XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: youmustbejoking@lan.invalid   
      
   On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 10:43:30 -0800, Paul S. Person wrote:   
      
   > On 24 Dec 2011 00:04:42 GMT, Dan C  wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:48:56 -0800, Paul S. Person wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 06:20:18 -0800 (PST), "pmhilton@myfairpoint.net"   
   >>>  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>On Dec 22, 2:33 pm, Sandman  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> In fact, I'm surprised you're not already passing grave judgement on   
   >>>>> some key elements in the trailer that surely departs from a purely   
   >>>>> puristic adaptation of the books (i.e. someone reading the books   
   >>>>> aloud on-screen for 14 hours) :)   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> --   
   >>>>> Sandman[.net]   
   >>>>   
   >>>>What might there be for "key elements" in a trailer beyond A) name/   
   >>>>title recognition and B) eye candy?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>As for an adaption/reading of The Hobbit, , I would strongly recommend   
   >>>>Nicol Williamson's reading; Argo ZPL-1196/9 (4 discs).   
   >>>   
   >>> He's just upset because I /didn't/ trash the film based on the trailer   
   >>> and clearly stated that the film has to be /seen/ before it can be   
   >>> evaluated. By anyone, including Sandman.   
   >>>   
   >>> Everything else he says is just to vent his rage and frustration at my   
   >>> not presenting a proper target for his vitriol.   
   >>>   
   >>> In other words, Mount Sandman is erupting. I am waiting for the film   
   >>> with keen anticipation -- if nothing else, the trailer, IMHO, shows   
   >>> that the films should certainly be worth seeing.   
   >>   
   >>I agree.  The trailer was excellent and makes me want to go see the   
   >>movie.  Never have understood the "outrage" that some here express   
   >>because the movies don't *exactly* match the books.  It's always that   
   >>way with books made into movies.  Those people are quite clueless, I   
   >>guess.   
   >   
   > Outrage is an overreaction. And I can think of only one poster who can   
   > truly be said to be outraged over this point. But, of course, one is   
   > enough to validate your observation.   
      
   OK, "outrage" may be a little strong.  But I count three in this thread   
   alone who feel the need to nitpick and point out "flaws" in a movie which   
   can only be judged by a patchwork trailer at this point.  That was my   
   point, after all.   
      
      
      
   > And some adaptations look better if not regarded as such. Take Flaming   
   > Denethor, for example. As part of an adaptation, it is clear evidence   
   > that PJ can't read (in the book, "the passing of Denethor" means "the   
   > death of Denethor"; in the movie, "the passing of Denethor" means   
   > "flaming Denethor running down the corridor"). As part of a movie which   
   > does not claim to be an adaptation, it would be a breathtakingly   
   > effective transition from one part of the story to the other, in many   
   > ways the high point of the film, matched only by the bowing of everyone   
   > to the Hobbits at the end. Well, the first end, anyway.   
      
   Agreed on all counts.   
      
      
   --   
   "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".   
   "Bother!" said Pooh, as he declared his horse a Senator.   
   Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/   
   Thanks, Obama: http://brandybuck.site40.net/pics/politica/thanks.jpg   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)