From: mr@sandman.net   
      
   In article , Mike Scott   
   Rohan wrote:   
      
   > > Sandman:   
   > > Well, it's not a matter of either/or. You can have a "bit more   
   > > brain" and enjoy both the movies and the books. :)   
   >   
   > But one enjoys the films on a much shallower level, simply because   
   > the depth of the books isn't there. To some extent its place is   
   > taken by visual spectacle, but even more so by slam-bang action,   
   > often added for the sake of video-gaming.   
      
   True, but the point was that even us "smart enough" to fully enjoy the   
   books have no problem also enjoying the movies.   
      
   One could just as easily say that ones enjoyment of the books are on a more   
   limited level, and requires a whole lot more in terms of imagination to   
   fully grasp what a movie easily delivers every second - just as ones   
   enjoyment of the movies are on a more shallow visual level and requires   
   more in terms of reading between the lines to fully grasp what the books   
   delivers every second.   
      
   There are pros and cons with every medium, one isn't more "brainy" by   
   enjoying one over the other.   
      
   > > Sandman:   
   > > As is expected, with *any* movie adaptation of a book   
   >   
   > No, although one could be forgiven for thinking that. Some   
   > adaptations diminish the source, but others enhance it. The Prisoner   
   > of Zenda made much better films than the original book; Ben-Hur   
   > likewise -- but without wilfully distorting it. The TV version of   
   > Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy was at least as good as the book, and   
   > Alec Guinness added an almost mystical dimension to Le Carre's   
   > protagonist; but it took away nothing. And I've seen a truly   
   > stunning Russian TV adaptation of Bulgakov's The Master & Margarita   
   > which went to enormous lengths to remain absolutely true to the book   
   > -- and was all the more successful as a result, far more so than   
   > earlier versions which tried to popularize it.   
      
   I'm glad you liked these adaptations of typical non-action source material   
   (apart from Ben Hur). Like you, there were many that enjoyed the   
   adaptations of Lord of the Rings just as much. Tastes differ.   
      
   Also, medium evolves, all your examples are at least decades old, and it's   
   telling when you have no never examples. What I mean is that mediums   
   evolve, including books. Movies are way more about mass market appeal now   
   than in 1979 or 1952, which I agree is usually a bad thing. But it's also   
   something that makes it possible to make movies like the Lord of the Rings   
   movies, where the budget couldn't possibly have been greenlit unless it was   
   made with modern standards.   
      
   Also, most of the adaptations on your lists are not of fantasy visual-heavy   
   action packed stories, which makes it a lot easier to adapt it to the   
   screen.   
      
   > > > Mike Scott Rohan:   
   > > > -- you could almost say contaminated -- by the inbuilt cliches   
   > > > of lesser fantasies, comics and video games.   
   > >   
   > > Sandman:   
   > > Well, this is how stories are made. Nothing is unique, not even   
   > > Tolkien books, who was influenced by religion, cultures and both   
   > > mythological and linguistic influences.   
   >   
   > There's a hell of a value difference between what influenced Tolkien   
   > and the third-rate influences on Jackson -- video games, for one,   
   > which are leeches on better fantasies.   
      
   How so? For one, what are the video game influences you are in reference   
   to? I mean, we can all point out the religious and cultural influences   
   Tolkien had (which, in a word, is leeching on better fantasies)   
      
   But I'm curious about these influences you claim the movie maker's took   
   from video games? What video games?   
      
   And furthmore, wouldn't it be a bit like coming full circle? A lot of video   
   games takes influence from Lord of the Rings, so would it be a sin for the   
   movie to bring it back to the source material?   
      
   > > Sandman:   
   > > I think a problem is that many that prefer the books over the   
   > > movies make it seem like the books were some sort of perfection in   
   > > themselves that can be "sullied" by the movies. Both the movies   
   > > and the books are landmark achievements in popular culture, and   
   > > both were influenced by what came before   
   >   
   > True, there are areas where the books might be improved. But the   
   > changes in the film are not those, and transparently were not made   
   > for that purpose.   
      
   That... has nothing to do with what I just wrote.   
      
   > > > Mike Scott Rohan:   
   > > > The way, for example, that Jackson loves having combatants stand   
   > > > around and square off, snarling macho fashion at one another.   
   > > > That destroys the sweeping element of surprise in -- for example   
   > > > -- the confrontation with the orcs in Moria, the ride of the   
   > > > Rohirrim, or Aragorn's arrival at the siege of Minas Tirith.   
   > >   
   > > Sandman:   
   > > I think I know what you mean, but it's not like the books in these   
   > > cases didn't have a similar stand-off (I'm not sure I agree with   
   > > the "macho" thing in either   
   >   
   > Then you don't know what I mean, because they don't. Take the moment   
   > in the film where the Moria orcs encircle the entire Fellowship;   
   > doesn't happen at all in the book.   
      
   Yeah... so what's the problem again? Are the Moria goblins too "macho"?   
      
   > > Sandman:   
   > > This has always bothered me. I mean, sure making an adaptation   
   > > will make some characters different, but this idea that someone   
   > > has "misunderstood", and how there is a "correct" way to   
   > > understand their character is something I dislike.   
   >   
   > Why you should dislike it you leave unexplained, but there *is* a   
   > right way to depict a character, which is the way the author wrote   
   > him; and there is certainly a wrong one, which is to turn him into   
   > somebody different, or even a total caricature. If you make Bill   
   > Sykes heroic, or even sympathetic, you destroy Oliver Twist   
   > completely. A truly foul case of this in the LOTR movies is Merry   
   > and Pippin. In Tolkien's original they're young adults,   
   > light-hearted but intelligent and capable characters; in the films   
   > they're irritating morons,  more like Moxie and Pepsi from "Bored of   
   > the Rings".   
      
   Again - this is YOUR interpretation of characters from the books against   
   YOUR interpretation of the characters in the movie. I, for one, do NOT   
   agree that Merry and Pippin are "irritating morons" in the movies. Hidden   
   underneath the light-hearted surface there is a lot of intelligence and   
   emotion seeping through, especially later in the story when they are   
   seperated.   
      
   > Elrond becomes a peevish racist, hardly "as kind as   
   > summer".   
      
   ??? First time I ever heard anyone claim that the movie makers made Elrond   
   "racist".   
      
   > And Jackson/Boyens play equally fast and loose with other   
   > characters, just to milk the action a bit more. Like making Aragorn   
   > a needless ditherer.   
      
   I assume you mean regarding his heritage? In what way did they introduce   
   this dithering to "milk the action"?   
      
   > Like the Ents, refusing to help after their council, then having a sudden   
   > change of heart when they see trees cut down, as if they'd only just   
   > found out Orcs were doing this.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)