From: mr@sandman.net   
      
   In article , Wayne Brown wrote:   
      
   > > Sandman:   
   > > While the books can spend page after page on showing the inner   
   > > thoughts and feelings of a character while only seconds pass in   
   > > story-time, movies don't have that privilege. Everything is   
   > > real-time, and it is up to the talent of the actor to portray as   
   > > much of this as possible in as short time as possible.   
   >   
   > But shouldn't it be the SAME "inner thoughts and feelings" that the   
   > actor is trying to portray?  Frequently characters in the films   
   > appear to have completely different personalities and motivations   
   > than in the books.   
      
   Well, there's two answers to this question.   
      
   The first is that "should" implies there's only one possible interpretation   
   of the personality of a character in the books, and the movie makers/actors   
   failed to portray it. As always with the written word, interpretations are   
   very personal, and two persons may not always get the same interpretation   
   of a persons character as described in the books. The same applies to the   
   movies as well of course. One person can interprete an actors performance   
   to not at all be in line with what that character's personality in the   
   books are, while another may think it's pretty spot-on. This depends on   
   both persons interpretation of a character from BOTh the books and the   
   movies.   
      
   The second answer is that sometimes you CAN'T reproduce a characters   
   personalities for a number of reasons. One I mentioned is time.   
   Personalities are built over time, and in a book, the author can spend as   
   much time as he pleases fleshing out a character, but in a movie, you only   
   have 2-3 hours and many many characters. The other is that sometimes, and   
   for the same reasons, characters need to be combined, excluded or otherwise   
   changed in order to keep the pacing, so personality traits from two   
   character in the book is worked into one character in the movie, for   
   instance.   
      
   > > Sandman:   
   > > Movies, on the other hand, can visually present things quickly   
   > > that a book requires a lot of time to do. That's why quick-paced   
   > > action sequences are so effective on the screen.   
   >   
   > > Remember, you rarely (if ever) read a book that has a long-drawn   
   > > car chase, because you can't write interestingly about it, but on   
   > > the screen it's very easy.   
   >   
   > And I usually find myself yawning through those on-screen car chases   
   > (or barrel-and-orc chases down rivers) and thinking, "Enough with   
   > the stupid chasing and fighting!  Get back to the story!  Give us   
   > some dialogue!"   
      
   Which is fine, to each his own. But that can't be blamed on the movie   
   makers. Tastes differ :)   
      
   > > Sandman:   
   > > Many say that the battles in the books are briefly described (or   
   > > not described at all) due to Tolkien not wanting to "glorify   
   > > battle", but I call that hogwash. I think that Tolkien most   
   > > certainly could write about battles without glorifying it. I think   
   > > the reason is that it's *HARD* to write action sequences.   
   >   
   > I think the battle scenes got all the description they needed, and   
   > any more would have been just as tedious in the books as some of   
   > them were in the films.   
      
   Really? Battle of the Five Armies felt it got the description it deserved?   
   I mean, it wasn't described *at all* apart from Gandalf briefly summarizing   
   it.   
      
   > The "Hobbit" films are the worst offenders in this regard. Radagast's   
   > chase in the woods, the afore-mentioned barrel trip down the river, the   
   > fight between the dwarves and Smaug, and the battle at Lake Town were way   
   > overdone and absolutely horrible to sit through, in my opinion.   
      
   I'm not arguing with that, and even agree with many of these points. I'm   
   just saying that there is an obvious reason for why they're there.   
      
   > The battles at Helm's Deep, Isengard and the Pelennor Fields in the LOTR   
   > films were much easier to take.   
      
   And were, story-wise, hugely larger in the movies than in the books, where   
   they are just as large in scope, but only briefly glossed over where the   
   key points are just there for the story.   
      
   Tolkien was great at writing at length about dialogs and characters, but   
   the battles - which is a pretty central part of the story - were very   
   shallow.   
      
      
   --   
   Sandman[.net]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)