15
Was a diehard LOTR movie fan until a buddy made me read the books and now I can't stand the films.
He told me the books had way more depth and after I read Fellowship I realized they cut Tom Bombadil and the whole barrow-wight stuff which totally changes the pacing and magic for me, has anyone else gone from movie-lover to book-snob after one conversation?
2 comments
Log in to join the discussion
Log In2 Comments
jamie79419d ago
That Tom Bombadil stuff is a hard sell in a movie though, man. In my experience, trying to fit all those side characters and tangents wouldve made Fellowship four hours long and probably killed the pacing for general audiences. I actually came to the films first too but reading the books made me appreciate what Jackson chose to keep rather than what he cut. Your mileage may vary but the movies are still masterpieces at telling a condensed version of that big world.
6
gonzalez.grant19d ago
Fellowship already clocks in at 3 hours and 48 minutes with the extended cut, so yeah, adding Tom Bombadil would have meant cutting something else. I mean, the whole point of Bombadil in the books is to show that there are forces in Middle-earth that are completely outside the war for the Ring, but for a movie you gotta streamline that theme into something visual, like the Ents or the wargs. Jackson probably figured audiences would be more invested in the Ringwraiths chasing the hobbits than a singing guy who doesn't care about the Ring at all. Idk, maybe it's just me but I think the films actually improve on some of the slower parts of the book, like how they cut the whole "Barrow-wight" detour that really drags in the text.
2