Books vs Movies – The Nitpicker’s Guide
In a detailed article at jackflannel, Phil Eskew discusses the differences between the texts of the 3 LotR books and how these have been translated in the movies. The author admits that he is a purist and that the only change he really enjoyed was the addition of Eowyn singing at Theodred’s funeral. However, he does add that there is plenty to like; “especially when comparing Jackson’s telling to Bakshi’s”.
9 Comments
Wow. Now, I have on occasion complained about things left out or changed in the films, but I think this guy’s list goes a little too far for my tastes.
I read the list and I must say a lot of those things have bothered me too. But I think if a person is going to write a list like that, the least they could do is make sure they spell all the characters names correctly. It’s Gwaihir not Gwahir!!!!!! Spelling people, spelling!!!
Nitpicker is right. Honestly now, I love both book and film on their own merits. The book is not a guide to the films nor vice versa. Each stands on its own to bring the themes of friendship, love and loyality forward. The book, a masterpiece, but Tolkien had no constraint of time, and dove deep into details, for which I am grateful. For he painted a full picture for me to see. The movies..? well I will not dits them for what they left out. PJ had about 12 hours to tell a story that if told exactly how the book describes wouldve at least been twice as long. He took the best of the themes and kept those threads going strong. Nitpicking is right. Anybody could tear the movie apart putting the template of the book against the movie. But I for one have conceeded to the idea that even within my own imagination, if I had been given 170 million dollars (give or take a few) and seven years of my undivided attentions, and thousands of people under my direction, I could not have come even close to the masterpiece of Peter Jackson. And if anybody else thinks that they can do it better they can scrape up the money and put their life on hold and give it a try. Good luck.
When they say nitpick they mean nitpick! Most of the changes didn’t bother me too much, or they did until I read or heard why they changed something. Even the change in Faramir I excepted after logical explantion. Don’t like it but I will except it. Some of these are just silly. No matter what we, as long reading fans think, there are people who see these movies who have never read the books.
Wow. I know, I know….There were a lot of things that were changed. And some of them (mainly Faramir’s change of character) did annoy me. But still, that guy just went crazy over the changes. Some of them were needed to make the movies understandable for those who had not read the books and for more dramatic and interesting parts. Who cares if Gandalf said one of Beregond’s lines? The man wasn’t even in the movie for Pete’s sake! And who cares if Frodo said one line in Shelob’s lair that he should’ve said at Mount Doom? I sure don’t. I guess I sound kinda harsh, but when people bash the movies that much over such little details it just really bugs me. Okay, I’ll be quiet now. ^^’
I haven’t read it yet, so I don’t know how far he went, but my general idea about the changes is that some I think had to be made, and the rest I don’t agree with but still understand. I TRY not to let the changes fuin the movie for me, and am only really bothered by the major changes.
Nitpicker’s Guide indeed!
If PJ had put in even half of what Eskew suggest that movie would be over 5 hours long. The people who haven’t read the books would be completely lost, and I doubt most would still be in the theatres.
And by the way. for point 4: “Bilbo leaves the Shire with Dwarf companions (FOTR p.62). Jackson has Bilbo leave Hobbiton alone. Forgivable though the thought of Bilbo walking to Rivendell alone is somewhat reckless”
If you look carefully, at the end of the path are two small lights. Those would be the dwards carrying torches.
Arg, there are so many other points I could talk about but that would take way too long.