I used to think the 'Lord of the Rings' movies cut too much, but a friend changed my mind

I always said the books were better because the movies left out stuff like Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire. Last week, my friend Mark, who's a film editor, told me, 'A direct page-for-page copy would be a 20-hour mess. They had to focus on the core story to make it work for everyone.' He made me watch the extended edition of 'The Two Towers' again and pointed out how they combined characters and events to keep the pace up. Now I see the movies as their own great thing, not a failed copy. Has anyone else had a book adaptation they liked more after understanding the filmmaking side?

3 comments

3 Comments

oliver_fisher1mo ago

My own stubbornness about book details could fill a separate, very boring film.

the_james1mo agoMost Upvoted

Yeah, I get like that with recipes too.

kevin1791mo ago

Oh totally! I was the same way with the first Harry Potter movie. Felt like they left out so much, but then my sister, who works in theater, explained how hard it is to fit a whole book into two hours. @oliver_fisher is right, we get stuck on the tiny details. Once you see the movie as its own thing, you can enjoy both.