Thanks for all the responses so far! This has definitely given me something to think about. And in particular Hui's theory - I would rep you if I could, but apparently even now with so much activity I've repped you too recently. I don't know if this was always obvious to you, but it was not obvious to me - but it's one of those things that once said aloud you suddenly realize that's exactly what you've been looking for. Thank you very much for sharing your "formula".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boromir88
I agree and a few examples to show good changes from poor (imo)
Jackson's Fellowship of the Ring. I remember from the extended commentaries Jackson stating when making decisions on what needed to be cut, or not, they went by the general guide of "if it's not about Frodo and the Ring it needs to advance the story to have a reason to stay in." So, obviously he brings up having to cut out Bombadil, but also interesting that he mentions cutting out the scene when the Fellowship was attacked by wolves at night. He said Frodo, the Fellowship, and the Ring had to get from point A to point B and the wolf attack wouldn't add anything extra to advance that story. But he made the decision to keep Gandalf's imprisonment in Orthanc, because that was an ancillary scene so we knew what happened to Gandalf when he never showed up in Bree. This is why I think Fellowship of the Ring was the best film Jackson did, because he stuck to a pretty clear purpose in making the choice "this story has to be about Frodo and the Ring. If it does not involve Frodo and the Ring, then it has to advance the story to stay in." Like the audience would want to know why Gandalf wasn't where he said he was going to be. If only he showed this kind of clear thinking and vision in The Hobbit movies. Instead of throwing in everything with the kitchen sink, and Bilbo getting lost in his own movies. 
If you haven't watched the extended commentaries, I think they would be quite helpful in understanding the questions you raise here. I don't agree with all the changes Jackson made, but he explains a reason for a lot of them, and gives a better understanding of their own creative thought process.
Now, perhaps a bad example. Again, at least in my opinion, but others might feel differently. I really enjoyed Bakshi's Lord of the Rings (even viking Boromir and pantsless Aragorn) but I didn't like either of the Rankin/Bass's The Hobbit or Return of the King. It wasn't so much there was no Beorn or Arkenstone story. Sometimes just cutting something out is a good thing for fanfiction writing. I just didn't get it, The Rankin/Bass Hobbit left me with more questions than it should have because of a poor conclusion. Like for some reason we are told 8 dwarves died, but besides Thorin and Bombur we don't know who died and who survived, because Bilbo never says bye. Gandalf just says Thorin and Bombur died, ok time to go home. I feel like they could have just cut down the number of dwarves in the Company, because apparently the rest aren't important enough to know what happened to them. At least tell us which ones didn't make it!  |
I am not that familiar with the animated adaptations so have to just take your descriptions at face value, but I would argue that at least part of the "bad change" example might not be so much a reflection of the fictional changes as a reflection of bad storytelling. It's bad storytelling to not give a proper conclusion to your story, whatever "proper" may be in that context (whether closure or cliffhanger, answer or eternal question - it all depends on the story, but there has to be
a conclusion, and TH begs more certainty). The fictional change was perhaps in the number and identity of the Dwarves that died. Is there some internal justification for killing off Bombur and the nameless others? Perhaps Bombur is one of the most memorable Dwarves (dunno if that's so in the adaptations too, but he does stand out), so that might have played into it. Doesn't explain the other extra Dwarves though. But I'm not sure here, this question requires actual knowledge of the adaptation which I am lacking. But I suppose my question, if we were to dissect this scenario and split a couple hairs, is: was the "badness" a result of changing the cannon, poor storytelling (ie it would still have been a dissatisfying conclusion even if Dwarves died canonically), or a combination of both?