Why Can't Movies Be Like Books?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Which speaks directly and in support of something I have said here in other posts --- longtime readers of LOTR were indeed handicapped by thier voluminous knowledge of the books when they went to see the films. It did not help them but instead hampered them. In this case, too much knowledge can be a bad thing.

I do wonder what constitutes the TOLKIENIAN MENTAL UNIVERSE.

Why should that be a 'handicap'? There was no reason the movies had to oversimplify Tolkien's work, excise central themes & characters & replace them with, frankly silly & certainly unnecessary scenes & motivations. Neither was there any necessity for stupid running gags about 'Dwarf-tossing' (or the whole Denethor human torch marathon). Of course, the former might not have grated on so many of us had we not known the books, but the latter would have annoyed me anyway - whether I'd read LotR first or not.

Anyway, I think 'handicap' a strange term in this context. These movies are hardly high art. Its not as if those of us who don't care for the movies have missed much - yes, Jackson et al put Minas Tirith, the Shire, etc, on screen, but they already existed in my mind anyway, so I didn't actually need to see them - not to mention that my own versions are different to Jackson's. Arguing that knowing the book was a 'handicap' because it prevented me truly appreciating the movies is kind of equivalent to arguing that having a good palate is a handicap because it prevents one truly appreciating a greasy burger from a dirty all night diner.