XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: steuard@slimy.com   
      
   In message , Troels Forchhammer   
    wrote:   
   > Paul S. Person  spoke these staves:   
   >> Regarding /LOTR/ as /not/ being an adaptation opens up an entirely   
   >> new way to think about the films   
      
   > I do think it is fairly clear that Tolkien's story is the basis for   
   > Jackson's   
      
   Not to discount the rest of your comments (or for that matter the   
   underlying point of Paul's original statement), but from my   
   perspective these words simply did not deserve to be said. The claim   
   that you're defending here is trivially, obviously true. It's not   
   "fairly clear", it's just true. Anyone asserting the contrary   
   immediately labels herself as unable to be rational on this topic.   
   (Paul's claim in the form as quoted above is borderline, since it's   
   framed as a knowingly unusual approach, but it really needs to be   
   given that explicit frame very clearly from the very first time it's   
   mentioned and I don't recall whether his post did so.)   
      
   We can debate all we'd like about whether Jackson's adaptation is good   
   or bad (and in what ways). But taking even slightly seriously the   
   suggestion that it wasn't based on Tolkien at all is exactly the sort   
   of thing that makes people gripe about "book purists" and their   
   unreasoning hatred of the films.   
      
   Steuard "I came back just to post *this*?" Jensen   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)