this post was submitted on 15 May 2025
889 points (98.5% liked)
me_irl
6064 readers
874 users here now
All posts need to have the same title: me_irl it is allowed to use an emoji instead of the underscore _
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What major change you don't like?
sauruman dying
Did they change the death from the books, or are you upset they cut it out of the theatrical release?
They changed his death. In the book he begrudgingly leaves Isengard, only to plan a petty revenge and mess up the Shire while the party is on their way to Mordor.
Saruman is known to do a bit of trolling.
The most significant thing of it all is in the original ending (peter jacksons ending was a great use of artistic license) the hobbits return with a greatly weakened saruman having taken over the shire as that is the extent of what little power he has left will let him do with grima as his, well, grima. The original d&d was inspired by things like lotr and this ending is big as it sets the trope for a common man going off for adventures and "leveling up" coming back as basically a folk hero. I mean that happened in the hobbit to but it was more extreme in this case. Merry and pippin are mighty warriors. Both grew from the ent water and with all the training and combat experience are literally mythic proportions in a hobbits perspective (other species not noticing so well). They would both be fighters. frodos experience with the ring leaves him with an aura and his experiences he might as well be a wizard to them. Even sam who is most like his old self has a harder edge and he when relaxed he is good ole sam but all the same you don't want to fuck with him and see him get serious. Honestly for the movie, peter jacksons ending is a bit more epic. I think only bilbo goes off with the elves but maybe frodo does eventually.
Lack of Tom Bombadil