Subject:
|
Hear! Hear!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Jan 2003 07:56:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1451 times
|
| |
|
|
Allan,
You hit the nail on the head. The kind of fanatical nit-picking by fanatics
of the books is the main reason I cannot continue to read the
alt.fan.tolkien newsgroup. There is no joy to be found there, only the most
self-serving perseverating about this tiny plot point or that miniscule bit
of character development which wasn't there or they didn't like it or it
should've happened this way blah blah blah. I've read the books several
times over the years and have enjoyed the films immensely. However, I
purposefully stayed away from the books when the films where nearing
completion for several reasons:
1. I hoped to be surprised by some aspects of the story as I may have
forgotten them, which would increase my involvement and enjoyment of the
story.
2. I knew, without a doubt, that the story would change from book to film.
IMHO, the mediums of literature and film are largely diametrically opposed.
Books can spend pages and pages discussing the details of architecture or
the inner dialogue of a character's mind. Rarely, if ever, can films
translate such texts into an image or series of images that will achieve the
same affect. If you expect every adaptation of book to film to be exact,
then you should prepare yourself for a lifetime of cinematic disappointment.
These films have been done so well and with such obvious love for the source
material, I'm astounded that anyone can criticise them as harshly as some
have done. Granted, I have some problems with them myself in parts, but
these are vastly outweighed by how utterly fantastic everything else has
been acheived.
Seek the joy.
Think about it, people. These films could have been MUCH worse. They could
have been like the new Star Wars!
Dave (who laughs in the face of Lucas sychophants)
> I find little to complain about when it comes to differences between the
> book and movie(s). To film the book literally and in the original • sequence
> would have been painful to watch. The trip through the woods and meeting
> Tom Bombadil could have easily consumed 30 minutes on its own. I think
> Jackson and the two writers did an amazing job of reorganizing, • restructing
> and revising the story to make it palatable as a film. To have done any • less
> would have been to condemn the movie to fail.
>
> Regards,
> Allan B.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Hear! Hear!
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.fun, David Simmons writes (after some snippage): (...) Extremely well said, Dave and Allan! One never knows whether to trust the material one gets on DVDs as filler and background but I for one really have to believe what Jackson (...) (21 years ago, 14-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
Message is in Reply To:
29 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
