Video Poker Forum

Screenwriters often take great liberties with the original sources they are adapting.

Readers know Jack Reacher is a massive man, while moviegoers think of him as Tom Cruise.
Readers of the Lord of the Ring were surprised when Arwen shows up to marry Aragorn as she is barely mentioned in the books. They also know it was Glorfindel, a mighty elflord, who rescues Frodo out in the wilderness and that Gimli was not there for comedy relief. Moviegoers see Arwen as a heroine, whose romance with Aragorn is central to the plot. They know nothing of Glorfindel and think hundreds of elves died at Helm's Deep.
Readers know Bourne was a spy suffering from amnesia. Moviegoers know him as a super-soldier, victim of an evil government conspiracy.
The examples are all over, but does the original source trump the movie example, or is it the other way around?
In 1962, Stan Lee wrote what was expected to be a one time story about a teenager who gains powers by
being bitten by a radioactive character. The story ends with an unseen narrator commenting- "With great power comes great responsibility".
More than fifty years later, a screenwriter had another character utter the phrase.
I'm sure many more people saw the movie than read the original comic book, copies of which have sold for more than a million dollars, but to me it just creates confusion.

Arwen did show up to marry Aragorn in the book, so that was no surprise. But her role in the film was definitely increased and it was not her, but Glorfindel who rescued Frodo as you said.

If you read the Appendices by Tolkien however, you will find more of her story that was brought into the film, so it was not completely re-imagined.

The bigger omission that surprised me more was the fate of Saruman... one of my favorite parts of the book.

Still, I do love the LOTR series on film.

LOTR was far more true to the books than the Hobbit. Even there, some of the additional scenes were actually brought in from LOTR book scenes that were not in the LOTR film. Still, far too much creative license was taken in the Hobbit films, particularly for the sake of action sequences and the love story. Very disappointing.

I was expecting Aragorn to marry Eowan, until Arwen popped up after some thousand pages. Like most people, I never read the Appendices before I read the book so I had no idea they were longtime lovers.
While I really enjoyed the movies, they butchered three of my favorite scenes.
When they cross the river after Helms Deep and Theodans small party is overtaken. Just when they think it is another ambush, Aragorns people reveal themselves and the sons of Elrond. Not included in any version.
Before the gates of Minas Tirth, when Gandalf and Shadowfax stand off with the King of the Nazgul.
Totally messed up in the movies as the Nazgul easily broke Gandalfs staff.
Aragorn on the Paths of the Dead. The Dead never went to Minas Tirith.

The Hobbit was a total mess. I like to think of it as inspired by Tolkiens work, rather than an adaptation of it.

Yes, Aragorn's folk (the Dunedain) are present for a large part of the book, but have almost no presence in the film. There are also some woods people near Minas Tirith (forget their name) that were left out completely.

And more importantly... Tom Bombadil. Though I have to admit, his whole story is a bit confusing to me and would have been pretty boring on film. He seems highly significant, without actually mattering much at all. Though he did save Frodo from some other creatures (barrow wights) that were also omitted from the film.

Good old Tim Benzadrine. The original hippie. Having him in the movies would have just confused people.

Why is Gandalf's power so diminished in films (including the one about the hobbit)? He fought nine Nazgul in the book, while the Nazgul in the third movie broke his staff, although in the book the Witch-king did not leave the gate. In the hobbit, Gandalf was not taken prisoner, he went around the fortress of Sauron several times and returned with energetic help. Anyone have an answer?