From: mr@sandman.net   
      
   In article , Wayne Brown wrote:   
      
   > > > Wayne Brown:   
   > > > When I see a Tolkien film for the first time (or any film based   
   > > > on a book with which I'm extremely familiar) I want it to be   
   > > > follow the book so closely that I'm able to predict which scene   
   > > > is coming next, know exactly what will happen and who will be   
   > > > involved, and be able to practically mouth their dialogue   
   > > > silently along with them.   
   > >   
   > > Sandman:   
   > > Wow, that sounds boring. So why would you even see the movie in   
   > > the first place? Just read the book again if you want   
   > > predictability.   
   >   
   > I've read about a lot of interesting things in history books, but   
   > I'd like to be able to look back into the past and see those things   
   > happening with my own eyes.  In the same way, I'd like to be able to   
   > see the things in Tolkien's "fictional history" happening with my   
   > own eyes.   
      
   But you're describing a six or seven hour long movie, if every scene and a   
   every piece of dialog and inner thought should be transcripted, and with   
   added visuals. Why not let your fantasies suffice to paint the picture of   
   the already existing words? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be satisfied with   
   someone else's "version" of the visuals either way :)   
      
   > As I've said before, part of my "suspension of disbelief" when   
   > reading fiction is to pretend that I'm reading an eyewitness account   
   > of events that "really happened."  So naturally I want to see visual   
   > depictions matching the written description pretty closely;   
   > otherwise it's jarring and destroys the illusion of seeing the "real   
   > events" as they happen.   
      
   Only if you consider these supposed eyewitnes accounts to be verbatim to   
   reality, and only if you consider *your* interpretation of their words be   
   the only one and true and real interpretation of them.   
      
   That's the thing with the written word, it can be interpreted in a thousand   
   ways. Some ways *ARE* wrong, of course, but problem arises when one person   
   claims he is the one that got it 100% right, and starts claiming other got   
   it wrong based on this notion.   
      
      
      
   --   
   Sandman[.net]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)