Poll of the Day > I really wish Peter Jackson didn't just cut out entire chapters from FotR

(+) Yeah! (+)

Muscles posted...

I feel like I would like it better if it at least continues the same chain of events, instead of all the big changes like running into merry and pippen stealing Farmer maggots crops right before their first encounter with the black rider

Been so long since I read it and never actually finished so I don't remember how it was in the book. They went to get them in the book right? Also I wish they had at least kept the Old Forest. That was a great part of the book.
---

The change to Merry and Pippin (and the cutting of Fatty Bolger) is something that arguably hurts their characters (and that of Sam) and removes a lot of the plot from the Shire portion of the story, but at the same time significantly simplifies the story. I understand why it was done and think it greatly benefits the film as a whole.

I can't even begin to imagine why anyone would want something like Tom Bombadil added back in though.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Been so long since I read it and never actually finished so I don't remember how it was in the book. They went to get them in the book right?

In the book, Pippin, Sam and Fatty are helping Frodo move to Buckland where Merry lives. After arriving, they reveal that they all knew what Frodo was really planning to do because Sam had been spying for them, and Sam, Pippin and Merry decide to help Frodo get to Rivendell.

It's been like a decade but that's how I remember it.
---

Blighboy posted...

The change to Merry and Pippin (and the cutting of Fatty Bolger) is something that arguably hurts their characters (and that of Sam) and removes a lot of the plot from the Shire portion of the story, but at the same time significantly simplifies the story. I understand why it was done and think it greatly benefits the film as a whole.

I can't even begin to imagine why anyone would want something like Tom Bombadil added back in though.

I'm the kind of person that would rather have an adaption be as close as possible. Tom Bombadil could be 10 minutes tops anyway.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Muscles posted...

I feel like I would like it better if it at least continues the same chain of events, instead of all the big changes like running into merry and pippen stealing Farmer maggots crops right before their first encounter with the black rider

Been so long since I read it and never actually finished so I don't remember how it was in the book. They went to get them in the book right? Also I wish they had at least kept the Old Forest. That was a great part of the book.

In the book Frodo moves to crickhollow to avoid suspicion when he goes on the journey, merry takes his stuff early and Frodo, Sam and Pippen start off, the scene in the movie where they hide under the tree happens with just the 3 and before farmer maggot.

Then the rider found them again later but elves scare him away, and they journey with the elves for the day.

Then they take a short cut through the woods to buckberry ferry which is close to farmer maggots. See the riders behind them on the road but they can't get into the woods. Get lost, get out of the woods at farmer maggots, they eat with him, and he takes them to the the buckleberry ferry, they meet merry and get to crickhollow, they go through the old forest to avoid the riders and Fatty Bolger (the forgotten 5th hobbit) stays at crickhollow to keep up the guise he's there. In the old forest old man willow tries to kill merry and pippen and Tom Bombadil saves them and invites them over for 2 days then they go through the barrow downs, get trapped by barrow wights and Tom saves them again ands gives them the daggers (and explains why they are important, especially in killing the witch king) then they get to bree
---

Muscles posted...

But Peter Jackson was given 93 million dollars (more for TT and RotK iirc) to work on one of the most well known book trilogy ever, so this case is a bit different from the norm

He likely wouldn't have been given anything for TT and RotK if he hadn't kept mainstream audiences in mind in producing Fellowship. Even if it was only the extended edition that got absolutely everything and the theatrical release was the same, that's still a whole lot of money going into scenes that only a relatively small audience is going to care about, and studios really don't like investing in a director if the return is that low.

Furthermore, regardless of how applicable the comment is to LotR itself, I was more generally criticizing you for romanticizing starving artists. "Some things should just be about art[, not money]" is a fine sentiment to have, but only if you're the one creating the art in question. Saying it as a means of criticizing another person who chose to make money instead of sticking to what you believe is a purer version of their artistic vision while you do nothing but sit on your couch and look at their art demonstrates a sense of entitlement that you've done nothing to earn, as well as being highly presumptuous.

Muscles posted...

_AdjI_ posted...

Revelation34 posted...

Yeah those film artists are always starving.

The ones that aren't willing to make artistic sacrifices to appeal to a broader audience? Yeah, they kind of are. Most filmmakers will never be able to make even a livable wage off of their work, and those that do don't find that kind of success by refusing to consider what will sell.

But Peter Jackson was given 93 million dollars (more for TT and RotK iirc) to work on one of the most well known book trilogy ever, so this case is a bit different from the norm

LotR is technically not. a trilogy. tolkien wrote it as one book but a friend convinced him people wouldn't read it if it were that big. he broke it into three, but didn't really change anything. the page numbers don't even start over, they just continue where the last left off.

i would have read it anyway (was in fifth grade the first time i read it. great book(s)
---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

LotR is technically not. a trilogy. tolkien wrote it as one book but a friend convinced him people wouldn't read it if it were that big. he broke it into three, but didn't really change anything. the page numbers don't even start over, they just continue where the last left off.

i would have read it anyway (was in fifth grade the first time i read it. great book(s)

I'm pretty sure the first edition was just one.
---