Quote:
Originally Posted by Alcidas
A choice between lots of CGI and weird action sequences that millions of people will flock to watch, or a faithful adaptation of Tolkien's work that a handful of fans who post on the Barrow-Downs will applaud? Wonder why he went for the former?
|
Oh, gosh, how arrogant of us to express our opinion.
And it isn't even a question of the kind, degree or style of adaptation that Jackson has chosen. (Yes, film studies does identify a variety of methods of adaptation.) It is also a question of how well Jackson has put together an action flick with lots of CGI.
I've already given an example of a movie with a superb use of CGI that enhances the narrative rather than becoming a main feature--
Life of Pi.
And others here have pointed out the AUS really fails many of the qualities of a good action flick. It lacks aesthetic discipline and goes for momentary thrills at the expense of the overall story.
The Avengers is a far, far better done action movie--as others here have pointed out.
So the grounds of criticising Jackson's Hobbit movies are really based on two points: the quality or nature of its adaptation of Tolkien's books--a point which you seem to think is limited to the few of us here, never mind the other Tolkien sites online that discuss this issue--and its quality as a well constructed action/adventure flick. There are Downers here who aren't particularly bothered by a lack of fidelity to Tolkien's vision and ethos but who do object to a badly constructed action flick. It remains to be seen whether Jackson holds the interest of fans of action flicks.
And I think
Kuru's link about comments from Spielberg and Lucas are particularly apt here. Nice find,
Kuru.