Book vs. Movie characters
 

Okay, maybe this belongs in the Movie forum but I want opinions and references mostly from the books. Which characters do you think they changed (i.e. messed with character or portrayed in a more/less flattering light) in the movie? I know about the obvious ones like Faramir and the Ents. But what about some of the less obvious ones. Like Legolas: In the beginning of the journey, he comes across as sort of an immature show-off to me, as opposed to the movie where he starts out wise and mature. Like the part on Caradhras (book) where he watches poor Aragorn and Boromir trying to dig thru the snow, then decides to go help out and states how much better Elves are suited for the task of anything snow-related--"...but choose an otter for swimming, and for running light over grass and leaf, or over snow- an Elf". But I do think he grows up considerably after the death of Gandalf. And it seems to me that "book Boromir" was a little nicer than he was in the movie. (I can't recall any specific instances, but it's just a general feeling.)

Any others anyone can think of?

In the movies, they left out the part about Gollum betraying Sam and Frodo to Shelob, so he seemed a lot nicer than he was in the book.

Also, Theoden seemed a lot nicer in the book than in the movies. I don't know, but in the book I got this feeling that he was really noble, but in the movies I didn't.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but if I think of more, I'll post again. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Where was Legolas immature at? I must've missed that part.

I hate to disappoint you, Olorin, but Gollum is going to betray them to Shelob in ROTK.

Other than the obvious Faramir...I was thinking Theoden too...He butts heads with Aragorn quite a bit in the movie whereas in the book, that really doesn't happen. I am not saying the change was necessarily a bad one but he didn't seem to me to be the Theoden, I had imagined.

I don't think that Legolas was being immature, he was just showing high spirits and bringing a bit of much-needed levity to the weary company. He was starting out on a mission that the elves of old would have envied and he was heartier and more lithe than the rest of them, so he was probably just being good natured. I think the book Legolas is a much better and more rounded character than the Legolas in the movies, especially in the areas of his singing, friendship with Gimli, and less 'thank you Captain Obvious' statements. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Peace

One thing I was really upset about, was the portrayal of Rohan and Theoden in the movie Two Towers. In the movie, they make Rohan out to be a puny force, and the "Golden Hall" of Meduseld to look shabby. At the battle of Helms deep they are portrayed to have a force of 300. When they actually have over 1000. Also, the way they portray Theoden in the movie was dis-heartening. Theoden was kind, and very noble (as an earlier post pointed out). Also, the elves coming to helms deep was cool for people who are unlearned in the LOTR lore, but that was also a real blow to the authenticity. It was all I could do to keep from screaming. Guthwine! Guthwine for the Mark! Anduril! Anduril for the Dunedain!

As much as I hate to say it, I think I agree about Legolas being a little immature at the begining. I think that in the movies he is portrayed better and worse than in the book on different occasions. He seems to be more of a prince in the movies, calmer and wiser. However, he does seem to come out with a few stupid comments in the movies, particulary in the second one. I think they've added a few good comments to the movies though...

'Would you like me to describe it to you? Or would you like me to get you a box?'

arwen got much bigger part in the movie than in the book (that one was quite obvious).in the book arwen was in a way mysterious character but in the film she was a warrior and a lover...
and the "book pippin" was wiser than the "movie pippin".

Yes, in the Fellowship movie, Pippin almost serves as more of a comic relief. In the books, being able to see Pippin develop and mature is something that is very interesting, whereas in the movie such depths cannot be reached, understandably. Sometimes you really cannot compare the two, books and movies, because there are certain things that one is not able to do that the other one can.
Peace

Yeah, and in Rohan, they were all old men. What's up with that? Frodo is also much more of a wimp in the movie. He does a whole lot of falling down. Kinda cracks me up. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

I thought of this as a little obvious, but Arwen. She is changed a great deal from the book to the film. In the book, she hardly said two words, but in the film she has a much much larger role. They altered a few things, like characters and scenery to have Awren portrayed as a much bigger character than she really was.

I have to say that I personally thought that all the supporting charaters in the books (the people other than the fellowship) are a little more subtle than in the movie (In the film they are a tad bit loud and easily pushed into arguements). Except for maybe Gollum (He was the charater that was fine for me, but in the book he did seem a little less whiney).
Faramir is still for me the most major mistake because I am like why couldn't they just keep him the way he was in the book, wasn't his charater just fine?
But of course that is another topic.

I thought they changed Galadriel a bit in the movie. In the book, she didn't seem so aloof and, well, creepy as she did in the movie. I was thinking of the way Sam described her to Faramir (pardon my inability to remember the quote exactly) so that was what I was expecting. She was a bit unnerving; though this is amended slightly in the EV of Fellowship, where she actually acts (gasp) friendly.

Abedithon le!

Yeah, that thing she does with her eyes *shivers* really creeped me out.

In TTT movie Gollum is leaning against a tree having one of his Gollum/Smeagol arguments and says something along the lines of "I could give them to her. I think this is referring to Shelob, which I suspect will show up in the ROTK movie, although it's part of TTT in the books.

I think the movie rendition presents Gollum as the pitable creature Gandalf wants Frodo to perceive him to be. His tortured, conflicted "possession" by the ring brings to the screen a picture of the evil power Tolkien took paragraphs of narrative to convey throughout the story. Movie Gollum works for me.

Just don't get me started on Faramir, Frodo, or Galadriel...

It's funny, but my initial reaction to Boromir when I first read LotR (aged 11) was negative. The more subtle nuances in his character, the (in my view) noble motives that led to his being seduced by the Ring and his ultimate triumph in overcoming it all passed straight over my head. Of course, I have come to appreciate the more sympathetic aspects of his character in re-reading the book since.

But, I would not say that Boromir was necessarily "nicer" in the book than the film. I thought that Sean Bean played him incredibly sympathetically and captured the internal struggle marvellously. His interplay with Merry and Pippin in particular, his concern for the Hobbits on Caradhras and his eventual acceptance of Aragorn's inheritance all mark him out in the film as a very sympathetic character. I also think that his repentance following his attempt to seize the Ring was brought out very well in the film.

Indeed. Bean's performance was, for me, one of the best in the two films released to date, and also one of the truest to his character in the book.

I hope you guys are right about Gollum betraying Frodo and Sam to Shelob in the next movie. I wasn't happy that they left it out.

Also, I have to agree that Galadriel was portrayed as a little "creepy" in the movie. However I have not seen the extended version, so I wouldn't know from that.

I also think that Sean Bean's portrayal of Boromir was one of the best characters in the entire movie. He had the perfect mixture of warmth, courage, and slightly sinister nobility. Even in the books, one of my favorite parts was his redemption, by trying to save Merry and Pippin. To some, the movie version of the death of Boromir was cheesy, but it was almost exactly like the vision that I had in my head as I read the book. Boromir finally accepted that the Ruling Stewards would rule no more, and that Aragorn would take the throne of Gondor. He realized that it was what was best for Gondor.

I also loved Gollum in the movie. I never really pitied him that much in the books, but when I saw him in the movies, then I instantly saw why Bilbo felt pity for him, and left him alive so long ago. It was almost as if I felt his obsession with the Ring myself, while watching him on-screen.

I must agree with Finwe and The Saucepan Man about Boromir. I so did not like Boromir when I read the books 13 years ago. He seemed like a braggart and rather harsh in his demeanor, and I did not cry when he died in the books--not so the movies (as close as I get, anyway!). Sean Bean did wonders for my view of Boromir!

Don't get me into the Frodo/Arwen thing though! One of my absolute favorite scenes in the book is Frodo at the Ford, and Arwen's inclusion in this scene drains the power out of Frodo, making him more of a reactive victim type than the quietly strong character I know and love from the books. He has his moments, but he seems to need more rescuing in the movies than he does in the books. I know everyone has his or her favorite chapters/scenes, and I suppose it is inevitable that some will find their personal favorite parts butchered horribly or left out to their disappointment. I forgive that in a movie adaptation if the spirit is kept. I am eagerly awaiting ROTK to see if Faramir falls back into the mold Tolkien set for him long ago (he was, after all, the character who was most closely drawn to Tolkien himself!) I've heard some good arguments for why Faramir behaved as he did in TTT, and unfortunately, they all seem to make Frodo look really bad!

Well, enough of my complaining! Thanks for offering the soapbox! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Cheers,
Lyta

I completely agree with everyone that's complimented Sean Bean in his performance of Boromir. I think he was brilliant in the part and deffinatly enhanced the movie with his majesty and grace in such a difficult role.

Well, Lyta_Underhill, you beat me to it and stole the thoughts right out of my head. I was fairly surprised to see no one mentioned that before. You seemed to cover it all, except that he seems to have a complete lack of balance in the movie... didn't know it was possible for hobbits to fall quite that much.

[ June 27, 2003: Message edited by: arianrod ]

Sean Bean added so much to Boromir's character (IMO) ...it sends shivers down my spine! (and other places [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] )I thought movie Wormtongue added to the character also! I look forward to more Grima Wormtongue and King Theoden in RoTK. Ilike the *changes* so far with them.

I can't believe that I forgot to mention Grima Wormtongue! He was another character that I really really hated in the books, but in the movie, I actually grew to pity him. Brad Dourif did an excellent job portraying him, and it really made me think that it was real, once or twice. Of course, that whole Grima/Eowyn thing is quite sad, especially for him. It reminds me of the Maeglin/Idril thing in the Silmarillion.

This is my opinion on how well the respective actors did in portraying the characters I saw in my mind when I read the books.

I would have to say that the portrayal of Boromir, Bilbo, and Grima, and to a lesser extent Sarumann, Merry, & Pippen, were excellent and even maybe increased their character traits over the books a little. Galadriel's portrayal, though fairly true to the books, diminished her character for Galadriel was not that 'creepy', and much prettier than Cate. Eowyn and Aragorn portray their book parts good, and in the case of Eowyn, it remains to be seen if Miranda increases the character traits. Gandalf is alright, and Gimli was done well. I don't see Frodo as the books portrayed, but I like the way Sam was portrayed. Elrond... Sorry, I see Agent Smith there, even though I thought his part was well represented. and don't get me started on Arwen.........

Haha! I'm with you there on Arwen! Glorfindel was one of my favorite characters in the book.

I also hated the way PJ made Frodo seem like a sissy who couldn't take two steps without Sam in some parts. The Weathertop scene is an excellent example. In the book, Frodo flings himself face forward, stabbing with his sword and crying out to Elbereth. In the movie, all he does is keel over backward and cry, not to mention he drops his sword. And I also hate that in every dangerous situation, just about every other line for him is "Oh Sam!" That is just so ANNOYING! I mean, get a spine man!

Ok I've been waiting a long time for this! (ha ha ha) Ok I'm going to make a list of all the people they screwed up. *deep breath* Merry, Aragorn, Theoden, Faramir, Ents, Galadriel, Celeborn, Gollum (he needed bigger teeth), the Elves in the sec. movie they didn't help with Helm's Deep, and they're probably more but I just can't think right now. And who knows what else they're going to screw up in the third movie! [img]smilies/mad.gif[/img]

I actually liked Aragorn in the movie much better than the Aragorn in the book. Viggo Mortensen has that perfect rugged strength mixed with an almost Elven sensitivity. Of course, it does help that he has those endless blue-green eyes that you can just drown in! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

I agree, and i liked the elves (most of them) since i couldn't imagine them in my mind

I also loved the Elves. I think that the actors and actresses who played them were selected very well. They were all just so tall, so beautiful, that it nearly brought tears to my eyes some times.

I wanted to see a wearier more ageless attitude in the elves. I'm not sure I'd fault the actors so much as the plot changes and dialog. I really hated the whole Elrond trying to send Arwen off to the Grey Havens thing. I do think the extended version with the gift-giving scene did Galadriel more justice.

Sean Bean performance captured Boromir perfectly for me. I'm trying to reserve judgement on Faramir and Eowyn but I left TTT very disappointed in both of them. Again, my problems were more with dialog and persona than the actors. I liked Viggo's Aragorn but I see Aragorn as a bit less conflicted. I think the book portrays him as more settled in his role as king and Arwen's mate.

Elijah Wood looks like a hobbit and he's a good actor, but I envision someone older for Frodo. Maybe they could have aged him so he looks older than Merry and Pippin. Also the victim image bothers me.

Merry should have been more complex and mature than Pippin not tweeledee and tweedledum. Though a bit of that came out with the Ents. I thought Sean Astin's performance as Sam was wonderful.

I was happy with both the wizards and with Gimli. Gollum was interesting enlightening but dragged on a bit for me in TTT.

[ June 27, 2003: Message edited by: greyhavener ]

I actually didn't have a problem with how young Elijah Wood made Frodo look. It was how young he ACTED, and also, the structure of the movie was such that he could not have possibly been much older than Merry and Pippin. I can understand why they had to condense things like that and intro Sam and Merry and Pippin at Bilbo's party, but, of necessity, it makes Frodo MUCH younger in fact, rather than only in appearance. I don't see a cinematic way around this, unfortunately, unless you cast an older actor for Frodo, so that he's obviously older than the others. Tolkien's Frodo, however, looked like a young hobbit "just out of his tweens," a good description of Elijah.

I did notice a few things with Merry that correlate well with his character. He does seem to know where he's going! I don't have a clear memory of TTT right now, having seen it only once last year, but Fellowship includes Merry guiding them in their mad flight out of the Shire to Bucklebury Ferry and away from the pursuing Ringwraiths. He was, after all, the instigator of the "conspiracy" to help Frodo out in the early parts of FOTR! It would have been interesting to have the part where Merry gets the black breath in Bree included, but of course, there's no good cinematic way to include it IMO. That would have given resonance to the upcoming ROTK encounter with the Witch King at Pelennor Fields, but, alas, resonance is most often in the mind and recollection in the film! I do agree that Sean Astin IS Sam! Sean Astin and Ian McKellen really embody their characters wonderfully!

As for Aragorn, I think there is a definite undercurrent of indecisiveness that I've detected upon repeated readings of LOTR. Perhaps it is just a foreknowledge now; Aragorn prefers to go to Minas Tirith when the Fellowship must choose between the East and West paths in FOTR, but he is conflicted, because he is determined to follow whereever Frodo goes. If Frodo says "I'm going to Mordor," then Aragorn is determined to go that way. He feels a responsibility to the Ringbearer and the Quest, and doesn't grasp the fullness of his own quest and his own responsibility to the line of Elendil and Isildur. If Aragorn had not done things the way he did; if he had taken the road with Frodo, he might have returned to the kingship of Gondor, but it is much less likely the people would have accepted him. Also it is very likely, Minas Tirith would have been in even worse shape and his coming too late and too little. So, yes, I can really see the conflict inherent in Aragorn's position, and it is beautiful the serendipitous way it works out. Aragorn's choice is made for him when Frodo leaves surrepitiously, and his path takes him to Minas Tirith by the Paths of the Dead and helps to drive off the force besieging Gondor. Who could have predicted it would work out that way?

Viggo does a wonderful job of portraying outwardly this conflict, but it is shown more obviously in the movie, as there is less time to unfold the story before the audience. I did wonder about the "I let Frodo go" part, since this was definitely not his spirit in the book and seems to imply more of a decisive attitude than he had at this point in the book. I must also say that Viggo has grown on me (not literally! [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ) and I watch certain parts of FOTR over and over just to hear him talk!

OK, I suppose this post has turned into a short tome on Aragorn! There are no thoughts left in my head, so I will end the post and retire! Thanks for your indulgence!

Cheers,
Lyta

I think Eowyn was played very well, and I agree that Boromir was also.
However, I simply DETESTED the Arwen parts in both movies!!! Why did they waste precious screentime on HER and her sentimentality, when I'm sure I'm not the only one who was eagerly anticipating the whole Gandalf's usurping Sarumans place part. [img]smilies/mad.gif[/img] [img]smilies/mad.gif[/img] [img]smilies/mad.gif[/img]
And don't get me started with the whole Elven army in Helm's Deep thing.
I'm sure whoever wrote the lines for Legolas was doing him an injustice with the short 'orcs!' 'goblins!' etc. lines. And I was hoping they would make him say It's one of my favourite lines in the Books [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

Interesting thread!
I think I'll have to agree with most of the points everyone has raised. I absolutley adore Sean Bean's Boromir, he changed my perception of Boromir, and now he's one of my favorite charaters.
I don't think anyone has said anything about Ian Holm. To me, he was a perfect Bilbo. He *is* Bilbo, in my head.
As for Galadriel, I don't think it was Cate's acting, I think it was the whole atmosphere of Lothlorien (the scenery and the music) that made it creepy for me. It was sort of dark, not golden and light as I imagined it.
Sometimes I think Elijah was good as Frodo, and sometimes I don't. For some reason, in TTT he really annoyed me. Just some of his lines that he delivered didn't sound right to me. In FotR I thought he was good some of the time. At the very end at Amon Hen I thought he was pretty good, and his screams of pain when he was being stabbed were pretty cool. But I still think he looked a bit too young.
Ian McKellen was great, as was Christopher Lee. Two brilliant wizards!
The rest of the hobbits did a good job. Sean Astin did a great Sam, loyal, brave yet humorus. Although Pippin was sometimes portrayed as a bit of an idiot (getting hit by the apple, for instance in the EE) I think Billy Boyd did well. Although Merry could have had some more lines and been slightly more individual I think he was portrayed nicely. I prefer book-Merry, he has some good lines "Did you find them in your duck pond?" Book-Merry had more of a character, I thought.
Well, I've probably strayed from the original topic of this thread, but never mind!

I have to agree that Glorfindel was a great character in the books and it was a mistake to replace him with Arwen.

I was not at all happy at first with the way that Arwen was portrayed in the movies, but now that I think of it, it was almost necessary. How else would they have introduced her? In the books, Arwen is introduced at the banquet in Imladris, and that part was not put into the movie.

Glorfindel was one of my favorite characters in the book, and I was upset when they left him out. But I did come up with a reason for that too. Seeing as how the movie was super long anyway, and how difficult it was to get the characters developed, the extraction of Glorfindel gave them more time to dwell on the much more important original characters from the books.

I thought that Elijah Wood did an excelent job portraying Frodo, but the fact that I didn't like him in the first place didn't help much. Did you ever notice how his voice gets steadily higher the tenser the movie got?

I was reasonably happy with the portrayal of Merry and Pippin in the movie. I had always wondered how PJ was going to mature them enough for fighting, and I'm happy with it so far. Especially with Pippin ~ "Don't encourage it Merry!" ~ to ~ "The closer we are to danger, the farther we are from harm." ~ He matured rather quickly.

Except for that whole "wizard's duel" thing...

I actually don't care for the portrayal of Theoden. In the books, he seems older, somehow. Less middle-aged and more venerable. And I almost screamed with fury when Gandalf "exorcised" Saruman out of him. (That sounds funny, but I'm unsure how to rephrase it.)

I do agree with whoever it was who said that Aragorn came out more indecisive than in the books. Not because he wanted to go to the White City vs. say going with Frodo, but because he didn't want to be king at all. In the books, I at least saw him as quite prepared to take up the burden (Not to mention the fact that Elrond sort of made that a condition for marrying Arwen...) Also, at the end of FotR, Aragorn lets Frodo leave. Alone. Frankly, I just don't see Aragorn letting him do that. He would go with him, to continue to protect him. (While I'm on the subject of that scene, the whole Aragorn/Legolas/Gimli fighting the Uruk-hai did NOT need to occur)

Also, I found the way Frodo was so--dare I say it?--immature annoyed me greatly. The hobbit was fifty something at this point. Come on, PJ.

At this point, I need to go dunk my head in cold water to cool my wrath so I don't say anything I will regret.

I have to say that the part I least enjoyed in the movies was that of Faramir. The fact that he was so similar in mood to his brother in the movie seemed to conflict with Tolkien's own view of the young Captain of Gondor. I think by far the best presences in the movie are Ian McKellen as Gandalf, Sean Bean as Boromir, Christopher Lee as Saruman, and Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn.

The characters I think were the furthest from Tolkien's original intention were Legolas and Gimli. Legolas seems to be too two-dimensional and Gimli was obviously the comic relief throughout the entire second movie.

All in all, I have to say that I enjoyed the characters in the books much better. They seemed more well-rounded (except for Boromir) and I think that the greatest fault in the movie was the fact that Faramir was exactly the same as his brother, whereas in the book he was wiser, kinder, and had more of an Elvish quality.

As a side note (although this should be included in the movies section), I think that the scene in which Frodo offers the One Ring to the Winged Nazgul in the movie was highly implausible and would cause serious problems for Frodo and Sam. And why would Faramir have a change of heart (which he did in the movie) after he had just seen Frodo offer the Ring to the enemies?

~Lord of Angmar

Just a few thoughts here. I've had a careful think about this whole Arwen business and come to the conclusion that PJ did the right thing. Glorfindel appears twice in the novel - and that's counting his brief appearance in the Council of Elrond. Arwen is the woman Aragorn loves and has waited 60 years for. Why waste a scene on a character who will never appear again when you can show a woman Aragorn might believably love? She may not be Tolkien's Arwen, but she *is* a lot like her much gutsier ancestress Luthien and from the scene around the fire where Aragorn sings the tale of Beren and Luthien, he's half in love with Luthien himself. I agree about the scene by the ford - oh, I did love the bit where Frodo turns around and defies the Ringwraiths! But you can't have it all. Faramir - I said, "Ouch!" when I saw TTT for the first time, but the book Faramir wouldn't have worked as well on screen. I sympathised with him, too - he was desperate, getting one bit of bad news after another, and even then didn't try to take the Ring for himself, only to send it to his father. When he saw what the Ring did to Frodo, he finally got the point and gave up the idea. I loved the portrayal of Eowyn - Miranda Otto convinced me she was a warrior just by the way she walked. Wormtongue was very much Anthony Sher's Richard III portrayal - anyone seen it? - except Eowyn was smarter than Lady Anne. Let's face it, if she'd been left as in the novel, she would have had two lines the entire film and how could anyone have felt for her by the time she does the rest of it? Tolkien could write in things that just can't be shown without giving Eowyn more to do. PJ was right here.

Plenty more to say, but I'll stop here for now, just asking if anyone has heard the BBC radio version? Ian Holm, who, I agree, IS Bilbo, played a wonderful Frodo.

Sorry if this has been done before, but...I think they cahnged Aragorn in the movie. When I read the book, Aragorn seemed to relize his role as King and not hate the facted of his fate. In the movie, he seemed afraid and unsure of his fate...Did anyone else notice? [img]smilies/confused.gif[/img]

A reply to Lyta,
Aragorn has grown on me too! Viggo has potrayed Aragorn beautifully. You are right...I also listen to certain parts of FOTR to hear him speak. The drama is sooo well done... [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] (Hear I go swooning over Viggo) Anyway... I like to listen to the part where Boromir is dieing. It was soooo well done. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]