Bethberry,
The quotation you take from Shippey is indeed of interest. Now, look at the sentence just before yours, which I also think may shed some light on this question of successful adaptation:
Quote:
|
The Lord of the Rings is very tightly controlled, with multiple plots integrated by a day-to-day chronology, which you really need to follow.
|
The preservation of the chronology would also be impossible in the standard cinema format.
I do think PJ's visual interpretation of Middle-earth is absolutely stunning and, except for certain minor details, very close to the spirit of JRRT (even if it is filmed in New Zeeland!). Lindil has made this point before and credited much of this success to the minds and eyes of Howe and Lee. There are points in the film where I just want to keep the physical picture and blank out PJ's particular dialogue and substitute the words of the book. I am not sure, however, that even this would get around the problem that Shippey refers to in his interview.
Lush--
I agree that the miniseries would not have the same budget or scope. For this reason, it would probably not be as visually true to the spirit of Middle-earth as PJ's own adaptation.
A good miniseries might, however, hit closer to the mark with dialogue and character development.
That means you gain in one area and lose in another.
I hate to say this, but maybe this question truly boils down to that elusive matter of 'expectations'. Some readers with more realistic expectations indeed find that PJ has produced a successful adaptation. Others, with a stricter set of standards (some might even say 'unreasonable'), will never be satisfied because there will always be something not quite right!
sharon