Was Christopher Tolkien right? - Page 2 - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Lush · 01-03-2003, 12:14 AM

Quote:

In short, I should have remained true to my beliefs, and not seen a film whose profits go to AOL Time Warner, a truly horrendous monster if there ever was one, especially not one with source material close to me.

Aw, Rimbaud, you must not take the evil nature of corporations so seriosuly. Every age has its villians; but they must not prevent our enjoyment of things, in this case, the good looks of the assembled cast! [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] You will always manage to have fun if you put your priorities in order, like I do! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

GreyIstar · 01-03-2003, 12:45 AM

There is no such thing as a pure adaptation to film. Its impossible. Especially when trying to condense 1000 pages into 9 or 10 hours of film.

I think these movies have done a very good job at trying to tackle it. They are intersting, fun and evoke emotions. I feel like Ive been on this journy.

In a perfect world yes these films would be 6 hours long each and go into every detail but we live nowhere near perfect.

goldwine · 01-03-2003, 03:35 AM

I think that a film adaptation more faithful to the text and philosophy of the book is possible. Whether it would be a commercial success is another question. I appreciated the wonderful cinematography and special effects that PJ has brought into play with his representation of LOTR. It is a visual feast. The emphasis on battle and war I'm sure has more to do with general public appeal than giving the balance to the story that Tolkien did. I do feel however, that it has cost some integrity in the process - character representation and development, plot changes etc. to name a couple.
Is Christopher Tolkien right? I think so. It isnt' commercially viable to make a movie which will totally cover all of the ground that Tolkien did.

TolkienGurl · 01-03-2003, 08:13 AM

I want to know why they couldn't do LotR like they did Mitchner's Centennial. That book is a little shorter than LotR, or maybe about the same size, I can't remember, and the boxed set of the whole movie contains about 10 or 12 videos. From what I've heard it's really good, and Centennial isn't exactly the easiest book to adapt to tape, like LotR: length especially, and number of characters. I think it would be awesome if we could get our hands on production of LotR as long as that!

01-03-2003, 12:45 AM	#42
GreyIstar Wight Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Dallas Posts: 116	There is no such thing as a pure adaptation to film. Its impossible. Especially when trying to condense 1000 pages into 9 or 10 hours of film. I think these movies have done a very good job at trying to tackle it. They are intersting, fun and evoke emotions. I feel like Ive been on this journy. In a perfect world yes these films would be 6 hours long each and go into every detail but we live nowhere near perfect. __________________ Keeper of the site Ring Lord. "Dangerous!" cried Gandalf. "And so am I, very dangerous: more dangerous than anything you will ever meet, unless you are brought alive before the seat of the Dark Lord."

01-03-2003, 03:35 AM	#43
goldwine Haunting Spirit Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: South Australia Posts: 64	I think that a film adaptation more faithful to the text and philosophy of the book is possible. Whether it would be a commercial success is another question. I appreciated the wonderful cinematography and special effects that PJ has brought into play with his representation of LOTR. It is a visual feast. The emphasis on battle and war I'm sure has more to do with general public appeal than giving the balance to the story that Tolkien did. I do feel however, that it has cost some integrity in the process - character representation and development, plot changes etc. to name a couple. Is Christopher Tolkien right? I think so. It isnt' commercially viable to make a movie which will totally cover all of the ground that Tolkien did. __________________ 2A Balrog. A demon from the underpants (Gandalf)

01-03-2003, 08:13 AM	#44
TolkienGurl Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Michigan, USA Posts: 637	I want to know why they couldn't do LotR like they did Mitchner's Centennial. That book is a little shorter than LotR, or maybe about the same size, I can't remember, and the boxed set of the whole movie contains about 10 or 12 videos. From what I've heard it's really good, and Centennial isn't exactly the easiest book to adapt to tape, like LotR: length especially, and number of characters. I think it would be awesome if we could get our hands on production of LotR as long as that! __________________ Hopes fail. An end comes. We have only a little time to wait now. We are lost in ruin and downfall and there is no escape. -Frodo My Livejournal