Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjimir
But I was taught long ago in my youth to take movies as they are, and not mix them with the books. To try to compare any book to its movie version is impossible to do.
|
Yeah, people keep saying that. I disagree.
The trouble with the films is not that they make departures from the book; that is inevitable and necessary in any adaptation. The trouble is that they make departures from the
spirit of the book, unnecessary changes to the essence of the story that is The Lord of the Rings. Inherent differences in medium have nothing to do with it.
Both films and books are story-centric, and thus may be compared on how well they convey a particular story. The Lord of the Rings is a particular story, with a particular spirit that Peter Jackson does not understand, and which he was unable to capture.
You cannot take the films just "as they are." Since they were intended as an adaptation, I see no reason why we shouldn't judge them on that basis - how well did they function as an adaptation? There are aspects, of course, that do not correspond to the books at all, things that do not translate between mediums. Story is not one of these.
This idea is fresh in my mind, since I watched the extended trilogy straight (for the second time!) just two weeks ago.