<BR><br><br> <blockquote><i>Quote:</i></b><hr> "It is that I don't think it is true at all. I saw Jurassic Park before reading that book. I loved the book (and the movie!) but I decided that many of the characters didn't fit the movie's representations. And I had no problem at all imagining my own characters. Let me tell you, I am a scientist with very little creative abilities and if little ole me has that much of an imagination, then most anyone else who sees the LotR movies before reading the books can do just as well. If they can't, that isn't anyone's fault but their own. It certainly isn't Peter Jackson's." <hr></blockquote><br> <br> You're exceptional Red. That's not the way it works with most people. Perhaps you underestimate your imagination just because you're working in a scientific field. Whatever. I don't know. What I do know<br> is that once a person sees a character or a place represented in a movie and then reads the book it is based on, imagining it themselves is very, very hard. Many times it is impossible. The movie image<br> just keeps popping into your head, like it or not.<br> <br> Yes, there is no way one interpretation will suit everyone. The artist cannot create to please everyone, accepted. But let's for a moment think of everyone who hasn't read LoTR yet. It is a fact that Peter Jackson's creation is going to be the one they see when they finally read LoTR. You could say that that is their problem. If they're not imaginative enough to forget the movie and think up their own images of middle-<br> earth then they deserve to not see it like we did. Sorry, I just don't feel about it that way. You could argue that perhaps they don't even WANT to imagine it on their own. I wouldn't want to rob even one person of the joy of that.<br> <blockquote><i>Quote:</i></b><hr> "What a sad world it would be if artists were restricted from approaching material that someone else considered “sacred”." <hr></blockquote><br> At least stick to the original version! To see something you considor sacred being made into a not-so-great movie is bad enough. To see it murdered and torn apart and stuck together in such a way that it is no longer recognizable-that's sacrilege for the ultra-purist.<br> <br> <blockquote><i>Quote:</i></b><hr> "In such a world, LoTR, which borrows liberally from other, older cultural traditions and myths, wouldn’t exist – because its creation would have been outlawed!" <hr></blockquote><br> Borrows liberally. Does not prance about masquerading as an interpretation of something else.<br> <br> I'm glad you understand my arguements Underhill. I would be far gladder(that IS a word right?) if you would comprehend that I have no interest whatsoever in raining on<br> anyone's parade. At all. It's great to know that there are so many LoTR readers who will see the movie and stay true to their own vision of LoTR, incorporating what they like from PJ's version. It's just that I'm against the movie for <br> various aforementioned reasons. So you look forward to it and I will await it's arrival hoping but not expecting the best.<br> <br> Glass-half-empty pessimism? I think of it more as glass-half realism. Not empty not full. Just based on all that I have heard about the movie so far.<br> I won't repeat all the changes that have been made, but that is what my outlook is based on. Frodo's perpetual 'I'm going to cry/scream/groan/collapse' look is also getting to me. <br> <blockquote><i>Quote:</i></b><hr> "Has my vision already been wiped out? Let me be clear: NO! Does the fact that the actors don’t match my vision dampen my enthusiasm for the movies by one iota? Again, NO!" <hr></blockquote><br> I'm very happy for you. I'm just worried about everyone whose middle earth isn't on ground that firmly.<br> More on action figures later. I have to go for lunch now. <p>Humour is emotional chaos remembered in moments of tranquility.</p>
|