In the book the Paths of The Dead is very creepy and atmospheric, but in the movie (even more so in the extended edition) it's like Pirates Of The Caribbean, and the solemnity of the fulfilment of their broken oath is lost. It's a terrible shame losing Éomer's defiant preparation for his last stand - but in the movies Éomer is reduced to little more than a spear carrier and loses all his best lines.

Yeah I touched on this part as far back as the non bearded mr Lore. The stupidity of the dead men rebelling against the one man who could release them from their oath. If they instead had added the grey company and a short scene from entering the path to the skeleton, and finally to the stone of Erech, and just hinting at the wild ride. Cut the whole crap about arguing with ghosts and swimming in human sculls. I think one of the most heroic parts in the whole trilogy is where Éomer turns to defy the pirates facing that all the eastern parts of Gondor has fallen to the enemy, and: "upon the foremost ship a great standard broke, and the wind displayed it as she turned towards the Harlond. There flowered a White Tree, and that was for Gondor; but Seven Stars were about it, and a high crown above it, the signs of Elendil that no lord had borne for years beyond count."

Yes much more creepy and frightening in the book and the moment Eomer realises it's Aragorn is a real goosebumps moment. I am all for the extended cuts of the movies usually, but in this case the extended cut was worse. At least in the theatrical cut we cut from Aragorn asking the King of the Dead whether they would fulfil their oath; in the extended cut we even saw them take over the corsair ships so there was zero suspense. And Jackson went well OTT with all those skulls. Not subtle lol. Poor old Gimli is alway the joke character in the films..actually in the book he has a great, dry sense of humour. He says something like, let's hope the Dead haven't forgotten how to fight otherwise I see no reason to trouble them.

One of the things that stuck with me about the book version of the Paths of the Dead was that the Grey Company saw the skeleton of Baldor son of Brego, the son and heir of the second King of Rohan, who had tried to take the Paths centuries before and was killed by the Dead. That was a LOT more moving than seeing Gimli blowing away ghostly hands and an avalanche of skulls that leaves the viewer asking "what happened to the rest of the bones from all those skeletons?".

The BBC radio version did this excellently. Just musical cues and the actor's voices.

I love your Gimli-impression 😄 On the matter at hand: at least the theatrical version of the movie cut it more like in the book: last we see there is Aragorn asking the Dead King "What say you?" and next time we see him he jumps off the boat. In that case the Extended Editition screwed it up.

I personally very much like the moment when Aragorn and Eomer finally meet each other in the midst of battle

I think, one of the reasons of these choices in the movie is the whole zombie-apocalypse style that Peter Jackson followed. First you focus on making orcs, uruk-hai, nazgul, etc. exterior as the most frightening thing in movie. Then you escalate this effect in fights and battles. Then, following the style, you add a humor to make contrasting emotions in viewer. And then you done - you can't really get out of it, because you already laughed at the scariest things you made. By the moment we see "ghosts", we had already seen "birth" of Uruk-Hai, vargs, even Nagzuls at the Weathertop - we'd seen ghosts, we'd understood that Aragorn could kinda deal with them, so... On the other side, when you use mystical fear as an instrument and not a scary look, it gives you a means to treat it differently.

Talking about the battle of pelennor fields, in the book the Rohirrim manage to get behind the enemy unseen and then charge, which is very exciting. In the movie they had to have the riders and the bad guys face off to each other, which is much less exciting

One thing I think the movies could’ve done slightly different would be that instead of having the scene of the small group of orcs by the coast being the ones seeing who is coming off the boats first. They could’ve instead shown maybe from the perspective of Eomer or someone else in battle show that the balance of battle is getting concerning from their point of view. Then show that they see the ships coming in from a distance. And then show them start to almost despair and suddenly then be excited realizing it’s Aragorn and the army of the dead.

Wow, timely post for me, was just re-watching the 'extended' ROTK movie just yesterday, and could not remember some of the book differences. thanks

This is one of the changes that I think really hurts the film for all the reasons you mentioned. I have never liked turning Gimli into comic-relief so much of the time and having another climactic turning point so soon after the charge of the Rohirrim is a winner in my view. For someone new to LOTR, literally seeing the cavalry coming over the hill in the Charge of the Rohirrim only to see thereafter that's not enough only to be hit with the arrival of Aragorn and his reinforcements, well that would be epic. And I have always felt like bringing the Army of the Dead to the Pelennor Fields and having them easily wipe out Sauron's army undercuts the efforts of the Rohirrim; even if they (the Rohirrim) had shown up later, the Army of the Dead would still have crushed its foes.

I think Jackson was sticking with the old cinematic saying, show don't tell. This just goes to show that these sayings aren't always rignt. The Paths of the Dead sequence was one of the most disappointing in all 3 films, Jackson also wanted to pay tribute to his origins of cheap horror films, but it didn't belong there. One other things that saddened me was because the relationship between Aragorn & Eomer wasn't the same in the films as in the book, because Eomer was not at Edoras & Helms Deep, so their friendship was not developed, the wonderful moment when they met to fight together was lost. All in all this was another part of the films that were OK but could have been so much better.

They put so much effort into producing that scene with the ghosts as well, making thousands of rubber skulls etc!

Brett Devereaux of ACOUP points out that the book scene is a great example of the uncertainty unhinging Mordor's military action via morale failure, which is often the factor that breaks an Army. In the movie it's ghosts as superweapons. It's one of a handful of choices that sadly cheapen the PJ adaptations, much as I love them.

I am increasingly convinced that "The Return of the King" should have been split into two movies to open space for more of the book's narrative.

Melon Geek, I agree wholeheartedly. Jackson's versions spoiled the real suspense Tolkien had built up in the story. The book was superior--which probably surprises nobody. And this channel is superior to the other Tolkien venues. Namarie.

These scenes are one of the few times where I like the theatrical cut better than the extended edition. Extended edition Aragorn and the ghosts take over the ships and then do the exact same move when they get to the battle. Peter Jackson returns some of the anticipation to theatrical cut by letting us know the ghosts will fight but then not seeing them or Aragorn until they are needed in the battle.

I'll be honest, I cannot stand Peter Jackson's adaptation of Return of the King. So many massive missteps IMHO.

The more time that passes, the more I do see the appeal in watching the original theatrical releases, because while there's less movie to watch, sure, the originals cut out a lot of the cringey humour and they retain most of the same plot threads. Not saying I prefer the theatrical releases, because I really don't. What we get extra is very well done with in the trilogy itself, but I can see why some purists would prefer them.

Best adaptation though, Rankin-Bass cartoon. By far.

In some commentaries possible outcomes of the clash between Gandalf and King of Angmar were discussed, however, I don´t see how any creature of one Maia (Sauron) could be more powerful than the other Maia (Olorin).

To me, the greatest thing about the Paths of the Dead in the book is Gimli's truly heroic bravery in the face of absolute terror. This was not handled well in the movies, to the point of failure.

Here's a place where the theatrical is superior to the extended cut, the scene in the theatrical scene ends with Aragorn asking the dead to help him and (unless I'm not remembering right) we don't see him again till he leaps off the ship. Still only surprising only the orcs and the audience (not Eromer) but at least we skip the skull avalanche and the dead king agreeing to help in the extended.

Yo, this is NOT a book vs. movie comment. I cannot add anything worthwhile to that conversation because I haven't watched any of the movies except for the 1st few minutes that describe Bilbo's going away party. The film's depiction of that party was so different from the book that I found it to be unwatchable. What I do want to rant about is the slapdash way Tolkien described the journey of the Paths of the Dead. 1st, in Legolas's re-telling of the journey, he said that he had no dread of the dead, making it seem like a picnic outing. So if Legolas is NOT scared out of his gourd, why oh why did he not provide any succour or comfort for his new-found friend Gimli? Surely Legolas would have noticed that Gimli was lagging behind and nearly insane with fear. 2nd, there are instances where Tolkien refers to Legolas as "only Legolas who has no fear" and I think one or two more times makes reference to Legolas as if he's the only elf in Aragorn's band of warriors. What about the sons of Elrond? Are they chump change? The whole thing reads to me like the sons of Elrond were added as an afterthought, which would explain their inconsistent treatment. 3rd, a genuine book vs. movie comment, bearing in mind that, indeed, I have not seen the movies. But based on conversations with friends I am outraged that the movies in all their woke glory give undue credit to Eowyn and treat Merry like an afterthought for the demise of the King of the Nazgul. In the 1st place, Tolkien onlys briefly mentions that the King of the Nazgul was from Angmar and calling his the Witch King is inconsistent with the book. 2nd, the prophecy that the King of the Nazgul would meet his demise NOT by man was not a proto-feminist foreshadowing. The book clearly states that Merry, a hobbit and not a human, struck the crucial blow with his sword.

It is also apparent that the Paths of the Dead are in a completely different geographical location in the movie, closer to Pelargir instead of Erech.

0:49 I suppose it's not me, but for another time, always feel free to mention my name! I'm a content provider trying to leave the obscurity that impoverishes me, not a person trying to protect privacy about all that I say online.

Thank you. At least several times I found the difference between the book and the movie painful (but comparatively thinking of other depictions, really only a slight itch compared to a hit in the head.) Also...curious, was Legolas terrified of the ghosts in the book? I don't remember that.

Floist