Q: Why Did Peter Jackson Leave Out the Knights of Dol Amroth?
ANSWER: Although many fans of The Lord of the Rings feel that the Knights of Dol Amroth are important to the story, the truth is that they play a relatively small part. Their function is strategic and beneficial, serving to demonstrate that Gondor still has a significant military force composed of (apparently) true Numenorean families. But the knights contribute only slightly to the overall advancement of the story and thus were not included in Peter Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings” movies.
Many fans were disappointed by various omissions of favorite characters, places, and events in the movies. Peter and his co-writers attempted to allude to these things in several places by altering the storyline so as to combine characters, events, and in some cases peoples. Their intent was not to “tell the story better than Tolkien” but rather to merely acknowledge the complexity of Tolkien’s literature without unnecessarily complicating the movies.
The most controversial omission from the films was probably the dropping of Tom Bombadil. Bombadil fans (including me) argued strenuously for his inclusion because he plays a pivotal role that is felt throughout The Lord of the Rings. However, Bombadil’s chief function within the structure of the story is to foreshadow many things that come. Foreshadowing works differently in cinematic productions than it does from the written word. It probably would have required an additional 30 minutes of footage to make Bombadil’s presence in the movie work, and even then fans might have argued it would not have worked correctly. For example, almost the entire history of Arnor was excised from the movie’s official historical narrative (as published in the Brian Sibley books). Peter did hope to include a shot of Bombadil’s hat from a distance in one brief glimpse but this apparently was never included in the films.
Another unpopular omission from the movie was the combining of Glorfindel’s role with Arwen’s role. Glorfindel does not achieve much in the main story and his most significant contributions to Tolkien’s history occur outside the narrative of The Lord of the Rings. Peter Jackson simply could not have made Glorfindel work as well as in the books — and he cleverly substituted Arwen for Glorfindel to show that she wasn’t simply a helpless maiden waiting around to be rescued. Arwen’s controversial martial arts aside, Peter did include one reference to her watching over Aragorn from afar which is mentioned only in “The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen”.
The Elves who pass through the Shire in “The Fellowship of the Ring” are an homage to Gildor Inglorion and the dialogue in the scene (which only appears on disc as it was not included in the theatrical version) also explains a detail that is provided at an earlier point in the book. The omission of Gildor’s intervention on Frodo’s journey out of the Shire saved some time and simplified the plot, but the movie still showed that Frodo was fleeing only just in the nick of time and he was pursued across the Shire.
In short, there is just so much detail in The Lord of the Rings that it would be impossible to include everything in a coherent screenplay that only extends across three 2-1/2 hour movies. That is why Peter Jackson left out the Knights of Dol Amroth.
# # #
Have you read our other Tolkien and Middle-earth Questions and Answers articles?
