Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cbarnett
Unfortunately, many things that work in book form don't do so well when translated to film (any Stephen King novel, for example :P).
|
Oh, but talking trees and elves and gigantic eagles and Galdalf fighting this weird Balrog and falling into volcanos and off of mountains make more sense? Two gay hobbit couples (I was so happy to see the movies when they came out that I didn't notice, but on further review I'm convinced that the hobbits were deeply in love with their partners) and 1.1 million people fighting for a little gold ring all make more sense?
I see what your both saying, but Tom Bombadil was a neat character. He had songs. I've been singing it my way for 20+ years, and I just knew that they were going to sing them my way.
Oh, "The Stand" was actually watchable and kinda true to the book. I think it's because they spent 8 hours teling that 1,100 page story. Most Stephen King book-to-movies suffer from "I bet we can cut this and get away with it"-itis.
Yes, the Beornings were really minor characters, so I can't get too mad with them being left out.
The "saving of the Shire" is way too important to be left out, though. We know how scummy Grima Wormtongue is and we have a certain affection for the simpleness of the Shire and when we realize that he came and completely defiled it all, we're blown away.
And, since most of the movies are focused on how these other characters grow and mature and the Hobbits are just ancillary players to further the story, this Shire story really showcases how much they've grown and matured and hardened and they're finally not playing second-fiddle to Gandalf or Gollum or the Ring or whatever. They're finally center stage and on their own. It's a great ending, and I feel like the casual fan who will never read the books because they've seen the movies is missing out on more that just extra effluvia.