'An attrocious movie which is a despicable insult to a wonderful book' - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Cazoz · 01-28-2003, 06:55 PM

Maybe davem is not from the UK, and thus thinks the Daily Mirror is worth wiping one's arse with?!Anyways, I agree with the majority here that the movies are excellent. I think the major problem here is people being narrow-minded. If you don't like the film, you don't like the film. Fair enough. But what people need to do is to be able to separate book from film and realise that both have different intentions, limitations and necessities.Surely the purists cannot be agrieved that every single bloody song hasn't been included! I for one thought they were rather tedious, with only a few exceptions. And they wouldn't have made good cinema.Tolkien had nobody to answer to, and no constraints to what he included in his work. He had artistic freedom. This is why his works are 1000s of pages, full of the rich fruits derived from academic eccentricity such as all of the languages and theology and many of the other little intricacies.Peter Jackson had many constraints, however. Time. Technological limits. Money. He answered to New Line. He had to sate certain demands from Hollywood and the public, whereas Tolkien was free to write anyway he pleased, without having to appease anybody or any institution.Thus, separate the two. Don't whine about the differences between the two, as there are generally valid reasons for most of these. Remember that most people won't have read the books (let alone repeatedly like we all have!) so yes, they did have to modernise and Americanise the language in parts, and throw a bit of slapstick humour in for younger viewers. And of course, they had to soup up the love story. Comes down to simple demand and supply.And for heaven's sake, don't act so offended and take things so personally. You are but a movie stub in these people's eyes. [ January 28, 2003: Message edited by: Cazoz ]

01-28-2003, 06:55 PM	#11
Cazoz Haunting Spirit Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: London, UK Posts: 71	Maybe <B>davem</B> is not from the UK, and thus thinks the Daily Mirror is worth wiping one's arse with?!<P>Anyways, I agree with the majority here that the movies are excellent. I think the major problem here is people being narrow-minded. If you don't like the film, you don't like the film. Fair enough. But what people need to do is to be able to separate book from film and realise that both have different intentions, limitations and necessities.<P>Surely the purists cannot be agrieved that every single bloody song hasn't been included! I for one thought they were rather tedious, with only a few exceptions. And they wouldn't have made good cinema.<P>Tolkien had nobody to answer to, and no constraints to what he included in his work. He had artistic freedom. This is why his works are 1000s of pages, full of the rich fruits derived from academic eccentricity such as all of the languages and theology and many of the other little intricacies.<P>Peter Jackson had many constraints, however. Time. Technological limits. Money. He answered to New Line. He had to sate certain demands from Hollywood and the public, whereas Tolkien was free to write anyway he pleased, without having to appease anybody or any institution.<P>Thus, separate the two. Don't whine about the differences between the two, as there are generally valid reasons for most of these. Remember that most people <I>won't</I> have read the books (let alone repeatedly like we all have!) so yes, they did have to modernise and Americanise the language in parts, and throw a bit of slapstick humour in for younger viewers. And of course, they had to soup up the love story. Comes down to simple demand and supply.<P>And for heaven's sake, don't act so offended and take things so personally. You are but a movie stub in these people's eyes. <p>[ January 28, 2003: Message edited by: Cazoz ]