XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien
From: mr@sandman.net
In article ,
Paul S. Person wrote:
> Another position which only you can see. Nobody else mentions it, let
> alone defends it (as a whole).
>
> You are arguing with yourself.
>
> And, although no doubt many candidates have been suggested, I know of
> no changes that were /necessary/. "Acceptable", yes, "regrettable",
> certainly, even "an excellent idea" in some cases -- but not
> /necessary/.
>
> Unless you think someone was holding a gun to PJ's head to force him
> to make a particular change. Such a change would be "necessary" in the
> sense of "needed for PJ to go on living".
>
> Note: I exclude changes which are "necessary" only because of some
> other change. Thus, having the Hobbits pop out of the bushes outside
> of Bree (clearly, in PJ's world, located just over the Brandywine) is
> "necessary" in the sense that, since Crickhollow/the Old Forest/Tom
> Bombadil/the Barrow Downs were skipped, that is the only way to pick
> up the story. That is not good enough to be a /necessary change/.
Well, some changes to how the books are told when adapting to a movie
would seem to be necessary. I'm thinking about the fact that TT and
RotK are told as two intertwined story lines, as opposed to kept
totally separate. It was Tokiens wish that any movie adaptation would
keep this separation, but I think it was necessary to disregard it,
because stories are told differently both in books versus movies, but
also the fifties versus today.
And some of the changes you mentioned were necessary due to time
constraints, of course. And that in turn rendered other changes
necessary as well. So the Hobbits popping out of the bushes outside of
Bree would indeed be a necessary change, for the very reasons you
describe.
--
Sandman[.net]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
