XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: mr@sandman.net   
      
   In article ,   
    Paul S. Person  wrote:   
      
   > >Well, some changes to how the books are told when adapting to a movie   
   > >would seem to be necessary. I'm thinking about the fact that TT and   
   > >RotK are told as two intertwined story lines, as opposed to kept   
   > >totally separate. It was Tokiens wish that any movie adaptation would   
   > >keep this separation, but I think it was necessary to disregard it,   
   > >because stories are told differently both in books versus movies, but   
   > >also the fifties versus today.   
   >   
   > Mixing books 3 & 4 and books 5 & 6 are a consequence, not of   
   > necessity, but of the decision to make three movies rather than six.   
   > It is not, therefore, necessary, just convenient.   
      
   Had they made six movies instead of three, I still feel confident that   
   they wouldn't have separated the story lines as in the books, for the   
   reasons I mentioned. The number of movies seems to me to be quite   
   irrelevant.   
      
   > And they are not intertwined (until well into book 6, when the streams   
   > merge). They aren't even synchronous in the sense of starting at   
   > ending at the same point in time (the Eastern story is about two weeks   
   > ahead of the Western story).   
      
   My use of "intertwined" was a reference to how they are told in the   
   movies, not in the books, I apologize for the confusion.   
      
   > >And some of the changes you mentioned were necessary due to time   
   > >constraints, of course. And that in turn rendered other changes   
   > >necessary as well. So the Hobbits popping out of the bushes outside of   
   > >Bree would indeed be a necessary change, for the very reasons you   
   > >describe.   
   >   
   > Given the amount of pointless filler in /TT/ & /ROTK/, it is apparent   
   > that /none/ of the omissions were necessary due to time constraints.   
      
   I disagree with that conclusion.   
      
   > Rather, they were necessary due to PJ's insistance on including his   
   > own material rather than sticking to JRRT.   
      
   I have a hard time seeing how excluding, for example, the elves at   
   Helm's Deep (stupid stupid) would mean that he would dwell more on the   
   Hobbits travelling to Bree for days on end. Some things works in books   
   but not on the screen (and vice versa). While pacing is important in a   
   book, it's even more so in a movie.   
      
   > And, no, a change that is required only because of prior changes is   
   > not "necessary". It may be acceptable, given the failure of PJ to   
   > adapt JRRT's story adequately, but it is not necessary.   
   >   
   > Still waiting for an example of a /necessary/ change.   
      
   I have a feeling, seeing how you disregarded the two examples I gave,   
   that none would suffice :)   
      
      
      
      
   --   
   Sandman[.net]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)