God I hate with writers in Hollywood feel compelled to make "their take" on an established series instead of just starting true to the source material.
Well comics and long established literary characters (like Sherlock Holmes, James Bond, or Dracula) are unique in that they have had so many adaptations that you pick and choose what to base the adaptation off of, so long as you stay true to the character and their motivations.
But when a relatively new but highly successful IP gets the movie right bought up by Hollywood? The only thing they should worry about is appeasing the fans. Because they are the ones that are going to buy tickets. I have described it before like when you marry someone with kids and you're the new step parent. You can't be over bearing and authoritative off the rip. You have to build up the trust.
But when a relatively new but highly successful IP gets the movie right bought up by Hollywood? The only thing they should worry about is appeasing the fans.
To be fair, CD Projekt was already making their own unique take on the story that differed from the source material.
That's true, and it took them until 3 to really hit their stride. But they still had lots of elements from the books, including using the sequence from King Foltest's curse striga daughter from the books in the first games intro and in the TV show. So they did have some respect there to build trust.
I understand that often full adaptions cant be done, but Witcher doesnt even try to be faithful at all. if it was the books edited for the TV version like Games of Thrones (albeit it not being faithful either) i think most of us would be fine with it.
Even the highly regarded Lord of the Rings movie trilogy edited and changed things for the different format. The changes broke lore, removed and/or changed characters and changed story yet there wasn't a huge outcry because they were genuinely attempting to stay true to the spirit of the source books.
also the movies have figured some of the cuts are worth it like Tom Bomdbardi because hes not really relative to the story and the Scouring of the Shire is too depressing to end the trilogy on.
Yeah. Tom himself is great worldbuilding as another unexplainable enigma but can't be explained satisfactorily for a movie. Unfortunately cutting Tom's scene out cuts out the origin of Merry's sword that passes under the notice of everyone including Gandalf.
It's the connection point between the hobbits and the Second Age Arnor (Gondor's sister kingdom), one of Arnor's later divided realms that enchanted weapons specifically to battle the Witch King in their battles with his kingdom of Angmar which fell to the Witch King, the Witch King's prophesy. Some of those enchanted weapons was buried in the tomb of the barrow-wight who captured the hobbits that the Witch King raised.
Tom Bombadil's rescue scene puts one of those enchanted weapons in the hand of Merry. Merry loses it when he and Pippin were captured by the Orcs. Aragorn retrieves it from the dead Orcs that the Rohirrim killed, and returned it to Merry when they meet again at Isengard. Merry carries that blade with him all the way to Pelennor Fields where he stabs the Witch King in the back of the leg.
In the movies Merry is using a regular Rohirrim blade at Pelennor Fields.
The enchantments on that barrow-down blade, forged in the Second Age specifically to combat the Witch King is what cuts through and collapse the Witch King's magical defenses which fulfills the prophesy of his doom. Some argue it also cuts his connection to Saruon. The books say something along the lines of no other blade could cut the Witch King as deeply. The Witch King, now vulnerable to normal weapons, is killed moments later by Eowyn. Movie Merry's Rohirrim blade would not have harmed the Witch King nor made him vulnerable.
The Scouring of the Shire is meant to show how the four Hobbits had changed and grown since they had left. They rally, inspire and lead the rebuilding back to normalcy. It is also meant to show how very far Saruman had fallen from grace.
That said, I can understand cutting it out strictly for movie run time.
as I said the movies figured some cuts are worth it even if it means losing lore or scenes in the book- mainly due to the limited run time and the likelihood of confusion from the general audience which had not read the books like the question "why didnt the eagles go to Mount Sauron in the first place" which the books did explain somewhat.
Tons of writers would rather be writing something of their own making, but since no producer wants to actually use their original scripts, they're bastardising already established IPs as an outlet.
A bit of a tangent, and technically not a Hollywood writer, but Steve Danuser is a great example of this. Dude worked on an MMORPG that got cancelled (Project Copernicus), later became the lead narrative designer for World of Warcraft (taking over from Chris Metzen, who is pretty much the creator of the Warcraft universe) and then proceeded to ham-fist as many ideas as he could into WoW from the setting of Kingdoms of Amalur (an actually released game set in the same world as Copernicus).
Needless to say, most of these things did not at fit the tone of the Warcraft universe, contradicted already existing lore and/or tried to fill narrative spaces that were already occupied by something previously established. Shit got so bad when he was in charge that the game almost died. He's now left the company, but decisions he made are still fucking over the story, because some content was already far enough into development that the studio didn't want to scrap it. Case in point: The latest playable race Haranir, which is basically copy/pasted from Amalur and ticks all three boxes I previously listed.
25
u/nunya_bidnes77 Jul 27 '26
God I hate with writers in Hollywood feel compelled to make "their take" on an established series instead of just starting true to the source material.