Why Can't Movies Be Like Books?

[Meriadoc1961]

"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."

I quoted this from another 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?

I say it is not factual, but conjecture, because I have yet to find a movie that actually did stick with the way a book is written. We will never know if LotR would have made just as much money if Tom Bombadil was in it, simply because Jackson capriciously decided he was not necessary and he left him out. I, for one, would have much preferred a scene or two with Bombadil, particularly seeing the ring powerless over him and his power demonstrated over the Barrow-wight, instead of seeing Faramir take Sam and Frodo to Osgiliath, or see Frodo send Sam away, or Faramir's men mercilesly beating Gollum, or see the Witch King break Gandalf's staff. There is plenty right there that was added by Jackson that was not needed that would have left plenty of time for Bombadil to be in it. He WAS in the book. But because Jackson did not care for the character of Bombadil for whatever reason, we do not get to see him, even though we have for years, for those of us who have read the books more than once. And I felt slighted. We do not get to see Prince Imrahil, but we get to see planty of screen time for an orc created by Jackson.

Merry

[Folwren]

I have seen one movie that was almost identical to its mother book. That movie was A&E's Pride and Prejudice. It was excellently made and it was an excellent movie that is one of my family's favorites.

Another movie that was made like it's book was Master and Commander. This was actually a story that the director and script makers made up with the characters from the books, basing it losely off of one of the books in the Aubrey/Maturin series, but it was written, made, and performed in the spirit of the book and turned out wonderful.

Now Bombadil...hehe. I understand your feeling of being slighted, but I think that Jackson made a good call in drawing him out. All that stuff that you mentioned that could have been left out and that would have left open time could have been used for other characters. A LOT of the fellowship didn't have proper development in the movie that they could have had if they had taken out the stuff that P.J. added.

I think it is possible to make a movie fairly close to the book its based off of. I think if people did it more often, movies would be better.

[Meriadoc1961]

"I think it is possible to make a movie fairly close to the book its based off of. I think if people did it more often, movies would be better."

Thank you. That is my point. To me, when I hear people claim that books are books, and movies are movies, so they can not be done the same way, reeks of eliticism. I just do not buy that premise.

[Sauron the White]

In the imaginary kingdom of Wouldashouldacoulda anything is possible. For those who cannot find it on the mythical maps, its right east of Secondguess Land and a bit north of the Itmighthavebeenperfectif territories.

[Annatar]

Originally Posted by Meriadoc1961

We do not get to see Prince Imrahil, but we get to see planty of screen time for an orc created by Jackson.

Just as a note, that "orc created by Jackson" is Gothmog, Lieutenant of Morgul, who is mentioned in the books. So he is not an "orc created by Jackson" in any way.

Faramir take Sam and Frodo to Osgiliath

Necessary to the story - if Shelob is removed from TTT, we have to have Faramir provide an obstacle. Also, his character is "dramatically dead" in the words of the scriptwriters, and so had to be changed.

Frodo send Sam away

Necessary to show the rift Gollum is creating between Frodo and Sam, and to increase the drama of Sam's return for non-book viewers.

Faramir's men mercilesly beating Gollum

This is where I agree with you - it's quite pointless.

But because Jackson did not care for the character of Bombadil

Or because the character of Bombadil does not add much to the wider story.

reeks of eliticism

Not to be flaming, you're being elitist.

"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."

True. For example, take narration. This comes as a matter of course in books. But in films, mostly it takes the audience out of the story. As a result, it's used rarely. For another example, the written thoughts of a character. Used fairly often in modern books. On paper, good. On screen, bad.


As a rule, this movie is not just for Tolkienites. It's for the wider audience, not just you. You might hate the disappearance of Bombadil or Imrahil, but their characters mean nothing to those who haven't read the books.

[Finduilas]

[QUOTE=Annatar;534340]

Just as a note, that "orc created by Jackson" is Gothmog, Lieutenant of Morgul, who is mentioned in the books. So he is not an "orc created by Jackson" in any way.

Mentioned, not given two pages worth of writting. Elbereth was mentioned, thank goodness she wasn't in the movie, as a character.

Necessary to the story - if Shelob is removed from TTT, we have to have Faramir provide an obstacle. Also, his character is "dramatically dead" in the words of the scriptwriters, and so had to be changed.

Well, it's PJ's fault that Shelob was moved to the RotK, so no problem there.

Necessary to show the rift Gollum is creating between Frodo and Sam, and to increase the drama of Sam's return for non-book viewers.

What rift? In the book? It must have been a long time since I read them....

Or because the character of Bombadil does not add much to the wider story.

um... and the Watcher of the Water, the Wargs attacking Theoden, Aragorn falling of the cliff, etc.?

True. For example, take narration. This comes as a matter of course in books. But in films, mostly it takes the audience out of the story. As a result, it's used rarely. For another example, the written thoughts of a character. Used fairly often in modern books. On paper, good. On screen, bad.

Of course you can't do the characters thoughts in a movie, but really, Meriadoc didn't say word for word.

As a rule, this movie is not just for Tolkienites. It's for the wider audience, not just you. You might hate the disappearance of Bombadil or Imrahil, but their characters mean nothing to those who haven't read the books.

Do you think that the wider audience would have disliked Imrahil or Bombadil? Maybe Bombadil, he seems to be disliked by alot of people, but Imrahil? He saves Faramir, and takes a big part in the restoration of Minith Tirith.

[Annatar]

Originally Posted by Finduilas

Mentioned, not given two pages worth of writting. Elbereth was mentioned, thank goodness she wasn't in the movie, as a character.

Elbereth takes little or no part in the events of the movie, so no surprise there.

Well, it's PJ's fault that Shelob was moved to the RotK, so no problem there.

Required, as Shelob's Lair is completely different to the tone of Helm's Deep, and takes place during the siege of Minas Tirith.

What rift? In the book? It must have been a long time since I read them....

Added in the movie.

um... and the Watcher of the Water, the Wargs attacking Theoden, Aragorn falling of the cliff, etc.?

The Watcher in the Water is required to trap the Fellowship in Moria. The Fellowship being trapped in Moria is required for the confrontation with the Balrog. The Wargs attacking Theoden are required for Aragorn falling off the cliff. Aragorn falling off the cliff is required for Theoden to learn the size of Saruman' army. And so on. But not Bombadil. The only thing he's for is the Blades of Westernesse, and those are filled in for in the FoTR EE by Galadriel giving the Noldorin Dagger to Merry.

Of course you can't do the characters thoughts in a movie, but really, Meriadoc didn't say word for word.

No idea how to answer this.

Do you think that the wider audience would have disliked Imrahil or Bombadil? Maybe Bombadil, he seems to be disliked by alot of people, but Imrahil? He saves Faramir, and takes a big part in the restoration of Minith Tirith.

Imrahil is not needed, like the Grey Company. He is just too much detail, because PJ did not have enough time to introduce every single character from the books.

[Sauron the White]

Imrahil would have worked well on the screen if they could have fit him in. Bombadil, on the other hand, is poison even in the book. On the screen he would have been the equal of an atomic explosion wreaking havoc with the sensibilities of the viewers. One of JRRT's absolute worst moments with pen and paper.

[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.