The Hobbit Movie Forum

[Odo Banks]

In light of Eldorion's feelings on the matter, I was wondering if it might not be just as well to remove OMW, TB, and the B-W's from LOTR. PJ himself actually thought they added nothing of real importance thematically. We then could have the hobbits flee Crickhollow and reach Bree without too much unneccessary detail intruding on the important parts of the story.

Odo

[Eldorion]

I was wondering if it might not be just as well to remove OMW, TB, and the B-W's from LOTR.

Do you mean from the book? If so I absolutely disagree, I think they're a good part even if I wouldn't include them in an adaptation.

PJ himself actually thought they added nothing of real importance thematically.

I'm afraid I disagree with PJ on that point.

[Odo Banks]

Aha!

But what thematic importance do those chapters hold?

Odo

[Tinuviel]

I think something Tolkein might have changed if he saw the movie would be what events he puts into what book. For example, in the movie they put the events that occured in the two towers book into the ROTK movie because that's when, chronoligically, it happened. Also maybe, he may not have done book 1 and 2 for the second 2 books and instead have done alternating chapters like in the movie. It would have made the story flow easier so the reader wouldn't have finished one tale, then go back to the beginning and read another...
Just nit-picky things really

[Odo Banks]

Nit-picky or not, sadly I disagree with you Tinuviel. I like the sequence (and book placements of chapters) the way they are.

Odo

[Eldorion]

For example, in the movie they put the events that occured in the two towers book into the ROTK movie because that's when, chronoligically, it happened.

I don't think Tolkien would have done that, he states in Letter 210 that in The Two Towers:

The narrative now divides into two main branches: 1. Prime Action, the Ringbearers. 2. Subsidiary Action, the rest of the Company leading to the 'heroic' matter. It is essential that these two branches should each be treated in coherent sequence. Both to render them intelligible as a story, and because they are totally different in tone and scenery. Jumbling them together entirely destroys these things.

For my part, I agree with Tolkien's assessment. I think he is correct about the differences in "tone and scenery" (for instance, there's not really a war going on for Frodo and Sam while a war is the major focus for the rest of the Fellowship). I also rather like the cutting back and forth, I remember from my first reading that it make me anxious to know what would happen to the other characters so I kept reading with great interest.

[Odo Banks]

Imagine how good the last two films would have been if they had followed Tolkien's scheme more accurately. Oh well. At least they can do it with The Hobbit.... Oh no... that's right... they're not going to. We'll be jumping back and forth between the Adventures of Bilbo and the Adventures of Gandalf

Odo

[Eldorion]

But what thematic importance do those chapters hold?

I haven't really thought about the thematic significance that much, but I think that it shows just how out of their league the hobbits are at that point and sets the groundwork for them to grow and develop over the rest of the book. Obviously this can be done differently, but if it were possible (again, time) I'd prefer the original.

[Odo Banks]

Sorry Eldorion, you'll have to do better than that (after you've had time to study the matter further, of course!)

Odo

[Eldorion]

What exactly do you want, Odo? I've said (with relatively little consideration) why I think the Bombadil sequence has value, but as I've also said I think that it is, to be blunt, expendable in an adaptation if need be. That's my honest opinion on the matter.