Pattertwigs Pal, I said I had not noticed any changes during the movie. I did not say that I did not notice any changes when I reread the book afterward, because I did.

For example:
#1 Frodo and Sam never pass through Osgiliath, nor is Faramir the same personality as the book Faramir. The reason PJ did what he did in changing it was because of the changes in the timeline between TTT and ROTK. TTT the book ends with The Voice of Saruman and Shelob's Lair; but the filmmakers knew it would be more 'conclusive' for TTT the movie to end with Helm's Deep as the climax. Thus, Saruman was moved to the third film, and consequently, Frodo never goes into Shelob's Lair until halfway through ROTK. Because of the change in the time line here, PJ said that 'Faramir had to pose more of an obstacle for Frodo and Sam.'
#2 Eomer was in the battle of Helm's Deep, he did not come in the end; Aragorn promised him 'that this would be the hour in which we raise swords together.' Am I correct here? I also seem to remember that Aragorn fought off in the defense of the front door of Helm's Deep alone...or maybe Gimli and Legolas were both with him. Either way, it was not just Aragorn and Gimli.
#3 The Elves never come to Helm's Deep. I didn't read up on this particular part, so it's my opinion when I say that it seems to me PJ added it kind of to create emotion in the last stand. 'Now Elves and Men will fight together once more.'
#4 Aragorn of course never falls over the cliff. This seems stereotypical to me (because it's like "duh, Aragorn's way too important to get lost now!); they must have wanted to put more emotion into it again as well as find a way for one of the main characters to see Saruman's army approaching.
#5 in ROTK, of course Frodo and Gollum never have a fight on the edge of Mount Doom. Gollum loses his balance and falls. They didn't want Frodo to 'push' Gollum over the edge because it would have looked like he was killing [Gollum]. Still, it seems like the climax to have Sam telling Frodo to 'reach,' even if I don't understand why Frodo would want to let go anyway. It's kind of a replay of Frodo saving Sam.

All I have been saying in all of my defense of the filmmakers is that I think they had legitimate reasons for adding in certain elements that they did. Actually, I am all for keeping movies close to books; but I think people need to look and see why the filmmakers did what they did. They sometimes have very legitimate reasons, even though I have stated many times that wisewoman and johobbit do too.

*leaves to cool off for a while*

Pattertwigs Pal, I said I had not noticed any changes during the movie. I did not say that I did not notice any changes when I reread the book afterward, because I did.

I didn't mean to imply this at all , and I hope I didn't seem to be yelling. I am really sorry if I offend you. The point I was trying to make is that the changes seemed so glaring to me that I was surprised that anyone who had read the books could not notice them. *realizes after thinking about it, that her family who has read the Chronicles of Narnia didn't notice some "glaring" changes* I was just trying to present another view.

All I have been saying in all of my defense of the filmmakers is that I think they had legitimate reasons for adding in certain elements that they did. Actually, I am all for keeping movies close to books; but I think people need to look and see why the filmmakers did what they did.

I'm working on trying to understand why the changes were made, but it almost seems to be like I'm selling out on my views if I understand why changes are made. Really though, I'm a lot better than I was in the past. I need to work on convincing myself that I can understand why they changed things without agreeing with the changes. Also, it will probably be harder for me to understand where film makers are coming from because I watch very few movies.

*leaves to cool off for a while*

I hope this isn't because of anything I said. I'm very sorry if it is.

I was just trying to present another view.

I know, me too. Your view is very correct! I truly mean this when I say it. When you say that Aragorn is weaker, you're certainly right and the movies made some changes that I really don't like (Gandalf being defeated by the Witch-King, f.e.). Aragorn being beaten by the Palantir is something I don't get either.

I'm working on trying to understand why the changes were made, but it almost seems to be like I'm selling out on my views if I understand why changes are made. Really though, I'm a lot better than I was in the past. I need to work on convincing myself that I can understand why they changed things without agreeing with the changes. Also, it will probably be harder for me to understand where film makers are coming from because I watch very few movies.

Actually, I don't either! I just watch movies like Narnia, LOTR and Eragon and then I do continuous analyzing. I do too much online research. *raises eyebrow at self* I'm actually very loyal to book-versions myself; I rant and rant over Prince Caspian, which underwent a complete restructuring. I know a lot of the reasons why the filmmakers changed what they did and I can see what they're saying about PC, but I don't like it. I like the movie now, it's very exciting, but I don't like how it "turned out from the book"...if you get my drift?

We all are different and have different views. It's good of you to defend Aragorn because the movies are supposed to be the books come to life, in my opinion, and I can see what you are saying. Book-Aragorn is the best (but I think he's cool in the movie too).

I promise I will read the books again soon and see if I can find more of the doubt and emotional insecurity and stuff that you mentioned. If I do it any time soon, I'll let you know if I feel any differently. One last time: you have very legitimate views, and I agree with them.

I hope this was conciliatory. It's probably time to get to the positives.
I hope this straightens everything out I must be too touchy; I'll try to loosen up because it is so easy for me to read into other people's writing.

Maybe something like this: Which one is everyone's favorite book and why?

Actually, I don't either! I just watch movies like Narnia, LOTR and Eragon and then I do continuous analyzing. I do too much online research. *raises eyebrow at self* I'm actually very loyal to book-versions myself; I rant and rant over Prince Caspian, which underwent a complete restructuring. I know a lot of the reasons why the filmmakers changed what they did and I can see what they're saying about PC, but I don't like it. I like the movie now, it's very exciting, but I don't like how it "turned out from the book"...if you get my drift?

I'm being to think we are a lot alike. I do the continuous analyzing too but without the online research. I feel exactly like you do about PC, although I liked it from the start just not as much as I would have if they had be closer to the book.

We all are different and have different views. It's good of you to defend Aragorn because the movies are supposed to be the books come to life, in my opinion, and I can see what you are saying. Book-Aragorn is the best (but I think he's cool in the movie too).

Very true again. I really do like the movies. (which by the way is a miracle because my family had to do a lot of convincing to get be to even watch them. I had this idea firmly planted in my mind that all movies rated PG-13 or higher were evil (I mostly still have that idea but LotR is an exception. Actually maybe "evil" is too strong. What I mean is "not good for me because I do not like swearing, excessive violence (bombs, wars with guns), horror movies, etc.").

I must be too touchy; I'll try to loosen up because it is so easy for me to read into other people's writing.

This makes two of us. I'm exactly the same way. Thinking over what I wrote, I think some of it could have been read as sounding like an attack.

I wrote but probably shouldn’t have: People have said that the character changes show internal conflict and make the characters more human. However, on the other hand, what does it really show? For the most part, people trying to get out of their responsibilities and commitments.

What I probably should have written: Although the character changes can be seen as showing internal conflict and making the characters more human, it could also be seen as people trying to get out of their responsibilities and commitments. As for the parts immediately following that quote and going up until I quoted Lady Galadriel, I meant them to come across more in a persuasive speech type tone and not an insulting one. I’m afraid my general frustration with people who don’t take responsibility for things and back out of commitments and film makers who changes characters came out too strong and seemed to be directed at fellow posters. I wasn’t thinking clearly and didn’t proof my post.

Woa, I leave for a couple days and suddenly three more pages pop up!
You guys are all making excellent points. I don't have a lot of time but I just wanted to respond to one thing.

The reason PJ did what he did in changing it was because of the changes in the timeline between TTT and ROTK. TTT the book ends with The Voice of Saruman and Shelob's Lair; but the filmmakers knew it would be more 'conclusive' for TTT the movie to end with Helm's Deep as the climax. Thus, Saruman was moved to the third film, and consequently, Frodo never goes into Shelob's Lair until halfway through ROTK. Because of the change in the time line here, PJ said that 'Faramir had to pose more of an obstacle for Frodo and Sam.'

Actually, if you look at the timeline in the appendix, Shelob's Lair occurs after Pippin and Gandalf have reached Minas Tirith. Gandalf and Pippin reach Minas Tirith on March 9, and Gollum leads Frodo into Shelob's Lair on the 12. So, yes, they changed it from the book, but they stayed true to what occurred. I think it's the one change that they made that I can argue for by using the book! The changes to Faramir bug me too.

I really do like the movies. (which by the way is a miracle because my family had to do a lot of convincing to get be to even watch them. I had this idea firmly planted in my mind that all movies rated PG-13 or higher were evil (I mostly still have that idea but LotR is an exception. Actually maybe "evil" is too strong. What I mean is "not good for me because I do not like swearing, excessive violence (bombs, wars with guns), horror movies, etc.").

Yes, I think we are more similar than we first realized. I've got standards about PG-13 ratings too. My family loosened up for LOTR, but really, our standards are G to PG.

I must be too touchy; I'll try to loosen up because it is so easy for me to read into other people's writing.

This makes two of us. I'm exactly the same way. Thinking over what I wrote, I think some of it could have been read as sounding like an attack.

As for the parts immediately following that quote and going up until I quoted Lady Galadriel, I meant them to come across more in a persuasive speech type tone and not an insulting one. I’m afraid my general frustration with people who don’t take responsibility for things and back out of commitments and film makers who changes characters came out too strong and seemed to be directed at fellow posters.

Well, now I understand. I'll do my best to loosen up.

What I probably should have written: Although the character changes can be seen as showing internal conflict and making the characters more human, it could also be seen as people trying to get out of their responsibilities and commitments.

Indeed! I'm beginning to see that because that wasn't how I had been looking at it up until then.

Actually, if you look at the timeline in the appendix, Shelob's Lair occurs after Pippin and Gandalf have reached Minas Tirith. Gandalf and Pippin reach Minas Tirith on March 9, and Gollum leads Frodo into Shelob's Lair on the 12. So, yes, they changed it from the book, but they stayed true to what occurred. I think it's the one change that they made that I can argue for by using the book! The changes to Faramir bug me too.

Oh...yes...now I recall you're right. (I don't own a book with the appendix in it, but I read the dates so many times I remember.) The dates get mixed up because by the time in ROTK where Gandalf is talking to Faramir about the hobbits he saw, and they talk about Frodo and Sam still approaching Torech Ungol, Shelob's Lair has already occurred in the previous book. I meant the generalities--TTT the movie ends at Helms Deep and Frodo&Sam leave Faramir. Then all the stuff in TTT the book after those two events come in ROTK the movie.

But are Faramir, Aragorn, and Sam really Mary Sues? In the hands of an inexperienced writer, they would have been. They do have some personal qualities that Tolkien admired, but not necessarily enough that he wanted to be them.

Tolkien did admit that Faramir was the character that came from his heart. Originally Boromir didn't have a brother. But Tolkien found Faramir intruding into his daydreams until the character took up residence in the story. Faramir would be a Mary Sue if he were badly written, but since he was well-written, it's okay for us to admit that this is Tolkien's self-insert character. Especially since Tolkien said so. This is the person he most wanted to emulate. If Tolkien could have seen what the Peter Jackson Two Towers film did to Faramir, I think Tolkien would have been crushed. That was his baby; that was him. That character was a part of him, or at least a part that he hoped was part of him.

Where does Tolkien say this? In Letters somewhere?

I've only read about Faramir in HoME 8, where there is a short quote from Letter 66. I include a fuller quote from that letter:

A new character has come on the scene (I am sure I did not invent him, I did not even want him, though I like him, but there he came walking into the woods of Ithilien): Faramir, the brother of Boromir – and he is holding up the 'catastrophe' by a lot of stuff about the history of Gondor and Rohan (with some very sound reflections no doubt on martial glory and true glory): but if he goes on much more a lot of him will have to be removed to the appendices

(The reflections on martial glory and true glory were kept in the story, while much of the history indeed went to the appendices.)

There are a couple of lines in Letter 180, though, which touches upon the same, but I don't see Faramir in Tolkien's daydreams even in this text:

For when Faramir speaks of his private vision of the Great Wave, he speaks for me. That vision and dream has been ever with me — and has been inherited (as I only discovered recently) by one of my children.
(From a footnote:)
As far as any character is 'like me' it is Faramir – except that I lack what all my characters possess (let the psychoanalysts note!) Courage.

So I'm in doubt as to whether he really was a self-insert - but I very much agree that he was well-written. He's one of my favorite characters of LotR.

Yes, I think we are more similar than we first realized. I've got standards about PG-13 ratings too. My family loosened up for LOTR, but really, our standards are G to PG.

Well, now I understand. I'll do my best to loosen up.

What I probably should have written: Although the character changes can be seen as showing internal conflict and making the characters more human, it could also be seen as people trying to get out of their responsibilities and commitments.

Indeed! I'm beginning to see that because that wasn't how I had been looking at it up until then. In any case, I'm glad to know we now understand each other!

I'm very glad we discovered how much we have in common - we sure to the long way around to do it though because of my poorly written post - the more I think about it the more I see how it seemed like an attack / seemed rude. *has scolded self soundly and is going to try very hard to remember to proof read posts and not rush to post them* I plan on going back and editing it when I have time to think.

I'm very glad we discovered how much we have in common - we sure to the long way around to do it though because of my poorly written post - the more I think about it the more I see how it seemed like an attack / seemed rude. *has scolded self soundly and is going to try very hard to remember to proof read posts and not rush to post them* I plan on going back and editing it when I have time to think.

Oh, don't sweat it -- it's OK. I think we've both learned something. Let's just put it behind us, be friends, and enjoy the conversation.

Oh, don't sweat it -- it's OK. I think we've both learned something. Let's just put it behind us, be friends, and enjoy the conversation.

I agree, expect I feel that I have to clarify my thoughts. Once I start something (like answering a question) I have a terrible time stopping until I’ve finished it to my satisfaction (that made timed essay and math tests hard!). I’m not changing what I originally wrote but am clarifying below.

The following is a rewriting of a section of this post. I hope I expressed my ideas better in the following. I have also expanded on some ideas.
Although the character changes can be seen as showing internal conflict and making the characters more human, it could also be seen as people trying to get out of their responsibilities and commitments. Aragorn either doesn’t want or isn’t taking the responsibility of being king; Theoden either doesn’t want to honor the commitment of his ancestors to help Gondor or isn’t going to do it; Éomer leaves Rohan; and Treebeard isn’t being a very good shepherd of his trees. Although they all take their responsibilities / honor their commitments in the end, shouldn’t movies show some characters that start out strong and get stronger? (i.e are loyal from the start, accept their destiny / responsibilities, etc.) Aragorn could easily have shown the importance of learning from the past. Knowing what the ring did to Isildur and the dangers of having power, he could be shown as working to make sure he didn’t fall into the same traps. Starting with strong characters does not mean that they need to always be perfect. Fears, doubts, and even mistakes can be shown. Not one of the characters in LotR is infallible and doubtless. As Tolkien wrote them, this is clear. Each main character started at a different place but all faced challenges. I think Tolkien’s characters can show that no matter how big, small, powerful, wise, or noble a person is they can still make mistakes, doubt themselves, and change. Not one of the main characters came out of the books unchanged. Some learned more than others, but they all learned something. Although it may not sound like it from my writing, only a few changes rate a “ten” on my feelings about changes scale. See scale below.
1 = I actually think this change improved the story.
2 = I liked the change though feel slightly guilty because it wasn’t in the book.
3 = I see the change as understandable and /or inevitable.
4 = I’ll mention the change but more out of habit than annoyance.
5 = I’ll roll my eyes.
6 = I’ll roll my and sigh.
7 = It annoys me.
8 = It frustrates and annoys me but not to the point of anger.
9 = It makes me angry but not furious.
10 = It makes me furious every time.
The changes to Faramir’s character and the way he deals with Frodo and Sam’s leaving Frodo are the only two that rate 10 (This is only based on the theatrical version. I’m sure if I was more familiar with the extended versions I would have a couple more on this list). Taking the idea of the weakening of characters on a whole (looking at the big picture of the movie) I feel about a 9 on my scale. While I’m actually watching the movie, I don’t stay in a constant state of 9 though. Then, I am thinking about each moment as I see and not looking at the whole. In other words, except for the ten areas, I have stronger feelings when I am thinking about the movies than when I am watching them.
I think there is a bit of danger in making movies “too realistic” and the characters “too human.” Part of the point of movies and books is to offer a bit of an escape from our own lives. (At least I think that is supposed to be part of the point). The following is my interruption of what I think people want or at least what many people want. It is based on my knowledge of literature and movies. I know it is not everybody’s view or true for all movies and books. I’m mostly thinking about stories that have good vs. evil with good winning and /or have fantasy or mythical qualities (LotR, King Arthur stories, National Treasure movies, etc.) If the book / characters are a little idealistic, they can serve to inspire us to be like that. Although we may never meet someone like BookFaramir, we want to believe people like that exist, people that are not perfect but noble. We want to believe that there is good in the world. I think what we need is a balance between weak characters and strong characters.

If he despairs over "taking over Gandalf's shoes", then why wouldn't he not worry about taking over an entire kingdom?

Good question! Because Gandalf's death was unexpected, while Aragorn becoming the King of Gondor had been ordained because of his blood-line. Elrond revealed his lineage (heir of Isildur) to him when he was old enough to understand the responsibility it entailed, and from then on he knew and fully accepted this fact, revealing the glory of this wonder every now and then, as, for example, in the Argonath passage or when he laid aside Andúril before entering Théoden's hall.

Although you meant it to be rhetorical, Eru, I agree with johobbit that is a good question. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that Gandalf’s fall was unexpected. Aragorn was preparing to become king, but that is a bit different than trying to fill a wizard’s shoes. For one thing, he had never been to the section of the river where he was going. He had however surveyed Gondor and Rohan and learned about them from the inside. Also, Gandalf had more wisdom and more power than Aragorn. As far as I can tell in skimming the parts about the council of Elrond, Boromir was not completely willing to accept Aragorn as who he said he was, and along the way they disagreed about which way to go. That would make it hard for Aragorn to lead Boromir. Although Boromir had no problems disagreeing with Gandalf, I think he would be more likely to listen to him and accept him as the leader than another man. Aragorn had told Boromir that he would go to Minas Tirith. I think he intended to only travel with the company until it reached Minas Tirith or until wherever their paths would go different ways. He had his plans made, and suddenly he was given the responsibility of leading the company. He even says, “Would that Gandalf were here! How my heart yearns for Minas Anor and the walls of my own city! But whither now shall I go?”

By the way, I read the part where Strider becomes Aragorn for a minute, and I think it could have worked on film – at least for me. The main change seemed to be in posture and voice. I think if he squared his shoulders and used a very powerful voice the effect would be the same. Some change in music wouldn’t hurt or maybe suddenly no music. My sister and I have a Bible study at our house weekly. It is mostly made up of people who know her from elsewhere and only see me at Bible study. I tend to be very quiet (both in voice and participating in conversation). (One of the members didn’t even remember that in high school he occasionally sat at the same table I did at lunch). One day I heard the dryer buzz during Bible study so I yelled in my loudest voice to tell my mom that the laundry was done. I totally surprised the others because they did not think I could be that loud. I have had the same sort of thing happen when children I am in charge of push me too hard and I speak louder and sharper than normal. So I think it is possible for people to be different for a moment and then return to their “normal” selves. Actually that is a lot of what acting is.

Maybe something like this: Which one is everyone's favorite book and why?

Just to clarify (since I am able to read things many different ways ) do you mean: [list=a]

Or[/*3h47fybw]

I’m guessing that it is one of the first two but I added the last one to cover where my thoughts went (they sometimes go weird places sometimes ).

By the way, I read the part where Strider becomes Aragorn for a minute, and I think it could have worked on film – at least for me. The main change seemed to be in posture and voice. I think if he squared his shoulders and used a very powerful voice the effect would be the same. Some change in music wouldn’t hurt or maybe suddenly no music.

Ah, I see. See, that's still 'realistic'! Perhaps not something too abrupt, but something to show that he's deciding maybe to take his destiny after all.

I totally surprised the others because they did not think I could be that loud. I have had the same sort of thing happen when children I am in charge of push me too hard and I speak louder and sharper than normal. So I think it is possible for people to be different for a moment and then return to their “normal” selves. Actually that is a lot of what acting is.

Ah. *nods agreeably* I was in a play once when all of my lines were nice and calm, and I spoke quietly and peaceably except at one point when magic was supposed to have come over me, so I shouted as loud as I could, and afterward everyone was amazed. Maybe it would have worked out on film for Aragorn to do something of the sort after all.

Just to clarify (since I am able to read things many different ways ) do you mean: [list=a]

out of FotR, TTT, and RotK[/*2e9i4838]

out of any of Tolkien’s books

Or[/*2e9i4838]

out of the books within the books (FotR is divided into two books and these division go through TTT and RotK). [/*2e9i4838][/list2e9i4838]

I’m guessing that it is one of the first two but I added the last one to cover where my thoughts went (they sometimes go weird places sometimes ).

*looks stunned* Oh, I guess I didn't clarify! I meant either FOTR, TTT, or ROTK specifically. But it wouldn't matter, so anyone could chose whichever Tolkien book for their favorite.

OK, I have a question. Does anyone know if there is a forum like this one for the Lord of the Rings?

*points to signature*

One thing I've been wondering about while playing LotRO is if there's ever any reference to a monetary system in any of Tolkien's writings. I don't remember them even so much as mentioning money in LotR. In the game, we use a fairly generic gold/silver/copper currency set which I kind of doubt is derived from the book.

I do not recall a monetary system. Hm.....I'll have to look it up.