Where the Film differs from the Book (TTT) (Contains Spoilers!)

[ray gower]

Where the Film differs from the Book (Contains Spoilers!)

If you are one of the tiny minority left that haven't seen The Two Towers and/or read the book- Shame on you, both a cracking works of fiction. This section, however, will be full of spoilers.

For them as have seen the film and have read the books, there were quite a few changes in plot and story compared to the book.

How many did you find and did they improve the story or detract from it?

 

[ray gower]

The most obvious change was Farrimer and his actions.

Spoiler

Not only did he want the ring in the film, he actively tried to take Sam and Frodo back to Gondor

I was never quite happy about how he just let Frodo go in the book, it seemed too easy. But think I am less happy with the films solution.

 

[Stacy]

Spoiler

They also left out the Entmoot, the end of Legolas and Gimli's game, and Shelob.

I'm okay with some of it, but I also didn't like the way they changed Faramir.

 

[imported_Data]

Originally posted by Stacy

Spoiler

They also left out the Entmoot, the end of Legolas and Gimli's game, and Shelob.

I'm okay with some of it, but I also didn't like the way they changed Faramir.

I believe that part is suppossed to be in the next movie. TTT was just to long and too full of action to put all of it into one movie.

Spoiler

They didn't really leave out the Entmoot. It was there, but they didn't say how long it was. Also didn't like what they did with Faramir. Another thing they changed is how the Elvin broach was dropped by the Hobbits. I can't remember which one it was, but either Merry or Pippen escaped from the Orcs momentarily and dropped it on the side of the trail.

 

[Neo]

Shame they have left Shelob out of this film.. but it will be i the next one i am told.

 

[ray gower]

Shelob must be in the next film, Gollum said so

But the Arwen thing was brought in to make up for it. Elronds disapproval came from the appendix and gave a little reasoning for Aragorn's reticence with Eowen's 'come ons'.

There was also Aragorn's dive over the cliff. His subsequent rescue by a horse was lame. Whose horse was it?

 

[imported_Data]

Originally posted by ray gower
There was also Aragorn's dive over the cliff. His subsequent rescue by a horse was lame. Whose horse was it?

I thought that whole scene was horrible. Why did they even have Aragorn dive over the cliff when almost everyone who saw the movie would already know that he survives?

 

[Diamond9697]

Spoiler

Another thing they changed is how the Elvin broach was dropped by the Hobbits. I can't remember which one it was, but either Merry or Pippen escaped from the Orcs momentarily and dropped it on the side of the trail.

Spoiler

actually they did have this in there although not quite like they did in the book. Pippin dropped his broach on the trail and Arragorn found it not to long before they met up with the Horseman.

Spoiler

They did leave out the Entdraught or whatever it was that Pippin and Merry drank that will end up making them grow but I've heard that it was filmed and cut and that PJ will add it to the DVD.

 

[ray gower]

If there was one scene in the whole film that will grate, aside of the fact they should never have been there, it is Sam's sermon in Osgiliarth. It does appear in the book, though not where the film shows it. Nor to my mind was it a sermon. In my readings, I always took it as a wistful rambling whilst Sam and Frodo were resting.

With apologies to some of our younger and/or non-Uk members, who may never have seen it, it sounded like something from the old TV show, 'The Goodies' all it needed was a backing of Jerusalem or Land of Hope and Glory and we would all have fallen down laughing.

 

[imported_iBrian]

The main difference between the film and the book is that in the film the different peoples have no identity.

Take the people of Rohan in the film, for example - no politics, no social order, no relgion, no history, no art, no anything. The reason being that Tolkien gave us all that in the form of the mythology and past tense narrative style. But the film didn't bring that spect in, so the director desperately tried to make us associate with the people by showing faces exerting emotion, and children fleeing conflict.

It didn't work for me. Actually, it spoiled the film - by itself the film portrays a story with a shallow plot and generally watches too much like a soap opera. Lacking the mythical depth of tales and lore that Tolkien created and integrated into his writings, the film presents LOTR as being among the least works of fantasy - poor plot, poor character, poor dialogue, etc.

On saying that, though, I'm sure I'll like it better next time I see it - on DVD. The reverse happened with "Attack of the Clones"...

 

[ray gower]

Gol-ly!
There are jaded old cynics like me out there that want more than pretty pictures in their films! Welcome- I need the support!

Here I think you may be a little harsh.

Tolkien did not make a big deal of those points in the original for Rohann, except some very long winded speeches about Helms Deep and its role in the protection of the people. This was also done in the film, even if the depth wasn't gone into.

Film has never been wildly good at displaying those hidden depths and histories that are so easy to create in books with a few words that are needed to create a story. The best it ever does is to get some depth to the characters and many miss here too.

With LOTR, Jackson is having to compress a solid volume of writing into a measly 3 hours of celluloid, some things have to give. But if the first film is anything to go by, then sitting around the characters as they struggle with the here and now are a lot of the little clues hinted at in the books.

On the other hand the film does do better than the books in a couple of places, like why Aragorn was resisting Eowen. Something I never worked out until I read the appendices.

 

[pkgrl]

Well, not that you need my two cents, but here it is anyway.


Extra spoiler warning:


You've already covered the differences that I thought missed in the film: Aragorn's ride off the cliff and rescue by a stay horse (the purpose of which seemed only to be that he could see the approaching Orc army) and Faramir's desire to take the ring back to Gondor... and the battle at Osgiliath. Don't know why PJ thought we needed to see that battle, especially since Sam, Frodo and Gollum were never there and it's supposed to take place later, but there it was. I was most disappointed by Faramir's changes, though. I kept thinking, but he didn't do that. There's a reason Faramir's dad acts as though he dislikes Faramir... he's different from Boromir, and I think that needs to be shown.

Anyway, I liked how the film characterized the Ents, but since the Ents are such un-hasty people, PJ had to speed them up a bit, so no trek to Treebeard's home, no Entdraught, no days-long Entmoot, but I did like Treebeard's reaction to seeing the Orc encroachment on the forrest facing Isengard. His shock and anger were obvious and immediate, and I loved his call to the others.

Re: the cloak pin, I liked PJ's solution to having Pippin escape for an extra couple minutes simply to throw it in the grass. It's just like Orcs and Uruk Hai to miss seeing that pin dropped on the path among them like that. Plus it's simply more believable, more like a human, for Aragorn to find it in the path, trampled, than to suddenly see a stray footprint off the trail and go searching in long grass for a green pin. I think it was enough for PJ to show Aragorn listening to the ground to tell him that the Uruks had sped up as an example of his extraordinary Ranger's skills.

There's more, but I have to get to work now.

 

[KatDonovan]

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

S
P
A
C
E


One of the main difference from the book that no one mentioned is the Elves coming to Helms Deep.

In the book Gimili mentions to Legolas 'Give me a year and a hundred of my kin and I would make this a place that armies would break upon like water' and Legolas replies 'I wish there were more of your kin among us. But even more would I give for a hundred good archers of Mirkwood'

Looks like Peter Jackson decided to give him what he wanted, kind of, since the archers were from Lothlorien. What really bothers me is that they killed Haldir, when in actuallity he was never even there.

And I agree with pkgrl, Faramir was a better man than Boromir. That is why he let Frodo go. Also in the book it was said that Faramir was the one who had the dream about Isildur's Bane first, and more often than Boromir. Yet Boromir took it upon himself to undertake the journey to Imladris. It makes the reader (and possibly Frodo) wonder what would have happened if Faramir, who was not tempted by the ring, had taken the journey and joined the fellowship. It would have put a whole different spin on the whole tale.

As for the Ents, I disliked the way, in the movie, the Ents refused to help out at Isengard. It didn't happen that way, they talked at Entmoot and decided it was their responsibility to take care of Sauraman and Isengard. But I guess PJ had to have something exciting for Merry and Pippin to do, since their roles in TTT were so small.

Kat

 

[pkgrl]

Just watched it again yesterday (movie marathon at the theater ) and it struck me again about the Elves showing up at Helm's Deep. That whole battle was different than it was in the book. I love seeing the Elves in battle, and Aragorn leading them, and I also love that it's Gimli who blow's Hammerhand's horn.

Kat, you make a good point about Gimli and Legolas' conversation in the book and PJ taking that further in the film, but it doesn't bother me at all that the Elves show up and help out. But I really miss the Rangers who were supposed to show up instead with Elrond's sons. I want to see more of the Rangers... how they treat Aragorn, how they fight, how different they are from the more common men of Rohan and Gondor. PJ gives us a small taste of that with Faramir and the Rangers fighting with him, but I really wanted to see Aragorn gain more followers.

And it made me sad to see Haldir die (again). And it still bothers me that PJ had Faramir keep Frodo and the ring in his possession instead of sending them on their way as soon as he could. We didn't really need to see the battle at Osgiliath. Sam's whole speach about stories and the "heroes" in them perservering could have occurred when he was alone with Frodo... it was only for Frodo's benefit.

Ahhhh, I'm ranting... I'd better go.

 

[Quill]

I think, if anything bothered me about TT, it was that it seemed to me that there was too little attention given to the Hobbits themselves.

I thought perhaps this was my opinion alone, until I read Roger Ebert's review of the film. See there! I'm not entirely crazy! One guy agrees with me!

 

[KatDonovan]

Originally posted by pkgrl
But I really miss the Rangers who were supposed to show up instead with Elrond's sons. I want to see more of the Rangers... how they treat Aragorn, how they fight, how different they are from the more common men of Rohan and Gondor. PJ gives us a small taste of that with Faramir and the Rangers fighting with him, but I really wanted to see Aragorn gain more followers.

Actually, the Rangers don't show up until the beginning of The Return of the King. Second chapter, 'The Passing of the Grey Company'

Another section that I'm going to assume was pushed off to the third movie (like Shelob) is where Aragorn, Legolas and Gimili meet up again with Merry and Pippin, Gandalf's confrontation with Sauraman, and Pippin looking into the palantir and leaving with Gandalf to go to Minas Tirith. Oh, and the Orc's and the strange forest. All of that happened after the battle at Helm's Deep.

As to Gimili blowing the horn, they had to give him something to do, since in the book he wasn't with Aragorn and Legolas in the charge from the Hornburg. He got pushed back into the caves with Eomer and met back up with them after Gandalf arrived with Erkenbrand of the Westfold.

Kat *nitpicker extraordinare*

 

[pkgrl]

Okay, nitpicky Kat

Did you notice something wrong with the continuity in the TT film regarding Merry? It didn't bother me at first, but when I saw the movie the third time, it really jumped out at me.

If you don't know (or can't remember) this is what it was:

Spoiler

Merry's cut over his eyebrow moved. It started out over his right eye, moved over the left for a few minutes, then was back over the right again.

Now that's nitpicking.

 

[KatDonovan]

LOL!!

That's a good one. I hadn't noticed. Going to have to take a closer look next time.

I've got a question for you.

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

S
P
A
C
E

What did you think of how Legolas mounted his running horse, with Gimili already on, right at the beginning of the fight with the Wargs (Which never happened in the book)?

I cringe when I see that, it looks SO unreal. I mean Elves are good, but I don't think even they could do that.

Kat

 

[pkgrl]

I'm pretty sure that PJ thought it looked cool and it obviously impressed us (in some way) so I guess from the creator's perspective, it was effective. But it bothered me, too. It looked too forced, too digital.

The third time I saw the film, though, it didn't bother me nearly as much. I guess because I knew there were other things going on in the scene, too, so I didn't pay as much attention to it. But I do remember thinking well, that didn't look as bad this time when Legolas jumped aboard.