JRR Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings Novel was known for its huge scope and wide range of characters, which Peter Jackson’s Return of the King Movie partially adapted, but it left some key elements. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King was the third Warner Bros. picture in his Lord of the Rings trilogy, preceded by The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring And The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. Jackson’s approach to the LotR trilogy made a strong impression on viewers, but it was at the expense of some of the highlights of the novel.
Jackson could not include every detail in the novel. The theatrical version of Return of the King Had a blistering runtime as it was. Nevertheless, Jackson created an extended edition of his movie for fans like him, which includes many scenes that he cut from the theatrical edition. Even consider The return of the king Extended Edition, the final part of Jackson’s trilogy is not a totally faithful depiction of the end of the Third Age in Tolkien’s Middle-earth. Some of Jackson’s changes made more sense than others, but together, they created one of the highest-grossing fantasy movies ever.
10
Jackson’s movie cut the Prince of Dol Amrot
Imrahil was important in this book
Prince Imrahil, the Prince of Dol Amroth, has a large presence in The Lord of the Rings Roman, however, is completely cut from the movie. The prince of Dol Amrut was a Dunadhan of GondorWhich in and of itself would have been an important concept to work into the movie. Aragorn was a Ranger of the North, a group of the Númenórean-descended Dúnedain, but there was not much explanation of this complex concept in the movie, which led many to misunderstand the Dúnedain.
Certainly, not all the intricacies of Tolkien’s knowledge could make their way into the movie. There are, after all, multiple appendices documenting thousands of years worth of history included The Lord of the Rings. But in the case of Prince Imrahil, perhaps a slight exception may be made, and More could have been revealed about Gondorian societyLeaving Imrhil’s inclusion.
9
Gimli has a more humorous role in Return of the King
Gimli is not used for comic relief in this book
Gimli was one of the most powerful members of the Fellowship of the Ring in the book but he was more of a comic relief character in The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Gimli was the dwarven representative of the book and he was suitably brave. The movie sold him To a certain extent by giving him funny lines. These funny lines made for a winning movie and an endlessly popular character, but they didn’t encourage viewers to take Gimli seriously as a warrior.
Related
Tolkien probably intended his readers to take Gimli quite seriously. The tone of Lord of the Rings was quite serious In general, however, characters like The Hobbits and Tom Bombadil brought levity and humor to the dark story, so Lives was obviously one of the core components of Tolkien’s story. This makes Gimli’s comic role in it Return of the King More Tolkienian.
8
The movie did not show Gimli and Legolas traveling
Gimli and Legolas extended their bromance in this book
Gimli and Legolas probably have the second most important bromance The Lord of the RingsWith Frodo and Sam’s relationship taking first place. Gimli and Legolas made friends throughout the novel and this was fully solidified by part three, The return of the king. In the third part of the novel, Gimli and Legolas made good on their promises to travel to their respective bucket list locations. Gimli took Legolas to the glittering caves of Aglarond, which would have been intriguing to see on screen as it foreshadowed Gimli’s later colonization of the realm.
Gimli became Lord of the Glittering Caves, cementing his status as one of the greatest dwarves Middle-earth had ever seen. Legolas also took Gimli on his travels to Fangor Forest, proving that their friendship transcends all boundaries in Lord of the Ringsincluding centuries of racial conflict and distrust. More of this bromance would have been enjoyable in Return of the KingBut it is understandable if it is not Jackson’s priority.
7
The movie downplayed Faramir and Éowyn’s romance
Faramir and Éowyn have a nice storyline in this book
Faramir and Éowyn’s romance did not appear Return of the King Theater in general. However, the extended edition made some amendments here, including some detail about their relationship. Faramir and Éowyn had a hard timeDespite being Gondorian and Rohirrim nobility, respectively. They struggled, despite being two of the greatest heroes of the stories, so when they met at the end of the story, it was a relief for both them and the reader. Faramir and Éowyn truly represented the best of each of their respective worlds – Gondor and Rohan.
With Gondor symbolic of the ancient friendship between men and elves, and the Rohirrim symbolizing men at their purest, the union of Faramir and Éowyn was nothing less than the marriage of Tolkien’s two most honorable civilizations. Gondor and Rohan are old alliesBut drama soured their bond in the lead-up to Return of the King. So, for them to come together so victoriously, in the form of Faramir and Éowyn’s marriage, was a major resolution of Tolkien’s story.
6
Saruman died impaled on his own machinery
Saruman’s soul flew away in the book
Grima Wormtongue saw to Saruman’s passing in both The Lord of the Rings Book and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the KingHowever Saruman’s death is different in this movie. It was a good thing that Jackson decided to include Saruman’s death at all, having originally decided to cut it from his trilogy. Jackson first plots to show Saruman dying in The two towersThen deleted the scene. It took campaigning by fans and Saruman actor Christopher Lee to get the scene returned to the trilogy, which it eventually did, in the form of a scene in Return of the King Extended edition.
Saruman’s death in this scene consisted of him being stabbed by Wormtongue at Orthank and falling to his death, ending up impaled on his own machinery. The book saved Saruman’s death until near its end When he appeared just as desperate as his dark soul, which departed in an evil cloud, after that in his heart. This was a bit more descriptive of his fall from grace, but at least Jackson showed his death at all, as opposed to ignoring Saruman’s fate.
5
Aragorn killed the mouth of Sauron in the movie
Aragorn wasn’t that violent in the book
Aragorn bisected Sauron’s mouth in a shock move in a scene that never appeared in the theatrical edition of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. This was after content was added Return of the Kings Extended edition that is perhaps best left on the cutting room floor. Fantasy master Tolkien championed peace in his novelAnd Aragorn’s competence as a leader had more to do with his diplomacy than his ability to chop off heads.
The Mouth of Sauron was a diplomat seeking to speak to another diplomat, and Aragorn’s betrayal of the unspoken truth in Return of the King Was a kingly faux pas.
Although Aragorn was an excellent soldierNon-violence is out of character for him. The Mouth of Sauron was a diplomat seeking to speak to another diplomat, and Aragorn’s betrayal of the unspoken truth in Return of the King was a kingly faux pas that could have triggered another century of feuding if Frodo had not successfully defeated Sauron. Mostly it lacked compassion (to say the least), which was one of Aragon’s strong suits in the book.
4
Denethor is worthy of Pippin’s oath in this book
The movie portrays Denetor as a villain
Denethor was a vile specimen of humanity In Peter Jackson The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the KingWhich was a miracle of filmmaking but a misrepresentation of the novel’s scarred but noble king. This also made Pippin’s loyalty to him a little meaningless, compared to the complex relationship that the two developed in the novel. Pippin, who swore freedom to a little father, did neither Pippin nor Denator justice. Conversely, Tolkien described Pippin’s oath to Denethor as an almost inexplicable act of bravery and wisdom.
Pippin, who swore freedom to a little father, did neither Pippin nor Denator justice.
Pippin’s character judgment was on point in the novel – He saw past Denethor’s resentment to recognize the noble heart of all of Gondor, carried on the shoulders of an old, tired man. Pippin’s loyalty to Denethor was one of the first pillars of the Hobbits’ future greatness and recognition in Middle-earth. It was a shame this didn’t make it into the movie, but John Noble’s despicable Denethor could have been just as much of a treat.
3
Peter Jackson’s movie took the Eye of Sauron literally
Sauron’s eye was metaphorical in this book
in The return of the king movie, Sauron was a huge, disembodied eye Fluttered between the two ends of the broadband like so many filaments in a halogen bulb, but he was a blackened demon hair in the book. “The Lord of the Rings” eponymous villain has “Four fingers on the black hand.“Meanwhile, his body was”An image of evil and hatred made visible.“
The all-seeing eye was a powerful and unforgettable image, recalling the oppressive big brother of George Orwell’s dystopian 1984, watching and dominating everything.
The Silmarillion confirmed that “The eye of Sauron the terrible few can endure,“Which was intended metaphorically, considering the clear signs of Sauron’s physical body throughout The Lord of the Rings. Jackson used creative license To take this literally, resulting in one of cinema’s most iconic villains. The all-seeing eye was a powerful and unforgettable image, recalling the oppressive big brother of George Orwell’s dystopian 1984, watching and dominating everything.
2
Frodo didn’t send Sam away in the book
Sam stayed with Frodo through thick and thin in the book
Frodo and Sam shared a beautiful friendship in both The Lord of the Rings Book and The return of the king movie, but they fell out in the movie, which would never happen in the same way in the book. In the Warner Bros. movie, the One Ring affected Frodo’s mental statH, and he sent away there in anger. Frodo wouldn’t do that in the book. More remarkably, Sam actually left Frodo, as Frodo advised.
Related
Sam was even less likely to leave Frodo than Frodo was to send him away. This may seem like a treacherous take on Tolkien’s beloved book. however, Jackson’s change here did not destroy the unbreakable bond between the two hobbits Because it was obvious to Jackson that only something as toxic as the One Ring could have driven them apart. In that sense, Frodo and Sam’s temporary separation plays nicely into the broader themes of the movie.
1
The king’s return cut off the screams from the shell
The movie and book had different endings
The climax of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King was Frodo’s defeat of Sauron, with the movie winding down after that, but the action didn’t stop there in the book. Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin return home in what should have been triumph, but they are instead met with Saruman’s invasion of the Shire. This event was known by Sam in Galadriel’s mirror, as the scourging of the Shire. Jackson’s decision to cut the Shire’s scoring made a lot of sense Dramatically. In a way, the question of the entire trilogy was whether Frodo and Sam would survive.
This provided the focal dramatic tension of Jackson’s adventure trilogy, throwing two provincial civilians into an unprecedented military mission. The hobbits met with certain doom But they are saved by a sudden, unexpected turn of events. Tolkien called this eucatastrophe, a phrase that would endure. Jackson captured the emotionally grueling whiplash of this relief immaculately, so throwing the hobbits back into more danger afterwards would have lessened it. Right off the bat, it would be great to see an interpretation of The Lord of the Rings That tackled the thematically important scoring of the Shire.