Originally posted by Chaplin
************SPOILER********************
Wait, Stout. This whole passage is based on your arrogant presumption that you could have done a better job. And that is just ludicrous.
1) I will bet you any amount of money that script you saw filmed, heck, even the script you will see when the Extended cut comes out, was NOT the original script. We can all agree that he didn't like the Scouring and probably did not include it in the script, but there is no way to tell what else was changed from the book. The rumor was back in the summer that the film was originally 6 hours and was cut in half for the theatrical run. So I can't see how you can base his entire reasons for his screenwriting decisions on the 3 1/2 hour theatrical cut.
2) Changes in the 2nd and 3rd movie are sometimes based on the "domino effect". If he had kepts some of the scenes that you wanted in, it would dramatically alter later parts of the story. You're mad about the exclusion of Tom Bombadil. Just adding his one scene in Fellowship and then another perhaps to wrap up in ROTK would have made the movies even longer--and the inclusion of Bombadil would be a waste because he has no bearing on the story.
3) Changes also are used for saving time AND MONEY. Take Arwen's first appearance, for example. The Rivendale elves are represented by two characters--Elrond and Arwen. That saves time to not have to introduce more characters--and money, by not having to pay more actors (speaking roles get paid a lot more than non-speaking ones).
Now, there has always been a big stink about how the elves showed up in Helm's Deep, but that had a twofold goal. One, to give help to the men at Helm's Deep. I think if the small amount of men (without the elves) could have held the fortress against that big of an army, it would have been very unrealistic (in terms of the world). Also, if you notice, none of the major characters, save Theoden, actually die in the entire books. Jackson couldn't just kill off, well, any of them--there'd be much bigger screaming about it than there already has been. So, they kill off Haldir. True, he wasn't a major character, but even as a novice screenwriter, no matter what you write, you have to make the stakes higher--killilng off a character, that is at least important to someone in the story, is a smart thing to do. The same applies to the size of the female roles in the films, the only thing he does (or does not do) against that is expand the final story with Eowyn and Faramir.
So taken as a whole, and thinking about classic film conventions, Peter Jackson did the best anyone will probably ever do with these films. Why? Because while he made a few changes in order to make the movies more "cinematic", he DID stay true to what Tolkien portrayed in his books.
I'll grant you I couldn't have done it as well...I was making a point that just about anyone that actually wanted to stay as loyal as possible (PJ did not seem to, or he certainly could have), and knew what they were doing in the industry, could have done it. I think, conceptually, deciding what stays and what goes, I would have done better. That's just MHO.
I'll grant you the longer script bit. Who knows what he had before? Since I can't know, I won't speculate on it. I'll just talk about what we do have.
If you want to continue LYING about Bombadil, perhaps you'll go back and read my posts. I NEVER SAID HE SHOULD BE IN THE MOVIES...EVER EVER EVER!!! Stop making $h!t up! I always say I'd love for him to be there, but completely understand why he isn't there. Heck, he isn't even in the BBC audio version. He can't be there. It would ruin the movies, sadly, and I've ALWAYS used Bombadil as a positive DEFENSE of PJ in the first movie. Comprende? It's really not difficult to understand, given I explain it to you EVERY time you try to use Bombadil against me. Gawd, get your facts straight before you try and quote me.
But let's take a moment and expand on what you said about one thing early in the movies obligating him to do something later on. PJ screwed up by including the scouring of the shire pictures in the mirror of Galadriel and then not including it. He basically made a promise, showing purists this, and yanked out the rug. In fact, my friend refused to believe me when I told him it wasn't there, and the mirror scene was his basis. He was shocked to find that Jackson had done that. It didn't ruin the overall series, but it gave it a hole.
The Arwen substitute for Glorfindel was excellent. Glorfindel was a minor character, I understood they needed to get Arwen in it more, and so voila-perfect.
Now, you're wrong about Helm's Deep. Almost completely wrong. The one point about Helm's Deep in the story was that the men did NOT have the help of the elves, or the Dwarves, or the other Men of Middle Earth. The Men had to stand alone! THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT!!! To give them help undermines that. To make it Elves, who specifically could NOT help (they were under attack themselves at the time, remember-or maybe you just didn't know that), and could not come to help.
And to say it wouldn't have been believable for the men to hold out-youre right! But that's the point! The men held juuuuust long enough. Erkenbrand (spelling) showed up at juuuuust the right time to save them. Plus, if Eomer was at Helm's Deep from the get-go, as he was supposed to be, the men would have had that much more support. Not believable? The Battle of Thermopylae (spelling) isn't believable, but it's fact.
Killing of Haldir? The fact they needed some kind of death? Well, I still think it would have been great to end the movie with Frodo supposedly lying dead, killed by Shielob, but I understand why it couldn't be done. Hell, he even faked the death of Aragorn!
