Quote:
by SaucepanMan
So why is it that many book fans are unable to overlook the inconsistencies in the same way that other (non-book fan) viewers can (whether consciously or unconsciously)? Well, I think that it is partly a consequence of the “sacred text” issue – the books (or particular characters or scenes) are just too important to some people for them to be comfortable with the changes that were made. But it is also because those who are familiar with the source material for the films (ie the book) are going to be much more alive to any changes and much more likely to analyse them and consider whether they “work” or not. Indeed, that it just what the majority of threads in this Forum are directed towards.
|
You provide a very interesting distinction between the way we read books and the way we read movies,
SpM, but I don't think your dichotomy fits everyone. For instance, I am not one who approaches Tolkien as a sacred text, much as I greatly admire his work on fantasy and story telling. (Please, no rotten tomatoes from the groundlings.)
And I am a fan of action/fantasy flicks. At least, I love the original
Star Wars. As I have said well nigh several times already, I think Lucas handled things more coherently and consistently than Jackson did. Jackson threw in items, scenes, portrayals because he thought them funny at the time. He did not, for me, create an overall film of consistent tone and vision. The fantasy movies I enjoy best do this.
Now, this is not to ridicule those who weren't bothered by ill-timed humour or inconsistent characterisation. I simply demure and say my objections to the films are not explained by your very interesting theory.
I will run off now and attempt to calculate a standard deviation coefficient for your theory, to determine the standard error and mean and mode so as to know where I fall.
