What should have been in the movies

The Horde Lord · **Joined:** Wed Feb 23, 2011 6:58 pm **Posts:** 301

The posibilities were endless. Imagine if they had made the battles of the fords of Isen. That could easily been like 90 minutes.

Whiskas · **Posted:** Wed Apr 20, 2011 9:15 am

True that. Imagine if they made both battles of the fords of Isen?

Captain Ingold · **Posted:** Wed Apr 20, 2011 9:45 am

One nice thing is that they showed the Last Alliance, though that wasn't really in the books, but was still completely Tolkien. You almost wish there was more of it.

The Horde Lord · **Joined:** Wed Feb 23, 2011 6:58 pm **Posts:** 301

definitly

emperor_thompson · **Joined:** Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:41 am **Posts:** 181

Like most of us, I would have loved to see the entire books put into film, but on the whole I agree with the omissions that were made. Tom Bombadil can be (and was) removed without having any impact whatsoever on the rest of the story, the scouring of the shire, while interesting, would have added another hour or so to a movie everyone who had not read the book would be itching to see the end of (and would not make a great 4th movie, as it would be somewhat anti-climatic), and many of the other encounters were understandable casualties.

There are many things, however, that I think they could have done without, which would have allowed more time for the other details which could help with character development, or make for a more colourful journey. For a start, the army of the dead should have been omitted entirely. It was a weak plot device by Tolkien, and was even weaker in the film. The air-time they were given should have gone to the grey company, and some fiefdom warriors defending Minas Tirith.

We could have also done without Faramir's annoying trip to Osgilith, but I suppose they wanted to introduce the city before the third movie. There are other things, but it's all been said before.

glaiber · **Posted:** Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:55 pm

Quote:

whafrog wrote: The most aggravating to me were Faramir's weakness,

ForgottenLore wrote: See, this is one area where I think PJ vastly improved on the text. Before the movies I always found Faramir kinda boring and uninteresting. Once the movies came out and everyone started complaining about Faramir I went back and reread his stuff and find the way the books present him as totally unbelievable and lessening the threat of the Ring. Here is this super-powerful, all-corrupting source of all evil that has been explicitly stated as being a source of temptation and corruption to absolutely everyone, from the great and wise down to the meekest hobbit, particularly so to the race of men, and here is this guy who basically shrugs it off as if it were nothing at all.

In the films, by making him actually struggle with the issue and be tempted by the ring it makes his ability to reject it significantly more believable and emotionally meaningful. Yes, here is a guy who is as strong willed as Aragorn and Gandalf. It also makes the dichotomy between Faramir and Boromir much more poignant and meaningful if they both have to face a similar struggle and Faramir passes the test that Boromir failed.

http://theinquisitiveloon.blogspot.com/ ... -film.html
found this online,
in summary it says that faramir was made in the books to be one of the last heroes of gondor and to show that gondor still had strong men
and that in the movie he was made as a climax for Sam and Frodo

Captain Ingold · **Posted:** Sat Apr 30, 2011 5:36 pm

Faramir would have had more Elven blood than most, descended (like Aragorn) from the Dunedain, as well as the people of Nimrodel. His strength of character and his finest quality are what make him so popular a Captain and just a man. The films didn't accurately portray him as being of a nobility akin to that of Aragorn's, and totally unlike to Boromir, as he is described in the books.

Draugluin · **Posted:** Tue Nov 08, 2011 3:42 pm

I know this is an old thread, but just wanted to put in my 2 cents. Fellowship, though it lacked Tom (who gave the hobbits their Barrow-blades, which allowed the WK to be killed) and Glorfindel (I mean come on, if Elrond won't let his daughter marry the man she loves, he's not gonna let her risk her life trying to save him), was still pretty complete, except that Aragorn didn't take Anduril. TT should have scrapped the Warg attack and the elves at HD and had Eomer at HD, have a large Rohirrim army there to begin with and introduce Erkerbrand. Then utterly replace all of the Entmoot, all of Elrond not wanting Arwen to get married (even though in the book he knew that Aragorn was the last hope for mankind) and all of Osgiliath with what really happened (also make Aragorn actually WANT to be king). This would open up time for Frodo and Sam to get farther along on there quest, opening up time for more stuff in RotK, like the Grey Company and of course the Fiefdoms at Pelenor Fields.

Sticky Fingersss · **Joined:** Sat Oct 09, 2010 11:20 am **Posts:** 1776

I think the movies had enough, I just think that alot of stuff shoould have been scrapped from the movies, most of it is the arwen/aragorn love story.

GothmogtheWerewolf · **Posted:** Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:22 am

@Both the above, the Arwen/Aragorn love story was included for character development, a film such as LOTR cannot be made without sufficient character development, so although I'm not too fond of it either, it does serve a purpose.

@Draugluin, I didn't like Tom Bombadilmuch anyway, but would've liked to see Glorfindel, of course because he doesn;t reall do much he was cut, along with Tom, Radagast, Erkenbrand, Imrahil etc. The stuff abot Aragorn wanting to be king is contradictory to the current reading of hih fantasy (apparently) and they say a person who is tru;y good never desires power, so for Aragorn to want to be king, he would have had to much darker, much like Boromir. I agree abou Pelennor Fields, but add that my favourite villain should've been a Black Numenorean, Khand Men should've appeared, Gothmog's role smaller, Army of the Dead not being there, Haradrim haing infantry and cavalry, Beregond rather than thate made-up Iorlas.

Draugluin · **Posted:** Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:52 am

Aragorn wanted to be king because Elrond said he could ONLY marry Arwen if he became king of Gondor, not to mention it was prophesied he would be king. It wasn't his want of power, but his love of Arwen and his want for peace that drove him to become king.

Sacrilege83 · **Posted:** Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:26 pm

glaiber wrote:

Quote:

whafrog wrote: The most aggravating to me were Faramir's weakness,

ForgottenLore wrote: See, this is one area where I think PJ vastly improved on the text. Before the movies I always found Faramir kinda boring and uninteresting. Once the movies came out and everyone started complaining about Faramir I went back and reread his stuff and find the way the books present him as totally unbelievable and lessening the threat of the Ring. Here is this super-powerful, all-corrupting source of all evil that has been explicitly stated as being a source of temptation and corruption to absolutely everyone, from the great and wise down to the meekest hobbit, particularly so to the race of men, and here is this guy who basically shrugs it off as if it were nothing at all.

In the films, by making him actually struggle with the issue and be tempted by the ring it makes his ability to reject it significantly more believable and emotionally meaningful. Yes, here is a guy who is as strong willed as Aragorn and Gandalf. It also makes the dichotomy between Faramir and Boromir much more poignant and meaningful if they both have to face a similar struggle and Faramir passes the test that Boromir failed.

http://theinquisitiveloon.blogspot.com/ ... -film.html
found this online,
in summary it says that faramir was made in the books to be one of the last heroes of gondor and to show that gondor still had strong men
and that in the movie he was made as a climax for Sam and Frodo

About Faramir and him being the all uncorruptable, invinceable to the lures of the Ring; I'm pretty sure there's a short back story about Faramir and his family in the appendices. Faramir and Boromir got along great and Faramir was never jealous of Boromir's popularity & position of being heir to the Stewardship and having the greater love of their father. If Faramir is a man who has no problem accepting living in the shadow of his older popular brother, then it is more likely that he could pass on the lure of the One Ring. It's not the Marvel Comics Loki/Thor relationship. Though I find the film writters to be right in the changes to Faramir for the reasons ForgottenLore wrote and by what is explained in the director's DVD sp edition commentary.

-Found elves at Helm's Deep a nice touch and doesn't alter the story. It's nice to see them in battle.

-Tom Bombadil would have added nothing to the story of an already long movie.

-Good reasons by the writers for cutting out characers, but it wouldn't hurt to have cameos and acknowledgements of (a la Gil-Galad): Halbard & Grey Company, Twin sons of Elrond, Radagast, Forlong, Beregond & son, Imrahil & SKoDA. Instead they've opted to give a lengthy role to Haldir & Gothmog (a one sentence mention of him in the RotK) and a Gondor Captain by the name of Iorlas.

-Army of the Dead aggravated me the most as well as everyone else, but was used by the filmakers to move the story along by cutting Pelennor Fields short and putting the battle to an end quickly. Though it would have been cool to see Aragorn, Grey Company, Fiefdoms, & co. reunite with Eomer & Rohan + Gondor & Dol Amroth Knights in the middle of the field. Another 10-20 minutes of unnecessary screen time.

-RotK: End at Aragorn's coronation with Hobbits bowing, cut the rest after and put that into the extended edition.

Draugluin · **Posted:** Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:59 pm

Sacrilege83 wrote:

About Faramir and him being the all uncorruptable, invinceable to the lures of the Ring; I'm pretty sure there's a short back story about Faramir and his family in the appendices. Faramir and Boromir got along great and Faramir was never jealous of Boromir's popularity & position of being heir to the Stewardship and having the greater love of their father. If Faramir is a man who has no problem accepting living in the shadow of his older popular brother, then it is more likely that he could pass on the lure of the One Ring. It's not the Marvel Comics Loki/Thor relationship. Though I find the film writters to be right in the changes to Faramir for the reasons ForgottenLore wrote and by what is explained in the director's DVD sp edition commentary.

-Found elves at Helm's Deep a nice touch and doesn't alter the story. It's nice to see them in battle.

-Tom Bombadil would have added nothing to the story of an already long movie.

-Good reasons by the writers for cutting out characers, but it wouldn't hurt to have cameos and acknowledgements of (a la Gil-Galad): Halbard & Grey Company, Twin sons of Elrond, Radagast, Forlong, Beregond & son, Imrahil & SKoDA. Instead they've opted to give a lengthy role to Haldir & Gothmog (a one sentence mention of him in the RotK) and a Gondor Captain by the name of Iorlas.

-Army of the Dead aggravated me the most as well as everyone else, but was used by the filmakers to move the story along by cutting Pelennor Fields short and putting the battle to an end quickly. Though it would have been cool to see Aragorn, Grey Company, Fiefdoms, & co. reunite with Eomer & Rohan + Gondor & Dol Amroth Knights in the middle of the field. Another 10-20 minutes of unnecessary screen time.

-RotK: End at Aragorn's coronation with Hobbits bowing, cut the rest after and put that into the extended edition.

I completely disagree with you on some points. Another reason why Faramir didn't fall to the Ring was because he favoured the teachings of Gandalf over Denethor. He was less of a battle commander (though he was still a great one) than his brother. So what Boromir saw as a weapon to use against the enemy, Faramir saw it as a weapon that only the enemy could use.

The elves were needed to fight Dol Guldur, whereas Helms Deep had enough men (in the book) to hold off the Uruks until Gandalf came back.

While it is true that Tom didn't add much, he was the one who gave them the Barrow-Blades. Without them, the whole "No man can kill me" then a woman just stabbing him in the face, killing him, doesn't really make much sense.

Yes, the Dead ended the battle sooner, but it would have been pretty easy to explain the fiefs, why the dead weren't at Pelenor Fields and still finish the battle in a decent amount of time. If they hadn't had the Men of Minas Tirith lose so horribly when the the gate fell, they could have easily cut the battle by ten minutes, giving plenty of time for the extra stuff.

Don't really know what you mean by ending the movie at the coronation.

ForgottenLore · **Joined:** Sun Mar 27, 2011 10:47 pm **Posts:** 491

Draugluin wrote:

Another reason why Faramir didn't fall to the Ring was because he favoured the teachings of Gandalf over Denethor. He was less of a battle commander (though he was still a great one) than his brother. So what Boromir saw as a weapon to use against the enemy, Faramir saw it as a weapon that only the enemy could use.

No one is arguing that Faramir should have succumbed to the Ring, only that it works better if he is at least tempted and has to struggle with it. Everyone else in the books has to fight the temptation of the ring. Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, Aragorn, Boromir (looses), all the way down to Sam, is tempted by the blasted thing. Not Faramir. In the books he is just "huh, the Ring of Power. Better give this little short guy some help if we want to win this war." Of course he should resist the temptation in the end, that is the whole point of having the 2 brothers, so one can fall and one can resist, but resisting has very little emotional resonance with an audience if it is accomplished with no effort like in the books.

Quote:

While it is true that Tom didn't add much, he was the one who gave them the Barrow-Blades. Without them, the whole "No man can kill me" then a woman just stabbing him in the face, killing him, doesn't really make much sense.

All Merry did with the Barrow Blade was distract the Witch King. True, in the book he was only able to do that because of the power of his blade but so what. There is no good way to convey visually that those blades were more potent vs the King of Angmar than other magic blades would be. It is a difference between

"The WK is about to kill Eowyn when Merry stabs him in the knee, distracting him long enough for Eowyn to deliver the killing blow."

and

"The WK is about to kill Eowyn when Merry stabs him in the knee with his special sword that requires 30 minutes of backstory to explain, distracting him long enough for Eowyn to deliver the killing blow."

The main point was there, Merry hurt him, distracting him enough for Eowyn to kill him. I was considerably more annoyed that the blow didn't incapacitate Merry to the point that he couldn't go with the armies to the Black Gate, though I understand the reasons for that decision.

Quote:

Yes, the Dead ended the battle sooner, but it would have been pretty easy to explain the fiefs,

It would have been a pain in the butt to try and explain the Gondorian political system well enough for people who have never read the books to have a clue what is up with them. It basically took a whole chapter just to explain who these people all are in the books.

Draugluin · **Posted:** Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:07 pm

ForgottenLore wrote:

Draugluin wrote:

Another reason why Faramir didn't fall to the Ring was because he favoured the teachings of Gandalf over Denethor. He was less of a battle commander (though he was still a great one) than his brother. So what Boromir saw as a weapon to use against the enemy, Faramir saw it as a weapon that only the enemy could use.

No one is arguing that Faramir should have succumbed to the Ring, only that it works better if he is at least tempted and has to struggle with it. Everyone else in the books has to fight the temptation of the ring. Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, Aragorn, Boromir (looses), all the way down to Sam, is tempted by the blasted thing. Not Faramir. In the books he is just "huh, the Ring of Power. Better give this little short guy some help if we want to win this war." Of course he should resist the temptation in the end, that is the whole point of having the 2 brothers, so one can fall and one can resist, but resisting has very little emotional resonance with an audience if it is accomplished with no effort like in the books.

Quote:

While it is true that Tom didn't add much, he was the one who gave them the Barrow-Blades. Without them, the whole "No man can kill me" then a woman just stabbing him in the face, killing him, doesn't really make much sense.

All Merry did with the Barrow Blade was distract the Witch King. True, in the book he was only able to do that because of the power of his blade but so what. There is no good way to convey visually that those blades were more potent vs the King of Angmar than other magic blades would be. It is a difference between

"The WK is about to kill Eowyn when Merry stabs him in the knee, distracting him long enough for Eowyn to deliver the killing blow."

and

"The WK is about to kill Eowyn when Merry stabs him in the knee with his special sword that requires 30 minutes of backstory to explain, distracting him long enough for Eowyn to deliver the killing blow."

The main point was there, Merry hurt him, distracting him enough for Eowyn to kill him. I was considerably more annoyed that the blow didn't incapacitate Merry to the point that he couldn't go with the armies to the Black Gate, though I understand the reasons for that decision.

Quote:

Yes, the Dead ended the battle sooner, but it would have been pretty easy to explain the fiefs,

It would have been a pain in the butt to try and explain the Gondorian political system well enough for people who have never read the books to have a clue what is up with them. It basically took a whole chapter just to explain who these people all are in the books.

Faramir was tempted, Tolkien just never had him have a huge reaction to it like Boromir or Galadriel.

The only reason Eowyn could kill him was because the Barrow-Blade removed the curses on the WK. If he had stabbed with anything else (even Anduril) no damage would have been dealt and Eowyn couldn't kill him.

They wouldn't have to explain the system, just show him come up with reinforcements.

GothmogtheWerewolf · **Posted:** Thu Nov 10, 2011 11:44 pm

Draugluin wrote:

Aragorn wanted to be king because Elrond said he could ONLY marry Arwen if he became king of Gondor, not to mention it was prophesied he would be king. It wasn't his want of power, but his love of Arwen and his want for peace that drove him to become king.

The point is that he wants power to get Arwen and so on, and so, being a high fantasy film, Jackson had to change it, or make Aragorn seem more evil, or t the very least, less sincere.

Quote:

Faramir was tempted, Tolkien just never had him have a huge reaction to it like Boromir or Galadriel.

The only reason Eowyn could kill him was because the Barrow-Blade removed the curses on the WK. If he had stabbed with anything else (even Anduril) no damage would have been dealt and Eowyn couldn't kill him.

They wouldn't have to explain the system, just show him come up with reinforcements.

I agree with this.

Quote:

-RotK: End at Aragorn's coronation with Hobbits bowing, cut the rest after and put that into the extended edition.

Its Frodos story (and Sams), not Aragorn's

Draugluin · **Posted:** Fri Nov 11, 2011 2:53 am

It still would have been easier to have a 5 minute conversation (or at least a flash-back) between Aragorn and Elrond about why Aragorn needs to be king than have the 2 hours of "character development" that they did have.

Sacrilege83 · **Posted:** Fri Nov 11, 2011 4:17 am

Draugluin wrote:

The only reason Eowyn could kill him was because the Barrow-Blade removed the curses on the WK. If he had stabbed with anything else (even Anduril) no damage would have been dealt and Eowyn couldn't kill him.

In the films Galadriel gave Merry some acient blade in Lorien (forgot what she called it, Noldorian?), and in the books the Barrow-blades come from some ancient origin. If the film coincides with the book's origin, I'll say objective achieved in keeping a minor plot device being this "acient blade to distract & dispel the Witchking's power" therefore not needing Tom Bombadil/Old Forrest/Barrow-downs in the story.

Some how I get the feeling that I'm going to be forced to search the Lotr wiki.

GothmogtheWerewolf wrote:

Quote:

-RotK: End at Aragorn's coronation with Hobbits bowing, cut the rest after and put that into the extended edition.

Its Frodos story (and Sams), not Aragorn's

Maybe in the books, but in the films it seemed to be more ensembled. When you have all the main cast there and everyone's bowing their heads and kneeling before the hobbits with the final shot ending with an upclose view of Frodo, you can basically curtain call it right there. Instead they make poor casual movie-goers suffer a long tearry-eyed swan song of an ending with Frodo departing on the boat in slow motion. The filmakers could have pleased the novelist fans by just leaving that in the extended.

Draugluin · **Posted:** Fri Nov 11, 2011 4:32 am

You have no idea how wrong you are. The "Noldorin Blades" weren't given to be the bane of the WK, and they weren't even used to stab him, Merry used a blade from Rohan.
They weren't simply ancient blades, the Barrow-Blades were crafted in Arnor and blessed to specifically remove the protections of the ringwraiths, because at the time the WK was laying siege to Arnor.

ForgottenLore · **Joined:** Sun Mar 27, 2011 10:47 pm **Posts:** 491

Draugluin wrote:

blessed to specifically remove the protections of the ringwraiths,

I don't know where your getting that. My impression from the books is that the blades of arnor were crafted to fight the forces of Angmar, they could hurt the Witch King because he was the Witch King of ANGMAR, but would have had no particular extra effectiveness against the other wraiths.

My reading is also that the only extra effectiveness they provided was an ability to actually hurt him, hence the distraction caused when Merry stabbed his knee.

I do have to say that your interpretation makes a measure of sense, but I've never read anything in the primary source material that suggested it.

What should have been in the movies

Who is online