XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: mr@sandman.net   
      
   In article <5bkb97da56091q6qv4qs6e6qra3hpti8uk@4ax.com>,   
    Paul S. Person  wrote:   
      
   > >> >This presupposes that a given story can only be told in one way, and   
   > >> >that the existing TH is a template for that way. Obviously, I don't   
   > >> >agree with that.   
   > >>   
   > >> First, using "presuppose" is not a very nice thing to be doing. To   
   > >> illustrate:   
   > >>   
   > >> What meaning of "presuppose" are you presupposing?   
   > >   
   > >I'm not sure what you're getting at here.   
   >   
   > I am inquiring into /your/ presuppositions. Not very nice, is it?   
      
   I don't mind. Go ahead. I'm sure you're trying with something like a   
   comeback here, and perhaps I just don't agree with your apparently   
   negative connotation of the word "presupposition" to make it "sting" :)   
      
   > >> Second, I am not saying that a given story can only be told in one   
   > >> way, merely that, since an adequate job can be done in 80 (actually,   
   > >> 78) minutes, any film taking an /enormously longer time/ is subject to   
   > >> doubt as to whether it is an adaptation of (in this case) JRRT's /TH/   
   > >> or of some other story actually written by PJ.   
   > >   
   > >As an example. In The Hobbit, the dwarves are captured by the Elf King   
   > >and Bilbo wanders their palace for up to two weeks before finding all   
   > >the dwarves. This consumes one paragraph in the book. One.   
   >   
   > Which is neither more nor less than is needed. And, no, the film does   
   > not need to expand on this, as the existing film shows.   
      
   Why did you use the subjective word "need" in your sentence? Surely   
   any such "need" isn't something you're supposed to be the arbitrer of?   
   Whether an content creator sees a need for something is solely up to   
   him or her. It's obvious that *you* don't have the need for this film   
   to exist at all, so we're obviously not discussing this from your   
   subjective point of view, so any "need" is subjective garbage in a   
   discussion that should be kept as objective as possible.   
      
   > >Right before, they fought the spiders over the course of maybe fifteen   
   > >paragraphs and a time span of maybe an hour.   
   >   
   > Which is neither more nor less than is needed.   
      
   Funny thing is - more than one paragraph wouldn't have been needed   
   either. Or more than one sentence:   
      
       "When Bilbo found his companions as prisoners, he fought off the   
        spiders using his invisibility and they continued to search for   
        the path".   
      
   There isn't any more "need" than that. That's descriptive enough -   
   especially since nothing of interest happens in this "action sequence"   
   as you call it. Other than the trick of his invisibility is revealed   
   to the dwarves. Don't use words like "need" when discussing portrayal   
   of a story, or every JRR book could be trimmed down to a pamphlet in   
   the ladies room.   
      
   > >How stories are written and how they are shown is never a straight   
   > >cut. While Bilbo lingering in the Elf Kings home isn't very   
   > >interesting on screen, some passages may. Like with the wolves - only   
   > >a few paragraphs long, but surely an intense series of events that   
   > >took quite some time to unravel, as with the flight with the eagles   
   > >afterwards.   
   >   
   > Another Action Sequence. I'm sure the film will show it prominently.   
   > IIRC, it was not exactly minimized the the existing version either.   
      
   I hope the movies will make it as amazing as it was in my minds eye   
   when I read it. I'm sure this "action sequence" was as short in yours   
   as the time it took for you to read it, and anything beyond that is   
   outside the "need" for the scene :)   
      
   There are fireballs hurling through the sky and large eagles fighting   
   with wolves, and I get the feeling you want it to be a 40 second   
   sequence in a film adaptation of that scene.   
      
   > >I won't argue the word "adaptation" with you again. If they're making   
   > >an adaptation, they're making an adaptation. There is nothing you can   
   > >do about it but comment on the quality of that adaptation.   
   >   
   > Promises, promises.   
      
   Actually, mere facts.   
      
   > I await the films with keen anticipation. Well-done or not,   
   > adaptation or not, they will have to be seen to be believed.   
      
   There isn't a question of whether it's an adaptation or not.   
   "Well-done" is subjective, so that's up for grabs.   
      
      
      
   --   
   Sandman[.net]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)