I've read that the movies were as literal adaptations of the books as possible because the producers felt that was what kids wanted.
But she was naked! And all... articulate!
Mal ,'Our Mrs. Reynolds'
Buffista Fic: It Could Be Plot Bunnies
Where the Buffistas let their fanfic creative juices flow. May contain erotica.
askye - Dec 19, 2002 11:10:14 am PST #733 of 10001
Thrive to spite them
Anne W. - Dec 19, 2002 11:15:20 am PST #734 of 10001
The lost sheep grow teeth, forsake their lambs, and lie with the lions.
As a kid, I would have been seriously peeved by anything that wasn't a blow-by-blow adaptation of the book. I feel that the way Peter Jackson & Co. edited, adapted, and shuffled LotR was close to perfect. It acknowledged that film and book are two completely different media with different strengths and weaknesses.
Michele T. - Dec 19, 2002 11:15:33 am PST #735 of 10001
with a gleam in my eye, and an almost airtight alibi
Shrug. Maybe it is what they wanted. Maybe it's what they want not knowing what the alternative is. (I mean, there are plenty of grumbly Tolkein geeks out there, but having re-read FOTR since seeing the movie, I'll admit that Jackson's a better storyteller than JRR was.) For me, though, the combination of the extremely literal adaptation and Chris Columbus's plodding directorial style made the movies into very lovely, very well-acted snores.
askye - Dec 19, 2002 11:31:59 am PST #736 of 10001
Thrive to spite them
Kids are incredibly picky. I know when I was a kid and I used to see adaptations of books I'd read over and over and over I would freak out "That's not how it goes. That's not right. They left that out. This is WRONG!"
And I think it comes down to the decision of who they wanted to please more with the Harry Potter movies---the kids who wanted to see everything as close to the book as humanly possible or the adults who wanted to see the best adaptation, even if that meant making more changes to the movie.
Steph L. - Dec 19, 2002 11:33:13 am PST #737 of 10001
Unusually and exceedingly peculiar and altogether quite impossible to describe
Kids are incredibly picky. I know when I was a kid and I used to see adaptations of books I'd read over and over and over I would freak out "That's not how it goes. That's not right. They left that out. This is WRONG!"
I still do that...
askye - Dec 19, 2002 12:44:07 pm PST #738 of 10001
Thrive to spite them
I have to admit I did it a bit during FoTR. "but..but...that's not how Merry and Pippin ACT...they aren't so...but...they are more..."
"where is the poetry. Where is Sam's love for the elves? How can he leave out that. Sam's journey and character development is key to the story!"
Um, I'm a little too invested in Samwise Gamgee. But not in a porny way.
Atropa - Dec 19, 2002 12:46:01 pm PST #739 of 10001
The artist formerly associated with cupcakes.
askye, I just noticed your tag. Yaaaaaay!
P.M. Marc - Dec 19, 2002 12:54:40 pm PST #740 of 10001
So come, my friends, be not afraid/We are so lightly here/It is in love that we are made; In love we disappear
Wanna know how you know you're over-invested?
When you realize that, being as it's Thursday, that means that by late tonight, there will be the FF list up on Silverlake.
And that you look forward to it the way some people look forward to Christmas, or Must-See TV.
askye - Dec 19, 2002 12:54:54 pm PST #741 of 10001
Thrive to spite them
I'm going to try and devise a spear or some sort of Scola the Destroyer, or maybe a raygun. I'm not sure.
Am-Chau Yarkona - Dec 19, 2002 1:58:13 pm PST #742 of 10001
I bop to Wittgenstein. -- Nutty
I'll admit that Jackson's a better storyteller than JRR was
I'll admit that if you'll put 'for the medium of film' at the end. But we have a thread for that sort of debate now, so I won't say any more.
PMM, I thought the mark of being over-invested in a character was when you heard their voice instead of yours in your head?
(I do that with Drusilla from time to time. Spooky.)