I really hope I'm not venturing into "flaming" territory, but I want to be very blunt here. You can’t really, IMHO Say that something done to LOTR is a good change. There are only three kinds of changes, interesting ones, necessary ones, and ones that just make you go; what the…..huh?!?!?
For example Tom Bombadil is a cut that only makes sense, as good a part as it is, it can be removed with out really damaging the story in any way, and saves time as do many others and i respect those. If I had to do the same I only hope I could do as good ajob that way. The rest just seem unnecessary, like stings scabbard done in brown instead of black or anything else like that. Why do it?? I just don't get it.
Sorry if I offend, Just MHO.
-EDIT
I do like this one though, for the same reasons.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by doug*platypus
Boromir was a thoroughly more likeable character in the movies than the book. This makes "filmic" sense to me in that it makes his descent to ring-hungry bully at the end of FOTR is all the more tragic.
|
EDTI Again!
I was just thinking about other peoples comments about Boromir and remembered just how much I really did like him in the film. I
did like the way he was done in the film, and that makes my previous statements rather awkward....
