Home Films/DVD Asylum

Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star.

Re: I don't get your analogy

"Victor's criticism of LoTR, however, has nothing to do with its being fantasy."


Victor's critism of LotR has been nothing more than calling it kaka. So I can't say that it is or is not due to the genre or the movie. I'm still waiting for Victor to name an epic fantasy that he likes.


" It may be that he'd not like what he saw no matter how it was filmed, but I doubt that."


What was it about how it was filmed that makes you think that?


"LoTR is inept filmmaking and story-telling through-and-through."


How so?

" I grew up with Tolkien, and while I still wax nostalgic over his work, I don't regard it as high literary art, though I do regard Middle Earth to be a great fiction."


That makes you one of many millions. But the vast majority of those many millions, myself included< don't share your opinion of the films.


" I don't, therefore, hold the original sacrosanct--in general, I understand that the translation of a literary work to film requires processes of restructuring, compression, and re-imagination, and all with an artistic integrity on the part of the translating filmmaker. In the adaptation of a novel to film, the film should be a free adaptation. Neither film nor novel should have a parasitic relationship to the other. In the end, the film should be judged on the extent to which it's a good film, not on the extent to which it was faithful to its source."

If it is faithful to the source and the source is a good one it stands to reason that the film will likely also be good. History has supported this basic logic.

"That said, the list of Jackson's departures in content and style, not to mention his interpolations, had the effect of making me realize that Tolkien was a much more accomplished story teller than I'd given him credit for. I think Tolkien has ample cause to be rolling in his grave because of those films, though maybe he's resting well knowing how many readers were sent to his novels after viewing them."


Among the millions of fans of his books you are in the vast minority when it comes to the film. That doesn't make you wrong but it certainly makes you less right in a way. Think for a moment what it would have meant had Jackson made a movie you liked but the vast majority of Tolkien fans didn't.


"Seriously, though. I've seen no effort on the part of LoTR defenders here to defend the film as a film."


What's to defend. Calling it kaka is a comentary that is completely devoid of substance. If somebody were to make specific points od substance I'd be happy to take them on if I disagreed with them.

" "Oh, Victor doesn't like orcs on wargs!--or was it goblins? [That's the lingo, Victor, for 'animal-looking "people" riding wild boars-like "horses"'] He just doesn't get it!" Well, I have nothing against that sort of thing per se and I thought that whole sequence of the film to be outragiously stupid."


OK so you have called it a name. Now tell us why it was stupid. Then we will have something to talk about.

"I could go on and on and on. I think I have here before."


I hope your previous comentaries had more substance than "it was stupid."



This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  VH Audio  


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups


You can not post to an archived thread.