Its not about the fact you have to adapt & compress the novel, its about how you do it. Also, maybe there's a point when in looking at a novel to adapt, you have to say, no, we can't do it, & leave it alone. What amazes me is the way they made such a fuss about keeping the title of the Two Towers, in face of the opposition, but didn't seem to worry about keeping the story - which is more important? And lets not get started on leaving out the Scouring of the Shire, an episode which Tolkien Rightly considered the most important thing in the whole story. The film makers clearly don't understand the title of the third book - the 'King' who returns is FRODO. The title is ironic. If you miss out the Scouring of the shire, you can't call the film The Return of the King, can you, if you leave out the story of the King's return?<BR>As I said, I think the films are wonderful, they're just not films of LotR. Also, if Tolkien left out the actual fight between Boromir & the Uruk Hai, my feeling is that that's what he intended. Clearly, whether its better the way its depicted in the film is a matter of opinion. I lean toward Tolkien's sense of what works, & I'm not sure we need to see as much graphic violence as we do in the films.
|