Reply To: LotR revisited – what Peter Jackson got right and what he didn't

[Wolfie65 1280xp 0]

I undersand most of the changes tyhey made from book to movie – which doesn’t mean that I necessarily approve of them, but I can see why they did what they did.

The biggest and most obvious example is, of course, that LotR – the book is part of the cultural history of Elves Tolkien invented to provide background and justification for his Elvish languages – he was, after all, first and foremost a linguist – based primarily on the history, culture and mythologies of northern Europe, while LotR – the movie is an action flick with battles and monsters, heavily influenced by east  Asian martial arts movies and video games.

Tolkien himself was correct when he said that his book is unfilmable as written, which is why he was so nonchalant about the movie rights. As a man of his time, he was probably also extremely naïve about what a hideously evil monster the movie industry really is. If anyone tried to film this book as it is written, they would end up with something resembling those never ending BBC series such as The Onedin Line, The Buddenbrooks, Peyton Place, Upstairs – Downstairs or Downton Abbey and half of the episodes would consist of Hobbits and Dwarves telling stories and singing songs, which would delight Tolkien fans but horrify the general public.

Philippa Boyens partially explains why they left out Tom Bombadil in the DVD appendices and that also makes sense from a filmmaker’s perspective. Firstly, you cannot expect Normie Ticketbuyer to remember something that happens towards the beginning of the first movie when it finally comes to fruition about halfway through the third movie, secondly, introducng a being who is even more powerful than Sauron and on whom the ring has absolutely no effect whatsoever would destroy most of the drama and threat that drives the story and thirdly, robbing Pippin of the enchanted blade he lifts from the Barrow Wight’s tomb gives Eowyn her Warrior Princess™ moment with the Witch King, which is meant to please the female audience, which is probably pretty small but needs to be catered to in our times, regardless of whether this makes sense or not.