[Meriadoc1961]

"Please, lets get it through our collective heads --- a book is one thing while a film is quite another. What works in one medium does not always work in the other."

I quoted this from another thread, and I have ran across many statements written like this, and always as a statement of fact.

Should we just accept this notion as fact? Why? What is the empirical evidence to back it up?

I say it is not factual, but conjecture, because I have yet to find a movie that actually did stick with the way a book is written. We will never know if LotR would have made just as much money if Tom Bombadil was in it, simply because Jackson capriciously decided he was not necessary and he left him out. I, for one, would have much preferred a scene or two with Bombadil, particularly seeing the ring powerless over him and his power demonstrated over the Barrow-wight, instead of seeing Faramir take Sam and Frodo to Osgiliath, or see Frodo send Sam away, or Faramir's men mercilesly beating Gollum, or see the Witch King break Gandalf's staff. There is plenty right there that was added by Jackson that was not needed that would have left plenty of time for Bombadil to be in it. He WAS in the book. But because Jackson did not care for the character of Bombadil for whatever reason, we do not get to see him, even though we have for years, for those of us who have read the books more than once. And I felt slighted. We do not get to see Prince Imrahil, but we get to see planty of screen time for an orc created by Jackson.

Merry