logo Sign In

Post #251352

Author
Darth_Evil
Parent topic
The Lord of the Rings (Films vs. the Books)
Link to post in topic
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/251352/action/topic#251352
Date created
15-Oct-2006, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
My opinions on the subject are pretty much the same as JediSage's... The movies took everything awesome about the books (of which there was much) and cut out all the meandering.

I understand Tolkien was trying to write a myth, but I really don't need to know about the Hobbits taking a bath before crossing the Brandywine river and whatnot. And I understand it's okay to go into more detail in a book, and I'm not saying the books are bad, or that Tolkien got it 'wrong'... just that it is more dramatic to condense and show the most important details.

The elves at Helm's Deep, I think, were basically a way of evening the odds. The idea that 300 men, half of whom were too old or young to effectively weild a sword, could hold off ten thousand orcs strains suspension of disbelief. I'd rather Jackson make book purists irate than lose the audience on something more farfetched than inspiring. Helm's Deep is not Thermopolae, and the people of Rohan are not Spartans.


I think you're right about that. As much as I love the books, Jackson made all the neccesary cuts. The meandering works for the books, it adds a level of magic to them, but it wouldn't work in a film. Jackson did an almost perfect job in my opinion with the cutting. There are some things I think should have been in, such as the scouring of the shire. The hobbits set out to save the shire, and the story comes full circle at that point. Also, Tokien loved that part a lot, and it meant so much to him. I think it was excellent putting the Aragorn Arwen romance in, because that also meant a lot to Tokien and he couldn't fit it in the normal text.

But I was annoyed at all the people complaining thier asses off about Tom Bombadil. Get a freaking life already.