If you haven’t read/seen
The Lord of the Rings, go
read/watch it now. Honestly, how have
you not at least seen the movies, even if you haven’t read the books? Go on.
I’ll wait.
Here is a song,
About reading a
book,
I’ve given you a
warning,
Not to look,
If you haven’t read
it,
And italics you
skip,
Just be aware,
Plot spoilers may be
slipped.
Ok.
Many years ago, I read The Lord of the Rings
trilogy. Then they made some movies
based on the books. I saw the
movies. I liked them. Since then, I’ve watched them a few times.
This year when I was looking for my next book to read, I
came across The Fellowship of the Ring again, and thought “I wonder if I
remember it, or only remember the movie version of the story?”
(I already remembered some things, such as the unnecessary
change to Faramir’s character which annoyed me and anyone else that I spoke to
that had read the books, but exactly how different are the movies?)
I’m half way through The Two Towers now, and I’ve been surprised
at some of the things that I didn’t realise or remember had been changed.
One example is Gandalf.
When travelling south in the movie, Gimli insists that they should go
through Moria to avoid the gap of Rohan.
Gandalf doesn’t want to, instead attempting to take them over the
mountain Caradhras, but they have to turn back because of a storm that Saruman is shown to be whipping up.
In the book, Gandalf is the one that wants to go through
Moria; it is Aragorn that doesn’t and insists that they try the mountain
road. They are defeated by the malice of
the storm of the mountain itself, Saruman doesn’t conjure it. When they return down the path Gandalf is
glad to go into Moria.
There are a few changes like that dotted around, but it
doesn’t annoy me. For the most part, any
changes that the films made I understand why they made. In a film you have to get the character
across quickly, and move the action forward due to being on limited time.
Another example is if they had included Rohan’s ride
towards Isengard. In the book King Théoden
intends to meet Sarurman in open battle, but after the second day of
riding Gandalf tells the King to go to Helm’s Deep instead because they are
outnumbered.
If that had been done on screen everyone would have been “huh? Why bother riding that way at all? It didn’t move the plot forward, and we could
have spent screentime on X instead.”
Whereas in the book the time (and word count) is there to
explain the reasoning and the thoughts that go along with the actions; it makes
sense.
In the end I noticed that it doesn’t matter if a
character does something differently, as long as it is consistent within their
character. In the book Gandalf gives his
advice based on what he knows to be safer paths; he knows Caradhras is treacherous
and his wisdom tells them that to sneak through Moria is a better way. He gathers information on the way to Isengard
and makes the call that to rendezvous at Helm’s Deep is the better option. In the films the same is true; he knows of
the danger of Moria, and so chooses the (safer?) path of Caradhras. He knows that the horse lords would get
trapped in Helm’s Deep, and so advises them to ride out.
Different actions, but the same character; the wise
advisor.
That’s why Faramir’s decisions in the movie were
disliked, whereas Gandalf’s changes went unnoticed. Faramir wouldn’t have made those choices
based on what we knew the character to be like.
It’s interesting to see that in some circumstances we can believe a character will make an
opposite choice and accept it. So when
writing a story if you get stuck and think “what should they do next?” try out
the opposite choice. It might not work
(like if you have a nun character who is debating whether to use the medicine
or the power of prayer to heal someone, and then try out having them stab the
person. That’s just daft.) but you might
find a route that you didn’t think of which works just as well.
