XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: Troels@ThisIsFake.invalid   
      
   In message    
   Steuard Jensen  spoke these staves:   
   >   
   > [Tremendously belated reply, I know. But a line caught my eye...]   
      
   That's perfectly all-right -- take your time :)   
      
   > From my perspective, the fact that there was an active thread   
   > seriously discussing whether or not Jackson's films deserve to be   
   > called "an adaptation of Tolkien's LotR" is proof positive that   
   > the tone of the newsgroups is largely anti-film these days.   
      
   You could very well be right -- I don't know how serious it was, but   
   perhaps I am just projecting my own attitude onto others. I think that   
   you and I are in perfect agreement on the core issue and the attention   
   it deserves, though I might be interested in some of the tangential   
   questions -- e.g. we use, in Danish, only the word /filmatisering/ --   
   meaning a 'film version' -- which leaves some room for linguistic   
   enquiry -- or inquisitiveness -- when it comes to a precise definition   
   of the English term 'adaptation'.   
      
   > I don't know if "purist" is the *right* word, but I quite suspect   
   > that an outsider looking in on that discussion would have applied   
   > it liberally to all involved.   
      
   What bothers me the most is the entrenched dichotomisation.   
      
   You know my position: overall I enjoyed the films and I think they're   
   the best fantasy films that I have ever seen. I do, however, have some   
   specific problems that, for me, mar my enjoyment, and I think that they   
   caught the visual side spot-on, the plot very, very well, but also that   
   they are quite far from Tolkien's story in terms of the underlying   
   thematic (this is exclusively an estimate of distance, and /not/ of   
   quality or preference).   
      
   I either agree with, or are perfectly fine with, most of the changes,   
   both the surface changes and the changes to the underlying thematic   
   content -- I think the skull-slide is silly, but it doesn't really   
   bother me as such. The few changes that bother me sometimes feel   
   smaller and sometimes feel bigger.   
      
   However, coming to the table with that position, I generally feel that   
   there is no room for a middle position (though this is actually by far   
   the most common) -- one /has/ to be either enthusiastically pro-Jackson   
   or revile him, and if one doesn't conform to that, one is nonetheless   
   mentally put in one box or the other.   
      
   I think that is sad.   
      
   I don't feel at home in either end of the spectrum -- could we at least   
   not form a trichotomy with a box for the grey-zoners: those of us who   
   will treat the position that Jackson improved on Tolkien's story with   
   the same disdain and ridicule as we will the position that Jackson's   
   films are not worthy to be called an adaptation of Tolkien's story (or   
   that Jackson's films ought never to have been made)   ;-)   
      
   --   
   Troels Forchhammer    
   Valid e-mail is    
   Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.   
      
       Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not   
       simpler.   
    - Albert Einstein   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)