Why Can't Movies Be Like Books?

[Finduilas]

[QUOTE=Annatar;534340]

Just as a note, that "orc created by Jackson" is Gothmog, Lieutenant of Morgul, who is mentioned in the books. So he is not an "orc created by Jackson" in any way.

Mentioned, not given two pages worth of writting. Elbereth was mentioned, thank goodness she wasn't in the movie, as a character.

Necessary to the story - if Shelob is removed from TTT, we have to have Faramir provide an obstacle. Also, his character is "dramatically dead" in the words of the scriptwriters, and so had to be changed.

Well, it's PJ's fault that Shelob was moved to the RotK, so no problem there.

Necessary to show the rift Gollum is creating between Frodo and Sam, and to increase the drama of Sam's return for non-book viewers.

What rift? In the book? It must have been a long time since I read them....

Or because the character of Bombadil does not add much to the wider story.

um... and the Watcher of the Water, the Wargs attacking Theoden, Aragorn falling of the cliff, etc.?

True. For example, take narration. This comes as a matter of course in books. But in films, mostly it takes the audience out of the story. As a result, it's used rarely. For another example, the written thoughts of a character. Used fairly often in modern books. On paper, good. On screen, bad.

Of course you can't do the characters thoughts in a movie, but really, Meriadoc didn't say word for word.

As a rule, this movie is not just for Tolkienites. It's for the wider audience, not just you. You might hate the disappearance of Bombadil or Imrahil, but their characters mean nothing to those who haven't read the books.

Do you think that the wider audience would have disliked Imrahil or Bombadil? Maybe Bombadil, he seems to be disliked by alot of people, but Imrahil? He saves Faramir, and takes a big part in the restoration of Minith Tirith.