Yeah, I saw the image and thought it was going to be bad, but it's not like you'd expect any of them to be exactly on the line. They all generally track - I don't see any giant outliers.
Tom Bombadil is probably the biggest omission - both the character and all tge activities that take place around their house. I remembered that sticking out to me when I watched the films for the first time, but at that point I last read the trilogy at least five years prior.
Was there a point to Tom Bombadil? All I really remember was that he helped the hobbits escape the. And I'm not even 100% sure about that. Also that Gandolf said he might go visit him at the end of the book. Was there some important part about it I missed?
He could wear the one ring and remain unaffected by it, laughed at it even. Then he could make the ring vanish and bring it back at will.
He seemed unconcerned by the war, almost as if he knew of and had seen wars greater and far more terrible. Yet he had chosen a side and was willing to provide what aid he could.
He was Doolittle to all lifeforms, his songs tranquilized ancient evils, and he could be called upon at long range to swiftly respond.
His very existence suggested fundamental mysteries about the world; old and powerful.
Bombadil, moreso than Strider, was the embodiment of strong, old roots not withering, remaining out of reach of the frost. Old roots that could reason with willows and wights.
Not that I remember, which is probably the reason why it was cut from the film. There is a lot of activity around him and the area around his house in the books, but it's more side quest than main quest.
In The Fellowship of the Ring, Glorfindel's role in guiding Frodo Baggins to Rivendell is filled by Arwen, though he does appear during the prologue when Sauron is defeated. In The Return of the King, Glorfindel is seen walking next to Arwen as she is having her vision of her son Eldarion during the journey to the Grey Havens. In his last appearance, he is seen at the crowning of King Elessar, behind Legolas and in front of Arwen. In all appearances in the movies he has no speaking lines
Well, I'd like to know if Arwen's screentime/mention ratio is 2x or 3x that of the Frodo baseline. This arbitrary scale makes it impossible. It would not hurt to add more values to the axes, and perhaps a faint grid.
Not at all, I really like Boromir’s story, but that’s why I’m surprised. I feel like his development got a lot of attention, and even though Faramir was around for longer in the story, he never seemed quite as prominent to me. I guess that duration made up for the attention boromir got early on, though.
Looks like they mostly did a good job matching up
Yeah, I saw the image and thought it was going to be bad, but it's not like you'd expect any of them to be exactly on the line. They all generally track - I don't see any giant outliers.
Tom Bombadil is probably the biggest omission - both the character and all tge activities that take place around their house. I remembered that sticking out to me when I watched the films for the first time, but at that point I last read the trilogy at least five years prior.
Understood, but if you did this same graph for most books made into movies, they'd look vastly different. I mean, think of The Shining.
The Legolas-Gimli discrepancy is astonishing.
Gimli was turned into the comic relief dwarf, which was a bit sad
Honestly surprised Legolas is over represented considering how much of a boner Tolkien had for him. But I guess everyone did, right.
Good riddance, Tom Bombadil. I don't care how merry a fellow he was, those were my least favorite chapters of Fellowship.
That's disrespectful! He also had a bright blue jacket, and his boots were yellow.
Tom Bombadil was my favourite part of the book, and I was so disappointed when I realised that that part had been taken out of the film.
Was there a point to Tom Bombadil? All I really remember was that he helped the hobbits escape the. And I'm not even 100% sure about that. Also that Gandolf said he might go visit him at the end of the book. Was there some important part about it I missed?
He could wear the one ring and remain unaffected by it, laughed at it even. Then he could make the ring vanish and bring it back at will.
He seemed unconcerned by the war, almost as if he knew of and had seen wars greater and far more terrible. Yet he had chosen a side and was willing to provide what aid he could.
He was Doolittle to all lifeforms, his songs tranquilized ancient evils, and he could be called upon at long range to swiftly respond.
His very existence suggested fundamental mysteries about the world; old and powerful.
Bombadil, moreso than Strider, was the embodiment of strong, old roots not withering, remaining out of reach of the frost. Old roots that could reason with willows and wights.
Thanks for the response. I remembered that he was older than time it seemed.
Not that I remember, which is probably the reason why it was cut from the film. There is a lot of activity around him and the area around his house in the books, but it's more side quest than main quest.
It was just a relaxing, peaceful section of the narrative, which the film could have done with more of.
The duality of fan
"I think I was trying to suggest something about the duality of fan, sir. The Jungian thing, sir."
... Glorfindel was in the movies?
In The Fellowship of the Ring, Glorfindel's role in guiding Frodo Baggins to Rivendell is filled by Arwen, though he does appear during the prologue when Sauron is defeated. In The Return of the King, Glorfindel is seen walking next to Arwen as she is having her vision of her son Eldarion during the journey to the Grey Havens. In his last appearance, he is seen at the crowning of King Elessar, behind Legolas and in front of Arwen. In all appearances in the movies he has no speaking lines
I hink that's the 0 line. There with good old Tom bombadilEDIT: nvm I'm blind
The scale is neither linear nor logarithmic. What?
How else can you make it look like a linear grouping?
Data processing isn't about making it look like something unless you are purposefully manipulating it.
But that's what happened here. The x-axis has been unevenly distributed.
Because the point isn't to compare 2 characters, but to see how one character performs in the books and in the movies.
And for that, it doesn't matter. But they could have used a bar graph instead.
Well, I'd like to know if Arwen's screentime/mention ratio is 2x or 3x that of the Frodo baseline. This arbitrary scale makes it impossible. It would not hurt to add more values to the axes, and perhaps a faint grid.
I wonder if this is off the theatrical or extended and what the other might show.
Biggest surprise to me is that Faramir has more mentions in the books than Boromir.
Are you saying Boromir should have died earlier? Dude!
Not at all, I really like Boromir’s story, but that’s why I’m surprised. I feel like his development got a lot of attention, and even though Faramir was around for longer in the story, he never seemed quite as prominent to me. I guess that duration made up for the attention boromir got early on, though.
Gothmog gets screen time?
Edit: nvm that's the uruk general. I was thinking of Morgoth
relevant xkcd
I'm actually fairly ok with this, more or less what I would expect from a mainstream movie(s, and the fact that they are good is just a nice bonus).
A mention is not the same as an appearance, so the discrepancy for some characters could be even greater if you take that into account.
The balance of this doesn't surprise me. The shift between book and film is quite heavily based on gender.
The books were certainly much more male character based and the films evened it up a bit more. Although obviously still not even.
Not surprising considering the hours of "Oh Frodo!" "Oh Sam!" "Oh Frodo!" "Oh Sam!" Hobbitses are little girlses
How can Sauron be under represented? Who do you think the Lord in "Lord of the rings" is??
It's like saying the book on Tom Bombadill doesn't have enough mentions of Tom.