Why Can't Movies Be Like Books?

[Annatar]

Originally Posted by Meriadoc1961

We do not get to see Prince Imrahil, but we get to see planty of screen time for an orc created by Jackson.

Just as a note, that "orc created by Jackson" is Gothmog, Lieutenant of Morgul, who is mentioned in the books. So he is not an "orc created by Jackson" in any way.

Faramir take Sam and Frodo to Osgiliath

Necessary to the story - if Shelob is removed from TTT, we have to have Faramir provide an obstacle. Also, his character is "dramatically dead" in the words of the scriptwriters, and so had to be changed.

Frodo send Sam away

Necessary to show the rift Gollum is creating between Frodo and Sam, and to increase the drama of Sam's return for non-book viewers.

Faramir's men mercilesly beating Gollum

This is where I agree with you - it's quite pointless.

But because Jackson did not care for the character of Bombadil

Or because the character of Bombadil does not add much to the wider story.

reeks of eliticism

Not to be flaming, you're being elitist.

"Please, lets get it through our collective heads --- a book is one thing while a film is quite another. What works in one medium does not always work in the other."

True. For example, take narration. This comes as a matter of course in books. But in films, mostly it takes the audience out of the story. As a result, it's used rarely. For another example, the written thoughts of a character. Used fairly often in modern books. On paper, good. On screen, bad.


As a rule, this movie is not just for Tolkienites. It's for the wider audience, not just you. You might hate the disappearance of Bombadil or Imrahil, but their characters mean nothing to those who haven't read the books.