If I only had a Bombadil...: Book(s) vs. Films

» lawnboy101 - Book(s) vs. Films

I must first admit to being a latecomer to middle-earth. I must then confess to having seen "fellowship" (both the original and the extended)at least 20 times. I viewed "towers" twice in theatre. I've read "The Hobbit" all three LOTR books multiple times, all the appendices, and both volumes of the "book of lost tales" as well as several of Chris's other compilations. I've spent hours without measure @ the Grey Havens site and @ the online encyclopaedia of Arda. All this has been since 11/2003. I say all that to hopefully illustrate how Tolkien has captured my fancy as no other work of literature or entertainment ever has.
Having said all that, I must speculate that if I had first read the books, then seen the motion picture, I would not have been so thoroughly possessed by the vision. At least I don't think so. While the omission of Tom and the glossing over of the span of years between Bilbos party and the return of Gandalf from the library of Minas Tirith and other "inconsistencies" are certainly noticeable to those who have spent serious effort in the contemplation of this "....imaginary time..." they emphatically do not detract from the power of the story. One must remember that even classics lose a step or two over the years. Jacksons intent, it seems to me, was to devote himself to a translation of the power of the story into film form, not to render every page and paragraph into a script. He succeeded if you ask me

-- posted by lawnboy101