Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by zulux 10 days ago
No I dont, and you're quite correct. I'm one of those weirdos who thinks The Lord of the Rings movies were better because they left out some things from the books, so I'm happy with both.

Oddly enough, I sort of appreicated the David Lynch movie more after the recent movies because not what I'm older, I sort of undersgand how hard it would be to make a movie anyways.
2 comments
globular-toast 10 days ago
I found leaving out Alia way worse than leaving out Bombadil. Alia is one of the best things about the Lynch film, but for some reason precocial infant characters are a no no in Hollywood these days. I assume she will skip straight to being a teen played by an adult in part 3.

(As I wrote this I realised I could just look it up, she'll be played by 30 year old.)

Internal monologue is also a no no currently, which meant no banquet scene, which is one of the best parts of the book.

link
BoingBoomTschak 10 days ago
What's sad is that you can't help but wonder what Lynch could have achieved with the same runtime/monetary budget as Villeneuve...

(I like the first LotR movie and disliked the others btw; lost that "picturesque" quality and got too many battle scenes)

link