- This topic has 9 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated March 28, 2014 at 1:53 pm by
.
-
Posts
-
http://www.thepassivevoice.com/03/2014/please-tell-me-you-didnt-cut-that-part/#comments
erudite and intelligent, but come on people, could we lighten up a little bit here?
I had to laugh when I read the comments. People take movies tooooooooooooo seriously. :silly:Happy writing,
Deb Salisbury
The Mantua-Maker, Quality Historical Sewing Patterns and Books
www.mantua-maker.comThe Art of the Hoop: 1860 - 1869, Dress, Sewing, and Clothing Care Advice
https://www.mantua-maker.com/a---1860s-fashion.htmlDead Wizard's Loot: Wizard Whitewing #1
http://www.djsalisburybooks.com/Dead-Wizard-s-Loot.htmlNo.
The movies are not the books, and never could be. People have to let go of that notion, or they will never be satisfied. Books are long. They use different techniques from movies. Length alone dictates what’s reasonable and feasible. In the end, you have to judge a movie on it’s own internal merits. Did it tell a good tale? Did the movie work? Was it internally consistent? While it might be fair to say, did the movie get the sentiment of the book right? Be prepared to run across plenty of people where they will disagree. Because no two people read the same book. Oh, we read the same words. But part of reading is what you bring to the tale when you start reading it. Your feelings and experiences, etc. And that colors the experience of reading the book.
My personal take on it was that I liked those movies fine, especially the 1st one (haven’t seen the Hobbit yet).
But have I ever been outraged by a movie adaptation?
Um, yeah. Can you say “heart plug”?
I try not to get worked up by hyperbole in comments threads.
As for movie adaptations of books, the books are still there, unchanged, for those who prefer them. The point of the original post Passive Voice linked to, however, is that if you flout too many expectations from your readers, your big blockbuster will flop.
(Also, my sympathy is with the commenter who didn’t like the changes to Faramir. Tolkien had it set up so Faramir and Boromir were in tension, and it was obvious Aragorn wasn’t the only good man of Numenorean decent. A Silver Age under Men makes more sense under Tolkien. Jackson’s take, emphasized by Elrond’s frequent ranting on the weakness of men and the lack of an organized group of Rangers in the North whom Elrond’s sons ride with, is that it doesn’t matter how the war with Sauron turns out; Middle Earth has fallen. It’s a much bleaker world view.)
No burning. When you change media, other things have to change. And someone will not like it.
I am the family expert of The Lord of the Ring. Sometimes I had to explain things. Sometimes I had to say they changed that. My take on the movie was — They changed things, but captured the spirit of the book.
I remember Douglas Adams saying that he changed Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy depending on the media: print, radio, movie. Because the story comes across differently in each.
Michael E. Walston wrote:“heart plug”I am referring to David Lynch’s weird movie of the Frank Herbert novel “Dune”.
See, I *LIKE* David Lynch’s Dune. But I’m able to separate a movie from the source.
temporus wrote:I’m able to separate a movie from the source.So am I, which is why I find the following scene pointless and gratuitous:
Burning in hell because the movies didn’t catch the spirit of the books? No, I have a list of people who really should burn in hell, but that would transgress the rules of no politics and no religion here.
Crappy movies are not the worst sin.I loved the visuals of the LOTR films, but yeah, the character assassination of Faramir and Denethor, emo-Aragorn, emo-Arwen, Gimli as comic relief (an offense to the race of dwarfs), Frodo sending Sam away …. the list goes on. But hell, no. Maybe a few weeks in purgatory.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.