Another ditty on the faithfulness of the adaptation, this time with some Oz parallels

Let's take a look at this.

For a hardcore fan of a book, an unfaithful film adaptation will almost immediately seem bad by comparison... not as good as the book in any case. But does that mean the film will be bad? Nope. I'd like to point out one of the most unfaithful adaptions of all time, none other than the 1939 film of The Wizard of Oz, based on the L. Frank Baum novel The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. The film is beloved today, and in some less cultured circles is more well-known than the book... which is sad. First, they made the silver shoes become ruby slippers. They got rid of the blue colour scheme of the Munchkins. They combined the Witch of the North with Glinda, the Witch of the South, into one character. They killed off the explanation for Oz's illusion in making the Emerald City, an ordinary city, seem green to the citizens. As such, they got rid of the green-filter spectacles. Then the initial attacks sent upon our heroes by the Witch of the West were cut out... and the explanation for how she could use the Flying Monkeys as well. Then Dorothy's journey south, and everything that happens on the way is completely eliminated (this was the one I noticed the most by far). And perhaps biggest of all... in the book, all that was real. In the film, we're told it was a dream.

But you know what? The film still rocked. And that's because when I watched it, I decided to see it as being completely separate from the novel.

So maybe Arwen gets her role multiplied tenfold. So maybe there's no Tom Bombadil. So maybe half of the pronounciations don't follow the guide. Hell, I don't care if everything that happens at the Shire, with Saruman and Bywater and everything is completely cut out, as long as they hide it well, like the huge modifications to Oz!

What I'm saying is, come the opening of the film based on Fellowship, I'm going to walk in the theatre as if I'd never read the book. And I'm going to enjoy it.