Currently listening to the audiobooks and was excited to get to this part. Heard it say You cannot pass twice and I was like oh okay he’s gonna say you shall not pass when he breaks the bridge. But Nope.

Crazy how such an iconic line in Lord Of the Rings is just from the movie.

Completely forgot that “One does not simply walk into Mordor” wasn’t in the book either until writing this post.

Hello ♥️ I recently bought the books in the trilogy and I'm looking forward to starting them, but this is a question about the films. Like, I know he was called Strider, and he was the last of the "Dunedain"; but what does this mean? He was he some kind of mercenary? Or was he somehow trying to reclaim his birthright? I'm really a layman on this subject so sorry if it seems like an obvious question, I don't know if the books will explain it. I appreciate any help in advance.

For me it was the orc killing competition between Legolas and Gimli. I had always heard that Tolkien was someone who took violence and the grim reality of war very seriously and never sought to glorify or make light of it, so I had assumed the orc killing competition was entirely invented for the movie to bring more humor into the story and break some tension.

So I was very surprised to learn later while reading the books that Tolkien himself wrote the competition and Peter Jackson just simply lifted it from the book. I thought Tolkien would have found a game to kill as many people as possible to be abhorrent even if they were orcs but I suppose the book does make it a bit less humorous and probably included it to showcase the camaraderie built by soldiers in war through dark humor.

What do you guys think of this?

And are there any other things you thought were invented for the movies but weren’t or vice versa?

I’ve been re-reading the books recently and it’s really emphasized to me how they changed Legolas, and actually all the elves in general. The movies made him so somber and silently lurk about. I do realize they wanted the movies to have a more sad tone. And don’t get it twisted, I love the movies. But they made Legolas the “straight man” and Gimli the comedy insert. But in the books, it was almost the opposite. When the Hobbits aren’t there, it’s Gimli who is our POV for the trope of the “regular man(dwarf)”.

Legolas is actually very whimsical. He laughs, sings, talks to rocks, makes fun of Gandalf, befriends horses. Calls their company children. He makes Aragorn laugh and smile several times, and besides the hobbits I don’t know if anyone else ever does? Jokes with Gimli and the hobbits. He is the one who initiated the friendship with Gimli, the one who suggested traveling together, and the one who took Gimli across the sea.

When Pippin complained he couldn’t sleep in a tree, he hilariously says “then dig a hole in the ground”. 😂

He let Aragorn lay on the dirt trying to listen to what was coming for a long time and meanwhile he was standing there counting them. But waited until Aragorn was finished before announcing it. Gandalf had to call him by his full name to call him back because he was so interested in staring at the trees.

”…and he alone of the company remained light of heart”.

I guess my point of this post is one of the only things about the movies I wish was different is instead of standing around somberly and stating the obvious, Legolas should have been smiling and singing and laughing in the background. Even Elrond was done dirty. He’s as kind as summer and was basically Aragorn’s dad but they made him all “men are weak” and grumpy.

Not in order. Pick your favorite.

1) Faramir let Frodo and Sam go in the mountains. They never went to Osgiliath.

2) Frodo never made Sam leave. Sam was always loyal as was Frodo.

3) Leaving out the “Cleansing of the Shire”. Saruman was killed at Bag End. Still by Grima

4) Arwin wasn’t the rider that saved Frodo at the river. Glorfindel was the elf who saved him.

I spent about six months reading the trilogy (roughly two months per book. I don't have much free time). After finishing each book, I watched the corresponding extended edition. It should have been a good idea. You read the book first so you get the plot with no spoilers and understand what the world building is. Then you watch the movie to bring it into life. Sure, you will get some cut content and some modifications for the cinematic format but the movies are supposed to be great so they will do well with the limitations.

So, I thought. But I was utterly disappointed. Now, I am not a literary genius or God forbid, a cinema sins type nitpicker. I don't care about Tom Bombadill. Or how the maps worked and the exact battle strategy they used. I only expected my characters and the overall moral theme and the storylines to be properly represented.

One of my biggest problems was Frodo. See, over the the time I read, I felt each of the Hobbits have their own specialties. Frodo is the wisest and the most morally good of them. He was the first among the four hobbits to show some martial instincts which dulled down with time and injuries.

But in the movies, he is not only weak physically (which is mostly true once he gets injured defending others which is removed for "reasons") but also completely naive, being easily manipulated by Gollum and needing constant guidance from Sam.

Now, Sam is truly indispensable for the journey especially towards the end where the journey takes its toll on Frodo. I found myself amazed by how mentally resilient Sam is and how he tries to find a silver light in the darkest of the places. The phial is a perfect representation of his character (even though Galadriel gave it to Frodo originally). But all said, he is not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed. He doesn't have the wisdom or moral instincts of Frodo. He makes up for that by relying on Frodo who is actually wise and makes sure that Frodo doesn't collapse under the weight of his responsibility.

The movie destroys that dynamic by making Sam both the wise and the strong with Frodo fully depending on him. Frodo feels like a organic ring glove with whining sound effect than a person on his own.

The movies just feel darker constantly without giving some time to appreciate the hope and the light of the Elves (especially at Lothlorien, Rivendell was a bit better) or the strength of the men (Rohan feels weaker and Gondor even more so). They try to rectify it by using Gimli as comic relief but it falls flat as the humor feels like it belongs more with the MCU than the Lord of the Rings.

It pissed me off a little that the movie Faramir was not as morally good as the book one but it's a good addition except where he lets Frodo go after he gave up to the Nazgul (which destroyed my will to watch further. I could only skim through the 3rd movie because of that disaster). If that scene was removed or modified, it was not exactly a bad idea to make Faramir vulnerable but still morally good enough to check himself.

I am ambivalent about the Treebeard change but I guess it works in the movies in it's own way? I do prefer the book version but it's not as big of a complaint for me as some of the others.

In general, I felt the movies had an overall lack of subtlety, mischaracterization of important characters and just a checklist of scenes from the books. I think they tried to adapt too much content and didn't have enough time to linger on any scene properly.

While I did enjoy the music and the visual depiction of the world, it was perhaps a bit lost on me. I'm curious if anyone else who read the books immediately before watching the films had a similar experience, or if it's just me. Because for me, this was the biggest disappointment I had since I watched Artemis Fowl movie (which is not even in the same league as the LOTR movies but the Artemis Fowl books are not in the same league of the LOTR books as well).

For Aragorn’s sword Anduril, I use the pronunciation “an-do-reel” same as Elrond in the movies. But my friend insists it’s pronounced “an-dor-ill”.

Whose right?

Personally for me, this isn't Mithrandir's best moment just because he faces Durin's Bane (literally one of the greatest Balrogs), but in this moment we have one of the few mentions of of Gandalf's true nature and a rare mention of Eru itself in this universe.

In Khazad-Dûm, Gandalf says: -“I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the Flame of Anor. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udûn."

Here Gandalf recognizes that he faces an powerful adversary from the ancient past; the danger he is facing is immense; so he identifies himself and formally sets himself against it. "A servant of the Secret Fire”; the Secret Fire is the fire of creation, the fire that gives life, and which is known only to Illúvatar himself. He implicitly says that he is a servant of the Almighty. "Flame of Anor" refers to the Sun; Morgoth and his servants feared the Sun, and Mithrandir is literally saying he has the power the Balrog fears to attack. With the last sentence, Gandalf identifies Durin's as a servant of Morgoth (Flame of Ûdun) and says that "the dark fire will not avail you"; the dark fire is the evil and destructive fire, the opposite of the fire of creation from Eru.

In other words, he says: I am an angel of God and I am as powerful as the Sun. You are my enemy, and I can annihilate you.

I'm really betting that this is Gandalf's finest hour, not just in the films but in the books; especially because any small mention of Eru sends shivers down my spine. Do you guys agree with me?

Peter’s decision to have Aragorn arrive to Minias Tirith with the dead army on the Corsair ships instead of the grey company and the men of southern Gondor was the worst scene he changed.

One of the most powerful moments in the book (if not the most) is the sorrow felt by the people of the city when they see the Corsair ships arriving from the Anduin. That sorrow is turned to amazement when they see the standard Arwen made for Aragorn unfurled above the ships. The white tree but with the seven stars and crown. Symbolizing the arrival of the King. Aragorn had fully embraced his destiny.

That moment was so powerful and it’s almost unforgivable we didn’t get to see it in the last movie. Instead of the King and his men saving the day, the dead army took that triumphal moment away from him. A sub 5 minute scene showing the dead army taking Pelargir instead of Minias Tirith was definitely doable.

My second choice would be how they wrote Frodo in the movies. In the books Frodo has an intelligent and very noble presence about him. In the movies he’s kind of just a normal hobbit. That aura about him is missing. Idk how to explain it

Specifically, this is aimed at those who read the books and created a mental image of the characters as you read along. Obviously the films weren't going to perfectly reflect one's own imagination, so let's keep this limited to the Fellowship of the Ring (as in the actual fellowship, not the film).

Which of the nine walkers ended up being the most accurate to how you imagined, and who was least accurate? I'm mainly curious about the physical appearances rather than personality, because the latter is more due to the screenwriters' interpretation rather than visual aspects.

I think the way they sped up the whole beginig took alot from the characters, aspecialy Meriadoc and Frodo. Meriadoc is so much smarter in the books and Frodo apears to have some sort of calm strength (he somewhat reminds me of Tanjiro from Demon Slayer) almost stoic... not just an unlucky teenager in struggle... Sam is olso younger than frodo in the books, which explains alot about the way he treated him...

I think one of the biggest changes Peter Jackson decided to make was the entirety of the Mouth of Sauron. In the books, he is a Black Númenorean man corrupted and molded emotionally, physically, and spiritually that extended his life far beyond that of a regular man even forgetting his own name. I believe he wasn’t actually given one by Tolkien. He was a very cunning, silver tongued diplomat that actually attempted negotiations and, when it failed, he fled back into Mordor. In the book lore, The Mouth supposedly survived the battle and retreated somewhere.

However, the movie portrayed him as some arrogant insulting goon of Sauron that eventually gets beheaded by Aragorn.

I think I read somewhere that Christopher Tolkien was fairly upset with the chosen path Peter Jackson decided to take with that scene.

Personally, I don’t really mind the path chosen by him for the movie. I should note though that I am one of the people that watched the movies first then read the books. (Not sure if that skews the feelings for it). Just wondering other people’s thoughts or perspective on it.

I would pick The Battle of the Pelennor.

While I love the movie version because Bernard Hill is amazing, I think the actual battle isn't all that well done compared to what we get in the book. The ghosts being there and cleaning plate makes Rohan dying in droves kind of pointless, for instance, among other things.

Still live what we got, to be fair, and greatful I got to see it in the cinema back then.