Quote:
Originally Posted by Marwhini
At no point did I say "word-for-word."
I said that the movie would need to be longer than 2 hours to include THE ENTIRE book.
And that is due to the Heuristic Used in Screenwriting of an approximately 1-Page:1-Minute for Script:Screentime.
|
Excuse me. You have *not* merely said the movie "would need to be longer than 2 hours". You have been advocating a 9-12 hour version, and claiming it to be mandated by the "rules of Screenwriting"(!)
Edit: And once again, that "heuristic" does not apply to the task of adapting a novel, and thus remains irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marwhini
You don't seem to care about the actual evidence here, and seem instead to be relying upon what Jackson produced as the only possible means of depicting The Hobbit in three films, when he cut out vast swaths of the book, and included much that was utterly superfluous in its place. Unless these is some real evidence for why 20 minutes per chapter (and, to include ON AVERAGE, since that seems to be a tricky concept for some) is too long, then that remains a fair standard for length of a production.
|
Yes, well, I'm starting to think reading comprehension might be tricky for some...
Quote:
You might claim that some Chapters can be Significantly shortened (and I have no doubt that it would absolutely be possible to shorten some chapters), but unless you can show that this is the case AND that ALL CHAPTERS would then fit into a roughly 6 - 10 minute, on average, running-time, then the Movie simply would not fit into a 2 - 4 hour production without citing substantial amounts of material.
And the only way to do that is to detail the specific scenes that can result in an average 6 - 10 minute per chapter production.
|
I have explained to you that your approach would result in
numerous scenes of enormous length. The burden of proof is on you to show it wouldn't. But, then, you won't even acknowledge that 20 minutes *is* an abnormal length. So I don't know where we go from here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morthoron
You simply ignore what anyone else says just so you can rabbit on with your own theories. I would like it if you's please go back and read what I said, rather than continually talking over everyone.
No where, and at no time, did I mention a 2-4 hour production. No where did I refer to a single film. Ever. That is a figment of your own imagination.
|
Morth, he may be confusing you with me, in that I have mentioned a single film as being *typical* for a book of "The Hobbit's" length- i.e. an average novel. Which it is. I didn't say a film of "The Hobbit" in particular couldn't or shouldn't be longer, I was just countering
Marhwini's repeated assertion that the "rules" of adaptation required this- specifically that they required a 9-12 hour treatment. (Or sometimes 6 hours. Seems to vary.)
Now,
Marhwini, I think I have been very patient with you so far. However, your circular reasoning, appeals to imaginary authority, misrepresentation of others' statements, misrepresentation of your own, refusal to consider counter-arguments (or, often, acknowledge their existance), apparent belief in the automatic correctness of your every pronouncement, and above all, your general tone of high-handed superiority... these things do begin to grate.
Enough. You obviously feel passionate about your concepts, but unfortunately you haven't come within a hundred leagues of demonstrating convincingly how or why they could work, nor does it seem you ever will.
Now how about we just drop the subject and let
Aaron have his thread back?
Edit: x'd with the man himself.