Tom Bombadil is the obvious one, but I always saw Glorfindel was a pretty awesome character when I was reading the books, and they replaced him with Arwen and it made me sad. :(
Printable View
Tom Bombadil is the obvious one, but I always saw Glorfindel was a pretty awesome character when I was reading the books, and they replaced him with Arwen and it made me sad. :(
People who moan about Tom Bombadil probably haven't read the books in a long time. Not only is he a pointless anomaly, but he actually makes the hobbits get naked and run around for his amusement. This is not a joke. This actually happens. Other than that, his part of the story is just weird and boring.
Glorfindel is great, as is Imrahil. They called some whiny man in Minas Tirith Imrahil but it's not the same. I loved the idea of Dol Amroth and the Swan Knights. Props also to Halbarad, they really should've done more with the Dunedain. Like actually include them, I guess.
Faramir. The man from the films was not Faramir. :colbert:
Farfromamir
Tom Bombadil is dumbadil. Seriously, the choice to keep him out of the movie was the correct decision. It basically would've brought the plot to a screeching halt for about 30 minutes.
Glorfindel was also my choice. I understand why they made Arwen take over a lot of his stuff, but he was a bad ass dude.
Radagast? He wasn't in the movies, right? I guess I haven't seen the Hobbit movie(s) yet.
True, but he did serve an incredibly important purpose in setting up the themes and world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinx
I don't have a huge problem with losing Glorfindel, because he did not have enough time in books that you could really make him a character in the movie.Quote:
Glorfindel was also my choice. I understand why they made Arwen take over a lot of his stuff, but he was a bad ass dude.
It is still quite upsetting. Especially since the scene at the Ford of Bruinen was butchered by having Arwen there instead.
"Caught between fire and water, and seeing an Elf-lord revealed in his wrath". Where the hell was THAT awesome scene?!
Heck, that scene is important, as it shows some of the limits of the Nazgul (in a similar fashion to how Tom Bombadil exists to show limits to the Ring's powers). The Nazgul get completely and utterly outclassed. They realize how much they overextended themselves, and how much trouble they're in, and they just absolutely fall apart. They are not ready to face and Elf-lord like Glorfindel, and that needed to be shown. Without those limits, we get these uberfiends who can eventually stand up to Gandalf EVEN THOUGH IN THE BOOKS GANDALF'S POWER WAS THE REASON THE NAZGUL COULD NOT ENTER MINAS TIRITH.
As for myself, my favorite missing character is probably Imrahil. Mostly because the travesty that was the movie's version of the Battle of Pelennor Fields really, really irked me. They just completely ruined that entire scenario. They solve the entire thing with a wave of magic in the form of the undead. We lost out on Eomer's suicide charge, the Rangers of Arnor (and my favorite scene from the entire frelling book) and all of Dol Amroth and the utterly awesome knights of the Silver Swan (including the way they saved Eomer's butt and kept the forces of Mordor from ever climbing to the upper levels of the city, thank you very much). Imrahil sort of symbolizes that loss to me, and so he is my favorite excluded character.
I also asked my mother for her answer to this question:
Fatty Bolger
Of all the major characters missing, Fatty is one of the ones that you most enjoy as a person. He's friendly, helpful, nice, and just wants to do all he can to help. He understands where he sits in the story, that he can't go with the party, but he still strives to help in his own little ways. Even his small role benefits the party greatly, buying time Frodo to get away, and Fatty only barely escapes the Nazgul himself as a cost for it. A fantastic character who was left out.
To be honest the character I miss the most in the movie is Aragorn. When I first saw the movies (and ten times after that) I thought that he was gorgeous character but now that I've read the books, his movie portrayal feels so shallow and generic to me...
May be a little bit OT but I also hated how the undead army just saved the city instead of Men taking it back themselves. It's not like the army wasn't important in the books but they totally overpowered them and gave them way bigger role than they were supposed to have. It kind of kills the gravity of the situation.
He's in the hobbit movies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuuky
I read Fellowship once around 13 years ago or so, and all I've ever remembered about Tom is that that section of the book felt a lot like Tolkein was tripping on some great Mushrooms (which sadly he didn't share with the reader), and had nothing to do with anything that followed in any meaningful way. So to say that I had no problem with him not being in the movies would be an understatement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychotic
Tom Bombadil because smurf you guys. :colbert:
Also, five seconds of Fellowship Radagast > three full movies of bird trout in his hair Radagast. He's a Maia, not some blockheaded Bracegirdle from Hardbottle!
Bombadil was never a favorite character of mine so I was ok with his omission. I was also ok with Arwen taking over for Glorfindel because female representation as seriously lacking so it made sense to bump up her role. Although her later involvement with the whole, "she's dying" thing was odd and kinda didn't work as well.
I'm gonna go with Psychotic here and say Prince Imrahil. I can kinda understand why they excluded him though which was probably for the same reason they changed Faramir's character so much. You can only really have on noble kingly type character I suppose. But I think on the whole the people of Gondor weren't given that great of a showing in the movies.
The thing that annoyed me the most about the entire overpowering of the undead was that if they were that overpowered, Aragorn should have told them to wipe out all the orcs and goblins in Mordor, not just join a single battle. =| I was like "Woah, this is great that they're saving everyone and all, but couldn't you have made a little better use of that promise if they are that effective?"
And yeah, good call on pretty much all those other characters mentioned here.
I thought that Elrond went missing from the books. There was an "Elrond" in the movies, but it definitely was an original creation.
In the books, they aren't that strong at all. Necromancy in LotR and the Silmarillion is more trickery than anything. Originally, all they did was win a fight in Pelargir so that they could ship in the Dunedain from Arnor and establish a line of reinforcements from Dol Amroth. Of course, Jackson removed both of those forces from the movies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loony BoB
In the movie, Jackson was at least consistent with power levels. Half of the edits in the movies were made to establish the bad guys as credible threats. I don't think Jackson has ever answered the idea that the Army of the Dead should've been sent to invade Mordor in an interview, but I can do it for him.
The magic would have been wasted or otherwise canceled out. It killed the Orcs on the battlefield and the Men in the ships because there was no magic prepared to cancel it out. If you attack Mordor with undead spirits, the magic would be undone by the remaining Nazgul in Minas Morgul, and that is before Sauron steps in. Magic in LotR is more about preparation, and it's a little hard to improvise a spell of such magnitude without resources. And guess where all the resources are? In Minas Morgul.
One could point out that he should've held onto them for the fight in front of the Black Gate. I can conjecture that:
A) the magic is limited to "one" battle and that it would weaken over time
B) they can't fight outside of Gondor based on the location of the original curse
C) the curse stipulates specifically one "battle," and no concurrent battles were in Mordor
D) Aragorn follows a bro code, and telling them to fight would be "not cool, bro" levels of not cool
If Aragorn went back on his word to the Undead Army, he'd be as much of an oathbreaker as they were. In any case, disregarding the moral implications of him doing that, it probably would've negated the UA's unkept promise anyways.
Oh, yeah, I was just being silly in response to the crazy ease at which the undead won the battle.
I have never heard thus complaint. Why don't people like oviedo Faramir?Quote:
Originally Posted by Quin
Spain just isn't the same as Gondor.Quote:
Originally Posted by fire_of_avalonI have never heard thus complaint. Why don't people like oviedo Faramir?Quote:
Originally Posted by Quin
I really need to reread my posts when I post from my phone.
In the movie, Faramir has some major changes:Quote:
Originally Posted by fire_of_avalon
A) he's just as tempted by the Ring as his brother, making them effectively the same character
B) relatedly, he's turned into a weak character who desperately wants his father's affection
C) he takes Frodo and Sam a few many miles away from their target destination for very little reason, under the guise of "safety," when they were much safer in Ithilien than Osgiliath (it's under attack in the movies, while Frodo is effectively trapped otherwise)
D) ordering torture isn't cool by any stretch of the imagination (and for any American who didn't realize this before, we now have a Senate report describing in detail, all of the ways that torture is not cool)
This is odd, considering that he's the closest thing to an author avatar as we can get. In the book, he's very, very clearly a good and more importantly, non-corruptible character. He doesn't order any form of torture even after finding Gollum and he doesn't even bother with accusing Frodo of lying straight to his face. He just lets them go, and even gives them some advice.
Faramir doesn't care much about the Ring anyway. Unlike Boromir, who fights for his father's affection (and gets it), Faramir has risen past the need and focuses more on Gondor's well being without resorting to any trinkets of dubious quality. This very need is what gets Boromir killed and keeps Faramir alive.
This is a reflection of his upbringing, a subject not very well elaborated on in the movies. He spent less time conforming to Denethor's idea of a perfect son, and more time being a "wizard's pupil." Mentioning this (or elaborating on it) would perfectly justify Denethor's attitude toward him for most viewers. Mithrandir's wisdom is not to be overlooked lightly, but movie Faramir gives no trouts.
Turning Faramir into an antagonist in the second movie was a really bad decision, and I don't know anyone who has read the books and seen the movies who approves of the change (i've heard people not care, but no one who liked it). All this accomplished was a waste of everyone's time, and it pushed the Cirith Ungol scenes into the third movie, a movie that was already bloated for time.
Jackson didn't have a problem with re-ordering dates to make it fit movie time, but he wanted to preserve the synchronization of Cirith Ungol's stairs' scene with the attack on Minas Tirith? Why? This is wildly inconsistent, as he showed that he was already willing to mess with dates. The best example is when he removed the 17 years of waiting between Gandalf's first visit to Frodo and the second where he actually asks him "where is the Ring?" Another example is when Gandalf reads the account of Isildur finding the Ring: the scene cites the date as 3434 SA, cutting out the 7 year siege of Barad Dur.
So by messing with Faramir, he didn't just mess with Faramir, he messed with Frodo's characterization and Sam's characterization, as well. Jackson mentions that they needed to create tension during the Cirith Ungol scene, so he split Frodo and Sam up. Book Frodo wouldn't do that, as he's shown to hang onto his kindness even while turning into a Ring junkie. The only reason why the Cirith Ungol scenes needed tension was because they were at the beginning of the third movie, when there is no tension. There would have been no need to heavily alter Frodo's characterization if they put it at the end of the second movie. At this point, audiences are thinking, "yo, isn't this movie almost over? What could possibly happen to these guys?"
What better way to answer that than with "lol so I heard you guys like spiders?"
tl;dr second movie Faramir is a douche, Jackson is literally Hitler, book Faramir is Tolkien incarnate, and no one cared about Faramir in the third movie because it's all his fault
No one I really liked was missing from the movies but I agree about Faramir. I liked him in the books and he was just a more bratty Boromir in the films.