Re:‘Lord of the Rings’ at 20: Why It Was One of Hollywood’s ...
by fouc on Thursday December 16, 2021 @12:00AM
(#29575088)
The movies adhered relatively closely to the books. The books have a lot of detail, so the movie required that too.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:‘Lord of the Rings’ at 20: Why It Was One of Hollywood’s ...
by nescioquid on Thursday December 16, 2021 @12:57AM
(#29575418)
My recollection is that the battle of Helm's Deep took place over a few pages, whereas the realization of the novel expanded that to (maybe) hours and offered a de novo romantic side-plot with the major character. Nabokov completely upended the narrative frame for the screen-play of Lolita he wrote for Kubrik, but he certainly did not inseminate it with pure pulp.
Re:‘Lord of the Rings’ at 20: Why It Was One of Hollywood’s ...
by panick21_ on Thursday December 16, 2021 @01:29AM
(#29575598)
It is longer in the movies but there are also lots of things in the books that are not in the movie. It makes sense to increase the battle scenes for a movie.
And the romantic plots were in the book as well.
Are you sure you are not mixing up Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit?
Re:‘Lord of the Rings’ at 20: Why It Was One of Hollywood’s ...
by nescioquid on Thursday December 16, 2021 @01:39AM
(#29575659)
Yes, I'm referring to the overtime Aragorn serves as well as the battle mentioned. Proportion is important.