XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien
From: Troels@ThisIsFake.invalid
In message
Paul S. Person spoke these staves:
>
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:35:03 +0200, Troels Forchhammer
> wrote:
>>
I am getting a little confused here and there about what we are
actually discussing at which points, so I may at times be responding
to something completely different . . . for that I apologize in
advance ;)
[What is required to be an adaptation?]
>> I think the claim of being an adaptation is at least as important
>> as following roughly the same story-line (I also think it is a
>> good idea to have some characters and places with the same names,
>> but this is probably not an absolute requirement:
[...]
>
> I don't even think following the same story-line is required. A
> properly-done adaptation captures the book on film (they /feel/
> the same to the viewer/reader). A really great adaptation does
> more.
But by that definition, we should acknowledge that Jackson's LotR is,
for a lot of people, a 'properly-done adaptation'. It is not so for
me, but I have no desire to reject the experience of the many people
for whom the feeling was indeed the same. I can try to explain why it
was not so for me, but that is all -- their experience is every bit
as valid as mine (the /feeling/ is about applicability -- I may
occasionally be in a position to correct some mistakes about
Tolkien's intentions, but such erroneous beliefs about the author do
not make the /feel/ of reading the book erroneous).
In any case, I think the only workable definition of an adaptation is
something that the creator /claims/ is an adaptation and which is
somehow recognizable as being based on the original.
Incidentally this would probably also elevate the e-text and /Bored
of the Rings/ to the group of adaptations of LotR . . . ;)
> But, as I noted, a lot of this is a matter of personal taste.
> Different people will reach different conclusions, in part because
> the films and books will arouse different feelings.
Exactly.
[Peter Jackson's adaptations of Tolkien's works]
> I said nothing about "necessity". And I don't think that PJ's
> additions was particularly "successful in conveying an ethical and
> philosophical position that Tolkien would feel 'adequately
> represented his own ideas and position'".
>
> And I don't think you do either.
-)
You're right -- I would find it difficult (to say the least) to agree
to such a claim.
> And if PJ's additions did not do that, then that shows that PJ's
> additions were /not necessary/ (now I am invoking "necessity") to
> the films as adaptations, since they did not perform a /necessary/
> function.
This is where I get confused about when we are speaking generally-
generally, generally-LotR and Jackson-LotR :-)
My comment about additions adding to the adaptation of the thematic
contents was meant generally with LotR the book as an example, but
with no particular adaptation in mind.
Jackson's additions were, I think, largely unnecessary for the
adaptation of LotR (at any level), though I'm not prepared to make a
blanket statement regarding /all/ his additions. This, however, does
not mean that creating an adapation that would be 'faithful' (I don't
like that term, but I can't find a better one just now) also to the
thematic content would not be possible by adding extra material, or
even that it could actually /require/ such additions.
Without reference to any actual or specific adaptation of any of
Tolkien's works, I could still imagine that it would actually require
that something new was added to the adaptation in order to make a
faithful cinematographic representation of Tolkien's philosophical
and ethical considerations and ideas as expressed in /The Lord of the
Rings/. Whether Jackson did or did not succeed in this has, for me,
no bearing on that point.
> It is amazing how a thread highjacked to point out that I recall
> no recent discussion claiming that /LOTR/ was not an adaptation,
> but rather one raising the possibility that /TH/ may not be, has
> produced such a strong assertion that /LOTR/ is an adaptation.
> This is beginning to resemble an obsession.
:-D
It is difficult to discuss Jackson's unknown /Hobbit/ films without
reference to his known /LotR/ films -- they are simply too convenient
an example not to be used as such. In Baeysian terms the status of
Jackson's LotR has to inform our prior about his /Hobbit/ -- given
that his LotR films were clearly adapting Tolkien's LotR book, it is
far more likely that his /Hobbit/ films will also be an adaption of
Tolkien's /The Hobbit/.
However, I think the idea that any of Jackson's Tolkien-based films
should not be an adaptation of Tolkien's work is rather foolish. They
may be good or bad adaptations, and time only will show for the
/Hobbit/ films, but adapations they are.
>>[The level of craftsmanship of film-makers]
[...]
>>
>> I do not think that I am qualified to attempt to evaluate the
>> level of skill or craftsmanship of various film-makers, and so
>> I must restrict myself to speaking of my personal preference
>> -- and of the relation between the adaptation and the original.
>
> You have never left a theater after seeing a film that was clearly
> far better done than most films? You poor thing, you.
Not at a level where I would be comfortable attempting to separate
this feeling from my subjective preferences -- i.e. dominated by
things that have little to do with the level of skill of the film-
makers.
>> On the other hand I am not sure that a discussion about the genre
>> of the films (and/or the book) is really relevant to the point I
>> was trying to make.
>
> And yet you characterized them as the best fantasy films you have
> ever seen, or something reasonably similar. What point were you
> trying to make when you said that?
Merely that I would consider them to be the best (based on my
subjective preferences) films that I have seen out of a set of films
that I, correctly or incorrectly, term as 'fantasy films' (and here I
am, again, using imprecise language, because this is not a 'set' in
the mathematical sense as there is not an unambiguous way to tell if
any given member of the set of all films is a member of my set of
fantasy films).
>> I think your points about suspense, cliff-hangers and not knowing
>> what is going to happen next are all well made and valid
[...]
>
> Does that include the actual point, which is that PJ removed most,
> if not all, of the suspense JRRT put in and failed miserably at
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
