Helm's Deep (which never happened) and left out the fact that they were not making for Helm's Deep in the first place, but rather to Isengard itself. When they were on the path however, there were mentions of howling of "wolves" but the whole reason they went there in the first place is because a messenger from Erkenbrand's (another character emitted) army, came to them and told them they needed aid at the Hornburg. Only then did they make for that location, and may I just mention that Éowyn did not ride to Helm's Deep as well (She stayed in Edoras to look after her people). When they got there, they met Gamling (and elderly soldier portrayed by a middle-aged man ) who takes the place of Háma in the movies, an important character who fuels Théoden's hatred and vengeance for Saruman after his death at the end of the battle. The Elves never came to Helm's Deep(Haldir never died) and Éomer was there with them during it all. The end of the Battle brought forth an army with Gandalf however, like in the movie, but this army consisted of Erkenbrand's remaining men and a bunch of Treebeard's Huorns/ Trees that stood behind them (although in the extended edition I do remember there being a forest that the orcs ran into and were killed, but it differs from the appearance in the books). That was just one of the things that irritates me now that I think of it, and I can name more like the Summoning of the Oathbreakers and how they didn't fight in the Battle of Pelennor.

[@Serai3]

One of the very few things about this trilogy that pisses me off is the death of Denethor. Jackson turned a Shakespearean self-immolation, complete with thunderous oration, and turned it into a stupid cartoon ending no more dignified than a clown's. The audience was robbed of a great death scene because the effects guys were bored.

[@deirdrejohnson1902]

Amen to that, Serai3! Book Denethor is a complex, interesting character who falls prey to despair. His death is completely horrifying & probably unfilmable (I was dreading seeing it, actually). But it shows the depths of his emotions (all of them!) and the pattern of his thought. It also makes some of his most admirable qualities - his bravery and strength of mind - crystal clear. Movie Denethor is a one dimensional villain, who appears to have no redeeming qualities. His death is a pretty picture - he looks like a falling star. But it does nothing for the story. J.R.R. Tolkien wrote long books, but he never wasted a word, and he knew how to create characters!

[@masterbearjedi3432]

Big one for me was Boromir's death. That's a great scene full of wonderful action in the movies, but in the books, every Uruk-hai who dies meets their end by Boromir's hand. The fellowship gets separated and everyone is running around looking for each other. The Uruk-hai find Merry, Pippin and Boromir and the valiant prince of Gondor kills twenty of them before he is overwhelmed. When Aragon finally finds him he is sitting against a tree clutching his sword and dying from the many arrows in his chest.

[@jimrobinson4755]

It took 7 arrows to kill Boromir...

[@giulioaprati338]

what about the battle of Pelennor fields? it all far different from the book version (Role of Faramir, the Walls of pelennor, lack of Dol Amtoth forces and others allies, the srmy of deads, elladan and elrohil and the dunedain missing, the fight with the mumakil, the absence of the esterling army, beregond is not there too..) there is much to say about that battle even if it is clearly a masterpiece

[@eatenvik]

Yes! For me, thats the change thay really anoid me. Theese overpowered goast makes the end part of the battle of Pelennor undberable to watch.

[@berserkgouda4033]

Got to add when the Witch King breaks Gandalfs staff in the extended edition but in the books Gandalf is about to chase him when Pippin needs his help

[@paulguest3674]

Jackson did an amazing job with the 3 films and I understand most changes were for cinematic reasons but the one that REALLY sticks out at me is how they had Gandalf afraid of the Witch King. That was laughable, even more so when the Witch King somehow breaks Gandalfs staff! Are you kidding me?!!? Gandalf was MEANT to destroy the WK, hence why Sauron used Denethor to distract him from that goal, Saurons fingers reached far....

[@FourthFloorParkour]

Faramir is easily the worst change, huge injustice to his character

[@haskapaska]

It was weird in the books, how Boromir was affected by The Ring but his brother wasn´t.

[@FourthFloorParkour]

His character was designed to show that humans aren't doomed to give into their greed. But that we have a choice and we can choose to be better then our urges and not give into Evil. Having him be overcome by the Ring ruins what Tolkien was saying with Faramir.

[@Flaris]

Yeah, darn changes made him interesting.

[@JohnBinarBrainClaim]

Yeah, but in the end he let them go so what's the problem?

[@Jonathan-bu7iv]

@@haskapaska His brother was the unappreciated one. But the one with a pure heart.

[@RandallStevenson]

you forgot about Jackson turning merry and pippin into hapless fools. and the reason why the dude in rohan threatens to remove gimli's head.

[@TheSilverPhoenix100]

To be fiar they were always potrayed as characters in over their heads and pretty foolish (Pippin especially), though they had their moments of cleverness, as for Eomar threating Gimli in the books it was becasue Gimli was very hostile towards him after he speaks ill of Galadrial

[@SamFreres]

* Eomer and Galadriel

[@bohemianwriter1]

Their characters did grow as the books advanced, and were quite capable in the end when they faced the last army (not in the movie) when coming home to the Shire.

[@MrTheAngryLlama]

That was the biggest disappointment of missing the shire stuff at the end IMO. Really hammered home the changes when they come back to a previously peaceful shire and just take command as 2 hobbits who have literally been to hell and back and 2 hobbits who are now massive (for hobbits, Pippin was 4.5ft) due to the entwater and fully armoured and battle capable.

[@annakhjelm146]

MrTheAngryLlama e

[@dernudel1615]

You also left out the Huorns from the ending of the Battle of Hornburg. They were the forest that the Ents called to trap the fleeing Uruk-Hai after they fled the battle.

[@Sang1957]

One thing you forgot was that all religious references that were in the book never appeared in the move. The only thing I saw was when Aragorn jumped from the top of the ruins at Amon Hen and yelled "Elendil!", which isn't even a religious reference.

[@Richard_Nickerson]

Another change with Arwen was that she summoned the water defense system. In the novels, Gandalf tells Frodo that the water was Elrond's doing and the horses seen in the water was his own doing. Treebeard got Tom Bombadil lines.

[@wadeslovick2815]

I read Fellowship of The Ring and noticed plenty of differences.

[@carlwilliams9642]

They left out Faramir not taking Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath and Aragorn releasing the ghost army before they reach Minas Tirith.

[@JonBovi007]

Something I did not like and never happened in the books was the scene from the extended editions where The Witch-king of Angmar "defeats" and break Gandalf's staff, in reality (based on the books of course) The Witch-king of Angmar, technically, is not as powerful as Gandalf, Gandalf is in fact at the same level where Sauron is, one of the five Maiar sent by the Valar to contest Sauron, he is not human and his spirit is ancient and powerful. In the books when the Witch King shows up at Minas Tirith, Gandalf is the only person who can resist him. Despite the Witch King calling him an old fool, Gandalf is prepared to stand and fight. Although other events prevent them from duking it out, by knowing their respective origins, we can fairly easily to predict that Gandalf, as a divine and ancient being, would probably be able to triumph over any sorcerer that began life as a mortal man. Admittedly, the Witch King takes some power from Sauron, but of necessity it is less than Sauron himself possesses (which may or may not be enough in its entirety to destroy Gandalf the White, but definitely is not when only a fraction is brought to bear). Moreover, let’s look at what Gandalf accomplished before he became Gandalf the White and his powers increased. Gandalf went toe to toe with a Balrog and (ultimately) came out on top. The Balrogs, like Gandalf and Sauron, are also Maiar. Thus, we can deduce that Gandalf is certainly not at the bottom of the Maiar power ladder - and after his return is probably closer to the top than the middle. Gandalf also fought an undisclosed number of the Nazgul at Weathertop. How many this included (and whether the Witch King was there) is uncertain, but there is a possibility that it was all nine, and he fought them to a draw. Again, this is before he became Gandalf the White and got even more powerful. Ultimately, we can’t know for sure, as Gandalf himself admits that the Witch King may be able to overpower him (although this would have to be with the full force of Sauron’s backing). But I think the evidence strongly supports Gandalf as the more powerful being. Gandalf also has in his possession one of the three elven rings of power: Narya, the Ring of Fire. How much help Narya would be in a confrontation is debatable, but I doubt that it could be left entirely out of the power calculations, and would be another significant mark in Gandalf’s favor.

[@tomcascaddan8319]

Anduril? In the books Narsil is reforged at Rivendell before the Fellowship leaves for Mordor and Aragorn carries it from then on. Added to which, in the books Aragorn never has to be convinced to become King. He leaves Rivendell knowing this is his destiny.

[@NunyaDammeBiznis]

Tom Bombadil's lines were actually given to Treebeard. The whole speech to the tree about digging deep, drinking water and sleeping.

[@richbrown932]

I would have thought that Frodo's age would be on this list. In the movies, he's a very young character, probably equivalent to a human in the early twenties. In the book, when he sets off on his journey, he is a middle-aged man.

[@scottwestergren8344]

For me, there were two additional glaring omissions. 1) The absence of the Sons of Elrond and the Rangers in book two. Second, the lack of historical context in all aspects of Elrond, Galadriel and the power of the Elves and of Gandalf's past, power and purpose. Adding both of these would have made the films even better.

[@alexandrazisk7091]

some of the changes in the films actually make sense when making a film such as cutting out certain battles, and shortening the time it takes for Gandalf to find the truth about the ring. I think cutting Tom Bombadil was ok as well. He adds some interesting lore to the world, but the films were fine without him.

[@circedelune]

I agree. I understand those changes, but there are other changes that are not good, and serve no purpose that makes sense. Adding characters and taking away from other characters is one change that does not improve the movies. It doesn’t save time, since the time given to an added character could have been kept with the far superior character, and the minor or nonexistent character simply cut out. I’m speaking of Gamling ( mentioned only in passing in the books) being given lines and situations that belonged to Eomer.

[@sofaoverlord7501]

Lord Elrond actually summons the river waters to sweep away the Nazgul, you only see this in the movie by her sheer surprise when her magic only slightly raises the water level. Gandalf added the white horses as a nice touch.

[@jellofuel]

One major difference is the armies of southern Gondor were already fighting, when Aragorn came with the Army of the Dead, and drove the Corsairs to the river, where they mostly drowned. Aragorn sailed north with a couple thousand soldiers, and more men started marching north to Minas Tirith. The Army of the Dead was released, and never went to Minas Tirith. I figure this also played an important part of the book because they're able to march 7,000 soldiers to Mordor while still leaving the city in better defense than before the battle.

[@lilmuffinmay8361]

Guys they did the best they could. And I think they really did pretty good. It could’ve turned out a lot worse but they had good actors and a incredible director which made it still a wonderful film trilogy

[@zacrast16]

My favorite books of all time, and my favorite movie series of all time.❤️

[@AzureShadow88]

Man I really missed Glorfindel in the movies, one of the oldest elves in middle earth able to even give pause to the mighty nazgul. Also I would've liked the original version of battle of helms deep where Erkenbrand the lord of the castle comes to save the day.

[@LevisH21]

the Helm's Deep battle is indeed a downgrade. Rohan only having 300 soldiers fight against 10k Uruk-hai is so ridiculous. a small medieval town in 12th century Europe would have more than 300 soldiers garrisoned to protect it. but this is the biggest army Rohan ever faced and they only have 300 soldiers in the movie? the books version is indeed much better. having 2k soldiers against 10k orcs makes things more plausible to even the odds.

[@danasaeed9018]

I Would Love A TV Series About The Silmarillion. That Would Be Cool!

[@askeide5890]

Another pretty big difference is how Aragorn has a different sword in the beginning of the film and that Narsil is kept in Rivendell. In the book he was carrying the broken sword right from the beginning

[@joshthecritique]

For me, The Lord of the Rings book and movies are equally as perfect even though the movies adapted differently.

[@SylvEdu]

"By all rights we shouldn't even be here!" How did that not even make the list?

[@Kenna002]

Huh. I had always wondered why they didn’t have Glorfindel in the movies.

[@thunderdragon1782]

Well it's about time they did this. I've been waiting FOREVER for this.

[@chrisherne6454]

And another thing... how Sauron's defeat by Isildur was portrayed. This is the book: ... I was at the Battle of Dagorlad before the Black Gate of Mordor, where we had the mastery: for the Spear of Gil-galad and the Sword of Elendil, Aeglos and Narsil, none could withstand. I beheld the last combat on the slopes of Orodruin, where Gil-galad died, and Elendil fell, and Narsil broke beneath him; but Sauron himself was overthrown, and Isildur cut the Ring from his hand with the hilt-shard of his father’s sword, and took it for his own. ... That paints a clear picture of military victor over Sauron, not some lucky strike on Sauron's hand by Isildur.