The Untold Aspects of The Lord of the Rings Trilogy Pt.1
J.R.R. Tolkien's legendary creation
Imagine a group of friends deep in discussion about the greatest fantasy franchises in the world. Naturally, names like Harry Potter, The Witcher, Game of Thrones, Star Wars, Narnia, Pirates of the Caribbean, and Marvel/DC Comics would come up. However, one name that must also be mentioned is J.R.R. Tolkien's immortal creation — The Lord of the Rings. Whether in books or on the silver screen, this franchise remains unforgettable.
Formed with a unique blend of friendship, love, vengeance, lust for power, magic, and diverse races, the fantasy of this franchise can easily rival reality. In 2001, renowned director Peter Jackson brought this trilogy to the big screen with the first installment The Fellowship of the Ring. It garnered immense acclaim from critics and audiences alike, essentially immortalizing the franchise. This article dives into some lesser-known aspects of The Lord of the Rings trilogy.
1. The Production Struggle
Initially, it was decided that the film would be produced under the Miramax production house, split into two parts. However, due to budget constraints, the studio informed Peter Jackson that the entire story must be condensed into a single film. Knowing this would result in a disaster due to the vast plot, Jackson stood firm. Eventually, New Line Cinema, under Warner Bros., came forward to realize the dream, greenlighting the full trilogy.
2. Casting Surprises
Christopher Lee, who played Saruman, originally wanted to play the powerful wizard Gandalf. He was the only cast member who had read the entire book series multiple times—every year, in fact—and even memorized large portions. A true fan of the franchise, he was also the only cast member to have ever met J.R.R. Tolkien. Upon hearing that a film adaptation was in the works, he personally wrote to Peter Jackson requesting to play Gandalf. However, Jackson suggested he take the role of Saruman instead.
Interestingly, Scottish actor Sean Connery was offered the role of Gandalf and even promised 15% of the total box office revenue. But he declined, saying he couldn't grasp the complexity of the character. Eventually, the role went to Sir Ian McKellen, who brought Gandalf to life brilliantly. For the role of Aragorn, actors like Nicolas Cage, Stuart Townsend, and Russell Crowe were approached but declined. Ultimately, it went to Viggo Mortensen. American actor Jake Gyllenhaal auditioned for Frodo, but Elijah Wood was chosen instead.
3. Helicopter Fear on Set
Sean Bean, who played Boromir, had a severe fear of helicopters. The mountain scenes in the first film were shot in New Zealand, and most cast and crew were flown in by helicopter. But Bean refused to fly, so he would hike for nearly two hours to reach the shooting location. As a result, the entire crew had to wait for him every day on the mountain.
4. Differences Between the Book and the Film
While four hobbits accompany Frodo in the films, there were five in the book. The missing one was Fredegar “Fatty” Bolger, who stayed behind in the Shire. He played a role in defending the Shire when Saruman attacked later. He briefly appears in the extended cut.
Sauron is only shown as a giant eye atop a tower in the films, but in the book, he has a full physical description. His hunt for the One Ring was aimed at world domination. While the film shows Frodo setting out shortly after Bilbo gives him the ring, in the book, his journey begins 17 years later.
Saruman’s death also differs. In the book, after the ring is destroyed in Mount Doom, the hobbits return to find that Saruman has taken over the Shire. They fight him, and eventually, Gríma Wormtongue kills Saruman by slitting his throat in a place called the Scouring of the Shire.
5. Epic Runtime
Binge-watching this trilogy is no easy task. Each movie runs for nearly 3.75 hours on average. The original theatrical cuts total 9 hours and 18 minutes, while the extended editions stretch to an astounding 11 hours and 55 minutes — a record-setting runtime for a trilogy.
6. Groundbreaking Effects
When the first film was released in 2001, CGI and VFX were just emerging technologies. Many new techniques debuted in this trilogy. To maintain realism, the director heavily used practical elements. Astonishingly, around 18,000 costumes were used, with 30–40 duplicates for each main character. There were also 2,000 unique weapons and about 10,000 arrows used, along with nearly 300 horses. The differences in character heights were achieved using clever camera angles and new visual effects.
7. Editing Nightmare
The three films were released in 2001, 2002, and 2003, respectively. The editing team was pushed to their limits managing such large-scale productions. At one point, editing for The Fellowship of the Ring had just finished while The Two Towers was in production, and footage for The Return of the King was already being cut. Even after the theatrical release of the final movie, Peter Jackson shot additional scenes for the extended edition.
To be continued...
About the Creator
Riham Rahman
Writer, History analyzer, South Asian geo-politics analyst, Bengali culture researcher
Aspiring writer and student with a deep curiosity for history, science, and South Asian geopolitics and Bengali culture.
Asp
Keep reading
More stories from Riham Rahman and writers in Journal and other communities.
South Asian Geo-politics : current situation
I International politics is never static. A new geopolitical environment, based on a new balance of power is shaping up. Stresses have been building up in the so-called rule-based order, set up by the victors of the Second World War in 1945, for a considerable time since the Cold War ended. The disintegration of the Soviet Union, 9/11 terrorist attacks, the global financial crisis of 2008 –10, COVID-19, the invasion of Ukraine by Russiain 2014 and 2022, and the disintegration of Yugoslavia in which the West played a key role, were some of the notable seismic events that strained the older world order. The bipolar world order of the Cold War years gave way briefly to unipolarity and then multipolarity with the rise of new powers like China, India and others. The inherently undemocratic UN system of multilateralism has become increasingly dysfunctional. It failed to keep international peace and stability as multiple wars broke out with regular frequency in different parts of the world. The rise of new powers and new regional groupings has also challenged the UN system. Globalization that began in the 80s became hyper globalization of the late 20th and the 21st century. Globalization created a lot of wealth but also acute inequity. It failed the test of sabka saath, sabka vikas or inclusive growth. Production became decentralized leading to extended supply chains. The problem was that these supply chains were concentrated in a few countries and were highly vulnerable to geopolitical and natural disruptions. This was amply demonstrated during the Covid in 2020 when the global economy almost came to a halt as millions of lives were being lost and after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 when grain and energy markets were severely disrupted. The disturbances caused by geopolitics led to the disruptions of supply chains. The world is once again becoming fragmented and protectionist. The underlying principles of the old-world order, namely democracy, free markets, and the rule of law, are being challenged. The problem was that the markets were never fully free and the rule of law was only in name as the most powerful countries continued to call the shots. These deficits of the old order have now been exposed fully. Geopolitics is about the balance of power. Numerous factors shape the global balance of power. But, the relative distribution of power in the world leads to equilibrium or disequilibrium. Those who do not have power in the world are at a disadvantage. They tend to make up for the relative lack of power by aligning with one power or the other or forming groupings amongst themselves based on commonality of interests. We have seen the emergence of a large number of regional groupings, and multilateral arrangements in a variety of political economic and security geometries. Countries also come together in coalitions of the willing based on specific interests. Thus, the balance of power in the world today is highly complex and does not fit into bipolar, unipolar or any other precise frameworks. Multipolarity, a fashionable term, is a flexible term. What it means is that today there are many countries who may not have the overwhelming military power but still remain important in the overall balance of power. The world was multi-polar in the 19th century when several powers were important. The world is returning to multipolarity once again. But, multipolarity can be unstable. The global balance of power is complicated by factors such as climate change, demographic shifts, migrations and the crisis of the commons. New technologies which have brought down the constraints of boundaries have also impacted the notion of absolute sovereignty. Part of the reason why the crises are becoming unmanageable is because the older rules are not sufficient to regulate the powerful new technologies. It is becoming clear that new rules would be required but the world is so fragmented that it is almost impossible to generate consensus on how to agree on them. The international law evolves but slowly and is miles behind the evolution of new technologies. Artificial intelligence, bit coins, and quantum technologies are examples of technologies that cannot be governed so easily by the older rules. As the world fragments, the states are taking recourse to defining their interests narrowly and protecting them with whatever tools and instruments are available to them. The consensus amongst the big powers on larger global issues is also breaking down. Increasingly, the big power are defining their interests in civilizational terms. China, India and Russia are examples of this trend. They are using their civilizational attributes, long histories and rich heritage to come up with narratives that contextualize their rise, protect their interests, and strengthen engagements with like-minded countries. Francis Fukuyama had opined after the end of the Cold War that history had ended with the victory of Western liberal ideas. That was pure hubris. The new rising powers do not subscribe to the Fukuyama view of the end of history. They feel that their moment has come as the West declines. Factors like culture, civilization and religion have become important in the current geopolitics as identifiers. Making America Great Again (MAGA) emphasizes the ‘American identity’ which has been evolving since 1776 when America was formed. Countries like Russia, India, China and those in Europe are much older. They are also asserting their civilizational identities too. In the 1990s Samuel Huntington had predicted that leading civilizations and cultures would clash. This idea has been controversial but worth a critical examination. The rise of Trump in 2017 in American politics brought ‘Trumpism’ to the fore. Trumpism is based on the idea of America First and ‘Making America Great Again’ (MAGA). Such ideas, based on an acute form of American nationalism, are bound to impact America’s standing as a global power. It is also having a domestic repercussion. The American society is deeply divided along multiple axes. Trump’s return is an indication of that phenomenon. It is already leading to stresses and strains in the long-held notion of alliances and shared objectives. Trump has signalled that America will first look after its own interests. He will not allow others to take unfair advantage of America. The return of Trump in 2025 is creating a high degree of stress in the old world order. Trump has little respect for globalism or multilateralism. As a result, the old world is experiencing extraordinary turbulence. One can see that all major powers are today unabashedly nationalistic and are defining their interests and identities in narrow terms. Key Geopolitical Trends The global situation is moving rapidly. A few key trends can be identified as follows. • For the first time in post-Second world war history, the US and Europe seem to be on a collision course. • The US has broken rank with Europe on the Russia -Ukraine war and is dealing directly with Putin, pressuring Ukraine to do a deal with Putin. It has for the moment stopped all military aid to Ukraine and has refused to give security guarantees. • Trump’s policies have raised doubts among allies and friends about its reliability. • Trump has stopped most developmental and arms aid. This will have widespread impact on many developing countries and US strategic partners alike. • Trump has little regard for multilateral institutions. This is evident in the US withdrawal from WHO and the Paris Climate Agreement. • The US is weaponising trade and technology in its foreign policies. It seeks to retain and further its global primacy in trade and technology. Economic coercion is becoming increasingly common. • The US is a global power. Trump is redefining US global interests. The isolationist streak in US foreign policy is coming to the fore. Therefore, a shift in its policies will have a major regional impact. This is already visible: • US-Europe relations are in flux. The future of the transatlantic alliance is uncertain. • Europe is gearing up to spend more on defence and security. Militarization of Europe is on the cards. Europe has to identify Euro 800 billion for defence. A lot of it will be through enhanced debt limits. • The increased defence spending will lead to greater budget deficits and will have domestic consequences at a time when most European economies are under stress and right-wing, anti-immigration forces are raising their head. • In Latin America, the US has pressurized Mexico and Colombia on trade and drugs. The US is redefining its relationships in North and South America. • The US-Canada relations have come under great stress. Canada has been hit with the boycott of US relations. • Trade and technology are at the heart of US-China strategic competition, which is likely to strengthen. There could be a US-China deal involving economic and political issues. US commitment to secure Taiwan is in doubt. • By courting Russia, the US may seek to dent the Russia-China strategic partnership. Whether Trump will succeed in this is still unclear. • The US is desperately scouting for minerals. These are necessary for economic and technological imperatives. It wants to break the Chinese monopoly in this area. Minerals have become a key component of US policies. Africa and Central Asia, Where minerals are in abundance, might benefit from US investments. • In the West Asia/Middle East, Trump is standing solidly behind Israel in the fight against Hamas. Trump wants to turn Gaza into a “riviera” and wants the Gazans to go elsewhere. This kind of radical thinking, amounting to ethnic cleansing, will have a major impact on the balance of power in the region. • But Trump has a larger objective in the Middle East. The US is in support of IMEC, which it sees as a game changer. An alternative to BRI. The US will continue to work for Saudi-Israel rapprochement, but this is not going to be easy. Trump had withdrawn from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on trans nuclear program in his first term. But his position may be shifting. He now wants a nuclear deal. This is an exciting development. • In the Indo-Pacific, Trump’s position is still evolving. Does he want to free the US from its commitments in Europe and redirect to the Indo-Pacific. China remains a rival but a deal is possible. Commitments to defend Taiwan cannot be taken for granted. Japan will be asked to spend more on defence. It is already doing this. But it faces a very complex security environment. The steps it takes to enhance its deterrence need to be watched. • Trump may approach the North Korean leader and pick up from where he left earlier. South Asia • Let us look at South Asia and how it is going to be impacted by Trump’s policies. • South Asian nations will have to watch out for the unpredictability in Trump's polices on trade, aid, security, immigration, and technology. • It is not clear whether Trump will see South Asia through the lens of US-China rivalry or independently. • As Modi’s visit to Washington shows, Trump continues to regard India as a partner in the Indo-Pacific. Thus, there will be a lot of continuity but some reordering of trade and technology relations is on the card. The US and India are working on a bilateral trade agreement. India should be clear about what the US wants from India. • Myanmar is in the midst of a civil war, and remains mired in an economic crisis China’s influence in Myanmar is tangible. The more the US pressurises Myanmar, the more it helps China in Myanmar. • As in other places, Trump will be transactional in South Asia. it wants India to buy US defence equipment, energy, and open up its market. • The sudden stoppage of USAID will impact many South Asian countries that received large amounts of US aid. • The future of MCC in Nepal is uncertain. Trump cancelled $39 million USAID support for fiscal federalism ($20 million) and biodiversity conservation ($19 fund million). He also suspended for three months the $550 million MCC grant. Nepal has already spent about $190 million on land acquisition and compensation on the project, meant to build power stations, transmission lines and road upgradation. The future of MCC is uncertain. • It remains to be seen how US-Pakistan relations evolve. The two are discussing CT cooperation once again. Trump loves to sees himself in a peacemaker’s role. In his last term he had offered mediation on Kashmir. This may happen again. It is too early to anticipate his policies towards Pakistan. • Bangladesh is in turmoil. The US had a role in it in all likelihood. Bangladesh is highly vulnerable to shifts in US policies on trade, climate change, immigration, humanitarian aid etc. Bangladesh exported USD 10 billion of RMG (Ready Made Garments) to the US last year. It also gets a lot of developmental aid from the US. The closure of USAID will impact Bangladesh about $2.4 billion in humanitarian aid since the Rohingya crisis began in 2017. • At a time when Bangladesh's relations with India have deteriorated. Bangladesh's foreign policy must navigate the delicate balance between China's BRI and the US. On the one hand, China is Bangladesh's largest trading partner and a key investor in infrastructure projects under the BRI. On the other, the US remains crucial for exports, development aid, and global advocacy. The deep-sea exploration potential in Bangladesh's maritime zone adds another dimension to this balancing act. • Sri Lanka would also be watching Trump’s policies closely. The US role in the IMF and other global financial institutions is significant. Conclusion What should we expect in the future? How will geopolitics evolve? Undoubtedly, a new geopolitical environment is shaping up. This is a time of great flux in international relations. Uncertainty has deepened. The churn in international politics will produce unpredictable results. The post-Cold war years have been turbulent. None of the major events were predicted. Should we be prioritizing the ‘balance of interests’, as Russian Foreign Minister Mr Lavrov say? This is an open question. The best one can do it to look at the factors which will impact the future. Climate change, demography, technology, energy, food, water, migrations, minerals, health and skills will certainly impact the future. In all these areas, negative tendencies are palpable. Climate change is unrelenting; most parts of the world except Africa, are going to experience population decline by the end of the century; the environment is degrading rapidly as several planetary boundaries have been crossed or are on the verge of being crossed; food, water are likely to become scarce for large populations; social disruption due to technology is going to become common. These factors will impact future geopolitics or the balance of power. India will have to maintain a steady growth rate which also maintain internal social cohesion. The world desperately needs an infusion of ethics, morality, a sense of right and wrong; a sense of balance and proportion. There is massive wealth in the world but also massive inequality, unsustainable debts and extreme inequity. The new world order needs to be based on the common social ideas of caring and sharing, inclusivity, sustainability, respect for diversity, environmental consciences, peace and stability and not unabashed greed, razor-sharp identities and a sense of rights and entitlement without regard for duty and responsibility. Neither a doomsday scenario is inevitable nor can one be complacent that business as usual scenario will prevail. The older world order is shaping. The actions we take today will decide the future course.
By Riham Rahman 9 months ago in Journal
The goals I did not achieve
Every writing goal I made for the year is a wash. It has been this way for a while, but I think it's important to be open about my failures and the reality of how life can get in the way. This is especially true considering the several times I have posted on Vocal about my writing goals, how I was changing my approach, and where I was hoping to be for the upcoming year. I will probably do that again in a couple months, but for now, it is time to acknowledge where I am today.
By Kay Husnick24 days ago in Journal
I Started Using Meta AI SEO Without Expectation—And It Changed How I Write Online
For a long time, SEO felt like something I had to tolerate rather than trust. Every platform demanded optimization, yet the rules kept shifting. One update would reward long-form content, another would punish it. Keywords mattered, then intent mattered more. Somewhere in between, the joy of writing started to fade.
By Anthony Rodgers6 days ago in Journal
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.