Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The movie totally ignores the story of after the destruction of the ring. The scouring of the shire and most of all, the DEATH of Saruman.
The movie also ignores the fact that there is more than two Wizards in all of middle earth! A whole wizards counsel isn't even mentioned.
i understand Tom's non-existence but the death of a character is rather far.

The death of Saruman will be in the extended edition. You have to understand that there is not enough time for the movie to include everything that were in the book.

For The Scouring of the Shire, I understand that they had to cut the scene. No matter how awesome it was in the books, that scene will barely work out in the movie. The Scouring of the Shire is one of the most obvious and logical cuts to make in a film adaptation of LOTR (for me at least). I knew from the day I heard they were making a movie trilogy of The Lord of the Rings that the "Scouring of the Shire" would be either impossible to include in a theatrical release, or else it would fail miserably to please mass audiences. It only strengthened my view when I saw the movies. The way the film(s) are made makes the SOS an unnecessary, drawn out episode that simply takes up too much time, is anti-climactic, and weakens the whole film IMO. Imagine what the critics and non-book readers would have to say if they had to sit through another 20+minutes of mini battle at the end of the film. They are already complaining about the "so-called" too long multiple endings. We as book fans wouldn't mind about that for sure, but we also have to remember that these films are also made for the average movie-goers.

About the Wizards, yes, there were 5 of them sent to Middle-earth. But the two were lost in the East and I can't see any reason for the filmmakers to even mention them. About Radagast the Brown, it will take too much time to introduce him. And having another Wizard will just confuse some people. Why introduce another Wizard to send the Eagles if Gandalf is a Wizard, too? I know the reason behind that but you can't really explain it to others.

The White Council doesn't have to be mentioned.

Just to end this, the book is the book and the films are the films. That's why it's a movie adaptation. I myself stopped comparing the two mediums. I will just disappoint myself. This is PJ's interpretation of LOTR and we just have to be thankful that he and the people involved did an amazing job. Of course, I'm not saying that I'm not disappointed with some of the changes, I also can't help it sometimes. But I'm just trying to think that if I want to see and feel a particular scene, then all I have to do is just read it from the book.

stupid, nonbased and repeated threat raven.. you dont have the right to call the masterpiece of peter jackson "an injustice to the book" please retract yourself..........well explanation shadowy

And I'd like to add to shadowy's post, there Gandalf in the first book does mention that Saruman is the head of his counsel.

Counsel = More then 2 members I assure you

Well I wouldnt directly call it nonbased... but repeated is definitely correct
And in some ways I also agree with the title (the injustice-thing) - which changes nothing about my opinion that these are the three best films ever and it would be hard to make it better, though there are many things that could be improved, but far more that could have been done a lot worse by others.
The films are a point of view, and everybody has to find his own view of the Lord of the Rings.

great post, shadowy ^^

Council, not Counsel... common error that.

But the point is well made- all the film does is give the impression that there are LOTS of wizards we do not see, rather than there only being 2 instead of 5. Which is still erroneous but all things considered it is SO not important!

Hasn't there been a thread like this before?

They mention a 'order' in FotR. Gandalf says: " I must see the head of my order he is both wise and powerful." this gives the impression that there is more than just two.

They have to show more wizards, they have to show a different ending, they have to show this, they have to show that...blah blah blah.

Sorry but as a casual fan I really don't feel like watching what would end up being a 4 1/2 hour movie.

hey imagine if you will

your not a tolkien fan...you only like the films....you havent read the book.....you go, you see big kickass battle....you see ring get destroyed etc etc...aragorn comes king!



then after the initial part of the movie is over


would you sit through them going home...seeing the shire destroyed....seeing the battle of bywater....which wasnt oo impressive on screen.......






this is hitting four and a hgalf hours now


would you stay through that if your 'just another movie buff'

?

well, I am a great watcher of Movies, god knows I have a movie list of god knows and I have watched many long houred films

Discos - I would easily do all of the above.....but again I am a Tolien fan

read vipers post

my point



proven

telcontar was going to say what I was needing to say, it was the "order", but obviously the blue wizards were injusted by saruman.....well who else?

Um, maybe it's just me but I THINK that Raventheonly is actually a bigger fan of the books. They're not moaning about the film as if they have no knowledge of what should have happened. To be honest, I get the impression that you did not appreciate to films - in which case, it seems rather silly that you are visiting a forum concering the films instead of the books but still....

Yes, compared to the books, the films really seem quite inferior, but still - the greatest achievement in movie making history!

I prefer the books to the films sort of, after reading the books again after seeing the film I could put a face to most of the characters

Oh, it's the books - no doubt about it!!

The movies, amazing as they are, are only a condensed, simplified version of the full story. The book is filled with so much detail and an incredible sense of "vistas unseen" (to paraphrase Tolkien himself). It includes so much more of the story, and gives much more depth and richness to the tale.

Unless you only want to see the droolable actors and the magnificent battle scales and special effects, in my opinion, the book will always be superior to the movies. Always.

shadowy, you are brilliant I agree with everything you said haha. And Raven, you shouldn't complain about the movie. Like all the other people who have posted this before said, people who aren't huge LOTR fans like we are wouldn't like sitting through an even longer movie than what it already is. The ratings would keep going down and down (this is just my guess, however) because of how long it is, no matter how amazing it is. You see, people who haven't read the books or who have no real appreciation for LOTR just go for the action and, for most girls (not including me and a lot of people on here), for Orlando Bloom They probably don't even know the real meaning of the Ring. I bet some of them can't tell the difference between, say, the Witch-King and the Nazgul! I know there's not MUCH of a difference, but there's still a difference! Some people, like my dad and one of my friends, for instance, don't even know why Sauron made and wants the Ring!!! According to my friend, she just goes for "the action and adventure stuff." So, if a lot of people don't even know the purpose of the Ring or anything, I doubt they would enjoy sitting through a 4 + hour movie. I've heard plenty of people complain about it being 3 and a half hours! And it probably wouldn't have very good reviews. OK, I am going to end this because my mom's getting REALLY mad at me and she wants me off, so, to conclude this, sure, the books are better (in my opinion) and the Scouring of the Shire chapter and the death of Saruman are really good parts, but it would have made the movie much too long(well, for certain people. I wouldn't mind it if the movie was even longer haha). Besides, it will be included in the EE of ROTK when it comes out on DVD, so just calm down!

Well, the 2 Blue Wizards are not members of the White Council. The Council is made up of Saruman (as the chief), Gandalf, Radagast the Brown, Galadriel, Celeborn, and Elrond.

But still, it still doesn't have to have a big involvement in the movies. The people weren't introduced to Galadriel and Celeborn till the Fellowship went to Caras Galadhon and Radagast wasn't in the movie.

PippinTook, glad you agree.

Dude, I forgot Cirdan, and the other Elven Lords.

yes. great post shadowy, and pippintook. Exactly what i thought I know a lot of people who complained about the length of the movie already. And like was said already, the fans would have enjoyed it, but they only make up a small portion of the movie-goers. (except on opening night those are like all Fans ) and the movies were made to appeal to them too. SO, while it may be dissapointing to us that some stuff was left out, you should overlook that and enojoy thre of the best films ever i too wish the scourging was in there (and countless other stuff, like tom) but i like the movies for the movies, and the books for the books. And, there's noting you can do about it now

Melian?

Thank you for the wide knowledge shadowy blue, your insight is quite welcome. For the movie goer's these were the three greatest movies i ever viewed. My anger is only based on how much better the movie could have been ended with these details in tact.

It could have been better, it could not have. We'll never know. But at least we know that the movie still ended up amazing without it.

I thought that the only injustice was their treatment of the fall of Sauron at the end of the Second Age. They made it into a silly accident rather than Tolkein's account.

I think they improved upon the book in some ways though. The undead army for instance was better handled.

As to Saruman - well, their account worked for the story, but yes, those who read the book do know that there's more.

I agree that the scouring of the Shire would have been a better ending than them looking wistfully at each other though.

Hm, in my opinion the Dead Army was the most injustice thing

Mainly their appearance... colour was horrible. Why oh why are dead people / ghosts that still look human always fluorescent green?? Any especially here - why GREEN when they are called "the Grey Host"???

I also didnt like the version in the PC game when Aragorn had to fight the Dead People to make them follow him.

The undead army was kinda cheesy in how the just flew though the enemy. The whole battle lasted like two days and they ended it in like 20 seconds lol.

Well they had to make the battle more dramatic for the screen Raven.

And the game of Fellowship of the Ring was absurd - On the Weathertop level it depicted the Nazgul attacking Aragorn in preference to Frodo, EVEN when Frodo had the Ring on!

*shrugs* Isn't there supposed to be a scene about how Legolas describe the um....the Army of the Dead upon the hills with their flags waving high in the RotK: EE?

and in the FOTR game where you have to fight a nazgul at the end to 'save sam'. I thought that was really messed up

hmm... bump..

Yeah, now that this has been bumped, I will respond... I think the EE will elaborate on this... The battle scene in the TE was already pretty long, so they must have just made this quick. They also wanted to really highlight how strong the Army of the Dead really was. I can't wait till the EE to see what they do here...

true but after seeing fotr you must have known that after frodo saw the burning of the shire that p.j wasnt going to put it in, but i totaly agree with you the scoring of the shire was a gret part of the books.

wow... this is ancient hstory... this was my first post ever lol!!!