XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm   
      
   On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 16:30:06 +0000 (UTC), Julian Bradfield wrote:   
   > For myself, I can't tell whether FotR (the only one I've seen) is a   
   > good film, because I can't disentangle that question from its   
   > perversion of Tolkien's thought.   
      
   +1   
      
   I would give them high marks for cinematography, meaning the visual   
   experience of what I see on screen. Acing was generally good. But   
   like you, I can't get past the degradation of Tolkien's thought.   
      
   If I had no idea of the actual story, would I feel differently? I   
   know I would find some things awfully hard to get over, like the   
   dwarf-tossing. And I still wouldn't understand why Arwen, an immortal   
   Elf, was dying.   
      
   But by insisting over and over again that he was being faithful to   
   the books, Jackson made it impossible for those of us who know the   
   books to judge the films as independent works. Jackson insisted that   
   we view his work through the lens of Tolkien's work, and he has only   
   himself to blame for our bad opinion of what he did.   
      
   Not, of course, that he cares. He did what he wanted and made pots of   
   money off it.   
      
   --   
   Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA   
                                          http://BrownMath.com/   
                                     http://OakRoadSystems.com/   
   Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen)   
   Tolkien letters FAQ: http://preview.tinyurl.com/pr6sa7u   
   FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm   
   Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)