Why Can't Movies Be Like Books?

[davem]

The difference, as I've argued before, is in the graphic depiction of the violence in the movies as opposed to the books. A reader is free to imagine the 'violence' in the books in as graphic a form as they wish. The movie violence is extreme & often gross - even worse, its often presented in a humourous way (like Legolas shield surfing down stairs & skewering an Orc at the bottom with the spikes on the shield). Tolkien did not depict violence in a comical way - which is perfectly understandable when you take into account the fact that he had fought on the Somme, seen two out his three closest friends die horribly & possibly even taken German lives himself.

I accept that Jackson didn't included every single incident of action/violence on screen - actually I wish the Warg attack just prior to Moria had been included (one of my favourite episodes) - the problem I had was that every incidence of violence that was included was depicted in the most graphic way imaginable. Boromir's death in the book may be more violent than in the movie, but it happens 'off-stage' & we only see the consequences - Boromir's death in the movie is dragged out in slo-mo with close-ups of the arrows piercing him - & I think the book version is more devastating for the reader for that very reason. The shock of Aragorn just stumbling over the dying Boromir surrounded by dead Orcs is more powerful because the reader is not expecting it at all.