Changes that you weren't bothered by.

[Boromir88]

I'm sure we all have our list of things we would have liked to have seen different in the movies (some longer then others). But what about the ones that you weren't bothered by? If there are any.

Faramir taking the Ring to Osgiliath. This has been one that has been a big complaint to a lot of purists, but I don't see the big fiasco over it. Afterall Faramir did willingly let Frodo go, right? Also, after seeing TTT EE, you get a bigger understanding of Faramir. He did it to try to impress his father, but yet he still defied his father, and let Frodo go. I don't see the big deal whether he did it in Hennuth Annun or in Osgiliath, as long as he let Frodo go willingly.

Eomer saving the day instead of Erkenbrand. I realize this takes away from some of Eomer's fighting capabilities, he was a key fighter at Helm's Deep. However, I think the audience would non-readers would have been confused on who this person was, and how did he show up? I also think it makes for a great story that the recently expelled Marshall/Nephew, comes back and saves his uncle's butt.

The Ents being "tricked" into War. I think the deciding factor in both the books and movie, for the Ents going to War, were the cut down trees. In the book Treebeard knew about them before Merry and Pippin showed up, and Merry and Pippin "roused," the Ents. In the movie Treebeard didn't know about the cut down trees until Pippin led him there, and that's what roused the Ents. Either way, it was the Hobbits, and the cut down trees, that sent to Ents to war against Saruman.

Arwen saving the hobbits instead of Glorfindel. I may get my head bashed in for this one...but, PJ has to incorporate Aragorn's soon to be wife in the story some how. If you have two full movies of Eowyn trying to "woo" Aragorn, then by the end of the last one all of a suddenly Aragorn marries this Elf lady, people would scrath their heads. You have to put Arwen in the movie somehow, besides the simple flashbacks. I wasn't too fond of her conjuring the flood, but I didn't mind her rescuing the hobbits and creating a little love tension.

[Essex]

and I may get shot at for this one.......

I didn't mind the Dead at the pellenor fields duck OWW! One got me.....

The main reasons behind a lot of people berating this happening in the film was the Dead 'saving the day'. Maybe to unitiated, non book film goers it looks like this, but to us lot we know that it wasn't just Aragorn and the host of Gondorian men that defeated the Armies, it was a multitude of people. The Rohirrim, the men of Minas Tirith, Prince Imrahil, Rangers, Elves (I can't remember if Elrond's sons were there, sorry if I'm wrong) and most importantly of all MERRY AND EOWYN. Without these two, I believe all the armies of Men (and women) would have failed. It was the Witch King's death that was the catalyst for Sauron's forces failure at the pellenor fields. (And also with this death they saved Middle-earth but I've already explained that on another thread)

To carry on from a film point of view, it would have taken too much time, and spoiled the flow of the movie (and the surprise factor of Aragorn turning up) by Aragorn having to thank the King of the Dead and release him before the biggest battle in the movie. It just wouldn't have worked.

And IMHO the Dead only sort of polished off the baddies anyway. You know, knocking down an elephant, running into minas tirith and killing a few stragglers. That's how I view it anyway.

PS Isn't it great in the EE the way Eowyn struggles to reach her sword as Gothmog is bearing down on her before Aragorn and Gimli finish the good looking chap off without even realising she was there.

[tar-ancalime]

And I'm expecting some shoes thrown at me for this:

I liked the Elves at Helm's Deep. As a matter of fact, I liked most of PJ's handling of the Rohan story in TTT (Orlando Bloom's regrettable shield-surfing notwithstanding).

First of all, I liked that everyone simply made for Helm's Deep. It's simpler than introducing Dunharrow, it keeps the principal characters together, and it doesn't really detract from the progress of the story.

Bringing in the Elves served two purposes in my opinion: first, it brought back Haldir, and in a story with this many characters it is imperative to "use" everyone you introduce. Haldir also tied the second movie to the first. The second purpose of bringing in the Elves was to show that Elves are more than pointy-eared naysayers (I'm thinking of Agent Elrond saying, "Men are weak!").

And boromir88, I'm with you about Arwen rescuing the hobbits. I like Glorfindel as much as the next person, but as I mentioned above regarding Haldir, it wouldn't have done PJ any good to introduce yet another character at that point in the story.

[radagastly]

I'd pretty much agree with you all(except maybe about the Ents being tricked . . .)

Anyway, I liked the fact that they adjusted the time-line to actually show Theodred's death. It really created an "event" to illuminate the assorted political and courtly relationships at Edoras in just a few brief scenes. I liked it.

I also kinda liked the Warg attack. (Duck!!!) They had to show a real threat in order to justify leaving Edoras and heading to Helm's Deep. I know that P.J. didn't care for the final look of the scene because he more or less improvised the action (most fight scenes, even small ones, are carefully choreographed) and then filled in with CGI. I guess that every now and then, I just love a good creature fight.

[Morgul Queen]

Yes, the Warg scene was good. It does make sense and helps non-book readers.

But Faramir taking the Ring to osgiliath...it's not so much that fact that the Ring is in Osgiliath, it's that the Nazgul are there, they know Frodo's got the Ring and is in Osgiliath, which, incidentally, is also where they are...and they don't do anything about it. The book!Nazgul and Book!Sauron would have Frodo surrounded, killed and the Ring taken before the Great Eye could Blink.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Well, I did not mind one jot that the Hobbits were all the same age. I thought it worked just as well.

[The Only Real Estel]

The Hobbit's Age- Didn't bother me at all, surprisingly enough.

Wargs- Though they are a far cry from the books description of the wargs (IMO), the new version of them didn't bother me very much.

Elves at Helm's Deep- One of the bigger changes and yet it is on this list, strange. But it seemed to fit well with the story (although I didn't think the Galadriel/Elrond telepathy scene before that fit nearly as well) & I could find no problems with it that I lost sleep over.

Wizard Fight- Though I wouldn't say it's one of my favorite parts, I justify it on much the same grounds as the elves at Helm's Deep--it fit well & wasn't horribly wrong. Now if they would've brought the fireballs, force-lightening, and bursts of magic sparks into the action...it'd be a much different story.

Eomer taking over for Erkenbrand- Pretty much the same thoughts as Boromir88's. They needed to leave out more than just a few characters & Erkenbrand had crosshairs on him (though it would've been cool to see Eomer fight in Helm's Deep ).

I'm sure I'll post more from RotK once I watch the extended version tomorrow night.

[Boromir88]

Wizard Fight- Though I wouldn't say it's one of my favorite parts, I justify it on much the same grounds as the elves at Helm's Deep--it fit well & wasn't horribly wrong. Now if they would've brought the fireballs, force-lightening, and bursts of magic sparks into the action...it'd be a much different story.

I feel the same. I even might appreciate this part more, it stuck with Saruman trying to be able to persuade Gandalf. He couldn't do it, so he imprisons him. Tolkien never talked about being the "battle between the wizards," but I enjoyed this scene from the film.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

I didn't mind it in the very least that Bombadil was left out. I think I would have feared for my sanity if I had to sit through Derry-dolling in the theater. *Shudder*

[Boromir88]

I feel the same way Feanor. I think there is a reason why Bombadil was put in the books, but as for the movies go, I don't think he holds much importance, and people would just be getting confused. Who's this messed up man with a yellow hat and little rhymes?

[The Only Real Estel]

I even might appreciate this part more, it stuck with Saruman trying to be able to persuade Gandalf. He couldn't do it, so he imprisons him. Tolkien never talked about being the "battle between the wizards," but I enjoyed this scene from the film

Also, in the books it just says that Saruman took him & set him on top of Orthanc. Now how is PJ to show that in the movie? Techinically, he never showed how Gandalf got up on top of Orthanc, but he showed a little more than Saruman just 'taking' him. I liked it.

I didn't mind it in the very least that Bombadil was left out. I think I would have feared for my sanity if I had to sit through Derry-dolling in the theater

Good one. I had forgotten about that one(shows how much it bothered me, huh?), though it's kinda a big one. No worries about it on my part, Bombadil is better left to the reader's imaginations, and the movie could've hit a big lull right when the tension was building.

[Silmiel of Imladris]

I saw the EE ROTK for the first time last night but do not worry I will not spoil it. I did not mind how Saurman died as disturbing as it was. It was quite interesting actually, if one does not mind being a little morbid once and a while.

[Boromir88]

Silmiel, you can post on this thread to talk about your ROTK EE experiences. You can also find out the reasons for why PJ killed Saruman in that way .

[Bungo Baggins]

I also didn't mind that Arwen rode with Frodo instead of Glorfindel. I thought PJ was clever in the way he introduced her to the story. I also think that the elves at Helms Deep was a nice touch. It added excitement to the movie at a crucial moment. In the film, the batle would have resembled too many others.

[Boromir88]

I'm sort of on the fence about the elves at Helm's Deep. One one side I love the scene when Haldir walks up, Theoden is stunned, and Haldir says "A great alliance once existed between elves and men, we come to honor that allegiance." On the other hand, I think it takes away from the strength of men. The Third age was the time when Men began to grow, and the other elder races begin to fade. I think if it wasn't for the Huorns (and I love how PJ included them in the EE), Helm's Deep would have fallen, but I think the Elves take away the strength of men.

Theoden had 1,000 men (including Eomer's squad), and Gamling had 1,000 men. I guess with the scenario set up of having Eomer gone, and having him come to return to save the day (which I think was a nice change), only the 1,000 from Rohan was represented. And the Elves compensate for Eomer's men. Then Eomer brings 2,000 which makes up Erkenbrand's men.

[Essex]

and to add to this, Cate Blanchet should have said the 'Penultimate Alliance', not the 'Last Alliance' in the Prologue of LOTR

[Nimrodel_9]

Well I didn`t mind the hobbits age one bit. Forgive me, but I actually thought it better.
Arwen coming to save the hobbits instead of Glorfindel didn`t bother me much either.
I also liked when Faramir took the ring to Osgiliath. Not in the book, but I liked it.

Something I didn`t like a whole lot was Faramir`s attitude toward Frodo and Sam at first. I liked the kind Faramir better, though they straightened it out later.

[Elianna]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Who's this messed up man with a yellow hat and little rhymes?

Come on Boromir, you know they were his boots which were yellow. gosh

I didn't mind Erkenbrand's absense at all, nor the Hobbits' ages (although it is funny to know that Pip would've only been 8 at Bilbo's party).

I'm very glad Tom wasn't in it. No one could've been completely satisfied with the image and character if his was brought into the movie. Better to avoid the whole thing.

King Théoden being so old weak because of Saruman's magic was okay.

[The Saucepan Man]

King Théoden being so old weak because of Saruman's magic was okay.

Actually, that was one of the few changes that I didn't really like, as it rather detracts from the point of Wormtongue.

[Boromir88]

I pictured Theoden as a much older man. Even after his "rebirth," he walked around with a cane at times, and was described as "old and bent." But, Bernard Hill is such a wonderful actor, I can't compain .

Come on Boromir, you know they were his boots which were yellow. gosh

Why, how silly of me.

[Sapphire_Flame]

Originally Posted by Elianna

nor the Hobbits' ages (although it is funny to know that Pip would've only been 8 at Bilbo's party).

Eleven, actually.

I agree about the removal of Bombadil. I always found him a little...odd. o.O Tolkien himself even said that Bombadil was only in there as a nod to his (Tolkien's) own poems and things about him. He wasn't essential to the story. (This is said in Letters somewhere...)

Although I would have loved to see the Barrow-Downs... *sigh*

I also didn't mind Eomer filling in for Erkenbrand. That would have been a bit confusing for non-readers.

Also, *hides behind a shield* I've decided that I don't really mind that the Scouring was cut out. This way I get to keep my own mental image of it, instead of getting stuck with PJ's ideas. That could be the case with a lot of deleted scenes. You can keep your own thoughts on it. *nod nod*

Abedithon le,

~ Saphy ~

[Boromir88]

Also, *hides behind a shield* I've decided that I don't really mind that the Scouring was cut out. This way I get to keep my own mental image of it, instead of getting stuck with PJ's ideas. That could be the case with a lot of deleted scenes. You can keep your own thoughts on it. *nod nod*

A wonderful thought Saphy, never considered that before. I always thought what SpM stated (which I believe is actually in another thread), that by the time people have been sitting watching a movie for over 3 hrs, they wonder when it is done. I know my butt got sore and the movie was only half over . I'm dissapointed, but it is a change that I can live with. PJ did state that it would have been too much for the actors to have to do even more filming, and I agree with the guy.

[Guinevere]

Most of the changes in FotR didn't bother me - because they were in character and some of them actually enhanced the story!
- Merry and Pippin letting off the fireworks at Bilbo's party etc. and Sam dancing with Rosie.
-I agree with you that it was much better to leave out Tom Bombadil!
-the shortened journey to Bree didn't bother me too much , although it seemed a bit strange how Merry & Pippin just run accidentally into Frodo &Sam , and then join them on the journey ...
- Pippin saying "what about second breakfast?" that wasn't in the book, but it fitted so well!
- I didn't mind Arwen replacing Glorfindel and I thought it was well done to show more of her, because of her story in the appendices.
- The council of Elrond was changed and much shortened, but well done. (In the book nobody quarreled)
- I think the depiction of Boromir was actually better than in the book! For example the scene where he teaches the hobbits how to use a sword, or when he picks up the Ring on Caradhras. Not to forget the dramatic death scene. I think his words to Aragorn were very much in character.
- Moria was great. The troll-fighting scene was too long for my taste, but it didn't really bother me.
(The worst things for me in FotR was the wizards fight and Frodo being so weak.)

In TTT most of the changes were quite drastic and did bother me! Especially the changed characters! But I won't go into that here.
- the Elves in Helm's Deep weren't logical if one knows the history, but they looked so noble and I love the "martial Lothlorien-theme"music when they march in... so it didn't bother me too much.
- I thought it was quite ok to show Arwen , as she must have been in Aragorn's thoughts, and after all she was "watching over him from afar" (Only Elrond wasn't in character!)

In RotK most of the changes do bother me .
- But I loved the scene in the SEE DVD where Pippin & Faramir talk together.

[Rose Cotton]

The thing about making changes in the movie is that it does three things:

1. It makes what happens in the book dramatic on the screen. Although Tolkien was a brilliant story teller he does make very questionable decision in his book. Many major scenes and battles are presented through someone talking about it after the fact. How many people do you think could have sat through 20 minutes of Merry and Pip talking about how the Ents destroyed Isengard? Also it takes out scenes like the Mouth of Sauron which in the movie's chonological order simply don't serve the story.

2. It makes the books more accessible to a larger audience. The Lord of the Rings really is like reading rather enjoyable moment in history out of a text book. Which means that there are uncountable characters, subcharacters, and sub-subcharacters. The references to the history of Middle Earth are mind-boggiling. I'm sure we all agree that that would never have totally transended into film and what was put inte the films was great. But, while your simplifying this would it also means that changes must be made.

3. To me this is the most important. The changes make the book fans fly to the edge of thier seats. For those who know the story cover to cover it alows us to enjoy little suprises. It makes us think as PJ says in the RotK: EE Director's commentary 'If they can do that, what else will they do?'

Therefore, while at first I did resent some of the changes that took place in the movie and I lament the exclusion of some of the scenes that I love I still like and/or understand the changes that were made. (yes, even the separation of Sam and Frodo)

[Laitoste]

Originally Posted by Sapphire_Flame

Also, *hides behind a shield* I've decided that I don't really mind that the Scouring was cut out. This way I get to keep my own mental image of it, instead of getting stuck with PJ's ideas. That could be the case with a lot of deleted scenes. You can keep your own thoughts on it. *nodnod*

Exactly! Which is why I'm quite glad that dear old Tom was left out-I absolutely love him and I would be devestated if he was somehow ruined.

To be perfectly honest, it would probably take me less time to state what changes I DON'T like rather than those I don't mind. There are far less of those. A few that come to mind, however, are the slimming of events in the Shire before departure, and the same with Bree, the age of the hobbits (the stupidity of the hobbits is another matter...), changing Arwen for Glorfindel, and so on. And while I did mind the elves at Helm's Deep at first, I came to accept it. Now I love the first part of it-especially when Aragorn hugs Haldir. The look on Haldir's face is priceless!

[Boromir88]

And while I did mind the elves at Helm's Deep at first, I came to accept it. Now I love the first part of it-especially when Aragorn hugs Haldir. The look on Haldir's face is priceless!

Haha, I actually made a parody on that scene, with Haldir like, "woah now..." I did like the guy who played Haldir, in the movies, I don't know why, maybe because he died and he wasn't supposed to, but I've just liked his character in the movies. Much more so then Celeborn, that guy just annoying.

[gorthaur_cruel]

First, I'm not sure what you mean by "Changes that you weren't bothered by". There are changes that I feel indifferent to, changes that I'm not too happy with, but willing to accept, and changes that I actually like.

Good Changes
-Bombadil, I really don't mind. In fact, I'm glad they cut him. I don't think he'd look good on screen. (Imagine...all the Nazgul encounters set this dark and creepy atmosphere. Then all of a sudden, there's this guy who laughs at everything, sings at everything, and handles the Ring like a piece of stone. Not only does he bewilder the audience, it sort of takes away from the beginning atmosphere...which is usually the most important.

-I'm glad they actually showed the scenes instead of them talking about it, but I don't see how any sane movie director would have done otherwise

Changes I feel indifferent to
-Warg attack was nice...don't really see anything wrong about it.

-Eomer being reduced to an extra.
(Wasn't too fond of him anyway )

-Imrahil and Beregond being cut.

Changes I dislike, but willing to accept
-Showing Arwen was a nice touch, since they had to make the people realise who this Elf that married Aragorn was, but I think they overdid it. Especially in RotK with her "dying" and seeing her future son.

-Scouring of the Shire cut. The main complaint I hear about LotR is that it's a too-happy ending (unlike the book's bittersweet ending). I think this may have changed that opinion. But I suppose the movie's got to end somewhere.

I do have a whole lot of changes that I WAS bothered by, but these are the MAIN ones:

-All the magic mumbo-jumbo
Theoden being exorcised by Gandalf, Saruman's fireball (RotK EE), Wizard duel...I suppose I should be glad that Gandalf didn't kill orcs with lightning.

-The Demented Father and Wicked Sons
Faramir becomes evil. Denethor is a madman who hallucinates (RotK EE). 'nuff said.

-The Dead at Pelennor....?
Seriously, why didn't they follow Tolkien in this? It could've been done much much much better. Grey mists, echoes of a battle, eerie voice out of the air, terrifying the enemy instead of rolling into them...I think this part had the potential to be one of the best scenes ever out of all 3 movies.

I also think they cut the most dramatic scene from the book. Gandalf facing the Witch King at the Gates of Minas Tirith. This was the scene that moved me the most from the books, and I'm disappointed this got completely cut in the TE, and tampered heavily with in the EE.

[AbercrombieOfRohan]

I really enjoyed the Houses of Healing scene in the ROTK:EE. I didn't mind that there was no dialogue and that they cut most of it so it was a shorter scene. I was kinda sad that Ioreth didn't make it in because she's so funny,( she always reminds me of what Tolkien must of thought of the Innkeeper lady that he stayed with). I also really liked the song in the background, it really showed more about how eowyn was feeling, more than it could've been portrayed through dialogue.

At first I was really upset that they left bombadil out, but all of you convinced me that it would be ok and that it was a good idea for him to remain in the books. It's like a therapy group. Thanks!

[Boromir88]

This was a rather minor change, but it really added in a lot of "good emotions" into the story, and I enjoy this scene, with Merry and Pippin dancing on the tables.

Theoden being exorcised by Gandalf

I think the way the movie showed it, was obviously not how it was done in the books. However, Tolkien leaves us with a sense that Theoden is a "new" man, hence he's called "Theoden Hal." It may not be to the extent that the movie showed, but when reading certain parts, you get a sense that Theoden even went through a "visual change."

[Boromir88]

Morgul:

But Faramir taking the Ring to osgiliath...it's not so much that fact that the Ring is in Osgiliath, it's that the Nazgul are there, they know Frodo's got the Ring and is in Osgiliath, which, incidentally, is also where they are...and they don't do anything about it. The book!Nazgul and Book!Sauron would have Frodo surrounded, killed and the Ring taken before the Great Eye could Blink

Yes, and it also makes that whole palantir scene with Pippin useless. The Nazgul saw Frodo had the ring in Osgiliath, so why the heck would Sauron all of a suddenly think a different hobbit had the Ring in Rohan? Makes no sense, unless The Wikkie was evil and didn't tell his master.

[Guinevere]

I forgot to mention another scene from TTT which is not from the books at all, but seems to me very fitting: The burial of Théodred. I always thought it was strange in LotR (the book) that Théoden did not grieve more for his son and that the fact of his death in battle is only briefly mentioned. From UT I know that Théodred is supposed to be buried on that eyot at the crossings of Isen, yet, when they pass there, on the road to Isenguard, Théoden never even mentions his son. So this scene in the movie is a change from the book which I actually prefer ! The dirge in Anglosaxon was also very fitting.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Morgul Queen

But Faramir taking the Ring to osgiliath...it's not so much that fact that the Ring is in Osgiliath, it's that the Nazgul are there, they know Frodo's got the Ring and is in Osgiliath, which, incidentally, is also where they are...and they don't do anything about it. The book!Nazgul and Book!Sauron would have Frodo surrounded, killed and the Ring taken before the Great Eye could Blink.

I have no problem with Faramir taking the Hobbits to Osgiliath. As has been said, he does let them go - only a little later than in the book. The omission of (most of) the wonderful conversation between Frodo and Faramir at Henneth Annun is regrettable but understandable. And I don't share Morgul Queen's reasons for disliking the scene. It is quite credible that two Hobbits (and one Gollum) could slip away before the Nazgul could summon sufficient aid to attack. Although I did think that it might have been rather good to have Faramir shoot down the Ringwraith's Fell Beast (in place of Legolas at Parth Galen), so as to explain why he (the Ringwraith) didn't press the attack on his own.

But my one gripe with this scene is: why on earth would seeing a seriously unstable Hobbit almost hand the Ring over to the Enemy's servant make Faramir change his mind and make him think it would be a good idea to send that very Hobbit into the Enemy's territory with the Ring? I believe that the film-makers' intention was to have Faramir realise the danger of the Ring - that it could bring Frodo to the point of almost handing it over. But it just doesn't ring (*groan*) true for me.

Btw, I realise that most of my comments here concern the scenes that I was bothered by - but they are much fewer than those that I wasn't bothered by. In fact, Saruman's "exorcism", Frodo and the Nazgul in Osgiliath and the gratuitous "Is Aragorn dead?" scenes were the only ones that really bothered me.

[Boromir88]

In fact, Saruman's "exorcism",

I wasn't really bothered by the exorcism as from other scenes. I know Saruman wasn't "inside" Theoden like a demon, but I don't know, maybe I just like the scene where Theoden transforms. But that's just me.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Boromir88 quoting me

In fact, Saruman's "exorcism",

For an explanation, see my post #19 above.

[Boromir88]

For an explanation, see my post #19 above.

Ahh, I see, it's understandable. Plus, you got to wonder, how Theoden got under Saruman's "spell." I mean I don't think Theoden ever met Saruman (until Isengard), and also, I don't see how Saruman can "work," through Grima. Grima would have to be counselling Theoden, but now that I think about it, I don't see how Saruman can be "inside" Theoden, if you catch my point.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I mean I don't think Theoden ever met Theoden

Theoden had schitzophrenia too?!! Wow, that Wizard certainly had it in for him ...

[Orophin]

There are certainly many differences from the books. Some better choices than others. Did anyonr not like the differences in the new Rotk EE? I was surprised to find that I was quite ok with the death of Sauruman at Isengard. Pretty clever way to fit it in I thought.

[Essex]

re Boromir (and other people's simillar points):

The Nazgul saw Frodo had the ring in Osgiliath, so why the heck would Sauron all of a suddenly think a different hobbit had the Ring in Rohan?

Jackson himself says they borroweed this scene from the ROTK part where Frodo feels impelled to hand over the Ring to the Witch King near Minas Morgul.

A few reasons why Sauron (in the movie version) did not find out about the Ring at Osgiliath.

1/ Did the Witch King actually 'see' the Ring?

2/ Was it actually the Witch King anyway? (which leads me to my final point)

3/ If it wasn't, remember Faramir shot his Winged Beast, so we can surmise that the beast may have been dealt a fatal blow and the Nazgul was left without a ride, having to make it back to Mordor 'on foot' and been out of action as he was earlier on at the Fords of Bruinen.

[Linnahiril Tinnufinwen]

Most of the changes that I liked in the film were the ones that added a bit of lightheartedness to an otherwise dark story. There are too many to put down, but I speak of the ones between Merry and Pippen, Legolas and Gimli, Eowyn and Merry, Pippen and Faramir, and a few involving Gandalf.

Another change that not only did I not mind, but actually liked, was the coming of the Elves to Helm's Deep. I thought it was strange at first, but the more I thought about it, the more it grew on me. Constantly throughout the story, while I was reading the books, I expected the Elves to come and help the Men. I was rather disappointed that they didn’t, and felt that this portrayal of the Elves was rather a cold-hearted one. I understood later the whole thing about the fact that it was “Men’s turn” to take over, but I still felt that the Elves were being a bit selfish about the fact that, because they were leaving and the war did not concern them, they left Middle Earth to fend for itself. I was glad to see the Elves at Helm’s Deep, after I thought about it, because made them seem more compassionate.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Linnahiril Tinnufinwen

I understood later the whole thing about the fact that it was “Men’s turn” to take over, but I still felt that the Elves were being a bit selfish about the fact that, because they were leaving and the war did not concern them, they left Middle Earth to fend for itself.

Actually, in the book, both Lothlorien and Thranduil's realm were attacked by Sauron's forces during the War of the Ring. So they were rather otherwise occupied.

But you are right in that, without showing such battles (which would have interfered with the main story), Jackson's only way of depicting the Elves' involvement in the war was to have them participating in one of the main battles. Without this, as you say, the Elves would have looked rather selfish in the films.