Why Can't Movies Be Like Books?

[Sir Kohran]

Actually I believe Imrahil was included in the movie; apparently he's the blonde knight who takes the wounded Faramir up to the Citadel (which is indeed what Imrahil does in the book). I think it was described on a Decipher Card.

And anyway, I think Gothmog was needed to give the Orcs a sense of realism - by giving them a leader on the ground who gives the Orcs orders/encouragement/insults, they function more realistically as a genuine army than just a faceless mob of enemies.

[Sauron the White]

Meriadoc...

since it was my quote that you used to start this

"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."

allow me to directly post this to you in response to your attempt to dismiss it with these comments

I quoted this from anothetr 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?

If you think that I am in error - that books and films are not so different, that indeed what works in the one can work in the other, just do this:

Take the LOTR book, page by page, line by line, and picture it as a complete film. Cut nothing. Condense nothing. Combine nothing. Film everything as if the book is the script.

Then think about what you would have and ask yourself how many people would have both seen it and enjoyed it.

For that is the ultimate test to see if a book can be just like a film and vice versa. Make the book your shooting script.

[Meriadoc1961]

Annatar wrote:

"Not to be flaming, you're being elitist."

I do not consider this to be flaming at all.

Interesting thought. I had not considered that. Would I be elitist or just consistent if I offered the same criticism if a movie was made and then a book followed with the same title but changed it in many ways, supposedly just because it can not be done the same way in a movie that it is in a book?

I am just not convinced that "it can't be done".

Sauron the White wrote:

"If you think that I am in error - that books and films are not so different, that indeed what works in the one can work in the other, just do this:

"Take the LOTR book, page by page, line by line, and picture it as a complete film. Cut nothing. Condense nothing. Combine nothing. Film everything as if the book is the script.

"Then think about what you would have and ask yourself how many people would have both seen it and enjoyed it.

"For that is the ultimate test to see if a book can be just like a film and vice versa. Make the book your shooting script."

First of all, I was not intending to be dismissive when I quoted you, but I offer to you sincerely my apologies because in hindsight I see how it could look that way.

But to answer the above, I certainly believe it could have been done this way. I enjoyed the narration of Galdriel to start the film. I believe much of the narrative could have been done in that same way. I then would not have changed a single sentence made by any of the characters.

I believe it would be an interesting undertaking for someone to try it in this manner. If not in a movie, then maybe in a series.

[Folwren]

Meriadoc - I don't think that word for word would quite work. StW is right in that sense. The LotR is simply too long.

Keep in mind, that if you did it word for word, all the descriptions of land and scenery would not have to be spoken - they'd be there to be seen. That would cut down about half of the book.

Although the words and converstions and some scenes would have to be clipped and trimmed, one could still keep mostly to the book. Two definite things in the LotR that would have to be shortened or cut altogether is (unfortunately) Tom Bombadil and much of the Council of Elrond. I just can't see putting that onto screen quite perfectly.

So...it is true (in my mind, anyway) that in the case of the Lord of the Rings, a movie could not be succesfully made if it followed word for word the book.

However, I do believe that a more succesful LotR could be made if it followed much more closely the book than did Jackson's LotR.

Just my humble opinion. Others may agree or disagree as they choose.

-- Folwren

[Sauron the White]

There certainly are portions of the films where I would have preferred it if they kept more to the book. Two glaring examples are a misuse of the Army of the Dead on the Pelennor and the confrontation of Gandalf and the Witchking - although I feel this second example is not as jarring as the first.

So there we have two cases where sticking to the book would have been better.

But it reminds me of the charcter of Tevye in FIDDLER ON THE ROOF. "But, on the other hand...." Consider the vast improvement in the character of Boromir including his far more touching death scene in the movie over the book. Plus all the expository material that comes out of the Council of Elrond chapter is far superior in the film. Arwens expanded role connected with many of the filmgoers - a majority of which turned out to be female - and I think that was not coincidental.

So this is not a one sided proposition.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Consider the vast improvement in the character of Boromir including his far more touching death scene in the movie over the book.

How was that a 'vast improvement'? They re-wrote the character. Sauron's death would have also been 'more touching' if they'd rewritten his character & made him into a nice guy. Movie Boromir is a totally different character, with different motivations, to book Boromir.

Plus all the expository material that comes out of the Council of Elrond chapter is far superior in the film.

In the movie its not a 'council' at all. In the book its a true debate & a setting out of the whole history of the Ring in an attempt to decide what to do. In the movie its a slanging match between a bunch of petulant air heads, & there's no sense at all of the participants attempting to achieve a consensus on what to do - Elrond basically says 'You've all been called here to agree to throw the Ring into the fire'. Why they were all called there if the course of action they 'had' to follow was already decided is beyond me....

Arwens expanded role connected with many of the filmgoers - a majority of which turned out to be female - and I think that was not coincidental.

Well, she annoyed me. All she seemed to do was blub about Aragorn.

[Annatar]

Originally Posted by davem

How was that a 'vast improvement'? They re-wrote the character. Sauron's death would have also been 'more touching' if they'd rewritten his character & made him into a nice guy. Movie Boromir is a totally different character, with different motivations, to book Boromir.

The changing of Boromir's character was a good thing. The hypothetical changing of Sauron's character, however would not have made the movies better than the book. On the contrary, it would have made them worse.

In the movie its not a 'council' at all. In the book its a true debate & a setting out of the whole history of the Ring in an attempt to decide what to do. In the movie its a slanging match between a bunch of petulant air heads, & there's no sense at all of the participants attempting to achieve a consensus on what to do - Elrond basically says 'You've all been called here to agree to throw the Ring into the fire'. Why they were all called there if the course of action they 'had' to follow was already decided is beyond me....

The Council of Elrond would have been simply too long in the movie. It would have killed it even worse than Bombadil. Long scenes of exposition slow down the action and bore the audience. The "shouting match", as youy call it, was the only way to make it work, showed the drama of Frodo's decision, and also showed the Ring's influence seeping into Rivendell.

Well, she annoyed me. All she seemed to do was blub about Aragorn.

That's your opinion.