If there’s “one thing to rule them all” in the books that didn’t appear in the movies, please tell us in the comments! Check out our Fantasy Movies & TV Playlist! ua-cam.com/play/PLmZTDWJGfRq1CkSvHDXxpd_LgDk8yX7Ab.html
(Gollum spies on a passing army about midway through the trilogy and reports back to Sam & Frodo.) SAM: "Did they have any Oliphants with them?" GOLLUM: "No, no Oliphants. ...what are Oliphants?" Not a major omission but Andy Serkis coulda had fun with that line. :-)
I was sad that the Wild Men of the Woods were left out of ROTK, but I completely understand why they weren’t included. Always thought it was cool how they helped the Rohirrim reach Minas Tirith.
And how Theoden dealt with them as equals. This was most unusual writing from an Englishman in the mid 20th century. He was well ahead of his time. Possibly an aspect which influenced one theme in Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels.
The Broken Sword and Nerd of the Rings make amazing videos about all things Tolkien. If you like the Hobbit and LoTR trilogies, you'll love their channel.
well people will always complain. if the hobbit was just one movie and didnt show much of the battle at the end then people would complain the battle got no detail in it and is confusing.
But the Extended's were 4 hours long. I couldn't get enough. I think a lot of theses "reactors" watching them don't appreciate them nearly as much as we did. After seeing the theatrical versions a hundred times before. I recognized every new scene immediately and it was great
Other honorable mentions: Glorfindel, Erkenbrand, Prince Imrahil, and the warg attack on the fellowship after coming down off of Caradhras. Also never liked it that they didnt mention Boromir getting a gift from Galadriel.
Their daggers from Tom during their time in barrow wight area & with him is also a very important aswell. Since it's really what makes the which king able to be killed
@@A-G-A-GImrahil does appear in the movie, he is a brief cameo. He was the one who told Denethor about the failed atrack on Osgiliath and that everyone died.
@@amordramon22 we don’t know that. He’s never named and doesn’t even wear amroth garb or emblems, clearly dressed as a gondorim soldier. More likely he’s beregond tbh
I’ve literally just started reading the books and my favourite part so far is how Frodo keeps the ring secret from the other Hobbits but then they come forward basically like “yeah we know about the ring” haha made me laugh cause Frodo thought he was super secretive but nah they knew
Hah, i was surprised by this too! What a great moment of friendship and addition of depth to the characters relationship. Having seen the movies many times, although not the extended versions, I too have just started reading the books and, having just finished the Tom Bombadil chapter VII, I have never been so captivated :)
Another honorable mention I like is, when Sam has the ring he got the vision to use the rings power to overthrow sauron and claim his lands to make a garden out of mordor.
Considering how much content is in the books, I consider it good fortune that the production company gave Jackson enough screen time to include what he did.
@oakmaiden2133 What would you have done differently, without boring your audience and also ensuring the studio had enough faith to give you the necessary screen time
I really disliked that Jackson did not include the return to shire. To me it's one of the most important parts of the story arc. Bringing the Hobbits from weaklings unable to do anything meaningful by themselfs to defending and freeing their home without outside help.
@@bn-tc2tk they didn't do it by themselves. They needed help from men, elves, wizards and dwarves. And I was talking of the times before the ring quest. All the events you mentioned gave them the confidence and abilities to free the shire by themselves.
They left Glorfindel out, and so did you. Counted among the mightiest of the Elves, he was entrusted by Elrond himself to look for the Hobbits and help them escape the Black Riders in "The Fellowship of the Ring". In the movies, his role was substituted by that of the Lady Arwen.
The scouring of the Shire was an important element that I love in the books. It establishes Merry and Pippin as more heroic characters and gives them a nice finish to their arc, it gives a more satisfying ending for Saruman and Wormtongue, and it's an allegory that the world wars on the continent didn't happen in a vacuum and required death and sacrifice from countries outside of the main battlefields (e.g. the UK).
While I agree with 99% of this post, Tolkien was always adamant that his books were not in any way allegorical. To quote his forward to the second edition to the Lord of the Rings, "I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author."
Fair enough but given return of the king was already over 200 minutes long and I dunno how you could include that in the structure of the film. It’s the same reason why the two towers ends with the battle of helms deep
@@meridellwriter Yeah so maybe allegory is the wrong word, but I think the premise of a peaceful idyllic place getting ravaged by the spillover from a large scale war in the East is impossible not to be seen as related to the World Wars and Britain. Maybe he didn't intend it to but knowing that context it's hard not to draw inferences from the text.
@@michaelnally2841 the extended movie is like 380 minutes if i remember right and that one still didnt have it too. but it be like a mini movie at the end of a big movie so it wouldnt fit it.
One thing they got SO wrong in The Return of the King was that the Witch King of Angmar never entered the White City. He met Gandalf the White at the entrance and was called away by something happening on the field of battle and he NEVER broke Gandalf's staff.
Peter Jackson I thought made sense why they didn't include Tom Bombadil. Even though he IS of course in the original story, to have someone who's basically immune to the ring might've counteracted how big a deal it's supposed to be.
It slows down the pace somewhat, though it omits Frodo’s courage in the barrow and the significance of the hobbits’ swords. No blade made by men of later years would have allowed Merry to deal a significant blow to the Witch King.
They could have solved that with one line from the books. At the council of Elrond when its decided that Frodo will take it to Mordor, Tom is suggested as the person to guard it and Gandalf says it's a terrible idea. Basically because he doesnt give a fuck haha.
@@alexandercanella4479 lol right. Always found it funny how he's like, "hmm this is the all powerful ring that can enslave middle Earth and corrupt anyone who holds it? Man, that sucks(hands it back). Here ya go, good luck with that"
@@TheKey304 It's a surprisingly common theme in the series. Even Radagast ignored the duties he was sent to middle earth for even though he held the power to have a positive change.
For me the main missing things were: The Old Forest, Tom Bombadil, The Barrow Downs (that is 3 consecutive chapters), plus the Scouring of the Shire. I have heard a lot of people say that adding these might have made it too long, but my reply is that if they had not added all the extra bits, then there might have been time for the full story as Tolkien wrote it.
In the unabridged audio version I listened to it took nine hours to reach Rivendell. Everything featuring Tom Bombadil just lengthens it for no plot reason.
I wish they made 2 movies for each of the LOTR books. Somehow, they squeezed 3 movies out of the Hobbit, yet the bigger LOTR books only have 1 movie each. Had they had at least 1 more film for each book, I'm sure they would've been able to get a lot more in. Also, I wish that the Hobbit films were made at the same time as the Lord of the Rings, would've made both trilogies, especially the Hobbit ones, better.
@@AverageCommentor I don't think their budget would have permitted the 2 movies, for 1 each.... It would have been great though... And also, remember LOTR took a toll on Peter and others... so I think taking a break and then doing the hobbit probably is what was best for them at the time... We can't say... I just watch and enjoy
I can understand not including most of the sing-songy stuff. I feel that would’ve detracted too much from the serious tone that Jackson wanted to achieve for the films
"sing-songy stuff" have you read any literature from the classical or medieval period? "The Iliad" (one of the most serious works of fiction ever) is sung THROUGHOUT, and the medieval period also set its most epic stories to verse. Tolkien, being both a classicist and a medievalist, was bringing this tradition back. There isn't anything grander, more ancient, or more sophisticated than good verse.
I think the character I missed the most is actually Imrahil. I would have loved to see the scene where the armies of Gondor arrive in Minas Tirith. The movie gives the impression that Gondor is weak and tiny compared to Rohan. Others that would have been nice to see are Fatty bolger and the sons of Elrond. I can totally understand why certain side-characters were left out, like Bombadil, Glorfindel and Ghan-Buri-Ghan. On the other hand, the movie did right by expanding other characters that needed to be seen more than in the books, like Saruman and Arwen.
The sons of Elrond were in Fellowship. They were sitting on either side of him at the council meeting in Rivendel. They just weren't in Return of the King at the battle of Pelinor Field.
Imrahil does appear, though his scene is a cameo. He was the one who told Denethor of the failed attack on Osgiliath where no one,save Faramir, survived
So this was kind of mentioned in the video, I just think that this particular scene deserved more acknowledgment. In The fellowship of the Ring, the scene where they go through moria, there are several things that the movie was very undescript about. 1) when they enter moria, escaping the watcher in the water, the big scary octopus monster by the door, which wasn't named in the movies, boromir made a comment saying this isn't a mine it's a tomb. They then pan to a bunch of dwarvish skeletons on the ground. One of those was Oin. At this point The Hobbit series was not released yet, so if you did not follow the books you really did not know who Oin was, also the fact that he was killed by The watcher in the water was not included in any movie. When gimli runs into the chamber of Mazarbul and finds Balins coffin, at that point if you did not follow the books, you probably didn't even know who balin was. Also, much like Oin it was never portrayed in the movies but he was killed during a battle of orcs and dwarves in moria. In the same scene gandalf finds a skeleton holding a book, that was detailing the attack by the orcs. At this time again if you did not follow the books, you probably did not realize that that skeleton holding the book was Ori, the youngest member of thorin's company in The Hobbit series. Once again he was killed in the war of Maria which was never portrayed in the movies.
I wish there had been more thought out into the timeline of the films. 17 years goes by after Bilbos birthday before Frodo leaves the shire. The age gap makes more sense for Sam being subservient to Frodo. You expect Frodo to not age, because he has the ring, but Merry Pippin and Sam were all children at the time of Bilbos birthday, Frodo was 33. I just feel it’s super relevant to the whole story. The books have such a large scope in terms of time, something that can’t be captured on film but you feel when you read the novels.
There’s a lot of time reference (all of them?) left out of the movies… I’ve just rewatched them with my husband and was sad that, just before the destruction of the ring, when Sam mentions to Frodo that it’s almost spring again, people who haven’t read the book have no idea that the journey took and entire year. They spent a month in Lothlorien, weeks in Gondor… in the movies it always looks as if they’ve only spent one night. Trouble with keeping all these passing of time out is that the quest seems of least importance. As if it didn’t take too much of all of them…
I'm sure that discussion was had among the film's creators. It just would have dragged the flow down, though, to think that those events took place over decades.
To me, one of the most glaring things they got wrong (and added to the film, although I do not understand why) was Frodo standing on the bridge at Osgiliath, holding the ring at arm's length to the Nazgûl. I was exceptionally annoyed when I saw this in the movie theater. One of the major premises of the book was making this great journey to bring the one ring, in stealth, to Mt Orodruin, to destroy it where it was forged. The battles would have happened MUCH differently if Sauron would have known that the one ring was nearby in Osgiliath, but because of Pippin looking in the palantir taken from Orthanc, Sauron believed the ring was in Rohan and was going to be at Minas Tirith. Other things that Jackson and his screenwriters royally messed up: Faramir's character (they made him rather despicable, and in the books, he was nobler than Boromir), the witch-king in Minas Tirith confronting Gandalf, the prophecy & the witch-king's destruction (plays back to Merry's enchanted blade breaking the WK's immortality, allowing Eowyn the kill, having originated from the Barrow Downs, which was skipped in the films), the dealings with the Wild Men, the Cleansing of the Shire/Saruman's death, Denethor's madness being caused by another palantir, Aragorn being reluctant/the ill-feelings over Arwen between Elrond & Aragorn /Aragorn being an oathbreaker by killing the Mouth of Sauron, Gollum's struggle at Mt Orodruin & fulfillment of his vow, and lastly, the Elves and Frodo's reasons for leaving Middle Earth being completely glossed over. (I guess for Jackson & Co it was "because reasons".) There are SO many subplots and details that PJ obviously just didn't get. He said he was a "fan", and although I understand the need for brevity in a story of this massive scale, to me it seems rather obvious in both things omitted from the books, and extempoaneous unnecessary things added to the screenplay, that PJ & screenwriters were casual fans at most. Since Christopher Lee had read LOTR annually for decades, it is too bad they didn't bother to consult with him on the overall storyline and fine details.
I'm sure they had to do a lot of compromises as well, you don't land such a big deal with a production company with no expectations for a mass blockbuster at all; and I'm sure PJ and the other writers had to take the road most expected by mass audiences on several occasions. HAVING SAID that, I SO TOTALLY agree so much of the points you listed. 1. Faramir taking them to Osgiliath and a NAZGUL seeing Frodo with the FREAKING RING would've spelled doom for them, I was also extremely annoyed by this scene and by Faramir's moral failure at first. I mean I get that PJ wanted to make him a more "complex" character and all, but do not sacrifice making sense in the grander story! And what's more, it made him feel more superficial and fickle, than conflicted. 2. The unnecessary tension between Arwen and Elrond, which was also introduced, I guess, for more conflict and character depth, so so grates my nerves every time I see it. I get that they want to portray a father caring for his daughter and the growing rift between men and elves, BUT. Elrond is so much more than simply a father. He understands love and free choice, and he understands that it is not simply individual, it is fate that requires it for the good of posterity. As a wise being more than 6000 years of age, it really seems a little out of character. His grief is great, but that is in part the doom of the elves, the fading of a world beyond their control, and a main philosophical point in the story - after struggling for thousands of years to maintain what they had, they voluntarily give up power and ties to the world, including loved ones. It is a daunting choice, and a grief beyond imagination for any mortal, yes, but the elves make it with almost superhuman grace, unlike in the movie.
And Glorfindel fought down a Balrog in the 1st Age at the Siege of Gondinlin (forgive my spelling). Or was that Gil-Galad? Sometimes i get those two mixed up.
@@LagunaShirogane It was Glorfindal. He killed the Balrog, and the Balrog killed him. He killed it on his own, protecting the retreat of his people during the fall of Gondor. I'm not sure but only Gandalf (a Miair) and Glorfindal, an elf, were the only living beings to ever kill a Balrog, on their own, no help from an army.) And both were reincarnated and returned to Middle Earth. Not a common event.
"The Lord of the Rings" are my favorite books, as well as my favorite movies. I find them to be equally outstanding. I think certain aspects of the books are better then the movies. Certain aspects of the films, however, are better then the books.
The palantir plot with denethor shows much more of denethor’s true character rather than just existing to create his madness. Even using a palantir takes only the strongest of wills and denethor actually could bend it to his will for a while, contesting even the influence Sauron may have had through it. He also wielded it because he truly wanted to ensure he used everything to protect Gondor, he was a good steward in his time, only losing hope at the very end
Agree 100%. Why they didn't have a quick scene with him using the palantir to show that his descent into madness was Saurons doing and not depression/fatalism.
From all of the missing stuff this is the most crucial omission. They literally had only to show an establishing shot that he had one and it would have painted the picture, as we already know a Palantir corrupted Saruman.
@@billstrader4326 exactly lol I'm not sure why they had so many extra shots of Denethor in the extended editions but him holding or showing a past clip of him using a Palantir was too much lol they could've even cheaply placed one in the main hall if they could and maybe even Gandalf could've saw it and the camera could show what he's looking at , just something like that lol. What's even weirder is how much they referencing the Palantiri in all 3 movies lol especially even more with the extended editions in Return of the King. They seemed to have cared bout them so much and would've added more tension as to knowing that they're interacting with someone that has access to another's Palantir . Would've made it very interesting. Or maybe they could've done a twist after he sets himself on fire and tosses himself off the from the top of Minas Tirith, they could've shown a scene where Aragorn and Gandalf or maybe add Faramir to the scene where maybe they explore the back parts of the main hall and that's where they end up finding the Palantir he was using as like a cool "oh shit , I really thought he was a stupid miserable old guy this entire time , now I feel bad for judging him " type of moment. Could've had so many chances to even add it like that as a twist to make us feel bad just like alot of us did with Boromir in the movies . They made him even more better as a charecter in the extended editions. Man I hate that there were so many opportunities lol . Still one of the scenes I wish that would've been added in the extended editions
I agree. It would have been easy to add a scene showing Denethor with the palantir, which would explain his mental deterioration. They added and changed other parts to "streamline" the movie but this would have explained Denethor's downfall.
@@KC_Eden Dont worry about it, ive done the same, this might work, forget the movies, then read the books thouroughly thats important, then watch the movies in chronological order, also if you have them play the video games, it fleshes out what your watching. That is my method hope it helps
I got the books one Christmas in the '70s when I was a teenager and read them right then. I told my daughters that they were not to watch the movies (which we have on DVD...extended versions, of course) until after they read the books. It was great because I got to re-watch it with them. In other words...READ THEM!!! LOL
There is a theory that says the Lord of the Rings is the book that most people who have it, haven't read. (I wasn't sure how to phrase that). If you ever read them and you really love them, I would also recommend the Silmarillion. It is even more epic.
One major thing too was Mordor was actually freezing cold. Only Mount Doom was on fire. Sam and Frodo were usually complaining about how cold it was in the novels.
Glorfindel : more than likely one of the most powerful elves alive during the events of the Trilogy.. in another age and incarnation he fought a balrog alone to defend his people when they were escaping a city under siege. He died in that battle and was sent back by the gods. He is the actual elf they meet on the road going to Rivendell ... does anyone believe that Elrond half elven would risk his beloved daughter on such a dangerous mission? Elrond is also Aragorn's uncle. What amazed me is how much time they waste on episodes that weren't in the book while ignoring some of the most pivotal moments in the novels.
Elrond is not Aragorns "uncle" he is a very distant relative through his (Elrond) brother who decided to go mortal and became first King of the Dunedain. Not sure how many generations of Dunedain kings between the mortal brother and Aragorn's birth, but way lots of them. A few hundered times removed "great Uncle", maybe? We're talking like 7,050 years, here. Galadriel is Elron's mother in law by way of being his wife's mother, however, and of course, Arwen's grandmother. Elrond would foster the princes of the Dunedain, in order that they might learn wisdom. Aragorn's fostering had the extra special effect of hiding him from Sauron. And why Elrond called him "Elessil", and who he was known as, until Legolas dropped the ball(in the movie) Guess he followed his father's advice from in the Hobbit movie!
I understand that the scouring of the shire didn't fit climatically to be put in the movie, but its the most important moment in the book as Tolkien that scene expresses his heart-based feelings on the effects of industrialization.
You're the first person I've seen a comment on that wasn't bitching about the differences. Out of curiosity which one would you prefer if you only had one the movies or the books? I thought they did an awesome job on the movies. I know they took some liberties but they still did a very good job. I like books but I'm more of a visual person. And they paid such attention to detail in the movies Peter Jackson deserves an award in my mind. Like I said I know that changed a few things I would just be curious to know what your opinion is please?
Missed loads of this list but the biggest missed mention is Glorfindel, who was probably the most important elf who was alive at the time of the war of the ring. He was one of very few people who were ressurected in their life and glowed bright in opposite to the ring wraiths who openly fled him and every opportunity. He pretty much saved middle earth several times. Neither Elrond or Galadriel were as important to the story of middle earth as he was, so to leave him off the list was a massive oversight. Sauron would have actually feared Glorfindel more then he feared Aragorn.
1) when i read LOTR in the seventies, tom bombadil was a central figure for me, like a woodgod, holding things together. 2) changing the end of the story from a devastated shire to an untouched funland destroyed the whole movie-experience for me.
Glorfindel, one of the oldest elves in Middle Earth aside from Galadriel. One of the few elves in Middle Earth to see the light of the trees, which is why (in the books) Glorfindel appears bright to Frodo as he was fading from the Nazgul blade and is able to "see the unseen" or see the nazgul and they fear him. He's killed a balrog while sacrificing himself to save many elves of Gondolin and has been reincarnated afterward. Also, was the elf to tell the Witch King of the prophecy of how he would die many years before the books. Not much significance in the War of the Ring, but a very heavy character that wasn't even mentioned.
If Jackson's trilogy included all of the songs and poems, the movies could have been considered to be musicals. If they wanted to keep all of the content from the books, the three movies could have been turned into three expensive mini-series (that likely wouldn't have recouped the expense of making them).
I'd vote for an honourable mention to Faramir as a character because whoever that dude is on screen, they might as well have changed his name for all he had in common with book Faramir. Also I think it's deceptive to call The Scouring of the Shire "near" the end of the book, it is the book's actual ending which the movie changed.
In the books the Rangers (the last descendents of Numenor) traveled with Aragorn through the paths of the dead and arrived at Minas Tirith instead of the army of ghosts (who left as soon as the ships with black sails had been captured). I get that alot was cut for time, but the books were much better written than 'a bunch of ghosts show up out of nowhere and solve everything' like they did in the film.
From all the things left out, the Scouring of the Shire is the one I wish most that they had left in. Would have been awesome to see more of the hobbits. Also, for no. 10, off the top of my head I can remember the hobbits passing from the stone trolls area and Gandalf mentioning Thorin in Moria in the extended FOTR.
This may be a suprise but i actually didn't care that much for the scouring of the Shire. I appreciate what Tolkien was trying to say with it but it always felt anti-climactic to me. It's like, everything the hobbits went trough, the entire reason they took on the journey to save the Shire, was almost all for nothing. I'm glad they cut it out because in the context of a traditional cinematic story, it would feel even more like an anti-climax.
Same. I’m glad it wasn’t in the films. But they should’ve filmed the Hobbit movies first, just so there could actually be references and returning characters in the LOTR movies...like the news of Dain Ironfoot and the king of Dale falling in the Battle of Dale, for instance.
On number four, for things in the book.. I think referring to Galadriel's abilities as "magical" would get you either a slightly perplexed look or a gentle rebuke from the Lady in question. In the book, she specifically mentions that she's not sure what the hobbits mean by the word, as they use it both for the powers of the elves and the "devices of the enemy". To the elves, it's simply a form of crafting, putting their thought into being quickly and completely.
@@Paulafan5 I personally think McCoy is a very underrated Dr. Who. I've always enjoyed his episodes and was really he came back for the Movie in the 90s.
Sam was truly the only “average” person in the fellowship. The other hobbits come from prominent families. Aragorn is the heir of Isildur. Legolas is the son of an elf king. Gimili comes from the line of Durin and is a cousin of the line’s current head. And Gandalf is an angel incarnate.
The omission of battles in other places in Middle Earth was a stupid point. The reason such battles were omitted was because in the books, they were only mentioned in passing - we aren't actually told anything about the events of these battles at Lothlorien, the Lonely Mountain, etc. hence they were omitted from the movie. Bill Ferny and Beregond were good inclusions on the list, but Imrahil certainly deserves a mention as well. As for the Palantir, I definitely think these could have done with more screen time in the movie - they explain the oftentimes perplexing amounts of knowledge certain characters have, and also serve to explain why they fall under the influence of the Shadow later on. Of course, the Scouring of the Shire is perhaps the one of the largest omission in the movie, but certainly understandable when considering the already excessive length of The Return of the King already. However, it would certainly have been nice to have this in the extended editions. Also glad they mentioned good ol' Tom Bombadill, can't talk about what was left out of the movies without talking about him. It really is almost criminal how he's been left out of the movies, and only original fans of the books know about him. Movie fans will never know about one of the most mysterious and interesting characters in the world of Middle Earth. All in all, however, I think the omissions made were all, to a certain extent, necessary evils. However much I wish the Scouring of the Shire and the Battle of Bywater were included in the movie, I just have to accept that they aren't. As it is, I still find the movies excellent portrayals of the literary masterpieces of The Lord of the Rings, and and glad they are as good as they are.
I see you included the scene of the Elves going to the Havens, but in the actual book, they encountered a band of Elves, just at the edge of the Shire who were just wandering around, as they sometimes do, not heading to the west (although they did sing longingly of it) In the book they spoke with Frodo, and told him they were aware of his quest. They are the ones who sent word to Elrond that the ring bearer had left the Shire. It was at that time that Elrond sent out only the most powerful of elves at Rivendell (Glorfindal and his two sons were among them) to look for them and try to protect them from the Nazguhl, which he also knew were out and about. So, anyway, the Hobbits and Aragorn meeting with Glorfindal (who had left a "token" of an elfstone on the last bridge before the ford) wasn't an accident. But then, of course, Glorfindal was replaced by Arwen (dumb!) in Peter Jackson's version. No way would Arwen ever be put in such danger as possibly having to face down a Nazguhl.
The elves were not passing thru to the grey heavens... they were coming back from that area heading east. The hobbits traveled east with them for an entire evening.
2 роки тому+7
Guys, we need a Top Ten Stories that Could Be Told in the LOTR Amazon Prime Series.
So Glorfindel somehow doesn’t ring a bell ,the biggest omission . The one who predicts the witch kings demise ,the one who takes Frodo to Rivendell ,pretty much the man the myth ,one of the few elves who could theoretically take on Sauron single-handedly if he didn’t have the ring . Yea that Glorfindel ,somehow that’s escaped mention anywhere . Just wow mojo ,as usually dropping the ball
They sort of merged him in with Arwen, and totally omitted why the anti-witch king daggers matter, and just go with that whole, “No man can beat him” thing, so he gets beaten by a Hobbit and woman.
It has been 15 years since I read those books, I forgot so much. I wish i had time to re read them, but since I went back to college and I work long hours I have hardly any time to myself....
I read the book long before the movies were made. The only scene I ever needed to see was Tom bombadillo. The most powerful creature in all of middle earth and they left him and his wife out. So disappointing.
Lol at "Bombadillo". I haven't even read the books and still know that's not QUITE his name. It's funny though. Like the love child of Tom and Mrs. Armadillo.
I imagine in a (LORD OF THE RINGS) show series, none of the important details of the storyline would get left out, and I imagine none of the important moments would not get edited out, and to add I imagine none of the other characters moments would get edited.
The omissions of the Grey Company / Sons of Elrond, Sam's box of earth from Galadriel's garden, and Imrahil of Dol Amroth ticked me off, but not as much as leaving out The Scouring. The Scouring reveals how the Hobbits have developed, especially Merry and Pippin. Also - Woses - I liked Ghan Buri Ghan and the whole Stonewain Valley section in the books. Heck, why not throw in Bombadil and the Barrow Downs and make four movies?
Mine is a single line, from Bilbo's first meeting of Smaug. They cut my favorite of Bilbo's “lovely titles”: ‘I came from the end of a bag, yet no bag came over me'. I was SO excited to hear it said on the big screen, aaaaaaand… nothing. 😭
I missed the Scouring of The Shire in particular...but if Peter Jackson had put everybody's favorite bits into the movies, he would have needed a 4th installment. I first read LOTR in the early '70's, and I never thought there'd be a movie rendition as good as it was...
In addition to your list, Glorfindel is a prominent character missing from the movies, as are most of the other peoples/ kingdoms who come to Gondor's and Aragorn's aid throughout the books. Leaving out Tom Bombadil is understandable, but I never could understand why the Grey Company/Rangers/Dunedain were left out of the movies.
In my humble opinion, omitting the Scouring of the Shire was a deal breaker. The whole point of the story, shunned because that chapter made Jackson and Walsh uncomfortable. Practically criminal.
JRR Tolkien was a Lt in the British Army at the Battle of the Somme in 1916. The Hobbit was written in the 1930s while the Lord of the Rings was written after the 2nd World War.
While I wish the movies added certain parts from the books, I honestly wish they would've included Gloin at the counsel of Elrond...like even though it was a small (but significant) encounter, it would've made more sense about the hatred between elves and dwarves. For those of us who have seen the movies before reading the books of course...
I’ve just started reading the books and I was so absolutely surprised when Gloin popped up in the books and I really felt like wow missed opportunity in the film!
Perfect timing since I’ve just finished Rewatching the Lord of the rings extended cut Trilogy and The Hobbit extended cut Trilogy not at all in one day of course 😂
Yeah, and Lewis based both the old professor Digory Kirke from The Chronicles of Narnia and Elwin Ransom from The Space Trilogy on his friend Tolkien. People often overlook their friendship like "big deal! They were friends and they both wrote fantasy books, so what!?", but their friendship actually did influenced their respective works and lives as well.
The books are so detailed that putting out a coherent movie is impossible unless they tripled the movie time. The spirit and the essential story was told.
If you read the Hobbit, which I did in school, you knew about all of the subtle references to it in the LOTR trilogy. It was one of my favorite books in middle school.😊
In Bree, when Frodo falls and the rings slips onto his finger, in the books he had just finished reciting a poem, which was clearly what our "Hey Diddle, Diddle" was based on.
I’m still reading lord of the rings atm but my favourite parts that were cut are: 1: The warg attack on the fellowship after Caradhras 2: Escaping the Nazgûl with Glorfindel 3: Additional characters like Tom Bombadil, Fatty Bolger, Glorfindel, Farmer Maggot (I know he’s in the movies but in the books you see another side of him) 4: The orcs and gollum stalking the fellowship along Rauros and the Argonath, even Legolas shooting down one of the Nazgûl dragon things.
Where to begin... Jackson missed the actual character's of the characters from Tolkein - Faramir was much more noble wanting nothing to do with the ring, especially taking to his father, Aragorn was in direct pursuit of his kingship his whole adult life, not avoiding it, Gandalf (and all wizards) were basically angels sent to middle-earth in human form and who also wore a ring of power and could not have been 'bested' by the nazgul king so easily. Did Jackson ever read the books?
If there’s “one thing to rule them all” in the books that didn’t appear in the movies, please tell us in the comments!
Check out our Fantasy Movies & TV Playlist! ua-cam.com/play/PLmZTDWJGfRq1CkSvHDXxpd_LgDk8yX7Ab.html
Very nice😍😍😍
Hello, I am a university student and I am facing great financial difficulties. Please help me
Well.....70% of the books didn't appears in the movies. ..
(Gollum spies on a passing army about midway through the trilogy and reports back to Sam & Frodo.)
SAM: "Did they have any Oliphants with them?"
GOLLUM: "No, no Oliphants. ...what are Oliphants?"
Not a major omission but Andy Serkis coulda had fun with that line. :-)
Denethor says that for Gandalf who saw a lot, he didn't say what he saw or how, but he had a sinister look on his face.
I was sad that the Wild Men of the Woods were left out of ROTK, but I completely understand why they weren’t included. Always thought it was cool how they helped the Rohirrim reach Minas Tirith.
Ghan Buri Ghan is lowkey one of the most interesting characters
The Woses and the Knights of Dol Amroth should have been in
And how Theoden dealt with them as equals. This was most unusual writing from an Englishman in the mid 20th century. He was well ahead of his time. Possibly an aspect which influenced one theme in Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels.
The Broken Sword and Nerd of the Rings make amazing videos about all things Tolkien. If you like the Hobbit and LoTR trilogies, you'll love their channel.
In Deep Geek is another great one. :)
You should check out the channel "Tolkien Untangled"
Men of the West and GeekZone too. All of those channels are actually good friends.
@@echoesofthevoice9570 massive yes to indeepgeek
preach
The LORD OF THE RINGS movies: too much stuff left out
The HOBBIT movies: too much stuff put in
entirely agree.
So true
Perfect comparison
well people will always complain.
if the hobbit was just one movie and didnt show much of the battle at the end then people would complain the battle got no detail in it and is confusing.
What about The ring of power?
Even the Extended cuts left out stuff. These movies would have all been 4-5 hours long if everything was adapted.
But the Extended's were 4 hours long. I couldn't get enough. I think a lot of theses "reactors" watching them don't appreciate them nearly as much as we did. After seeing the theatrical versions a hundred times before. I recognized every new scene immediately and it was great
Less than half than what I'd hoped for
Special extended editions areb4.5 hours each, but I get your point :-)
Have yoy seen tbe extended extended edition? The ones with dvds?
@@eleanorlyndon865 I have the dvd set, had it for years, getting the blu ray ASAP
Other honorable mentions: Glorfindel, Erkenbrand, Prince Imrahil, and the warg attack on the fellowship after coming down off of Caradhras. Also never liked it that they didnt mention Boromir getting a gift from Galadriel.
Imrahil was the best, I always wondered who’d they’d cast if he was included?
Glorfindel missing was so sad but understandable, you would have to cast someone really talented and handsome only to play like 5 minutes
Their daggers from Tom during their time in barrow wight area & with him is also a very important aswell. Since it's really what makes the which king able to be killed
@@A-G-A-GImrahil does appear in the movie, he is a brief cameo. He was the one who told Denethor about the failed atrack on Osgiliath and that everyone died.
@@amordramon22 we don’t know that. He’s never named and doesn’t even wear amroth garb or emblems, clearly dressed as a gondorim soldier. More likely he’s beregond tbh
I’ve literally just started reading the books and my favourite part so far is how Frodo keeps the ring secret from the other Hobbits but then they come forward basically like “yeah we know about the ring” haha made me laugh cause Frodo thought he was super secretive but nah they knew
After you read LOTR, read the Silmarillion, it's an incredible book and talks about the beginnings of that world.
Hah, i was surprised by this too! What a great moment of friendship and addition of depth to the characters relationship. Having seen the movies many times, although not the extended versions, I too have just started reading the books and, having just finished the Tom Bombadil chapter VII, I have never been so captivated :)
Another honorable mention I like is, when Sam has the ring he got the vision to use the rings power to overthrow sauron and claim his lands to make a garden out of mordor.
And Sam is like "Naw that's just silly".
Considering how much content is in the books, I consider it good fortune that the production company gave Jackson enough screen time to include what he did.
👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽Exactly... And also everyone has a budget
Unfortunately he left out legit material and added his own crap. I found it lacking.
@oakmaiden2133 What would you have done differently, without boring your audience and also ensuring the studio had enough faith to give you the necessary screen time
I really disliked that Jackson did not include the return to shire. To me it's one of the most important parts of the story arc. Bringing the Hobbits from weaklings unable to do anything meaningful by themselfs to defending and freeing their home without outside help.
Movie would've been too long. They had to cut certain stuff due to time.
They did kinda include it with Frodo and Sam returning to where Sam finally gets married, but yeah not the same
I guess you don’t count taking the ring to mt doom or uniting the ents to fight saruman anything meaningful…
@@bn-tc2tk they didn't do it by themselves. They needed help from men, elves, wizards and dwarves. And I was talking of the times before the ring quest. All the events you mentioned gave them the confidence and abilities to free the shire by themselves.
the whole kingdom of gondor kneeling they don't pass the message?
I've rewatched the hobbit films lately. They are a lot better than they used to be. Ofcourse LotR is still vastly superior.
I like the story but I always felt like the look of the hobbit movies was kind of weird
"Better than they used to be" Lol have they been updated?
Ok I’ll try the first one again but that CGI…
I felt the same way after watching the Hobbit: EE trilogy, I really enjoyed the movies this go around, a lot more than I did before.
@@AWMK101 you gotta watch them in their new 4K transfers. It's like watching all 6 movies for the first time.
They left Glorfindel out, and so did you. Counted among the mightiest of the Elves, he was entrusted by Elrond himself to look for the Hobbits and help them escape the Black Riders in "The Fellowship of the Ring". In the movies, his role was substituted by that of the Lady Arwen.
This shouldve been #1.
EXACTLY. THATS WHAT IM SAYING
The scouring of the Shire was an important element that I love in the books. It establishes Merry and Pippin as more heroic characters and gives them a nice finish to their arc, it gives a more satisfying ending for Saruman and Wormtongue, and it's an allegory that the world wars on the continent didn't happen in a vacuum and required death and sacrifice from countries outside of the main battlefields (e.g. the UK).
One of my favorite small moments in the books is when Rosie berates Sam for not being with Frodo 'now that things are getting dangerous'.
While I agree with 99% of this post, Tolkien was always adamant that his books were not in any way allegorical. To quote his forward to the second edition to the Lord of the Rings, "I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author."
Fair enough but given return of the king was already over 200 minutes long and I dunno how you could include that in the structure of the film. It’s the same reason why the two towers ends with the battle of helms deep
@@meridellwriter Yeah so maybe allegory is the wrong word, but I think the premise of a peaceful idyllic place getting ravaged by the spillover from a large scale war in the East is impossible not to be seen as related to the World Wars and Britain. Maybe he didn't intend it to but knowing that context it's hard not to draw inferences from the text.
@@michaelnally2841 the extended movie is like 380 minutes if i remember right and that one still didnt have it too. but it be like a mini movie at the end of a big movie so it wouldnt fit it.
One thing they got SO wrong in The Return of the King was that the Witch King of Angmar never entered the White City. He met Gandalf the White at the entrance and was called away by something happening on the field of battle and he NEVER broke Gandalf's staff.
Agreed. I love the movies, but this is one of the most disappointing scenes in the whole series.
to show that the gandalf is not the most powerful being in the world is much deeper.
He also had a mace in the book instead of the flail in the movie.
@@igorbarretoalves976 But it's inaccurate. Gandalf was the strongest entity in the world at the time, with the exception of Sauron of course.
@@jameskorva3925 Tom Bombadil?!?
just can't believe it's been more than 20 years since i saw this on theaters.
Peter Jackson I thought made sense why they didn't include Tom Bombadil. Even though he IS of course in the original story, to have someone who's basically immune to the ring might've counteracted how big a deal it's supposed to be.
It slows down the pace somewhat, though it omits Frodo’s courage in the barrow and the significance of the hobbits’ swords. No blade made by men of later years would have allowed Merry to deal a significant blow to the Witch King.
They could have solved that with one line from the books. At the council of Elrond when its decided that Frodo will take it to Mordor, Tom is suggested as the person to guard it and Gandalf says it's a terrible idea. Basically because he doesnt give a fuck haha.
@@alexandercanella4479 lol right. Always found it funny how he's like, "hmm this is the all powerful ring that can enslave middle Earth and corrupt anyone who holds it? Man, that sucks(hands it back). Here ya go, good luck with that"
@@TheKey304 It's a surprisingly common theme in the series. Even Radagast ignored the duties he was sent to middle earth for even though he held the power to have a positive change.
I hear that the reason why Tom Bombadil was left out was because Peter Jackson thought the parts with him would make the movie too long.
For me the main missing things were: The Old Forest, Tom Bombadil, The Barrow Downs (that is 3 consecutive chapters), plus the Scouring of the Shire.
I have heard a lot of people say that adding these might have made it too long, but my reply is that if they had not added all the extra bits, then there might have been time for the full story as Tolkien wrote it.
Well then you must really "love" Hobbit movies....
In the unabridged audio version I listened to it took nine hours to reach Rivendell. Everything featuring Tom Bombadil just lengthens it for no plot reason.
I wish they made 2 movies for each of the LOTR books. Somehow, they squeezed 3 movies out of the Hobbit, yet the bigger LOTR books only have 1 movie each. Had they had at least 1 more film for each book, I'm sure they would've been able to get a lot more in. Also, I wish that the Hobbit films were made at the same time as the Lord of the Rings, would've made both trilogies, especially the Hobbit ones, better.
@@AverageCommentor I don't think their budget would have permitted the 2 movies, for 1 each.... It would have been great though... And also, remember LOTR took a toll on Peter and others... so I think taking a break and then doing the hobbit probably is what was best for them at the time... We can't say... I just watch and enjoy
@@KIMKRIS1 Also New Line Cinema took a big risk in taking on these movies at the time as they had had a series of flops iirc.
They left out the explanation of why The Battle of Helms deep had to go so hard.
And actually the Elves didnt help the Men in The Battle Of Helms Deep
they couldn't tell about the northern wars, but they needed to show that the elves were also involved.
I can understand not including most of the sing-songy stuff. I feel that would’ve detracted too much from the serious tone that Jackson wanted to achieve for the films
"sing-songy stuff" have you read any literature from the classical or medieval period? "The Iliad" (one of the most serious works of fiction ever) is sung THROUGHOUT, and the medieval period also set its most epic stories to verse. Tolkien, being both a classicist and a medievalist, was bringing this tradition back. There isn't anything grander, more ancient, or more sophisticated than good verse.
I agree. But then I loved the singing of the dwarves at the beginning of The Hobbit, while they are still at Bag End before leaving on their quest!
I think the character I missed the most is actually Imrahil. I would have loved to see the scene where the armies of Gondor arrive in Minas Tirith. The movie gives the impression that Gondor is weak and tiny compared to Rohan.
Others that would have been nice to see are Fatty bolger and the sons of Elrond.
I can totally understand why certain side-characters were left out, like Bombadil, Glorfindel and Ghan-Buri-Ghan.
On the other hand, the movie did right by expanding other characters that needed to be seen more than in the books, like Saruman and Arwen.
The sons of Elrond were in Fellowship. They were sitting on either side of him at the council meeting in Rivendel. They just weren't in Return of the King at the battle of Pelinor Field.
I agree with you 101%, prince Imrahil would be great to see on-screen
Imrahil does appear, though his scene is a cameo. He was the one who told Denethor of the failed attack on Osgiliath where no one,save Faramir, survived
@@amordramon22 Yeah, I know. But it might as well be a random Gondor soldier.
@@amordramon22 I always thought that was Beregond. I doubt that a prince would be wearing a guardsman outfit after all.
So this was kind of mentioned in the video, I just think that this particular scene deserved more acknowledgment.
In The fellowship of the Ring, the scene where they go through moria, there are several things that the movie was very undescript about.
1) when they enter moria, escaping the watcher in the water, the big scary octopus monster by the door, which wasn't named in the movies, boromir made a comment saying this isn't a mine it's a tomb. They then pan to a bunch of dwarvish skeletons on the ground. One of those was Oin. At this point The Hobbit series was not released yet, so if you did not follow the books you really did not know who Oin was, also the fact that he was killed by The watcher in the water was not included in any movie.
When gimli runs into the chamber of Mazarbul and finds Balins coffin, at that point if you did not follow the books, you probably didn't even know who balin was. Also, much like Oin it was never portrayed in the movies but he was killed during a battle of orcs and dwarves in moria.
In the same scene gandalf finds a skeleton holding a book, that was detailing the attack by the orcs. At this time again if you did not follow the books, you probably did not realize that that skeleton holding the book was Ori, the youngest member of thorin's company in The Hobbit series. Once again he was killed in the war of Maria which was never portrayed in the movies.
I wish there had been more thought out into the timeline of the films. 17 years goes by after Bilbos birthday before Frodo leaves the shire. The age gap makes more sense for Sam being subservient to Frodo. You expect Frodo to not age, because he has the ring, but Merry Pippin and Sam were all children at the time of Bilbos birthday, Frodo was 33. I just feel it’s super relevant to the whole story. The books have such a large scope in terms of time, something that can’t be captured on film but you feel when you read the novels.
Yes but the momentum is important. Just putting a "17 years later" message wouldn't have done.
There’s a lot of time reference (all of them?) left out of the movies… I’ve just rewatched them with my husband and was sad that, just before the destruction of the ring, when Sam mentions to Frodo that it’s almost spring again, people who haven’t read the book have no idea that the journey took and entire year. They spent a month in Lothlorien, weeks in Gondor… in the movies it always looks as if they’ve only spent one night. Trouble with keeping all these passing of time out is that the quest seems of least importance. As if it didn’t take too much of all of them…
I'm sure that discussion was had among the film's creators. It just would have dragged the flow down, though, to think that those events took place over decades.
To me, one of the most glaring things they got wrong (and added to the film, although I do not understand why) was Frodo standing on the bridge at Osgiliath, holding the ring at arm's length to the Nazgûl. I was exceptionally annoyed when I saw this in the movie theater. One of the major premises of the book was making this great journey to bring the one ring, in stealth, to Mt Orodruin, to destroy it where it was forged. The battles would have happened MUCH differently if Sauron would have known that the one ring was nearby in Osgiliath, but because of Pippin looking in the palantir taken from Orthanc, Sauron believed the ring was in Rohan and was going to be at Minas Tirith.
Other things that Jackson and his screenwriters royally messed up: Faramir's character (they made him rather despicable, and in the books, he was nobler than Boromir), the witch-king in Minas Tirith confronting Gandalf, the prophecy & the witch-king's destruction (plays back to Merry's enchanted blade breaking the WK's immortality, allowing Eowyn the kill, having originated from the Barrow Downs, which was skipped in the films), the dealings with the Wild Men, the Cleansing of the Shire/Saruman's death, Denethor's madness being caused by another palantir, Aragorn being reluctant/the ill-feelings over Arwen between Elrond & Aragorn /Aragorn being an oathbreaker by killing the Mouth of Sauron, Gollum's struggle at Mt Orodruin & fulfillment of his vow, and lastly, the Elves and Frodo's reasons for leaving Middle Earth being completely glossed over. (I guess for Jackson & Co it was "because reasons".)
There are SO many subplots and details that PJ obviously just didn't get. He said he was a "fan", and although I understand the need for brevity in a story of this massive scale, to me it seems rather obvious in both things omitted from the books, and extempoaneous unnecessary things added to the screenplay, that PJ & screenwriters were casual fans at most.
Since Christopher Lee had read LOTR annually for decades, it is too bad they didn't bother to consult with him on the overall storyline and fine details.
I'm sure they had to do a lot of compromises as well, you don't land such a big deal with a production company with no expectations for a mass blockbuster at all; and I'm sure PJ and the other writers had to take the road most expected by mass audiences on several occasions. HAVING SAID that, I SO TOTALLY agree so much of the points you listed.
1. Faramir taking them to Osgiliath and a NAZGUL seeing Frodo with the FREAKING RING would've spelled doom for them, I was also extremely annoyed by this scene and by Faramir's moral failure at first. I mean I get that PJ wanted to make him a more "complex" character and all, but do not sacrifice making sense in the grander story! And what's more, it made him feel more superficial and fickle, than conflicted.
2. The unnecessary tension between Arwen and Elrond, which was also introduced, I guess, for more conflict and character depth, so so grates my nerves every time I see it. I get that they want to portray a father caring for his daughter and the growing rift between men and elves, BUT. Elrond is so much more than simply a father. He understands love and free choice, and he understands that it is not simply individual, it is fate that requires it for the good of posterity. As a wise being more than 6000 years of age, it really seems a little out of character. His grief is great, but that is in part the doom of the elves, the fading of a world beyond their control, and a main philosophical point in the story - after struggling for thousands of years to maintain what they had, they voluntarily give up power and ties to the world, including loved ones. It is a daunting choice, and a grief beyond imagination for any mortal, yes, but the elves make it with almost superhuman grace, unlike in the movie.
The Houses of Healing, and the growing attraction between Eowyn of Rohan and Faramir as they recuperate from their wounds.
I think this was in the Extended Edition.
You have to add glorfindel in the list or the almost made it. Arguably the most badass Elf in the series.
And Glorfindel fought down a Balrog in the 1st Age at the Siege of Gondinlin (forgive my spelling). Or was that Gil-Galad? Sometimes i get those two mixed up.
@@LagunaShirogane It was Glorfindal. He killed the Balrog, and the Balrog killed him. He killed it on his own, protecting the retreat of his people during the fall of Gondor. I'm not sure but only Gandalf (a Miair) and Glorfindal, an elf, were the only living beings to ever kill a Balrog, on their own, no help from an army.) And both were reincarnated and returned to Middle Earth. Not a common event.
"The Lord of the Rings" are my favorite books, as well as my favorite movies. I find them to be equally outstanding. I think certain aspects of the books are better then the movies. Certain aspects of the films, however, are better then the books.
I knew Tom Bombadil would make the list
The palantir plot with denethor shows much more of denethor’s true character rather than just existing to create his madness. Even using a palantir takes only the strongest of wills and denethor actually could bend it to his will for a while, contesting even the influence Sauron may have had through it. He also wielded it because he truly wanted to ensure he used everything to protect Gondor, he was a good steward in his time, only losing hope at the very end
Agree 100%. Why they didn't have a quick scene with him using the palantir to show that his descent into madness was Saurons doing and not depression/fatalism.
From all of the missing stuff this is the most crucial omission. They literally had only to show an establishing shot that he had one and it would have painted the picture, as we already know a Palantir corrupted Saruman.
@@billstrader4326 exactly lol I'm not sure why they had so many extra shots of Denethor in the extended editions but him holding or showing a past clip of him using a Palantir was too much lol they could've even cheaply placed one in the main hall if they could and maybe even Gandalf could've saw it and the camera could show what he's looking at , just something like that lol. What's even weirder is how much they referencing the Palantiri in all 3 movies lol especially even more with the extended editions in Return of the King. They seemed to have cared bout them so much and would've added more tension as to knowing that they're interacting with someone that has access to another's Palantir . Would've made it very interesting. Or maybe they could've done a twist after he sets himself on fire and tosses himself off the from the top of Minas Tirith, they could've shown a scene where Aragorn and Gandalf or maybe add Faramir to the scene where maybe they explore the back parts of the main hall and that's where they end up finding the Palantir he was using as like a cool "oh shit , I really thought he was a stupid miserable old guy this entire time , now I feel bad for judging him " type of moment. Could've had so many chances to even add it like that as a twist to make us feel bad just like alot of us did with Boromir in the movies . They made him even more better as a charecter in the extended editions. Man I hate that there were so many opportunities lol . Still one of the scenes I wish that would've been added in the extended editions
I agree. It would have been easy to add a scene showing Denethor with the palantir, which would explain his mental deterioration. They added and changed other parts to "streamline" the movie but this would have explained Denethor's downfall.
i have three: the FULL Council of Elrond (for obvious reasons), Tom Bombadil and Goldberry and The Barrow Wrights
You forgot fatty Lumpkin. He's my favorite
I’m kind of glad they left the Tom Bombadil part out. It’s my least favorite part of the book.
I bought The Hobbit and The Lord of the rings books back in the 80's. Still haven't read them though.
Do it they are fantastic
@@ericjohnson7234 I might do that actually. I feel bad that I've seen the movies before reading rhe books. I'm also from New Zealand.
@@KC_Eden Dont worry about it, ive done the same, this might work, forget the movies, then read the books thouroughly thats important, then watch the movies in chronological order, also if you have them play the video games, it fleshes out what your watching. That is my method hope it helps
I got the books one Christmas in the '70s when I was a teenager and read them right then. I told my daughters that they were not to watch the movies (which we have on DVD...extended versions, of course) until after they read the books. It was great because I got to re-watch it with them. In other words...READ THEM!!! LOL
There is a theory that says the Lord of the Rings is the book that most people who have it, haven't read. (I wasn't sure how to phrase that).
If you ever read them and you really love them, I would also recommend the Silmarillion. It is even more epic.
One major thing too was Mordor was actually freezing cold. Only Mount Doom was on fire. Sam and Frodo were usually complaining about how cold it was in the novels.
Glorfindel : more than likely one of the most powerful elves alive during the events of the Trilogy.. in another age and incarnation he fought a balrog alone to defend his people when they were escaping a city under siege. He died in that battle and was sent back by the gods. He is the actual elf they meet on the road going to Rivendell ... does anyone believe that Elrond half elven would risk his beloved daughter on such a dangerous mission? Elrond is also Aragorn's uncle.
What amazed me is how much time they waste on episodes that weren't in the book while ignoring some of the most pivotal moments in the novels.
Elrond is not Aragorns "uncle" he is a very distant relative through his (Elrond) brother who decided to go mortal and became first King of the Dunedain. Not sure how many generations of Dunedain kings between the mortal brother and Aragorn's birth, but way lots of them. A few hundered times removed "great Uncle", maybe? We're talking like 7,050 years, here. Galadriel is Elron's mother in law by way of being his wife's mother, however, and of course, Arwen's grandmother. Elrond would foster the princes of the Dunedain, in order that they might learn wisdom. Aragorn's fostering had the extra special effect of hiding him from Sauron. And why Elrond called him "Elessil", and who he was known as, until Legolas dropped the ball(in the movie) Guess he followed his father's advice from in the Hobbit movie!
I wish Peter Jackson would've incorporated "Battle of Bywater".
Hello, I am a university student and I am facing great financial difficulties. Please help me
Yea merry is even more of a badass in the books and this chapter proved it
@@AhmedMohamed-sj2nr what help do you need?
@@Neags i want some money
@@AhmedMohamed-sj2nr How much?
I understand that the scouring of the shire didn't fit climatically to be put in the movie, but its the most important moment in the book as Tolkien that scene expresses his heart-based feelings on the effects of industrialization.
Man, I'm STILL pissed they left out Tom Bombadil and I will forever be pissed.
Yeah, Tom and Goldberry were Cool
Very disappointing indeed!
Doesn’t add anything to the journey and slows the pace of the film.
I've read the books and watched the movies and in my reading class i had to do a project on the differences between the two there both great though
They're...
@@aretnap3653 thanks
I find his letters equally fascinating.
You're the first person I've seen a comment on that wasn't bitching about the differences. Out of curiosity which one would you prefer if you only had one the movies or the books? I thought they did an awesome job on the movies. I know they took some liberties but they still did a very good job. I like books but I'm more of a visual person. And they paid such attention to detail in the movies Peter Jackson deserves an award in my mind. Like I said I know that changed a few things I would just be curious to know what your opinion is please?
The books although Peter Jackson did a great job bringing the story to life
ooh Sarumans capture of shire is #1 sweet
Missed loads of this list but the biggest missed mention is Glorfindel, who was probably the most important elf who was alive at the time of the war of the ring. He was one of very few people who were ressurected in their life and glowed bright in opposite to the ring wraiths who openly fled him and every opportunity. He pretty much saved middle earth several times. Neither Elrond or Galadriel were as important to the story of middle earth as he was, so to leave him off the list was a massive oversight. Sauron would have actually feared Glorfindel more then he feared Aragorn.
1) when i read LOTR in the seventies, tom bombadil was a central figure for me, like a woodgod, holding things together. 2) changing the end of the story from a devastated shire to an untouched funland destroyed the whole movie-experience for me.
Glorfindel, one of the oldest elves in Middle Earth aside from Galadriel. One of the few elves in Middle Earth to see the light of the trees, which is why (in the books) Glorfindel appears bright to Frodo as he was fading from the Nazgul blade and is able to "see the unseen" or see the nazgul and they fear him. He's killed a balrog while sacrificing himself to save many elves of Gondolin and has been reincarnated afterward. Also, was the elf to tell the Witch King of the prophecy of how he would die many years before the books.
Not much significance in the War of the Ring, but a very heavy character that wasn't even mentioned.
If Jackson's trilogy included all of the songs and poems, the movies could have been considered to be musicals.
If they wanted to keep all of the content from the books, the three movies could have been turned into three expensive mini-series (that likely wouldn't have recouped the expense of making them).
I'd vote for an honourable mention to Faramir as a character because whoever that dude is on screen, they might as well have changed his name for all he had in common with book Faramir. Also I think it's deceptive to call The Scouring of the Shire "near" the end of the book, it is the book's actual ending which the movie changed.
In the books the Rangers (the last descendents of Numenor) traveled with Aragorn through the paths of the dead and arrived at Minas Tirith instead of the army of ghosts (who left as soon as the ships with black sails had been captured). I get that alot was cut for time, but the books were much better written than 'a bunch of ghosts show up out of nowhere and solve everything' like they did in the film.
I see Gandalf first thing! So got to commit to the whole video
Tom Bombadil, Goldberry, Barrowdowns, Beregond, Glorfindel to name a few but conspicuous by its absence, 'the scouring of the shire.'
From all the things left out, the Scouring of the Shire is the one I wish most that they had left in. Would have been awesome to see more of the hobbits.
Also, for no. 10, off the top of my head I can remember the hobbits passing from the stone trolls area and Gandalf mentioning Thorin in Moria in the extended FOTR.
This may be a suprise but i actually didn't care that much for the scouring of the Shire. I appreciate what Tolkien was trying to say with it but it always felt anti-climactic to me. It's like, everything the hobbits went trough, the entire reason they took on the journey to save the Shire, was almost all for nothing. I'm glad they cut it out because in the context of a traditional cinematic story, it would feel even more like an anti-climax.
I stopped reading the books at that point. I was done
Same. I’m glad it wasn’t in the films. But they should’ve filmed the Hobbit movies first, just so there could actually be references and returning characters in the LOTR movies...like the news of Dain Ironfoot and the king of Dale falling in the Battle of Dale, for instance.
On number four, for things in the book.. I think referring to Galadriel's abilities as "magical" would get you either a slightly perplexed look or a gentle rebuke from the Lady in question. In the book, she specifically mentions that she's not sure what the hobbits mean by the word, as they use it both for the powers of the elves and the "devices of the enemy". To the elves, it's simply a form of crafting, putting their thought into being quickly and completely.
Most people don't realize that Radnagast can travel through space and time in a blue box.
And that Gandalf can control metals. And Saruman is now a Sith Lord...
@@Paulafan5 I personally think McCoy is a very underrated Dr. Who. I've always enjoyed his episodes and was really he came back for the Movie in the 90s.
I love how you used the clips from "Fellowship of the Ring" video game. So much nostalgia!
Sam was truly the only “average” person in the fellowship. The other hobbits come from prominent families. Aragorn is the heir of Isildur. Legolas is the son of an elf king. Gimili comes from the line of Durin and is a cousin of the line’s current head. And Gandalf is an angel incarnate.
You forgot Boromir, being the son of the Stewart of Gondor as well as a captain for its army.
But Sam turned out to be the greatest of them all.
Sam was the real hero.
The omission of battles in other places in Middle Earth was a stupid point. The reason such battles were omitted was because in the books, they were only mentioned in passing - we aren't actually told anything about the events of these battles at Lothlorien, the Lonely Mountain, etc. hence they were omitted from the movie. Bill Ferny and Beregond were good inclusions on the list, but Imrahil certainly deserves a mention as well. As for the Palantir, I definitely think these could have done with more screen time in the movie - they explain the oftentimes perplexing amounts of knowledge certain characters have, and also serve to explain why they fall under the influence of the Shadow later on.
Of course, the Scouring of the Shire is perhaps the one of the largest omission in the movie, but certainly understandable when considering the already excessive length of The Return of the King already. However, it would certainly have been nice to have this in the extended editions.
Also glad they mentioned good ol' Tom Bombadill, can't talk about what was left out of the movies without talking about him. It really is almost criminal how he's been left out of the movies, and only original fans of the books know about him. Movie fans will never know about one of the most mysterious and interesting characters in the world of Middle Earth.
All in all, however, I think the omissions made were all, to a certain extent, necessary evils. However much I wish the Scouring of the Shire and the Battle of Bywater were included in the movie, I just have to accept that they aren't. As it is, I still find the movies excellent portrayals of the literary masterpieces of The Lord of the Rings, and and glad they are as good as they are.
How about 10 things the movies added that weren’t in the books? Like, freaking elves at Helm’s Deep!!!
Because as we all know there was only one Elf at Helm's Deep
they couldn't tell about the northern wars, but they needed to show that the elves were also involved.
As much as I love the songs and poems in the books, some of them were several pages long, and I can definitely see why they would leave them out
I wished they weren't in the book
Bombadil’s exclusion was wise, too, because he utterly hijacks and briefly derails the narrative thrust with over a chapter of his tomfoolery.
I see you included the scene of the Elves going to the Havens, but in the actual book, they encountered a band of Elves, just at the edge of the Shire who were just wandering around, as they sometimes do, not heading to the west (although they did sing longingly of it) In the book they spoke with Frodo, and told him they were aware of his quest. They are the ones who sent word to Elrond that the ring bearer had left the Shire. It was at that time that Elrond sent out only the most powerful of elves at Rivendell (Glorfindal and his two sons were among them) to look for them and try to protect them from the Nazguhl, which he also knew were out and about. So, anyway, the Hobbits and Aragorn meeting with Glorfindal (who had left a "token" of an elfstone on the last bridge before the ford) wasn't an accident. But then, of course, Glorfindal was replaced by Arwen (dumb!) in Peter Jackson's version. No way would Arwen ever be put in such danger as possibly having to face down a Nazguhl.
This was when Gildor named Frodo, Elf-friend.
I always thought they didn't include Tom Bombadil in the movies because of the part where he tells the hobbits to run around naked haha.
Tom Bombadil, Goldberry, Old Man Willow, Ghan-Buri-Ghan, Farmer Maggot, Glorfindel.
Frodo's dreams were cut. In the books it seems that either the ring is allowing Frodo to see things far away, or Gandalf is sending psychic visions.
The elves were not passing thru to the grey heavens... they were coming back from that area heading east. The hobbits traveled east with them for an entire evening.
Guys, we need a Top Ten Stories that Could Be Told in the LOTR Amazon Prime Series.
So Glorfindel somehow doesn’t ring a bell ,the biggest omission . The one who predicts the witch kings demise ,the one who takes Frodo to Rivendell ,pretty much the man the myth ,one of the few elves who could theoretically take on Sauron single-handedly if he didn’t have the ring . Yea that Glorfindel ,somehow that’s escaped mention anywhere . Just wow mojo ,as usually dropping the ball
They sort of merged him in with Arwen, and totally omitted why the anti-witch king daggers matter, and just go with that whole, “No man can beat him” thing, so he gets beaten by a Hobbit and woman.
It has been 15 years since I read those books, I forgot so much. I wish i had time to re read them, but since I went back to college and I work long hours I have hardly any time to myself....
I read the book long before the movies were made. The only scene I ever needed to see was Tom bombadillo. The most powerful creature in all of middle earth and they left him and his wife out. So disappointing.
Me too! ❤
Lol at "Bombadillo". I haven't even read the books and still know that's not QUITE his name. It's funny though. Like the love child of Tom and Mrs. Armadillo.
I imagine in a (LORD OF THE RINGS) show series, none of the important details of the storyline would get left out, and I imagine none of the important moments would not get edited out, and to add I imagine none of the other characters moments would get edited.
Hello, I am a university student and I am facing great financial difficulties. Please help me
Frodo and Bilbo at the elves scene:
_Everyone fearing a heart attack..._
The omissions of the Grey Company / Sons of Elrond, Sam's box of earth from Galadriel's garden, and Imrahil of Dol Amroth ticked me off, but not as much as leaving out The Scouring. The Scouring reveals how the Hobbits have developed, especially Merry and Pippin. Also - Woses - I liked Ghan Buri Ghan and the whole Stonewain Valley section in the books. Heck, why not throw in Bombadil and the Barrow Downs and make four movies?
The movies still are a joy to watch time after time. There is an epic journey to be a part of with each viewing.
Mine is a single line, from Bilbo's first meeting of Smaug. They cut my favorite of Bilbo's “lovely titles”: ‘I came from the end of a bag, yet no bag came over me'. I was SO excited to hear it said on the big screen, aaaaaaand… nothing. 😭
I missed the Scouring of The Shire in particular...but if Peter Jackson had put everybody's favorite bits into the movies, he would have needed a 4th installment. I first read LOTR in the early '70's, and I never thought there'd be a movie rendition as good as it was...
The extended ending is part of what make the Return of the King so great. It answers a lot of questions.
I guess y’all forgot Glorfindel too. 🙁
7:43 ah yes,barrow downs,one of my faved places in early lotro for being left out off the films...also old forest and bombadil. :)
Glorfindel is a major omission. His role was given to Arwen, who barely appears in the books.
I was so sad that Tom Bombadil and the scouring of the shire was left out.
Glorfindlel is missing one of the most powerful Elfs, he got replaced by Arwen in some scenes
Glorfindel, the houses of healing, the real coronation of Aragorn, Eowyn and Faramir’s wedding, Aragorn and Arwen’s wedding…
The title should have been "Top 10 things that The Lord of the Rings MOVIES left out" to make it more clear.
In addition to your list, Glorfindel is a prominent character missing from the movies, as are most of the other peoples/ kingdoms who come to Gondor's and Aragorn's aid throughout the books. Leaving out Tom Bombadil is understandable, but I never could understand why the Grey Company/Rangers/Dunedain were left out of the movies.
They also cutted the most badass character in all Tolkien works, Glorfindel the golden
In my humble opinion, omitting the Scouring of the Shire was a deal breaker.
The whole point of the story, shunned because that chapter made Jackson and Walsh uncomfortable.
Practically criminal.
JRR Tolkien was a Lt in the British Army at the Battle of the Somme in 1916. The Hobbit was written in the 1930s while the Lord of the Rings was written after the 2nd World War.
The books also had Frodo give Sam Bag End where as the Film had Sam return to a normal Hobbit house when Frodo left with the Elves!
Glorfindel,a huge fan favorite.
While I wish the movies added certain parts from the books, I honestly wish they would've included Gloin at the counsel of Elrond...like even though it was a small (but significant) encounter, it would've made more sense about the hatred between elves and dwarves. For those of us who have seen the movies before reading the books of course...
I’ve just started reading the books and I was so absolutely surprised when Gloin popped up in the books and I really felt like wow missed opportunity in the film!
Perfect timing since I’ve just finished Rewatching the Lord of the rings extended cut Trilogy and The Hobbit extended cut Trilogy not at all in one day of course 😂
When you're referring to "in the films", are you including the dvd/blu-ray deleted scenes/extended cuts of the films? Or just theatrical releases?
Beregond was one of my favorite characters in the book.
Same here, had a cat named after him.
Fun fact: Entish speech was modeled after Tolkien’s close friend CS Lewis
Yeah, and Lewis based both the old professor Digory Kirke from The Chronicles of Narnia and Elwin Ransom from The Space Trilogy on his friend Tolkien.
People often overlook their friendship like "big deal! They were friends and they both wrote fantasy books, so what!?", but their friendship actually did influenced their respective works and lives as well.
The books are so detailed that putting out a coherent movie is impossible unless they tripled the movie time. The spirit and the essential story was told.
While I enjoyed the films, I was disappointed that Tom Bombadill was left out; one of the most intriguing characters of the whole tale.
Lord of the rings 1 for ps2 was dope. Escaping the shire from the ring wraths was actually pretty scary
That game was really sweet, enjoyed it immensely!!
I loved growing up watching these films and as an adult I love the books
If you read the Hobbit, which I did in school, you knew about all of the subtle references to it in the LOTR trilogy. It was one of my favorite books in middle school.😊
Denethor did not "fall under Sauron's influence." It was the act of resisting his influence that drove him mad.
I think the intent is that Sauron could dictate what Denethor could see, and at times distort it, with the object being to drive Denethor to despair.
In Bree, when Frodo falls and the rings slips onto his finger, in the books he had just finished reciting a poem, which was clearly what our "Hey Diddle, Diddle" was based on.
I’m still reading lord of the rings atm but my favourite parts that were cut are:
1: The warg attack on the fellowship after Caradhras
2: Escaping the Nazgûl with Glorfindel
3: Additional characters like Tom Bombadil, Fatty Bolger, Glorfindel, Farmer Maggot (I know he’s in the movies but in the books you see another side of him)
4: The orcs and gollum stalking the fellowship along Rauros and the Argonath, even Legolas shooting down one of the Nazgûl dragon things.
Would have loved to see Glorfindel
Where to begin... Jackson missed the actual character's of the characters from Tolkein - Faramir was much more noble wanting nothing to do with the ring, especially taking to his father, Aragorn was in direct pursuit of his kingship his whole adult life, not avoiding it, Gandalf (and all wizards) were basically angels sent to middle-earth in human form and who also wore a ring of power and could not have been 'bested' by the nazgul king so easily. Did Jackson ever read the books?
Lord of the rings is still amazing. I wouldn't mind each movie being 5 hours fuck it in MAKE TOLKIEN GREAT AGAIN