Question:
Which scenes from the lord of the rings movies are not in the book?
anonymous
2011-12-04 16:09:10 UTC
I have heard that there are some scenes in the movies that doesn't exist in the books. Is this true? And if so, which scenes is it?
Six answers:
girlmidgard
2011-12-06 23:11:54 UTC
First of all, please PLEASE pick up the book(s), read them and apply the awesome visuals from the films to what you read. As I write this answer, I have just watched for the thousandth time, the beginning of the Two Towers where Gandalf and the Balrog fall together into the abyss...and hit bottom.....this scene alone is so brilliantly done.....gob-smackery deluxe.

That being said, and being a Tolkien purist with many, MANY years of re-reading the books (ALL of them, not just LOTR, Silmarillion, Lost Tales, History of Middle-earth series....ALL), attending classes, belonging to several of the 1st online heavy Tolkien and LOTR groups and applying the books' teachings to my daily philosophy (geeking out since the '70s)....There is a GREAT DEAL of difference in how Tolkien's rich and tasty tapestry was woven, and how each attempt at making film brilliance out of said tapestry ended up. BUT....

This same silly, bitching argument went round after Ralph Bakshi's WAY abbreviated and reworked animated version came out in the late '70s. I was one of the loudest bitchers....how COULD they replace Glorfindel with Legolas and give him the C3P0 guy's voice?!? And Kemosabe Aragorn...ugh....Galadriel's short hairdo? And that's just the visual wrongness, not to mention the total story changes... WTF!!?? I detested 9and still do) the made for TV Hobbit and Return of the King (gawd.....was that Hanna Barbera??)

Then, a girl said something that opened my eyes like they'd not been opened since my discovery of the books....she said she'd never have given the books a try had she not been captivated by what I thought was rotoscope hell. This awful movie was the cause for a resurgence in the BOOK'S popularity. Making people want MORE. Nothing wrong with that!!

And now, we have the aesthetically rich Peter Jackson version, with no Glorfindel again (yes, yes, I know he's seen at the Council of Elrond). No Stone of Erech. No gazing into Mirrormere. With no ioreth. No Imrahil. No Aragorn discovering the White Tree sapling with Gandalf and then the surprise summoning and bringing of Arwen Undomiel to Minas Tirith. With no Grima Wormtongue slitting Saruman's throat at the threshold of BagEnd after the Cleansing of the Shire. No meeting of the Hobbits and Gildor Inglorion's group and the night under the trees with them near Woodhall. No Fatty Bolger being left alone in the Crickhollow house to pretend to be Frodo too convincingly... ending up running, screaming across the fields in terror as the Black Riders are ordering the door at Crickhollow to "open in the name of Mordor". I could go on for days about what should be there or not because of what is special to me in the books. Pointless...as everyone has different special favourites. I did not miss Tom Bombadil and Goldberry or the Pukel men. Others just whine endlessly about them, as they ask "who is Fatty Bolger?"

What I have ended up seeing instead: another resurgence in the books' popularity. And with these film's creation and all the stuff that's come after, I've made new like-minded friends, other book purists to have deep discussions about the beloved books with....and I don't care how much of a purist you are....these films are breathtaking, beautiful eye-candy (disagree and you can kick rocks). I truly feel the aesthetics surpass what my mind's eye always saw when reading the stories. As a hard-core re-enactor and costume whore, I am forever grateful for the fabu garb design in each of these films (all hail Ngila Dickson).

SO, if you crave MORE, I strongly suggest you take the bait and read the source. There is most definitely more. And THEN some.

And one last suggestion, obtain copies of the extended versions of the films, the extra bits make them so much better....and watch the appendices. You will quickly learn that Peter Jackson and all controlling entities on the films love the BOOKS, have read and re read them for years, know them as well if not WAY better than most fans, and their behind the scenes explanations as to how/why changes were implemented make for less of a sting (did for moi, anyhoo). The video appendices are as enjoyable as the movies for me. I wish they'd not made a story line out of Frodo and Sam having any tenseness between them... Wish they'd not emasculated Aragorn, and wish they'd let him carry Anduril straight out from Imladris as written... but weigh that out with the awesomeness of the visage of Viggo - who will never look better in his lifetime...hmmmm

I have matured to a place where I can take book and film, enjoy the best of both....and ignore that which bothers me. I hope you can read, do the same and hence, find more to love in these epic, magic tales...
brother_in_magic
2011-12-04 16:33:23 UTC
The scene where Aragorn falls over the cliff into the river and gets kissed by his horse. Why? Pointless, and long winded.

The part with Frodo and Sam with Faramir when the Nazgul is hovering a few feet away over the ruins of Osgiliath. Again, why add this, it doesn't bring anything new or interesting. Faramir's character is also much changed from the book and not really for the better.

Gandalf knocking Denethor into the fire when he tries to set Faramir ablaze. Denethor actually commits suicide on the pyre in the book.The movie made it look like Gandalf deliberately killed him!

Arwen is not in the book as often as in the film.

Aragorn has his sword reforged before the company leaves Rivendell in the book.

The elves did not go to Helm's Deep--why did they go in the movie.Again, a bit pointless.The elves were also gradually receding from the mortal world and the affairs of men--having them join in the battles negated what had been told about them.

In the book, Saruman is knifed by Grima in the Shire; he does not fall from his tower onto a spiked wheel.



scenes missing from the movie that are in the book

a rather long Hobbitish prologue, including wandering in the Old Forest

the character of Tom Bombadil,a kind of nature spirit

an episode where the hobbits are taken into an ancient burial mound by a barrow-wight and nearly killed. (This scene I'd like to have seen actually...and this was where the hobbits got their weapons, not from Aragorn.)

the scouring of the Shire where the Hobbits return home and find unwelcome change in the Shire. I felt this was an important chapter,as it took away a 'happy ever after' type finish and was very evocative of the sense of loss that permeates much of LOTR.



Don't get me wrong, I like the movies very much, but I like to nitpick!
anonymous
2011-12-04 16:14:54 UTC
The main one would be pretty much everything that happens in the Shire...in the original book, many years passed between Bilbo giving Frodo the ring and the start of the quest, most of it being pointless Hobbit rivalries and customs that really had no bearing on the plot at all. There's also the episode where they meet Tom Bombadil on the road, but again that has no real function to the plot and was only left in as a carryover from when Tolkein was originally writing a children's series and wanted to include his son's imaginary friend as a character. Trust me, the movies function much better without those pointless inclusions.



There's also just the case of Arwen's appearance in Fellowship...Apparently they wanted to set her up as an action girl and have her replace Eowyn later in the series, so they took out the part where they meet up with some random elf guy in the book who brings them to Elrond's place and they have her rescue of Frodo instead. Obviously, fans backlashed against the idea of taking out Eowyn, so they just kind of had Arwen fall into the background for the rest of the trilogy. Again, its not a terrible decision, and the movies definitely didnt't suffer from it.
hamelton
2016-09-18 05:50:02 UTC
The books are distinct and also you will have to undoubtedly learn them. They are so much one-of-a-kind from the films, even though. There are entire sections of the guide which do not seem within the films (the person of Tom Bombadil, for illustration and an complete plot which takes location while the hobbits arrive house after their travel.) Arwen's side within the books is particularly one-of-a-kind (the films needed to supply Liv Tyler extra to do.) The films additionally make Aragorn and Frodo easier than they're within the books. Since those 2 characters are so principal to the whole lot that occurs, it is excellent to learn the books so that you cross on a extra entire travel with every of them. Enjoy!
anonymous
2011-12-04 16:21:33 UTC
The Lord of the Rings movies really aren't very close to the books at all... Most of the events of the books are only referenced in the movies and almost everything that happens in the movies either doesn't happen in the books or happens differently in the books.



One of the most controversial deviations is when Haldir's army (the elves) turn up at Helm's Deep in The Two Towers to help fight the battle. Not only does this not happen in the books, but it also doesn't really make sense in terms of how elves view the world's affairs and also kills off a character that remains alive in the books.



For a full list of movie changes visit the link in the sources...
lupinesidhe
2011-12-04 22:09:14 UTC
Anything that has Arwen doing anything of importance...anything at all. Or speaking.



That's not all...there are a ton more. But I really hate all the crap they had Arwen doing. Especially taking Frodo to the Fords of Bruinen.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...