I have just finished reading through The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolken. Even the final appendix at the back of the last book, although I doubt I will be able to speak and write in Elvish or the Black Speech. I have to say, that reading the books was probably much more enjoyable now that I am older and can understand it far better than when I was in Middle School.
But looking back on the movies, I am wondering why certain key things were left out of them. I do believe that Peter Jackson did an excellent job overall. He captured the world perfectly, he got most of the story correct, and he did not screw up the main plot. But there were several things I think that could have been done to keep the story more in line with the book and still be enjoyable:
- The character of Tom Bombadil was left out because he apparently does little to advance the story. It is a shame, though, that some people would think that considering it was because of Tom Bombadil that Merry was able to kill the Lord of the Nazgul in the third movie. If Tom Bombadil had not aided them when they were captured by the Barrow-Wight as they traveled to Rivendell, then they would not have the weapons that were specifically forged to deal with the Witch-King of Angmar. The books have a long series of strange coincidences that appear to be pre-ordained and while the film captures the significant ones, the minor ones such as these are left out.
- The relationship between Arwen and Aragorn was not so tumultuous and did not have to be. In the books, Aragorn was told by Elrond that he must reclaim the lost kingdom of the Dunedain in order to have Arwen’s hand in marriage. While Elrond feared that Arwen would not be able to endure the Gift of Men (as it was called), he did not purposely and intentionally stop her from following her heart. In fact, this proved to be motivation for Aragorn to become the king he was suppose to be. Instead, we get this weak-willed character who is uncertain of his future with an elf lord who only motivates him late in the films. If Peter Jackson wanted to show us the dynamic of their relationship, then he could have had a simple flashback with Aragorn explaining his motivations. Also, it is not mentioned in those books, or the films, but Aragorn was the distant nephew of Elrond, seeing as how he was descended from Elros, Elrond’s brother. Read The Silmarillion for more information on that subject.
- When Aragorn takes the Paths of the Dead, he does so not only with Legolas and Gimli, but with Elrond’s sons, Elladan and Elrohir and a group of the Dunedain, his own people. The Dead Men of Dunharrow are used only to overtake the Corsairs and then Aragorn commands a large group of men of Gondor, now combined with his own forces and he heads to Minas Tirith. The depiction of them in the film was terrible and very anti-climatic.
- Peter Jackson did not really use a lot of men for the armies of Sauron or Saruman. Orcs and trolls were only a part of the minions he had, he also employed armies of men. The only evil men he depicted in the film were the Oliphant riders and the Mouth of Sauron. In the book, Tolken makes it clear that it was not just orcs but men who were in the armies of Sauron and Saruman. While orcs were probably the majority of of his minions, and they came from multiple tribes, the legions of men were nothing to scoff at.
- Saruman was depicted as an outright minion of Sauron, when in the books, he was only pretending to serve Sauron until he could get his hands on the One Ring. His ultimate goal was to forge a ring of power for himself that would make him a power as great, if not greater, than Sauron. He was also cloaked with a robe that changed colors and thus called himself Saruman the Many Colored. His treachery had been going on for a much longer time in the books as well, and he bred his own orcs (since orcs were not spawned like in the movie) and even cross-bred them with men creating Half-orcs. The latter hybrids were used as spies primarily, although later on in the books, they are used to enslave the hobbits (I will get to that). Ultimately, his death was not well done either in the films, as the books depicts him being given several chances for redemption but ultimately being killed by his own design.
- The scouring of the Shire was left out. This I can forgive, as it really does seem a little anti-climatic, but it was a story that tied up some loose ends that Tolken hinted at throughout the earlier novels. It really was a good story and I felt that it showed just how much the four hobbits had grown up and that the hobbits of the Shire no longer needed the rangers to protect them. It also was a great exploration in the rise of tyranny.
There is more I could elaborate on, but I think you should read the books for yourself. You will find a much fuller and richer description of a world created by Tolken. I do not think that there ever was any other work of fiction that portrayed such a complete setting, right down to varying languages and culture. It is incredible that one man could have such a complete depiction of a fantasy world and it is a shame that such a person is so rare. But that is what makes his works so fantastic. Ultimately, I am glad that Peter Jackson was able to portray them on the big screen so well, despite my minor grievances. And he did it without the slapstick gore he was known for previously.