I wonder if these movies tend to be less appealing to people that actually read the books. Or is it just me.
Not just you, and not just Peter Jackass.
Book to Film translations are historically bad. I actually gave credit to Jackson for not mangling Fellowship too badly. Unnecessary Arwen was completely unnecessary; I'm thrilled Bombadil was cut (they'd need a miniseries just to explain that to audiences), and, well, everything else was 'fine'.
Sadly, he followed his good work there with the farce that was the remaining two films. Assassinations of characters; dwarves talking about nervous systems; elves at Hel
Cutting Bombadil is a common thing with LoTR adaptations. Mostly because the character adds little or nothing to the story and is something of an anomaly in the setting, even Tolkien said, "Tom Bombadil is not an important person - to the narrative".
Great, more senseless mangling of both plot and (Score:2)
Re: (Score:0)
I wonder if these movies tend to be less appealing to people that actually read the books. Or is it just me.
Not just you, and not just Peter Jackass.
Book to Film translations are historically bad. I actually gave credit to Jackson for not mangling Fellowship too badly. Unnecessary Arwen was completely unnecessary; I'm thrilled Bombadil was cut (they'd need a miniseries just to explain that to audiences), and, well, everything else was 'fine'.
Sadly, he followed his good work there with the farce that was the remaining two films. Assassinations of characters; dwarves talking about nervous systems; elves at Hel
Re:Great, more senseless mangling of both plot and (Score:2)
Cutting Bombadil is a common thing with LoTR adaptations. Mostly because the character adds little or nothing to the story and is something of an anomaly in the setting, even Tolkien said, "Tom Bombadil is not an important person - to the narrative".
Re:Bombadillo (Score:2)
Replaced by a chef's roll of knives. Gotta stay within the budget.