re: Least-Favorite Peter Jackson changes to Lord of the Rings

quote:

---

When Pippin says "I don't know any songs worthy of the halls of Gondor", I think it breaks his somber mood, and he's serious when he tells him to sing, they need to be reminded of the peoples he protects by being on the front line. That's why Gandalf was ultimately pleased with Pippin's presence there, he eased the man's pain for awhile. In the movie, it's more like tormenting Pippin for the sake of it.

---

Gandalf was actually kind of happy for Pippin. And Pippin was pretty happy while he was in service to Denethor. Also, the Faramir and Eowyn love story taking place at the time was probably a better love story than Aragorn and Arwen's.

quote:

---

No Tom Bombadil.

---

I must disagree. I thought that Bombadil was the biggest waste of a chapter in the entire trilogy. I was affirmatively GLAD to see him excluded.

Tolkien wrote a poem decades before the trilogy about Bombadil and Goldberry, and he wanted to shoehorn them into Lord of the Rings, but they are completely at odds with almost everything else in the legendarium of Middle Earth.

I don’t necessarily agree with you. That Tolkien would have “shoehorned” anything into his obsessively detailed and elaborate mythology is, if not quite ridiculous, at least hard to swallow. The chapter with Tom Bombadil does seem to take place outside the plot of the rest of the books, but it has its purpose. Remember that one of the major underlying themes of LotR is that Man, as a younger race, is being forced to contend with the leftover remnants of the enemies of the Elves, an older and much more powerful race. Sauron was only a lieutenant of Morgoth, Smaug and the Balrog are individual survivors of ancient armies of such creatures, etc. Tom Bombadil also fits into and expands upon this theme, as he is also a leftover - not of Morgoth’s forces, but of the time even before that, when Middle Earth was new and gods still walked upon it. He exists completely apart from the War for the Silmarils which had defined all of Elvish and, ultimately, human history, and thus doesn’t really fit into the “good versus evil” dynamic of that story. He simply is. He doesn’t wish the Hobbits ill, but he doesn’t particularly seem to wish Sauron ill, either. To him they are children squabbling over a plaything. That’s his purpose in the story - to open a small window onto Middle Earth’s much deeper history, and to show that even Sauron’s power has limits. And while I have never bought into the “Bombadil is Eru” theory (I happen to believe he is an Ainur, the same class of being as the Valar and Morgoth), I think that Tolkien did intend for him to stand in for God in the story of LotR. For those who have faith, it’s comforting to remember that no matter how bad things seem to get, and how powerful Satan sometimes seems, from God’s perspective he is a toddler playing with toys.

I am familiar with that interpretation of Bombadil. I am still glad Jackson kept him out of the films.

Agreed there. Bombadil had his place in the books because books can, by their nature, pontificate and meander. He would have drastically slowed the movie down.

quote:

---

EDIT: Let’s keep the three Hobbit films out of this discussion, as Jackson’s missteps in those films would overwhelm the discussion.

---

Amen and amen.

quote:

---

For me, the worst change was Jackson choosing to kill Saruman at Orthanc and thereby excluding the Scouring of the Shire from the films.

---

I get what you're saying here, but ultimately I think a film fan who never read/never will read the novel will get a really good sense of the epic scope of the story with the films as is, particularly the extended editions.

Having said that, I think it is, to a degree, copping out for the sake of younger fans to remove the Scouring of the Shire - seemingly avoiding the cost or sacrifice altogether - was a marketing decision to not end the films on a down note. So, I see and understand why it was done, but agree with your disappointment.

quote:

---

Personally I think Gandalf could have beat Sauron one on one.

---

No he couldn’t have. Not even close.

1. Gandalf isn’t supposed to use his true power when he’s in Middle Earth. And he sticks to it. Unlike some other wizards.

2. Sauron is a higher level being than Gandalf. Simple as that.

Gandalf is powerful, powerful enough to fight off 5 nazgul at once, but I mean, he is about even with a Balrog in terms of power

quote:

---

Sauron is a higher level being than Gandalf. Simple as that.

---

I am not extremely well-versed on the Silmarillion, but I thought that both were among the Maiar.

Yes, both Gandalf and Sauron were Maiar. However, Maiar were presented as varying greatly in power, so that doesn’t necessarily mean they would have been evenly matched. Balrogs were also Maiar, and one of them certainly couldn’t have defeated Sauron in a straight-up fight. Maiar ranged from almost an Ainur themselves to just barely more powerful than one of the Noldorin Elves.

quote:

---

Personally I think Gandalf could have beat Sauron one on one.

---

You'd be wrong. By the end of the books, Gandalf was the 2nd strongest force in Middle Earth behind Sauron.