Summary
Peter Jackson’s critically acclaimedThe Lord of the Ringsmovies adapted J.R.R. Tolkien’sThe Lord of the Ringsnovel, but they weren’t always faithful to the source material.Peter Jackson’sLord of the Ringsmoviesleft out a lot of Tolkien’s content. The movies' theatrical editions all have long runtimes compared to other releases as it is, and Jackson likely couldn’t have crammed in much more.The movies necessitated substantial change to the source materialdue to the inherent challenge of adapting books to cinema, and in particular, adapting Tolkien’s vast, sprawling narrative into commercially viable movies.
Even bearing this in mind,some of the changes Jackson made to Tolkien’s characters were questionable. However,extended editions ofThe Lord of the Ringsmovies were released which added back some of the story that seemed like it was missing from the theatrical editions. As unbelievable as it now seems, many hadn’t heard ofLord of the Ringsbefore Jackson’s movies, and Jackson’s team had to secure vast sums of money to manifest its vision, so the project was a huge risk for many. Jackson’s difficult, bold, commercial choices ultimately allowed for the existence of these flawed but fantastic movies.
The Lord Of The Rings' 9 Fellowship Members Ranked By Power
The nine members of the Fellowship of the Ring from The Lord of the Rings make a formidable team, but how do they rank individually based on power?
15Frodo Left Bag End Ages After Bilbo’s Party In The Book
The Fellowship of The Ring Compressed The Book’s Timeline
The book introduced the Shire and its residents at a far more leisurely pacethan Peter Jackson’s movies. In Tolkien’sLord of the Rings, Frodo Baggins acquired the One Ring at Bilbo’s party in the year 3001 of the Third Age and left Bag End in 3018. InThe Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, this timeframe appeared significantly compressed.
Frodo began his quest 17 years after becoming a Ringbearer, a time period whichThe Lord of the Ringstook delight in describing. This part of the novel set up the Shire and Frodo’s relationship with Gandalf and his Hobbit friends.The Fellowship of the Ringcuts this detail. Unfortunately,17 years of Hobbit life probably had no place in Jackson’s three-hour movie.
14The Fellowship Of The Ring Didn’t Show Barrow-wights
Jackson Cut Tolkien’s Terrifying Barrow-wights
In the “Fog on the Barrow-downs” chapter ofThe Fellowship of the Ring, the Hobbits faceTolkien’s frightening Barrow-wights, which the movie cut.Frodo’s mission really started taking the shape of a high fantasy epic here, drawing in frightening monsters that Frodo and company only just escaped. This would have been incredible to see on the big screen.
Jackson’s decision to cut the Barrow-wights partially made sense in the grander scheme of hisFellowship of the Ringmovie. Althoughincluding one detail of this subplot would have madeThe Return of the Kingmake a lot more sense. Merry’s blade, which compromised the Witch-king, was only capable of such magic as an ancient blade recovered from the Barrow-downs after Merry’s narrow escape. This information would have provided useful context for the Witch-king’s defeat.
13Tom Bombadil was Cut From The Fellowship Of The Ring
One Of Tolkien’s Best Characters Didn’t Make The Movie
Peter Jackson’sLord of the Ringsmoviesexcluded Tom Bombadil because he didn’t advance the plot.The first movie inThe Lord of the Ringstrilogy had a lot of ground to cover, so there was no space in its runtime for thematic elements that were superfluous to the overarching narrative. Peter Jackson explained this choice in the DVD Appendices toThe Fellowship of the Ring:
What does Old Man Willow contribute to the story of Frodo carrying the Ring? What does Tom Bombadil ultimately really have to do with the Ring? I know there’s Ring stuff in the Bombadil episode, but it’s not really advancing our story.
Tom Bombadil was significant inThe Lord of the Rings, carrying symbolism around nature and pacifism, providing levity, and presenting a unique plot device in Tolkien’s wider mythopoeia. Bombadil was a mystery Tolkien inserted to help develop a convincing set of fictional myths. For this reason,perhaps Bombadil’s exclusion from the movies wasn’t such a bad thingafter all, leaving him safely shrouded in mystery.
Lord Of The Rings Cutting Tom Bombadil Was Right (& Tolkien May Agree)
Omitting Tom Bombadil from Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring was controversial, but even J.R.R Tolkien may have agreed with the decision.
12Arwen Drove Off The Ringwraiths In The Movie
Glorfindel Withstood The Nazgûl In The Book
One huge change Peter Jackson made from the book to the movie was swapping Glorfindel for Arwenat the Ford of Bruinen as the one to rescue Frodo fromthe evil Nazgûl. In the book, the heroic Elf Glorfindel rescued Frodo. However, Jackson gave Arwen a bigger role to help the audience warm to her character as Aragorn’s love interest.
Glorfindel was a highlight of the books but was only one of many incredible characters inThe Lord of the Rings. The problem with adapting a huge range of characters is that it wouldn’t allow the on-screen adaptation to be character-driven, as it wouldn’t allow enough time to be spent on each character. Character development is normally quite key in Hollywood blockbusters, and it’s true thatArwen could have easily fallen flat with less screen time.
The Rohirrim Commander Was A Big Presence In the Book
Rohirrim leader Erkenbrand’s place in the War of the Ring was huge inThe Lord of the Ringsbut was cut completely from Jackson’s movies, mostly replaced by Karl Urban’s Éomer.The Lord of the Ringswas a war story, among other things, reflecting Tolkien’s own experience at war. So, his books fleshed out the war of the movie and its battles in far greater detail, with lots more nuance.
The upcoming anime movieThe Lord of the Rings: War of the Rohirrimwill be released on June 16, 2025.
Perhaps cutting Erkenbrand worked for Jackson’s movies for the same reason that cutting Glorfindel did, butJackson’s movies could have taken a more Tolkienian approach to war. Jackson’s funny action movies were a hit, which is a good thing, but they occasionally felt like they trivialized war compared to Tolkien’s book. This may have been avoidable with more detail around its strategy, losses, and heroes like Erkenbrand.
10Jackson’s Movies Let Down The Prince Of Dol Amroth
Prince Imrahil Didn’t Feature In Peter Jackson’s Movies
Prince Imrahil of Dol Amroth was yet another character from the source material that was not featured inThe Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring,The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, orThe Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.Imrahil seemed important to the book, siding with Aragorn during his ascendancy to the throne, helping to legitimize his claim. He was also Faramir and Boromir’s uncle and was even more closely related to the Elves than Aragorn, as another Dúnadan.
InThe Lord of the Rings, “Legolas looked at him and bowed low; for he saw that here indeed was one who had elven-blood in his veins,” proving the potential for a heroic Númenórean supporting character. However,introducing characters this late in action or adventure movie franchises wasn’t standard practice.It could confuse an audience and detract from its time spent forming emotional connections with existing characters in the lead-up to the finale.
9Saruman’s Fate Was A Mystery In The Two Towers
Saruman Diminished Even Further In the Book
The theatrical editions of all threeLord of the Ringsmovies ignored Saruman’s fate, but Saruman’s character kept developing long after Aragorn’s coronation in the book. Saruman died grotesquely in the extended version ofThe Return of the Kingafter serious backlash from fans and Saruman actor Christopher Lee about cutting Saruman’s death fromThe Two Towers.
In both the book and movie, Saruman’s arc ended with him being betrayed and stabbed by Wormtongue. In the book, Saruman shriveled up, showing how far he had fallen. However,in the extended edition ofThe Return of the King,Saruman fell from Orthancand died impaled on a sharp spike on a wheel. Saruman was a Maia, and in the book, his spirit fled the scene. But there is no such spirit seen rising from Saruman’s corpse in the movie.
Saruman’s Final Form? Jackson’s Lord Of The Rings Movies Cut The Villain’s Best Transformation
Gandalf’s transformation into Gandalf the White is one that Lord of the Rings fans know well, but the movies missed Saruman’s own costume change.
8Éowyn’s Romance Was Shown In An Extended Version
Faramir And Éowyn Offered A Dark Story Some Redemption
Faramir and Éowyn were both huge characters in the book, but it is perhaps only Éowyn’s side of this duo that shone through in Jackson’s movies. Éowyn may beThe Lord of the Rings’most prominent female character, so it made sense for Jackson to focus on her in his trilogy. Faramir and Éowyn both endured lifelong struggle, despite being nobility of their realms, sofor Tolkien to end their arcs in a romance was one of the brightest points of redemptionand hope in a dark narrative.
Frodo’s story was one of PTSD, and his arc ended with him sailing to Valinor. This offered a fantastical solution to his problems but could be seen as a sad indication of the real-world difficulty of overcoming his struggle. There are no Valinors for real-life war veterans.Faramir and Éowyn’s storywas a relief in such a sad tale. Jackson’s movies were more light-hearted than the novel in some ways, so this relief wasn’t as needed as it was in the book. However, this still felt like an important piece of the puzzle.Jackson did show Faramir and Éowyn in the Houses of HealinginReturn of the King’sextended edition.
7Gimli Was Used For Comic Relief In the Movies
Gimli Was A Serious Figure In The Book
Gimli, in Jackson’sLord of the Ringstrilogy, presented a serious departure from Tolkien’s novel, often being used for comic relief.The Gimli of Tolkien’s story was a far more serious figureand portrayed as perhaps the sturdiest member of all the Fellowship, excepting maybe Gandalf. Gimli was a popular member of the Fellowship in the movies, but if an adaptation ever retrod this ground, it would be good to see the awe-inspiring hero of the book emerge.
Gimli and Legolas were both older than Aragorn in the book. While Aragorn was rightfully portrayed as the Fellowship’s leader in the movie, Gimli’s seniority could have come through a little more.Gimli’s arc in the booksextended intoThe Lord of the Rings’appendices. While it’s true that no movie trilogy could ever hope to adapt all of those, perhapssome of Gimli’s achievements could have informed the movies more- Gimli became Lord of the Glittering Caves in the book, helping rebuild the gates of Minas Tirith.
6Gimli And Legolas Went On Further Travels In The Book
Legolas And Gimli’s Friendship Changed Middle-earth
Perhaps the main importance of Gimli and Legolas was their Middle-earth-shattering friendship which overcame centuries of prejudice between Elves and Dwarves.Jackson’s movies did show Gimli and Legolas' blossoming friendship, which was a highlight. But the movies didn’t show the idyllic aftermath of the War of the Ring, whereby Gimli and Legolas got to continue their friendship.
In Tolkien’sLord of the Rings, Gimli and Legolas promised each other to travel together if they survived the War of the Ring. They survived, of course, and visited Gimli’s choice of destination - the Glittering Caves - followed by Legolas' choice of destination - Fangorn Forest.Perhaps the best illustration of their friendship breaking all the rules was Legolas bringing Gimli with him to the undying landsat the end of the story, which the movies cut.
