Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alatar
So if we had Tom, who is immune to the Ring, appear and caper about, I think that the audience would wonder (1) who Tom really was, (2) why he was immune (3) why the Ring was so important and (4) why Tom did not keep the Ring.
|
Fair point. Except number 4 - he doesn't need it, and it does nothing for him, so why would he keep it?
PS haven't we ALL wondered from time to time about the first 2?
I suppose we have to except that the average movie goer is a stupid, "Just show me the Action, Jackson!" type person. Oh well. But I don't think they are myself - Yes they want action, but if there are conflicting views of how the Ring affects people (and we have a contradiction inasmuch as Sauron is not invisible when he wears it), and we want this movie to be Tolkien, then why not show this?
Now what about having Tom not show his powers against the Ring - but have him saving the hobbits from Old man Willow and the Barrow Wights? That would have been OK to me (and perhaps showing his power in the EE). We are still 'moving the characters along' - through the old forest and past the Wights - and just imagine the scene jackson could build in the Barrow itself - the sword across the hobbits' throats - Wow!
This way
1/ no 'pace' problem
2/ we're still getting the hobbits along the jorney
3/ we can then see Bree isn't just round the corner from the buckleberry ferry
4/ IT'S CLOSER TO THE BOOK!!!!!!!!!!!!