Itaril

[Galadriel55]

Point taken, but I still think that some books should be left as books. Harry Potter can (and did) make a relatively good movie that did not stray too much from the original because what was in the book suited what people want to be in a movie. It did not lose/change its overal "spirit". On the other hand, Narnia was changed quite a bit, because otherwise it wouldn't make a good movie. I can't speak about the plot changes, because I haven't read it in ages and hardly remember what happened, but I can say for sure that the mood, or "spirit" of it changed. If the books were a simple, kind, straight-forward-ish story for both children and adults, the movies are definitely not for small children, and they have a HP-esque mood.

What has befallen Narnia is befalling TH. It is a work for children - although adults also enjoy it, but on a different level - that is made into an overcomplicated intrigue tangle. Children will not (most likely, considering the news that we hear) be able to get the message of the book through the movie. It's a question if they'll be able to undertand it. TH lost it's "spirit".

Originally Posted by TMT

In trying to adapt The Lord of the Rings to film, Peter Jackson had too much material for only three movies -- an embarrassment of riches. In trying to adapt The Hobbit, he has barely enough material for one -- and should pridefully protect such priceless poverty.

True. However, there was enough space in the 3 LOTR movies to have Aragorn almost killed by the wargs and Arwen resurrecting him. There was enough space for the mad-idiot-Elrond. And for the Boromir-like Faramir dragging Frodo to Osgiliath, and for Denethor the Insane being insane. That's not to mention a gazilion other changes PJ didn't have to make.

When I said that TH and the trilogy are suffering the same fate, I meant that there's hardly anything left from what Tolkien wrote it to be.

Every book has to be tweaked a little bit before it becomes a movie - usually because there's too many things in too short a time, and some have to be cut out. I can understand that, and that's why I don't hold any grudge against the LOTR movies for not having anything from Crickhollow till the Downs. But one thing is tweaking, and another is using the athor's names to shape a totally different creation.


I'm sorry about the rant.


EDIT: I was typing that late at night, so just to add my final point - when what is in a book somewhat fits what the audience expects to be in a movie, then the movie is good. But when it doesn't - that's when the movie either doesn't work out properly or it isn't really about the book.