(Ten Years Gone Mode: Engaged) Well, yeah. by
Huinesoron
on 2015-07-20 11:19:00 UTC
Reply
And if it was, for instance, the Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell adaptation, I could see the reason for the changes. They did some stuff to tighten up the storyline to fit it into seven hours, and some to shift the focus onto the women more. So they monkeyed with the timeline, for instance, to give Emma Pole some interactions with the Arabella Strange plotline. In the book, they have, what, one on-page meeting?
But LotR-M changed things just for the heck of it. Why make Frodo useless at the ford? It wasn't to establish Arwen's character as Super Awesome for later use - they didn't use the super-awesome part. Were they trying to make Frodo look weaker so his perseverance later was more impressive? Did they just have some spare fake drool on hand? Who knows! I doubt PJ&co do.
As for Faramir: it's not even so much the 'I'll abduct him', though the fact that not going after the Ring pretty much defined his entire character makes that hurt a lot (and the fact that they used his actual line to justify the abduction is just terrible). It's the fact that, in the interests of 'adding tension', they put a Ringwraith in front of Frodo. You know, the ones who've been established time and time again as sensing the Ring whenever it's nearby? And, what, the Nazgul in question just... didn't feel like reporting it? 'Eh, I'm sure the boss already knows. Whatevs.'
There's ticking off the purists, and there's gratuitous violence to plot, character, and common sense. Guess which category LotR-M falls into.
Hint: you don't have to guess.
hS