Originally posted by Sirp
>(1) Gollum didn't get the Ring from the river bed, his friend did - who he murdered and took the ring from. Also, he was just "Smeagol" at that time and was a hobbit - it wasn't until after he became obsessed with the ring that he became "Gollum".
Agreed - this could have been emphasised, without taking too much time.
>(2) in the book, it is years (17 I think but I'm not sure about that) after Bilbo's party before Frodo began his Quest; it was also several months after Gandalf specifically told him to go.
This, along with the arranged meeting at the Pony, should have been in the film - a fairly important point, I would have thought.
>(5) The whole farmer Cotton thing was totally different in the book .
Wasn't it Farmer Maggot? But I agree, it was different.
>(7) The Dark Rider isn't right on the heels of Frodo as he gets on the ferry; the ferry boarding is completely different in the book.
No, but it makes a neat scene.
>(8) The Hobbits stay a night by the Brandywine
This omission annoyed me. The whole sequence from the bridge to the Barrow-Downs was important.
>(9) The Great Forest is omitted, Tom Bombadil is omitted, The Barrow-Wights are omitted
While Bombadil was irritating, the blades they got from the Barrow-Wights play a fairly important part in Return Of The King; as it was, they just got fairly unspectacular little daggers from Aragorn.
>(13) The innkeeper is also meant to have a long conversation with the Hobbits. He is meant to forget to pass on the message left by Gandalf.
BIG omission.
>(15) Gandalf flies to Rohan and has to beg Theoden King for a horse - and obtaining Shadowfax he rides it to Bree, then passes the party in the wilderness arriving at Weathertop where he is attacked by the Riders. The party sees flashes of light and are confused as to what it is - but later realise it was Gandalf fighting. Gandalf also leaves runes for them to show he was there on Weathertop.
This should have been kept - it changes the plot significantly.
>(17) It is Glorfindel, an elf Lord that meets them - not Eowyn.
Agreed - however, it makes no significant difference to the plot, and avoids dragging in an essentially superfluous character. BTW, that should be Arwen - Eowyn doesn't appear until the next book.
>(20) The snowstorm at Caradhras has nothing to do with Saruman in POST
http://forums.civfanatics.com/newreply.php HTTP/1.0the book; the movie shows him conjuring a spell to cause the snowstorm to occur.
I liked that change in the film - in the book, Caradhras (that's a really neat name, don't you think?) was assigned a sort of consciousness, making the mountain itself evil. It makes more sense to have Saruman bringing the storm onto them.
>(23) They do not find that Moria is a tomb as soon as they enter.
And Gimli's supposed to know about Balin's death. Not "When we get there we'll get loads of grub from me uncle/brother/whatever".
>(28) The time at Lothlorien is greatly shortened. (Side note: In my opinion Galadriel is portrayed extremely poorly). This ommission is fairly understandable though.
Agreed - Galadriel (who was really neat in the book) was rubbish in the film.
>(29) Gimli's interactions with and respect for Galadriel is not portrayed
Another glaring omission.
>(30) The initial rivalry followed by the blossoming friendship between Gimli and Legolas is hardly touched upon in the movie.
And another...
On the plus side, the effects were spectacular. Particularly the sound effect as Sauron disintegrates (that low, drawn-out WHUMMMMMmmmmmm....), the camera follwing Legolas' arrow in the mines, the Elven battle line's flashy-spinny-sword thing at the start, and the way they changed Bilbo's face when he lunges for the ring in Rivendell.