In Reply to: Re: "Yeah JRR Tolkien was an idiot and you are a genius." posted by Bulkington on June 28, 2005 at 07:51:34:
Well that leaves one of two possibilities if you thought the movies were stupid.
1. You thought jackson failed miserably to realize the books cinematically"Bingo!"
or 2. whether you know it or not you think the books are also stupid.
"Try again!"
Are you not bright enough to understand the meanng of "either?" Why should I try again when #1 was a bingo? Use your brain dude.
So if you think Jackson failed to bring the original content and intent of Tolkien please feel free to tell us how and why. Otherwise deal with the fact that you just stuck your foot in your mouth.
"Like I said, do a search."
Get back to me when you have something of substance to support your rants. I'm not going on some easter egg hunt on your behalf. I'll bet all you previous posts were no more substantial than the drival you have posted on this thread. Ge back to me when you ae willing o get off your intelectual ass and make a valid point. Till then you ae dismissd."I'll try getting back to you. I've got a job to do here. But, no, Jackson did not bring the original content and intent of Tolkien to film. I'd be more than happy to debate the point with you."
Fine ball is in your cour. You have made your assertions now try to suport them. Til then....
"But that said, so what?"
You don't see the value in faithfulness o an original work that is loved by millions and has an intene dvevoted fan base? You are unaware of the history of highly successful films that were faithful to original works as apposed to the very spotty record of films hat were far less faithful to their originals? No, it isn' a requirement for a good movie to be faithful to a book upon which it is based. But if the book is outstanding enough it stands to reason that a fiathful skillful film adaptation is very likely to be outstanding as well. Books and movies re both forms of stroy telling. Tell the same story well enough nd you likely get the same results with either medium."That doesn't prove Jackson's stupidity in the slightest."
Your name calling certainly doesn't prove it either.
" In "failing" to be faithful to the content and intent of the original, or in pointedly departing from them, a good film still might have resulted."
You get to talk about that when you have shown how Jackson strayed substantially from the content and intent of the original books." Likewise, faithfulness doesn't assure success."
I disagree. Skillful intelegent faithful cinematic adaptaions of great literary works pretty much inevitably make for an excellent films. If you can think of any exceptions feel free to name them.
"That you can't seem to see that I assume to be characteristic of most of the praise for the films."
That you can't demonstrate that I assume to be characteristic of most of the criticism of the films.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: "Yeah JRR Tolkien was an idiot and you are a genius." - Analog Scott 09:31:55 06/28/05 (10)
- Aids for Scott - Bulkington 10:47:19 06/28/05 (7)
- Re: Aids for Scott - Analog Scott 11:52:01 06/29/05 (4)
- Wha, wha, whaaaaaaaaa. - Bulkington 14:00:02 06/29/05 (2)
- This is a step up for you so far. Keep trying. nt - Analog Scott 15:58:16 06/29/05 (1)
- Re: This is a step up for you so far. Keep trying. nt - Bulkington 09:15:43 06/30/05 (0)
- That was actually Patrick... - PCL 12:32:25 06/29/05 (0)
- Did a search.. - PCL 11:03:33 06/28/05 (1)
- Thanks!-nt - Bulkington 14:20:56 06/28/05 (0)
- Re: "Yeah JRR Tolkien was an idiot and you are a genius." - Bulkington 10:26:37 06/28/05 (1)
- Re: "Yeah JRR Tolkien was an idiot and you are a genius." - Analog Scott 18:23:02 06/28/05 (1)