XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien
From: mr@sandman.net
In article ,
Paul S. Person wrote:
> >> Anyone else have thoughts on the three-movie idea?
> >
> >It's three times as bad as letting him make one movie of /The
> >Hobbit/.
> >
> >No, strike that, because it's non-linear. The badness of three
> >movies is as the cube of the badness of one movie.
> >
> >No, still not bad enough. Exponential function, anyone?
>
> Maybe, if the films are only 10% JRRT-stuff and it is separable enough
> from the dreck, New Line/PJ can be prevailed upon, after all three
> films have had their day, to put out a one-film version containly only
> the JRRT-stuff, that is, actually telling JRRT's story.
"story"... or "theme"? It seems to be an important distinction in
these groups :)
As I see it, the movies departed very little from the story of the
books, was extremely faithful to the "world" of the books, but I can
agree it departed heavily from the "theme" of the books.
Although, the "theme" of the books always seem to boil down to reading
about it in non-book material (i.e. Letters), not something that is
necessarily obvious *in* the books. I'm sure that some people have
gotten away with the intended "theme" from just reading the books, but
most "faithful" here seems to reference the letters when talking about
the theme.
It's like seeing a painting, or hearing a song. I got my
interpretation of it and get a clear "theme" from it. Then I get to
hear what the artist actually "meant" with the painting/song, which
may be at odds of what I got away from it. Does that mean that the
artists intentions supersede my own interpretation? I'm leaning
towards "hell no" :)
--
Sandman[.net]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
