JTWood wrote:Other than leaving out Tom Bombadil, which you have to admit read like a bad trip, what did he "butcher?"
I'm cool with leaving out Bombadil. There's no explanation for who/what he is, the whole episode is unnecessary to the story, and it's pretty odd. No biggie, that.
There are a myriad of other changes he made that would take a LONG time to go through. The biggest is taking the Frodo cliffhanger out of the second movie and putting it in the third. The year-long wait between the publication of The Two Towers
and The Return of the King
had readers waiting with great anticipation to see if Frodo would be killed in Cirith Ungol, or if he would be saved by some miracle. Frodo Lives! was soon found scrawled across subways and public places across the western world. It made for great drama, and Jackson utterly botched it.
It wasn't a total disaster of an interpretation. I own the movies and like them a great deal. Smeagol was spot on - almost beyond belief. Using Alan Lee and John Howe as artistic directors was brilliant. There was a lot to like, but a lot not to like, too. I would just preferred to see a strict retelling of the tale, not some director's version of it.
LOTR was voted the greatest literary work of the 20th century by some group who allegedly knows these things. It's a brilliant piece of writing that will be read 200 years from now. These movies may fade from memory all too soon.
Having said all that, I'm eagerly anticipating The Hobbit, due to be released in theaters in 2011.