Lets talk differences between movie and books. I know about characters like Tom Bombadil, lets get into more obscure shit like how characters were portrayed. For example last night an anon said Gimli is really different in the books, can someone elaborate?
Gimli is much less involved in the books, he has a few lines of dialogues, and they are all generic formal answers to practical questions, he has no personality. There is one scene though, where he admires the caves of Helm Deeps, and arrange Legolas to go visit them with him once the War of the Rings is over, that's not in the movies, and his characters shines a bit in those scene, but overall he's almost invisible.
Legolas hairs are brown in the books.
Gimli is more stern and...dwarf-like in the books. The movies made him too comedic, like a comic relief character. Most of the dwarves in Hobbit were more jolly and shit, which they got right for the films for the most part. Except Thorin had too sudden mood swings and he was too cuntish
During gandalfs fight with the balrog, he and the balrog fall so deep that they end up seeing horrible creatures that could only come out of an HP Lovecraft story. So the two say fuck that and head back up the stairs to continue their fight.
I doubt it, their absence from PJ trilogy is not from his personal preference, it's a narrative decision to make the story hold more tightly together for viewers who wouldn't know anything about the lore beforehand. In a movie you can't afford to have superfluous content that has no relation to the whole or to the ending, the audience needs to have a thing that goes from A to Z without much deviation, otherwise they will get lost and lose interest.
Who is this guy? Why is he doing that? Why is that guy we've seen gone? Who was that?
These questions need to be kept minimal, and if they arise, they need to have reconnect with the plot at some point or with the ending. Tom Bombadil, old man willow, the caverns don't have any of that. They had the Old Man willow part hidden in the Fangorn scenes, when Pippin and Merry drink the water and the tree nearby engulfs them under his roots, so you got the superficial part of it there. The rest isn't necessary.
In a book you have much more freedom, the reader will be involved for many days/week, you can go in many directions, in a movie you can't do that, you don't have enough time.
In a future LOTR remake, I'm sure Gimli would still have that comic relief role, a role he doesn't have in the book. He's pretty much the only comic relief opportunity in the whole story, him and merry/pip.
That part is glossed over so much and theres only like two lines regarding it but it really does set the imagination on fire that Gandalf is beyond words to even describe what hes seen. I love that kind of shit.
Why were bookfags so assblasted by this scene?
Isn't it good that Gandalf avoids Sue status and you get to see something that is tangible and not just "the dark black evil" put fear in his heart?