The Lord Of The Rings: Analysis Of The Differences Between Tolkien’s Legacy And Peter Jackson’s Movie
Have you ever thought what would be the differences and impacts between the screenplay and the original book? When you want to make a movie from a long novel, maybe you have to make some changes to screen it to the cinema. For example, The Lord of the Rings trilogy is one of the best examples of that. The director of this trilogy, Peter Jackson, had to make some changes to screen it to the cinema. Because he does not want to make it too boring. Peter Jackson wanted to make the movie a little tighter and more urgent. However, the writer of the books, J.R.R Tolkien, wrote these books with his imagination himself, not with an effect. Reading books and watching movies are very different. Books can make people think and imagination goes through to the roof. Our imagination is endless and we think the descriptions as we want to. In the movies, we see a reflection from the director’s mind and accept it that way. Therefore, these reflections sometimes cannot satisfy us as a reader of the original book. According to J.R.R Tolkien’s son Christopher, 'The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25.'
As we are going to look at the differences, we start with the characters. Characters are important in the books and movies. But in the films, the reflections are different because of the effects of the cinema. Moreover, time is limited rather than books. Starting with Frodo, known as The youth, in the book, Frodo is 33 years old and becomes an adult at the hobbit culture. But in the films, he introduced as very young hobbit to spend his time with playing. But the book tells us the story a little bit different. When he is 33, he took the One Ring and leaves The Shire by selling his house and disappears for 17 years. When he becomes 50 year middle-aged hobbit, he starts his journey throughout Mordor. In the movie sector, youthful actors are more popular with modern viewers and their camaraderie is easier to portray by actors who close to those ages. Making him young makes the character less wise and we think his journey will be hard and keep watching and wondering. As the second character of the Lord of the Ring in the movie, Samwise Gamgee introduced as a friend of Frodo in the Fellowship of the Ring, but until The Two Towers, second book and movie, Sam reveals to Faramir that he is a gardener of Frodo. Also, he usually calls Frodo as Mr. Frodo so that means he respects him and they are not friends directly. But in the film especially, because modern audiences would not understand or accept a servent-master relationship, the film must portray Frodo and Sam as a friend. In the movie, Merry and Pippin, known as The Pranksters, they have intense sense of humor. But in the book merry is portrayed as a mature hobbit, and Frodo gives a duty to find a new home to Frodo and organizing Frodo’s move. In the movie, they changed Merry since the audience warms them up quickly and Merry provides more opportunities for jokes. As an important character, Gandalf the Gray is often quite befuddled by events and overruled or put down by other characters. Although hobbits see him as an authority figure, Aragorn, the son of Arathorn, has no interest being king in the films. He possesses the same weakness. After Boromir’s and Theodon’s love, he decides to come to Minas Tirith and reclaim the throne of Gondor. Also, he does not carry the Narsil, the sword of Arathorn. In the books, Aragorn is proud of carrying the Narsil and saw a chance to reclaim the throne with the One Ring. He becomes loyal to Frodo and wants to reclaim the throne for Arwen. He cannot marry with Arwen if he does not become the king of the North Kingdom and Gondor. Another funny and important character, Gimli, The Dwarf, is the source of the comic relief for all three films. In the books, there is less humor than films. In the films, dramatic pacing goes so intense so humor needed to alleviate tension. On the other hand, this comic relief trivializes Gimli’s character. Legolas the Elf, has a major role both in the films and the books. But his appearance changed in the movie. According to one of the costume designers, high boots make the elves look more statuesque. Also, in the films, Legolas has blonde hair but in the books, he has dark hairs, that’s why our imagination is limited or we accept what director’s tell us. Also, Boromir son of Denethor has blonde hair. But in the books, he has dark hair too like Aragorn. If both Boromir and Aragorn had dark hair as in the books, it would be too hard for the audience to distinguish them. For the films, they changed the styles so much. Sauron, the villain, is formless in the films and says in the films he will gain his shape. This is because they want to urgent the events in the films so that will not boring. However, in the book version, Aragorn says at the Return of the King, “Let the Lord of the Black Land come forth! Justice shall be done upon him.” Implying that Sauron has a form with which to come out. In the films, intercut storylines are appeared. When Tolkien was writing the book, intercut was not popular at literature. These intercuts spoil the story's timeline and ruin many of the surprises that occur when what group of characters does not know what happened to the other.
In the first movie The Fellowship of the Ring, the film opens with a prologue narrated by Galadriel herself. The prologue shows the One Ring and its power, the Battle of Last Alliance of Elves and Men, Isildur took the Ring from the fallen Sauron, Isildur rejecting Elrond's demand and he does not destroy the Ring, Isildur's death and losing the Ring in the Anduin, Gollum finding the Ring, which is later found by Bilbo himself. Actually, this prologue was narrated by Frodo, but filmmaker’s decided that he knows too much in the beginning. In the first book, these events occurred before 3000 years before the main story Lord of the Rings and are merely discussed by the book’s characters. Galadriel voice does not appear in the book. Filmmaker’s decided a prologue could do a quicker entry and more exciting way. Sometimes stories need a prologue but according to Ian McKellen, “prologue, with its stash of names and facts, can unnerve audiences.”
As a second difference in the first movie of the trilogy, at Bilbo’s birthday party, Bilbo puts on the Ring and disappears without any effect from Gandalf. In the book, Gandalf adds a special effect to make a magical thing rather than the ring effect. If the scene had been the same as the book, the audience might think Gandalf who makes Bilbo disappear. That would not the dramatize Ring and Gandalf would not concern to keep it secret. The third difference is after searching the One Ring, Gandalf goes to The Shire again and wants to find Frodo. Frodo is not at home at that time. He enters Bag End and waits for Frodo. When Frodo arrives home, he asks Frodo urgently the One Ring with saying: “Is it secret? Is it safe?” But in the book, he goes to Frodo’s house again and finds Frodo at home. He is not urgent in the book and tells the One Ring after the next morning with pleasant a breakfast. According to film’s director Peter Jackson: 'One of the biggest problems with adapting the books - Tolkien gave his characters a fairly leisurely journey - I don't mean the length of the journey, but rather the lack of dramatic tension, for the movies, we will have to make motivations a little tighter and more urgent. Another difference is that in the movie, there is a Wizard Duel between Gandalf and Saruman. In the book, there is no such a duel prior to Saruman imprisoning Gandalf. This duel is added to film because of the lack of action in the first movie. On the other hand, this action thing smacks of cheesy fantasy films and misrepresent Tolkien’s work. Another difference is that there is a character named Tom Bombadil. He helped the hobbits journey to Crickhollow and Old Forest. But in the movie, he is eliminated. In the book, he has a very special place and several chapters are devoted to him. According to Peter Jackson: 'The main reason is not just time or pace, but one of simple narrative focus. The Bombadil sequence has so little to do with Sauron or the Ring, it is difficult to justify the screen time. It simply doesn't give us any vital new information. A very simplest rule of thumb that I use in movie storytelling is to try and further the story with each new scene.” On the other hand, whole Bombadil parts show us that how dangerous the world outside the Shire for the hobbits. Tom Bombadil tells us that the One Ring has its limitations. Also, he tells us a lot of background information about historical things. We learn less in the movie just to make the film less long. Another difference in the movie, in the Council of Elrond, Gimli attempts to destroy the Ring with his axe. In the book, there is no such thing. On the other hand, we understand that early in the film, the Ring is too strong and the best weapons cannot destroy the Ring except for the fire of Mordor. This does not represent the Tolkien’s work. Another important difference and it shows us that we must understand the friendship better in the movie. During the Council of Elrond, Frodo is a volunteer to carry it to Mount Doom. Then all the important main characters like Gandalf, Boromir, Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas, Sam, Merry, and Pippin join the Frodo as a volunteer. In the movie, it reinforces the friendship and it connects us to the movie strongly. However, in the book, Elrond chooses the membership after a week. This probably removed because to leave more time to other scenes.
In the second movie The Two Towers, there are also a lot of differences as the first movie. The film opens with Gandalf’s fight with Balrog. One of the famous scenes that “you shall not pass.” In the first movie, Gandalf falls with Balrog and the scene ends there. On the other hand in the second movie, the camera goes into darkness and following him down and we see a nice battle between Balrog and Gandalf. In the book, Gandalf nearly not discusses his battle with Balrog. This scene is a beautiful opening scene with a movie, but it takes up unnecessary screen time. Another difference is about villains. Saruman discusses with his plans with Grima Wormtongue for attacking the Helm’s Deep. In the book, there is no such scene. That’s because Peter Jackson wanted to more visible villains and more interesting. It does not represent Tolkien’s work. Another difference is a small detail. In the movie, Legolas rides a horse with a saddle in Helm’s Deep. In the book, Legolas removes the saddle because elves have no need for them. This detail is not an important one but these details make the Tolkien’s work and most books. Another difference is about friendship. In the movie, Gimli and Legolas do not make any plans after beat Sauron. In the Tolkien’s work, however, Legolas agrees to go Glittering Caves with Gimli if he accompanies with Legolas to the Fangorn Forest after defeat Sauron and his army. For the movie, this scene is unnecessary to the story. On the other hand, removing this kind of conversation from the movie, make less worthy Tolkien’s work.
In the third movie the Return of the King, Shelob comes in the action. However, the second book ends with spider Shelob poisoning Frodo. Sam comes after the fight with Gollum as known as Smeagol, Sam stabs Shelob and then Frodo being captured by some orcs. According to director Peter Jackson: ''If we started Return of the King after Shelob - the way the Book do - there'd be very little for Frodo and Sam to do,' Also it allows the time frames of the separated characters to more closely match each one another. It was nice to see the film ended with poisoning Frodo and captured but the orcs. On the other hand, it loses originality and does not represent Tolkien’s work at all. Another difference is about Faramir. When Faramir fights in Osgiliath, many arrows hit him and he dragged by his own horse. In the third book, Faramir is shot with only one arrow and Prince Imrahil carries him to Minas Tirith. By the director Peter Jackson, Imrahil is removed from the movie. The scene that Faramir is dragged with his own horse was a nice scene to see. However, Imrahil as known as The Fair, is a favorite character among the fans. Peter Jackson wants to show more action because it is a movie, but remove the important characters trivializes the true story and damage the Tolkien’s legacy.
As we see the differences between Tolkien’s legacy and Peter Jackson’s movie, films are copies of the legacies that the authors writes. You observe the movies while watching. You live in the director’s mind and accept the appearances as they reflect to. On the other hand, while reading a book, you feel everything that you read. You can be whatever you want. You can describe the characters as you want in your imagination. The small details that authors write as Tolkien’s beautify the books. In the movies, small details like ı wrote can be removed just to show more action. Books don’t do that. Emotions are so intense and that’s the important thing.
Works Cited
- Tolkien, J.R.R, The Lord of the Ring Fellowship of the Ring, Unite d Kingdom, Allen&Unwin, 29 July 1954
- Tolkien, J.R.R, The Lord of the Ring The Two Towers, United Kingdom, Allen&Unwin, 11 November, 1954
- Tolkien, J.R.R, The Lord of the Rings The Return of the King, United Kingdom, Allen&Unwin, 20 October 1955
- The Lord of the Rings Fellowship of the Ring, Peter Jackson, New Line Cinema, 2001
- The Lord of the Rings The Two Towers, Peter Jackson, New Line Cinema, 2002
- The Lord of the Rings The Return of the King, Peter Jackson, New Line Cinema, 2003
- https://dictionary.cambridge.org/tr/
- https://www.seslisozluk.net/
- http://www.wikizero.biz/index.php?q=aHR0cHM6Ly9lbi53aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnL3dpa2kvTWFpbl9QYWdl
