Changes that you weren't bothered by. - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Rose Cotton · 12-19-2004, 03:53 PM

The thing about making changes in the movie is that it does three things:

1. It makes what happens in the book dramatic on the screen. Although Tolkien was a brilliant story teller he does make very questionable decision in his book. Many major scenes and battles are presented through someone talking about it after the fact. How many people do you think could have sat through 20 minutes of Merry and Pip talking about how the Ents destroyed Isengard? Also it takes out scenes like the Mouth of Sauron which in the movie's chonological order simply don't serve the story.

2. It makes the books more accessible to a larger audience. The Lord of the Rings really is like reading rather enjoyable moment in history out of a text book. Which means that there are uncountable characters, subcharacters, and sub-subcharacters. The references to the history of Middle Earth are mind-boggiling. I'm sure we all agree that that would never have totally transended into film and what was put inte the films was great. But, while your simplifying this would it also means that changes must be made.

3. To me this is the most important. The changes make the book fans fly to the edge of thier seats. For those who know the story cover to cover it alows us to enjoy little suprises. It makes us think as PJ says in the RotK: EE Director's commentary 'If they can do that, what else will they do?'

Therefore, while at first I did resent some of the changes that took place in the movie and I lament the exclusion of some of the scenes that I love I still like and/or understand the changes that were made. (yes, even the separation of Sam and Frodo)

12-19-2004, 03:53 PM	#11
Rose Cotton Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: A place worse then Mordor........School! Posts: 1,075	The thing about making changes in the movie is that it does three things: 1. It makes what happens in the book dramatic on the screen. Although Tolkien was a brilliant story teller he does make very questionable decision in his book. Many major scenes and battles are presented through someone talking about it after the fact. How many people do you think could have sat through 20 minutes of Merry and Pip talking about how the Ents destroyed Isengard? Also it takes out scenes like the Mouth of Sauron which in the movie's chonological order simply don't serve the story. 2. It makes the books more accessible to a larger audience. The Lord of the Rings really is like reading rather enjoyable moment in history out of a text book. Which means that there are uncountable characters, subcharacters, and sub-subcharacters. The references to the history of Middle Earth are mind-boggiling. I'm sure we all agree that that would never have totally transended into film and what was put inte the films was great. But, while your simplifying this would it also means that changes must be made. 3. To me this is the most important. The changes make the book fans fly to the edge of thier seats. For those who know the story cover to cover it alows us to enjoy little suprises. It makes us think as PJ says in the RotK: EE Director's commentary 'If they can do that, what else will they do?' Therefore, while at first I did resent some of the changes that took place in the movie and I lament the exclusion of some of the scenes that I love I still like and/or understand the changes that were made. (yes, even the separation of Sam and Frodo) __________________ "There's nothing you can do, Harry... nothing... he's gone."-Remus Lupin "The closer we are to danger, the further we are from harm."-Pippin (now how can you argue with that logic?)