Quote:
|
I realise that it's because they are based on a book which we all hold dear, but how many other "action" films to we analyse to the same extent?~Saucepan
|
For me, it's actually pretty much every movie. I've had classes on film studies and during my college days, I'd usually get in with a group of buds from the class and 1-2 times a week watch a movie and critique it.
But, I'd say for the person who just goes to see a movie, to watch a movie, I say rarely. I see what you're saying, I think it was the same in the Harry Potter movies. Those who had read the books were angry and disappointed in the 3rd movie,
Prisoner of Azkaban. Where I've only read the first book and I was quite happy with the 3rd movie.
I think I just look at films so critically because that's what I've done for so long. It doesn't make the LOTR movies bad, or horrible (I can pick out many that are horrible), but there are NON-BOOK related problems in the movies. The main one being from I believe a post I said earlier on unity. Does this make sense? Does it make sense for Aragorn to spare Grima a messenger who arguably did more damage than the Mouth of Sauron, then slice off the Mouth's head? Things like that, not in comparison with the books. I think most changes Jackson did because he wanted to attract a wide variety of audiences, purists and movie-goers. To do that he had to balance things out, and compromise, which is only his job and I do not blame him for.