Login | Register
 
Message Board | Latest Posts | Your Recent Posts | Rules

Thread: why did he do away with these scenes???

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > The Fellowship of the Ring > why did he do away with these scenes???   
You should send an e-mail to PJ to ask him why he left out so many stuff from the books and put in so many changes and why he violated the characters, blablablablabla.

Only PJ knows, we can only speculate why our beloved Kiwi did what he did. It doesn't really matter, actually, because the books are impossible to film if you'd follow them to the letter.

Anyway, i think PJ made the adaptation we are all obsessed about because he wanted to make a movie which even tolkien newbies would appreciate, and also a movie which pretty much every member of the family (yes, even Maggie) would be able to watch without too many question marks.

So he put a lot of stuff of the books out and put in a lot of plot/character changes because otherwise ppl wouldn't really get what was happening in the movie. So this is possibly partly the reason why Tom Bombadil isn't in the movies, because most viewers wouldn't get it.

A book which is as complex as LOTR cannot be filmed to the letter, covering every single detail or touching every theme of it. And if someone would try to film it to the letter, we wouldn't have a movie, but a LOTR mini-series. (like with Dune)

PJ just selected from the books what he thought was important, and converted it into a contemporary action/adventure movie for the entire family.

Whether we agree with PJ's adaptation or not, is our call and doesn't really matter. It is a fact that PJ and his crew put an awful lot of work into it and they really did their best to show their vision of JRRT's work. We have to respect that anyhow, whether we like or dislike the movies.

So, i think Tom Bombadil and other stuff was put out because it wouldn't make sense to Tolkien newbies. Good thinking, since it doesn't even make sense to most Tolkienites.



[Edited on 7/12/2003 by virumor]
Thanks for the reply! I wasn't saying I disliked the movies or peter's work at all. I am in love with the movies that I could watch them over and over for the rest of my life!!!! I think peter did fabulous at tackling this hard of a project. Your reply helped with the Tom Bombadil part. But I'm still just so confused why he skipped the short Prancing Pony parts!!!!???? And your right virumor that no one but peter jackson knows why, but I like to hear everyones thoughts.
Big Smile Smilie thanks Big Smile Smilie

[Edited on 6/12/2003 by HobbitHomie05]
Quote:
But I'm still just so confused why he skipped the short Prancing Pony parts!!!!????
HobbitHomie05: It is all a matter of time. PJ could only shoe-horn so much into the three hour theatre movie; the extra half-hour added to the Extended DVD still couldn't contain the missing parts.

To do it justice would have taken an additional three hours if not six, just as Virumor has said, it would have been a TV mini-series. In reality, each of the three volumes would have required about six hours to do almost verbatim, and still there would have been questions left unanswered.

I think PJ did the best he could with the time he had available.
yah that's true! I'm getting the extended copy for christmas (don't ask how I know) so I'll be able to check a few of the additional scenes he cut out. Peter Jackson and the actors did do an outstanding job. Plus they did it back to back so it took foreva!!!!!!!! Smoke Smilie they probably practically bacame their character!!!
I think PJ knew he never had enough time to do Bombadil justice, and to be fair i can understand him leaving Tom out, though brilliant in the books it doesn't push the movie/story on really.
yah I've givin up on defending tommie boy,but whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy???????????? Very Sad Smilie Sad Smilie Very Sad Smilie Sad Smilie Very Sad Smilie Sad Smilie Very Sad Smilie Sad Smilie Very Sad Smilie WhY tHe PrAnCiNg PoNy ScEnCeS?????????????? no one needs to answer that I'm just pushing out my anger with wierd typing ways!!
Well, he did put the Old Man Willow in TTT extended version, but that was with Pippin and Merry in Fangorn Forest, and it just crushed my heart that he put it in the completely wrong scene. I mean, if he left Tom Bombadil out, then let's not put Old Man Willow in Fangorn, just let it be, man.
Quote:
I mean, if he left Tom Bombadil out, then let's not put Old Man Willow in Fangorn, just let it be, man.
Ah, but the point of putting Old Man Willow in Fangorn Forest was to show us by example of what the huorns did to all those disappearing Orcs at the end of the Battle of Helm's Deep. The Orcs didn't have Tom Bombadil, nor Treebeard even, to save their hash and so they got changed to worm food.
so PJ really never read the book??? I'm amazed that he did this if he hasn't even read the book!!! Shame on you PJ!!! Mad Smilie Well he did a pretty good job though, not the best but good enough for me!!! Wink Smilie

Really Airecristiel?? Old Man Willow is in the TTT extended edition?? Geez, he really screwed up on a few things, he really should have got some help from the actors who have read the book
Grondmaster, could you explain that a little more clearer?? Big Smile Smilie If you have ever talked to me, you'd know that I need things to be clear!!! Thanks if you may.
Quote:
Grondmaster, could you explain that a little more clearer??
HobbitHomie05, I wrote a full page disertation as an answer and then my computer locked up as I requested a preview of it, so it was lost. Maybe tomorrow I'll try again. Sorry.

Oh in that case Grondmaster don't worry about it!!! You don't have to go through the trouble!!!! I need to work on my skills on re-reading!!! Wink Smilie I'll probably get it after a few reads!! Big Smile Smilie

I was reading the book and I was at the part where Frodo gets stabbed by the Black Rider (or Nazgul) and in the movie they have his wound on his stomach, in the book his wound really is on his shoulder!! An easy mistake or for a reason??

[Edited on 6/12/2003 by HobbitHomie05]
I think PJ has came under the influence that those scenes that he 'did away with' were not important enough to include them. I have no idea why he violated the characters either I just get under the impression that he made the movies to help his directing career out and make money,not that there is anything wrong with that but no reason to mess up the movie's so much. He didn't do justice to the book's but as a movie trilogy it's good,just the Faramir part really got my goat.
I hope I'll have more good things to say about Return of the King when I watch it then bad things.
And of course, watch it with a positive additude and not be too nutty on the part's hes changed or not included.
Quote:
so PJ really never read the book??? I'm amazed that he did this if he hasn't even read the book!!! Shame on you PJ!!! Well he did a pretty good job though, not the best but good enough for me!!!

I don't think he'd be able to make the movies if he hadn't read the book, it'd be almost impossible. Then again because of the way the characters and some scenes are potrayed, some people don't actually believe - or pretend not to believe - that PJ actually read the book. They know who they are, no names needed Tongue Smilie
cause in the other topics a lot of people say he never read the book??/ Smoke Smilie
Quote:
cause in the other topics a lot of people say he never read the book??
PJ has read the books, but in the prosess of making the script they made A LOT of changes. And I mean A LOT, not a few, but many many many. So many that we for example barly recognize Faramir at all, except for his name.. People are just beeing sarcastic when they say he never read the books at all.

The question isn't whether he has read the books, the question is does he rember how they originally were?
Welcome to the PT forums, H.R. Boulter.

you started with a brilliant post !! good job!
Personaly, I'm happy with the films and even though they don't follow Tolkien's epic tale verbatim, they make an excellent story. Sure I wish we could have had more of the scenes that PJ dropped and fewer of those he made up, but they do make for movies that hang together.

Blame Newline and their money-grubbing accountants rather than PJ for most of the changes in the films from Tolkien's version. But remember, without many of these changes, the first films may have flopped and 'Return of the King' would never have been completed because the company would have decided to cut their losses and once more we would have had an incomplete cycle of films, alla Ralph Bakshi's 'Lord of the Rings, Part One'.
Well, vir, looks like you have another clubmember. Wink Smilie
What?! I thought Ross was in charge with the I-Hate-PJ's-guts! club! Has anything changed meanwhile?

Namarie!
Quote:
What?! I thought Ross was in charge with the I-Hate-PJ's-guts! club! Has anything changed meanwhile?

Namarie!

Since Ross hasn't been around in here much lately because PJ hired some goons to beat him up, and Aule is too busy with sabotaging the ROTK premiere, i have to do the work here.

BTW, there is no such thing as the I-hate-PJ club. We are just a bunch of guys like the A-Team : we fight for justice and the truth, even though the LOTR movie fans (especially Legolamb fan gals) chase us down all the time.

OK, and now i have to run.


[Edited on 17/12/2003 by virumor]
I still think they're separate things! I wish PJ named his b***y movies PJ's Lord of the Rings, so we could all be a lot happier now!

Go away, Vir! Hide! I'll try delaying the angry mob!

Namarie!
Quote:
I still think they're separate things! I wish PJ named his b***y movies PJ's Lord of the Rings, so we could all be a lot happier now!


After this post, i think the angry mob will turn its attention to you...which doesn't change the fact that you are right, of course.

[Edited on 18/12/2003 by virumor]
Quote:
Since Ross hasn't been around in here much lately because PJ hired some goons to beat him up, and Aule is too busy with sabotaging the ROTK premiere, i have to do the work here.


Need a hand?
Quote:
I still think they're separate things! I wish PJ named his b***y movies PJ's Lord of the Rings, so we could all be a lot happier now!
He has, at least in film language, it says "based on the books by J.R.R. Tolkien" on the cover, not "excact replica of".

And about the angry mob, I think you might be exaggerating your effect on people, folks. But it would be a sight to see.. Wink Smilie
Hello all,

Now I have read these posts with great interest. And I want you all to think on this. I liked parts of the PJ films, for the most part I think that they are great films, but not great adaptions of the books. The are only good adaptions. Some things they did incredibly well, Costumes, sets, weapons, Special effects, Creature designs, music and some character portrayals are excellent. Sadly not all and not some that are terribly important.

But it is a good start and I for one am glad that PJ didn't do it all right. "Why?" do you ask?

Well, because I am an actor and I am also studying filmmaking... And I love LOTR... I have a vision, too. This means that I can still do it and try to make a film version and I can make mine better. I fully agrees with Vir: To be done right, it has to be done as a Mini-series, about 20-24 hours. A huge project, neh? But it can be done. Speilberg just did a 20 hour Mini-series and it was awesome, proving that something like that can be done.

I will make it much closer to the book. Much much closer, I will keep the songs and the poetry and Tom Bombadil. I will prove that you can portray Faramir correctly and not have him come out as a static character. It can be done. It means not making compromises and not working for a big movie company that tells you what the American audience can handle, unless you own it yourself. It means doing it for the challenge and the love of Tolkien's world. Give me 10-15 years and I will have it done or die trying.

Then... I seriously hope to make a LOTR theme park that kicks ass. Like a Giant Rennasaince Fest. But you'll have to dress in garb to get in. No mundane world poking in.

Yeah, I dream big, but so does Speilberg. He makes things happen. He too is only a man. I believe I can do this. I'll do my best.

[Edited on 18/12/2003 by Glorfinel]
Yes indeed, PJ made the movie he made because he wanted to reach a huge amount of people who never heard of JRRT before. (and never heard of Peter Jackson before) So he kinda had to change, cut a lot of stuff from the books and inject some humour etc

In one word : a LOTR movie which is exactly like the book is an enigma.

And a LOTR movie which strictly follows the book (20-24 hours long or even longer) isn't a movie anymore, but a mini-series.

Mini-series don't have the intention to reach a huge amount of people or winning an Oscar but can be made with respect to the story and characters JRRT made. If ppl find that 'JRRT just delivers a good bedtimestory' then those ppl can just skip the series and watch the special extended blooper version + extra beyond the scenes blablabla dvd.

Good luck Glorfinel on your project. I hope you made it and when your miniseries get launched i will surely watch it.
Good luck on your daring enterprise, Glorfinel! I just wish someone would think the same for Silmarillion! It could be the greatest miniseries ever, if only ...

Namarie!
Big Smile Smilie Wow!! I didn't think my topic would do so well!!!! Big Smile Smilie
Actually, I would like to do the same with all three books. The Hobbit, LOTR and The Silmarillion. I think a good 6-8 hours for the Hobbit and maybe try to do the Silmarillion in parts. That might have to be condenced a bit. It is really a lot of info. A lot of detailed story. mayb just to the really important parts, like Creation, Finwe, Beren and Luthien and Your and Idrill. I would like to do it all eventually.
Glorfinel , i believe it would be better if you start with Hobbit since it's only 1 book and doesn't have as much detail as Silmarillion or LotR series. The making of Smaug would be a hard thing to do and i wonder where you'll find so many dwarves but i'm sure your job would be appreciated a lot when finished.

Also, one little question;
What happens to all those swords,shields, armors and costumes after the movie's finished?
Well dwarfs won't be a problem I think, as long as they are taller than who ever plays Bilbo, like John Rhys-Davies (Gimli) is tall enough to be in the same shot as the hobbits. Saves a lot of money on the FX-budget..

I'm more conserned about the elves in the Silmarillion. Where to find enough beautiful, good looking fellows who can also act? And the Valar? I'd love to see the maia Arien in her true flaming form.. In Love Smilie
You know what, Vampyr, I was thinking about it more and more and I agree with you wholly.

First should be the Hobbit, for many reasons. First is, of course, continuity. It was the first part, the Intro to the world of ME. Second, is logistics. It is simply the easiest and shortest of the 3 to do and has the least demand cast wise. If it were done well, it would be much easier to gain support (ie funding, backing) for the LOTR and Sil Mini-series.

It would be easy to do the dragons and effects. Look at Reign of Fire and PJ's LOTR. The technical work is ready to go and I could even find out what Logistical problems they had to avoid or resolve before hand in the production.

Really, I would llok very forward to making it happen and being part of it. I would prolly be Beorn in the Hobbit, I look a lot like him without make-up! LOL!

[Edited on 19/12/2003 by Glorfinel]
I`m not sure why he didn`t put any of those scenes in, but I think if he would of done thewhole of the book in gr8 detail, the movie would of been MUCH TOO long!

But then again, maybe he deleted some of the good scenes instead of ones that didn`t really need to be in the movie as such...sorry, just a little opinion of my own Cool Smilie