Differances Between the book LOTR and the Movie,?

Question

What are at least ten differences between the movie and the book of Lord of thr Rings? Can you name them all?

Answer 1

No Tom Bombadil, so no Goldberry, Old Man Willow or Barrowights

No Glorfindel - Frodo is saved by Arwen in the movie

Frodo's Age - he is much older in the book than he is in the movie

No Elves on the way to Crickhallow

No stone trolls for Sam to kick

Faramir's character (and this one really bothered me) - in the movie he starts to take the ring back to Gondor, but in the books he doesn't

Aragon's dream/fall from the cliffs

No Rangers from the north to walk the Paths of the Dead with Aragon

Arwen heading for the Havens. She doesn't do this in the book.

Sam tossing the apple at Bill Ferny

No Farmer Maggot (I think that'ts the name of the mushroom farmer)

No scourging of the Shire

I know there were others, but I can't think of them right now.

Needless to say, I mightly annoyed all my friends who hadn't read the books while we were watching the movie, cause I kept saying "This didn't happen in the books!"

Answer 2

1. Arwen's role has been greatly expanded.
2. Frodo is much younger looking in the film (maybe because its his possesion of the ring)
3. No tombadil...
4. Gimli knowing what a "nervous sytem" was (extended cut)
5. Elrond is somewhat angry to his fostered son aragorn
6. Faramir has been darkened
7. Elves marching to help helm's deep
8. The ring beare goes to ogsiliath
9. Sauron does not have a physical form (I mean what's the use of a ring if u dont have a finger)
10. Isiludur cut a lot of Sauron's finger which was supposed to be only one.
11. The sword of Elendil was broken into many pieces rather than two.
12. Glorifindel was the one who saves frodo not Arwen
13. The color of Faramir and Boromir's hair are suppose to be black
14. The appearance of Lurtz
15. Denethor's anger towards Gandalf and Faramir (where the reasons are not truly emphasized in the film)
16. Gandalf and Elrond arranged the flood where frodo was crossing the river towards rivendell
17. Gandalf did not put a fight in Orthanc.
18. The early death of Boromir
19. Grima worm tounge stabbed Saruman in orthanc...was suppose to be in the Shire
20. Saruman's death was suppose to be caused by cutting his throat.
21. Sauron has been turned into a gigantic blazing eye
22. No scourging of the shire
23. Sam did not look in the mirror of Galadriel
24. Sam had a mallorn seed (what was it for if the shire's party tree wont be destroyed)
25. Elrond is somewhat against the idea of Aragorn and Arwen's wedding and goes far when he forces Arwen to go to the undying land.
Well that's all I noticed so there might be some mistakes and spelling issues.....

Answer 3

1. The character of Arwen is emphasized in the movie. If I remember right, Arwen is never even mentioned in The Two Towers.
2. Frodo never betrayed Sam at the "go home " (ROTK) point, in the book.
3. Gandalf and Saruman never have the staff and wizardry duel (FOTR), in the book.
4. *BIG ONE* The Scauring of the Shire is pretty much completely left out of the movies. All we get is visions of what might happen if the quest failed.
5. In The Two Towers, Aragorn was never dragged off the cliff by the warg.
6. Again, if I'm remembering this right, the character of Haldir (the elf who dies at Helm's deep, and is in FOTR also) doesn't even exist in the books.
7. Arwen never sets out for the Grey Havens in the book.
8. Sam is not portrayed as being tempted by the ring, when he is the bearer, but in the book, he is.
9. I don't believe that in the book, Elrond is ever so reluctant for Aragorn to marry Arwen. In the movies, it's only at the end that we get the idea that he's "okay" with it.
10. The thing with the sculls falling everwhere when Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas are in the Paths of the Dead--Iet's just say I don't think that's what Tolkien had in mind.:-)

That's about all I could really think of.

Answer 4

How different they were is going to depend a lot on your particular INTERPRETATION of the events in the book. After all, nobody would expect a few hours of movie to cover every single detail in every book, and conversely a book which described every detail that would have to be included in a movie would read more like a laundry list of what was where and when. So the question really boils down to whether Jackson was able to distill the appropriate essence without watering it down with too much other stuff.

And that's the rub. Talk to different people and you will find that they have taken very different things from the LOTR text. I know people, for example, who found it to be a highly religious allegory and would say that Jackson's failure to include oblique references to Christianity was a major difference. I also know people who found the original text to be agonizingly long, weary, and filled with irrelevant material (the infamous Tom Bombadil, for example) but who find the movies to be exciting and compelling... they would say the biggest difference was that all the 'garbage' was excised.

Personally, when I watched it, I found one of the bigger differences to be the relationship between the characters and their home. There is a reason, I think, why Tolkien spent such a long time dwelling on Hobbiton in the beginning, kept bringing it up throughout the story, and spent so long on it in the end. In a very real sense this peaceful, uninteresting (yes, I understand that it is uninteresting... that is part of what makes it interesting) starting point provides a lot of the motive force that really keeps the characters going through the story... it is THIS peace that they are trying to save, not some obscure ideal of peace.

I recall that what Sam really got from the elves as his 'gift' was not a magic rope (though he got that too) but a box of dirt. He kept that dirt when he threw everything else away to slog along on his journey, because the dirt was yet another representation of this hope. And in the end, when he sprinkled it on his garden and it made all the plants grow well (as promised), it was like a realization of his dream. Great, but also very humble.

Another big difference was the portrayal of magic. My recollection from the novels was a force of magic that was FAR from overt. A wizard made things happen, but it was usually in a way that wasn't easy to see. They just happened in a way that were miraculous but frequently unattributable to a particular source. In particular I recall the elves saying something along the lines of what others called magic they referred to as just knowing how to do things better.

Of course, if you did all that in a movie, it would probably be dull and certainly less flashy. I'm not surprised it was changed. Link below for a long article describing many other differences in events, characterization, and appearance in detail.

Answer 5

1 Tom Bomadil not mentioned
2 Book has 2 parts after Fellowship, one of Frodo and Sam, the other of Aragorn and Co. Movie just switches back and forth
3 Movie has some events tfrom 2 toers in Return (such as Shelob), because the corrosponding events of aragorn and Co happened in Retutrn (or vise versa)
4 You get the thoughts of people, (like all books)
5 Book takes longer to finish (duh)
6 Movie Leaves out some parts (like Wormtounge throwing out the Palintir)
7 Movie adds (or switches) stuff that wasn't part of the book (such as Treebeard having decided on going to war on his own instead of seeing the trees 1st)
8 You don't see the Barrow-wights
9 You miss the whole 2nd to last ch. of Return when they 'Scour the Shire' as the ch. is called
10 .....?

10 is too many. you should lower the number.

Answer 6

The difference that really bothered me was the way Sam left Frodo alone with Gollum at the stairs of Cirith Ungol in the movie. Sam would've never left Frodo, ever.

Answer 7

Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Wights was about 25% of one of the books, does that count?

The Battle of Hobbiton, you could just keep going.
If they included everything, the movie would be 15 hours long.

Answer 8

there are maximum of deviations that aggravated me. Aragorn replaced right into a great one. the full "reluctant hero" element did no longer in good condition him. He chosen his path 60 years till now the warfare of the ring. And dropping the conflict of wills to Sauron replaced into yet another element that stricken me. His conquest over Sauron's ideas interior the Palantir replaced right into a pivotal 2nd in his street to claiming his throne. however the only that stricken me maximum of all replaced into the destruction of Faramir's character. He might by no potential have betrayed Frodo as he did interior the action picture. in certainty, he instructed Frodo that whether he discovered this element on the fringe of the line and Gondor lay in ruins and he on my own ought to shop her, no longer even then might he take this element as his very own. I do ought to disagree alongside with your assessment of Frodo however. i in my opinion do no longer think of that the action picture Frodo replaced into something like the Frodo from the e book. interior the action picture he replaced into extremely whiny and self absorbed. Frodo from the e book positioned everybody he knew above himself. it incredibly is why he tried so problematic to leave them in the back of throughout his quest. Sam, in spite of the incontrovertible fact that, replaced into very precise in accordance to the e book.

Answer 9

1. lack of Tom Bombadill
2. movie ends at earlier spot than the novel
ummm...that's all i got :)