XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: mr@sandman.net   
      
   In article <1oi1ncd6reihvfkf1fo5nahi66a7juc5sd@4ax.com>, Paul S  Person   
    wrote:   
      
   > The difference is:   
   > -- many people enjoy most of Shakespeare's plays, and so don't really   
   > care about any defects they may have   
   > -- some people don't like PJ's films, and so the defects, real or   
   > perceived, stand out and are used as an excuse for not liking them   
   >   
   > IOW, the /first/ criterion is: that the play/film be a /good/   
   > play/film, that is, one that people actually /want/ to pay to see   
   > (which implies that they do not feel the experience a waste of time or   
   > money, among other things), as opposed to something they go to see   
   > because everybody else is or because they read the book.   
   >   
   > Shakespeare, by and large, wrote /good/ plays.   
   > PJ's movies, OTOH, are not good.   
      
   Funny thing is that you're probably bound to find a lot more Shakespear   
   detractors than LotR movie adaptation detractors.   
      
      
   --   
   Sandman[.net]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)