In Reply to: Re: Extended version of "The Fellowship of the Ring" posted by Maiello on November 25, 2002 at 14:22:41:
I've been reading them for over thirty years.In all fairness to PJ, I don't feel there's any way you can include Tom B. episode without derailing the narrative thrust and stopping the movie dead in its tracks. Interesting to note that the 20+ episode BBC version of LOTR excised him as well. Scriptwriting 101.
With SO MUCH text, even with 3 1/2 hours in which to tell the story, *something* had to go - namely, any element that didn't move the plot forward or develop a character directly. I think the choices the scriptwriters made proved judicious and the excisions/alterations don't really trouble me. Sorry, I don't miss Bombadil in the film.
I'm satisfied the filmmakers remained true to the spirit and main themes of the book, and that they were able to infuse every frame with layer after layer of minute detail from the book - props, costumes, locations and sets, including buildings, furniture, weapons, armour, jewelry, pottery, tools, maps, bookd, goblets - you name it. FOTR really did feel like the sight and texture of Middle Earth to me.
There have beem some excellent articles in Script magazine, American screenwriter and other periodicals where PJ, Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens discuss the difficulties in adapting such a huge book for the screen. I realize that not every Tolkien fan on the planet is pleased, Bu I for one, am content.
Better brace yourself - TTT has the most changes from the book of any of the three films.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- I did read the books... - Harmonia 15:45:52 11/25/02 (3)
- Re: I did read the books... - mollecon 17:28:06 11/30/02 (0)
- Re: I did read the books... - Maiello 07:10:39 11/26/02 (0)
- You hit the nail on the head, Harmonia...... - dado5 20:42:13 11/25/02 (0)