XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: mr@sandman.net   
      
   In article <39l3979eckhiqm8fp342p7cd4buo2rh4pv@4ax.com>,   
    Paul S. Person  wrote:   
      
   > >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)   ;-)   
   >   
   > 1) The only thread I recall lately on this topic was about the   
   > upcoming films alleged to be of /The Hobbit/. Expanding a story that   
   > can be and has been adequately adapted in 80 minutes into two no-doubt   
   > 3 hour films (Special Extended Editions at least 30 minutes longer)   
   > unavoidably produces concern that JRRT's story may be overwhelmed by   
   > PJ's new material (lets see -- 80 min vs 360 min is about 4.5 times as   
   > much PJ as JRRT;   
      
   That would of course only hold true if there was some form of   
   universally agreed upon metric which led to the Hobbit only possible   
   running length could be 80 minutes - which of course is absurd.   
      
      
      
      
   --   
   Sandman[.net]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)