Serving animals in HOBBIT film

[Folwren]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

It certainly could. We could have ended up with a grinning hippy in yellow boots or a half an hour Council of non-stop talking. These things may work in text but on film they would not.

Did I say follow the books exactly? Word for word? Or remotely word for word? No! I believe what I said was:

the movie could not have been WORSE if it had followed the books a little more closely

Emphasis added.

Of course, my opinion would lead the movies to follow the books a bit more than a 'little', but I wouldn't say that the movies should follow the books exactly, and I am convinced that davem would not say so, either.

[Sir Kohran]

Originally Posted by Folwren

Did I say follow the books exactly? Word for word? Or remotely word for word? No! I believe what I said was:



Emphasis added.

Of course, my opinion would lead the movies to follow the books a bit more than a 'little', but I wouldn't say that the movies should follow the books exactly, and I am convinced that davem would not say so, either.

Well I see no point in asking for a 'little' more closeness. It simply becomes petty. There are all sorts of things from the books that could be added in as being a 'little' closer, and all sorts of things from the books that could be taken out and it would be a 'little' further away. I believe what we're debating is the big issues -the Council, Tom, etc.

[Sauron the White]

Fowlren ... sorry if you felt I mischaracterized your remarks. Yes, I do understand that you wanted to follow the books a lot closer. However, your idea of closer would not be close enough for some others. Then again, it may be too close for others. There is no happy medium or perfect compromise that will please everyone. We still end up with unhappy and the opinion struggle of books vs. films would still be going onward.

[Sauron the White]

from WCH

The ninnies who vote for Oscars, and still less the unwashed hordes of mouthbreathing troglodytes who pack multiplexes, are utterly, completely irrelevant as evidence or ratification of artistic success.

William, do you think your comments have just the slightest tinge of superiority about them? They certainly strike me that way.

I believe that the "ninnies who vote for Oscars" are professionals who have devoted their careers and lives to the business and art of film.

The common folk that you so harshly describe are the same people who keep society functioning by going to work each day, paying their taxes, raising their families and providing goods for our pantries. Without them, there would be no movies.... or books for that matter other than the occassional manuscript that is seen by very few. Sounds like the good old days of the Dark Ages.

What is interesting about the LOTR films is that they were a rousing success from all three segments of the way we normally measure a films success: Professional critics generally gave them glowing reviews, the public responded with $4 billion dollars US, and thier peers in the business showered them with awards of excellence. Normally at least one of those categories precludes or negates the other one or two.

I am in my late 50's and have been following film closely for some 45 years now and have never seen anything like that before. I wonder if you appreciate the rarity of that convergence?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The common folk that you so harshly describe are the same people who keep society functioning by going to work each day, paying their taxes, raising their families and providing goods for our pantries.

And Michelangelo's work at St Peter's and the Sistine Chapel was made possible, ultimately, by the tithes of millions of illiterate peasants. Does that mean he was working to please them? Of course not.

I am in my late 50's and have been following film closely for some 45 years now and have never seen anything like that before. I wonder if you appreciate the rarity of that convergence?

Perhaps you've forgotten Lawrence of Arabia? Ben-Hur? The Sound of Music? Dr Zhivago? All much better films- and all of them, incidentally, very heavily altered from their sources. Again, I don't argue with the need for adaptation- but adaptation must be sensitive to the spirit of the original. Reading Lawrence's Seven Pillars of Wisdom, it's clear that Lean, while altering or fabricating virtually every incident, "got" Lawrence and understood what he was all about. Not so PJ.

Anyway, you're trying to argue a point by claiming that 1 + 0 + 0 is three. It's just one. The opinions of film critics are worth paying attention to, even as a basis for disagreement; but box-office figures as a measure of quality are worthless. Meaningless. Zero. The same, I'm afraid, goes for the Oscars. Do you have any idea how Oscar voting works? How most voters have never seen the films they're voting on? How often ballots are delegated to personal assistants or other lackeys? How so many members of the Academy are not "professionals" in any sense beyond the obvious one that they get paid to work on movies; which does not in itself qualify them as experts in cinematic art (or, in many cases, to tie their own shoes). This is an election in which Anna Nicole Smith was qualified to vote.

As evidence in support of which I offer Exhibit A, just another such convergence within the last decade: Titanic. An eleven-Oscar, boffo box-office turd.

[Sauron the White]

I beg to differ. There are three ways that the film industry looks to see if their films were a success. None of them include the adulation of the book community to see if they kept close enough to the source material.

The three areas the film community respects are
1- box office receipts above and beyond anything else
2- the acclaim of professional critics partly because it can impact #1 and partly because it can and does add to the prestige of a film or even a studio
3- industry and professional awards like the BAFTA's or Academy Awards, again same reason as #1 and 2.

In all three cases, the LOTR films were a rousing success by all three measurements.

Yes, there have been films that hit all three -- and you did mention some. But again, compare that to the number of films issued each year and multiply that by year after year. BEN HUR, LAWRENCE, LOTR - these are rare films and to have such success on all three levels is rare.

your point

And Michelangelo's work at St Peter's and the Sistine Chapel was made possible, ultimately, by the tithes of millions of illiterate peasants. Does that mean he was working to please them? Of course not.

isthe exact opposite of the situation that any filmmaker and any studio finds themselves in. Michaelangelo did NOT need to have the actual love and adulation of those masses of people or even their approval. He needed the approval of a single autocrat - the Pope. He was working for an audience of one. A filmmaker and film studio does not have that luxury.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The three areas the film community respects are

Why is that relevant to anyone but shareholders? An industry is interested in profit: duh. So is the oil industry, although at least Halliburton isn't disposed to pretend to be making art.

Again: if this tripartite convergence was knockdown, irrefutable evidence of Great Film....explain Titanic.