from Boromir 88
Quote:
No you don't need a carbon copy to create an accurate representation of the story, all you need is a director who never loses site of what is important...and that is the authenticity of the story.
Paul Greengrass, who directed the recent 'Borne Ultimatum' (getting great reviews and I can't wait to see it) also made the controversial United 93. Greengrass was facing a lot of heat when he was making this film. Critics were saying he shouldn't be doing it, they were saying he was just trying to make money off of a tragedy. But Greengrass creates a great film...why? Because he never got dragged down by Hollywood and never lost focus of the authenticity of the event.
|
There is a major distinction to be made here that renders your comparison less than effective. The events depicted in UNITED 93 were based on actual real life events. Middle-earth is a contrived fiction, an imaginary world filled with imaginary characters. There is no crying need to match items of clothing exactly or depict events in actual time or sequence as they really happened in an adaption of a fictional work. At least not the essential need that there is in depicting a recreation of actual avents. As it was, I do believe Jackson and team tried mightily to get things right. where possible and where important.
Too much of these debates come down to a clever and contrived definition of terms. You use the term AUTHENTICITY. I fear that the definition of that would hopelessly limit the arguement of either side in this discussion.
Jackson did hire many experts ranging from experts on the various langauges to experts on the look and design of Middle-earth in the effort to get it right - or as you put it to preserve the authenticity of Middle-earth. Efforts were expended to get it right and to preserve the authenticity of that world and the people in it where possible and within the limits of the cinematic medium.
The presence or absence of a tomato in the story is so trivial as to be meaningless to 99% of those who saw the films.
If Jackson tried to improve the books, that does not make him guilty of denying the One True God. I recently reread the books for the umpteenth time and was amazed at how more dramatic and touching the film version of the death of Boromir is compared to the book version. Should we burn Jackson at the stake for this transgression?
As far as The Scouring goes, this has been explained by the writers in detail in the special editions. It was felt that the climax of the film was the destruction of the ring and the fall of the Barad-dur. As it was, Jackson bore the brunt of some who criticized the film for having "too many endings" and going on far too long after that climatic scene. To add the Scouring of the Shire would have only lengthened the film by even more.
Personally, I found that very quiet tavern scene (at the end of ROTK) far more touching as the four hobbits sit around the table - their great deeds unappreciated by their fellows - while all the hobbits around them rejoiced in the trivialities of hobbit life. And as it should be. And I am sure the four would have it no other way. I found that beautiful.
In the end it is folly to compare to films to the template of the book and hold them up as the last word as to what is pure and good and holy. The book and the film are two very different things. Each has their own qualities, boundaries, limits and components that the other does not have.
Again, this is like comparing apples to cinderblocks. In the end the experts announce that after deep and exhausting study apples do indeed taste better. But cinderblocks are harder and make for better building materials. The comparison is meaningless.