From: mr@sandman.net
In article , Mike Scott
Rohan wrote:
> Millions upon millions of people can still be wrong.
We're talking about opinions about movies now, there is no "wrong". There
are unfavorabke or favorable opinions about the movies, and the favorable
ones outnumber the unfavorable by a vast vast amnount.
> A majority can believe in alien abductions or "the Jewish conspiracy"
> without making them one iota more true.
Thiose wouldn't be opinions, those would be facts. People doesn't believe
that the LOTR movies are factually good, they consider them good as a
personal opinion.
> There was a time when the majority wouldn't
> bother to read a book about hobbits and elves, until it was reduced to a
> comic-strip extravanganza for them. The truth is that the majority of
> the audience enjoys the spectacle in the most vapid possible way,
Then so be it. You are free to pass judgement on those that are looking for
an entertaining time at the cinema all you want, but it doesn't change the
fact that more people enjoy the movies than doesn't.
I have read all the books many times and can clearly identify the
difference between the books and the movies, yet I have no problem deriving
immense pleasure from watching the movies.
> without understanding where it came from, and would enjoy, say, a film
> of Terry Brooks or Lin Carter's infantile Thongor books on the same
> basis.
Or the Hunger Games. This is how the world works. People enjoy certain
things, and people looking to make money out of other people's enjoyment
are getting better and better at giving them what they want.
> A somewhat smaller section of it does appreciate the original,
> but enjoys -- or tolerates -- the films for the few aspects they get
> more or less right.
The movie "get" the vast vast majority of the books "right". It's just that
some purists thinks that some minor details are more important that things
like.. the plot.
> And another section, while acknowledging those few things, is irritated
> beyond endurance by the stupidities, coarsenings, reductions to teen
> moron level and blatant insertions for video game's sake (the fight in
> Moria, the river run in the new Hobbit) that they embody, far beyond
> what's necessary for cinema adaptation.
Who are you to pass judgement on what is necessary for cinema adaptation?
You are free to share your opinion about matters, but do not make the
mistake to pass it off as facts.
> They can perhaps, for example, accept building up Arwen, but not the
> nonsense with Aragorn in Two Towers; or the idiotic "possession" of
> Theoden; or the complete mess of the Ents; or the complete travesty of
> Denethor's character...the list's endless.
It is also filled to the brim with minor details that doesn't change the
story being told. I have discussed it many times before, so I won't now.
> That minority might not be as tiny as you suggest
It is. We're talking about a insignificanlt small number of people that
wish the movies were never made, and new ones should be made in their
place. Even most purists know this is folly and wouldn't entertain such
notions.
> and what if it includes people who know and value the book better than
> anyone else? Such as Christopher Tolkien himself; and even other Tolkien
> experts who actually worked on the films. Their views outweigh the
> majority any day.
Huh? It is already perfectly clear what Christopher thinks of the movies,
and that has had exactly no impact on the Hobbit movies.
--
Sandman[.net]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
