Several striking differences between the Lord of the Rings films and the books (11 photos)

Director Peter Jackson tried to accurately convey the plot of the book "The Lord of the Rings", but he still missed or changed some points. So, what are the differences between the books and films of the Lord of the Rings trilogy?





As you know, it is rare when a film based on a book follows the original source exactly. Most often, the book serves only as a basis, and the film adaptation is based on it. That is why the book and the film cannot be considered one thing. The film is a separate work with its own plot twists, and no one is required to read the source material before watching the film itself. Nevertheless, the author spoke about the striking differences between the film “The Lord of the Rings” by Peter Jackson and the original source by John Tolkien.

Tom Bombadill and the Hobbit Swords



Since the original source was very weighty, of course, many scenes from the book had to be sacrificed in order to fit into the timing. For example, they did not film a rather important scene about the funny bearded man Tom Bombadill for the film.



According to the book, a certain Tom Bombadill (the owner of the old forest) saves the hobbits on the road to Bree, after which they receive their short swords, which are actually daggers. Despite his funny appearance, Tom Bombadill has enormous power and is also immune to the Omnipotence Ring. This is the only character who does not disappear when putting on the Ring of Omnipotence. Moreover, when Tom puts on the ring, it is not he who becomes invisible, but the accessory itself.

In the film, this character is completely absent, and Aragorn distributes swords to the hobbits already in Bree.

When did the heroes set off on their journey?

We all remember that Frodo and Sam set off on their journey immediately after Bilbo Baggins' 111th birthday. But in the book, the heroes set off on their long journey only 17 years after the anniversary. There was quite a difference in time.

Sam is a servant, not a friend



From the very beginning of the film, Frodo and Sam are essentially friends, despite the fact that Sam is just a gardener. Therefore, from the very beginning of their journey, they talk like friends, even though Sam maintains the chain of command.

As for the book, Sam was essentially a servant, and therefore Frodo’s attitude towards him was corresponding. Gandalf sent Sam along with Frodo as punishment for eavesdropping on the conversation. And for quite a long time Sam just trailed behind Frodo, and they didn't even talk. And their friendship began much later.

Death of Boromir and Uruk-Hai



Remember that epic scene where Boromir defended the hobbits from the orcs at the cost of his life, but was ultimately pierced by Uruk-Hai arrows? A very powerful and cool scene, but there were no such powerful scenes in the book. There was no Uruk-Hai, just as there was no epic battle between Boromir and the orcs. Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas simply find Boromir's corpse at the beginning of the second book. But I am sincerely glad that such a scene was still in the film. She is really very bright and important.

Elf Glorfindel



As you remember, it was Roland’s daughter named Arwen who took Frodo, wounded by the Morgul blade, and rushed with him at full speed to Rivendell. And in order to throw off her tail in the form of a Nazgul, she casts a spell that causes a powerful tsunami that sweeps away her pursuers.



In the book, Arwen was not even close at this moment. All this fell on the shoulders of the elf Glorfindel, who was not in the film at all.

Death of Saruman



In the theatrical version of the film, we were not shown the death of one of the main antagonists - Saruman. We could see his death only in the director's cut of the second part of the film. If you watched it, you will remember that Saruman was treacherously stabbed to death by Grim.

Yes, according to the book, it was also Grima who killed Saruman, but this happened much later. When Sauron was defeated, the heroes returned to the desecrated Shire, where they had to save their native land from the sorcerer. And in the film, the desecrated Shire was not shown at all.

Radagast the Brown



In the film "The Lord of the Rings" only two magicians were shown - Gandalf the Gray and Saruman the White, but in the book there was another magician - Radagast the Brown. This slightly deranged old man lived in the forest. However, in the film "The Hobbit" the audience was still shown the Brown Magician in all his glory. But in principle this is not surprising. All the same, the book “The Lord of the Rings” had to be shortened, while the thin book “The Hobbit”, on the contrary, was stretched out, adding a lot of gags.

Moria



In The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Gimli was shocked by what happened to Moria. Also, he could not contain his emotions when he learned that Ballin was dead.

In the book, Gimli knew perfectly well that Moria had long been abandoned, and that Ballin was most likely no longer alive. Therefore, everything he saw did not come as a surprise to him.

Also, according to the book, Pepin deliberately threw a bucket into the well to check the depth, but in the film it was an unplanned and very clumsy act, after which the heroes had to run away sharply, fighting off the orcs and the Troll. And yes, in the book, the orcs and the cave troll attacked only the next day after Pepin threw the bucket.

Death of Gollum



At the end of the third part of the film, when Golum took the ring from Frodo, the latter attacked him to return his charm. Frodo then pushes Golum down.

In the book, Frodo does not push the possessed Sméagol off the cliff. Joyful Golum falls there himself, dancing on the edge of the abyss. But it wouldn’t have looked as epic, so the scene was modified a little, and rightly so.

Of course, there were many more similar differences, but the author decided to highlight only those that he considered the most striking and important. Add your options in the comments