What the Hell Happened to Orlando Bloom?

[tmc...@gmail.com]

http://lebeauleblog.com/2014/02/12/what-the-hell-happened-to-orlando-bloom/

Orlando Bloom starred in one of the biggest movie trilogies of all time, and followed it up by starring in another one of the biggest trilogies of all time. He's worked with Peter Jackson, Ridley Scott, and Cameron Crowe. He was supposed to be the next big thing.

What the hell happened?

LORD OF THE RINGS: FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING (2001)

Bloom basically made a quantum leap (oh boy...) to stardom, landing a role in Peter Jackson's adaptation of Tolkien's epic fantasy two days before he graduated drama school. Talk about a graduation present. He was originally cast as Faramir, but switched to Legolas. Lucky him.

Nobody knew what a huge hit the LOTR trilogy would be. Peter Jackson had to fight tooth and nail with studios, before New Line said he could make a trilogy. What came from it is one of the only film trilogies that can be compared with Star Wars. It became a cultural phenomenon.

You can argue whether or not Jackson's adaptation is faithful (hint: it's not. Tolkein writing has more in common with the Encyclopedia Brittanica than it does an action film) but it was a hit with audiences. Using in-camera tricks to keep the budget under $100 mill (a trick Jackson would later forget on every subsequent movie he directed), and lavishly photographing the New Zeland landscape, the film was a smash with critics and racked up close to a billion dollars worldwide. It scored Oscar noms, a rarity for a film of this scale and scope.

If by some miracle you haven't seen it, the Lord of the Rings is a fantasy saga taking place in middle-earth, where a band of Hobbits, elves, dwarves,wizards, and humans set to destroy an ancient evil that has arisen again. Orlando Bloom's bleach job and cat-like elf Legolas made him an instant heart-throb with teenage girls everywhere, and made his character a standout in a film of standouts. From drama school to worldwide movie star. Like that.

LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS (2002)

The second film in the trilogy built on everything that made the first one the success it was. It still had a less than $100 million dollar budget, and inched even closer to the billion dollar threshold than the first film. This has even more spectacular action (which in the books is dismissed in a few pages in favor of songs and poems) and keeps alive the dark middle entry in the trilogy thing going. It's a wonderful film for anyone that loves movies, fantasy, or action. For my money Viggo Mortenson is the best actor there, and has subsequently proved that. And for anyone that can't get enough, Jackson released near 4 hour cuts of each of the LOTR trilogy. More critical love, more academy award noms, and more money.

http://lebeauleblog.com/2014/02/12/what-the-hell-happened-to-orlando-bloom/2/

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: RETURN OF THE KING (2003)

The final (nope) installment in the LOTR trilogy arrived Christmas of 2003 to great fanfare. It was just as loved by critics, and finally crossed the billion mark. The film is great, except it ends at least 5 different times. Seriously. It's like Jackson couldn't stand to let it go. It becomes almost comical.

There's nothing more to say really, they're landmark films that should be watched. Legolas became a fan favorite and no matter what the hell happens to Bloom, he will always have that character ingrained in pop culture history like a Lando Calrissian.

http://lebeauleblog.com/2014/02/12/what-the-hell-happened-to-orlando-bloom/3/

http://lebeauleblog.com/2014/02/12/what-the-hell-happened-to-orlando-bloom/4/

Everyone goes back to the well here. Jackson has done nothing but prove he has nothing left to give outside of Middle Earth, so he came crawling back. The Hobbit is a short children's book. So of course Jackson decided it needed to be a 9 hour trilogy action epic, because hobbit logic. Bloom returned in the second film because he had absolutely nothing else going on (Mortensen refused). The Hobbit movies were both met with trepidation by critics, who inevitably compared them to the far superior LOTR. The second Hobbit didn't do as well in theaters, despite being more liked than the ponderous and unnecessary first film.

I'm convinced that between the three movies there is one good one. The first film could be shortened to one hour, the second to one, and the third to one, each comprising of an act to a single really good movie. Although I hesitate to call them really good. Jackson lost sight of what made the originals great, with each Hobbit's budget $50 mill larger than the LOTR. They are also heavy with CGI instead of makeup, and the digital filming techniques make it less pleasant to watch. None of this is Bloom's fault, but I needed to rant. Of course there will be extended editions of DVD. 12 hours. For a 300 page book full of songs and poems.

http://lebeauleblog.com/2014/02/12/what-the-hell-happened-to-orlando-bloom/5/

SO WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED?

Orlando Bloom came out of nowhere. Literally. In no time he was a part of one of the biggest franchises in history. Throughout his career he's never had disastrous rumors or behavioral issues. Like most actors who come from nowhere and get saddled with an iconic character, he never could distance himself. He was even lucky enough to get into another huge franchise, but his character (or his inability to play a different character) was to similar to what he'd already done. And he was always a part of a large ensemble with more beloved and well-recognized actors.

Bloom was treated pretty harshly, he only had two real leading A-list roles, and both flopped unceremoniously, and he was discarded as quick as he had come. I'll go as far as to say that Bloom is just not that talented of an actor. His range is extremely limited, his boyish looks keep him from having any real gravitas, and he played the same smirky swashbuckling, arrogant, sidekick-hero. Audiences and directors had seen enough. He's still young, in his 30s, and has a chance to keep working. But it's likely that he'll stick to small or English films in the near future.

You'll notice as Christian Bale or Hugh Jackman had their star-making franchises, in the in between years, they did films to expand their range, and increase their status. Bloom never did. Whether that was a choice, a mistake, or that he simply doesn't have the talent of those two is up for debate (not really, he's not that talented). Eventually you'll get exposed. It's just what the hell happens.

[O. Sharp]

Cutting out much, but tmc...@gmail.com writes in part:

> You can argue whether or not Jackson's adaptation is faithful (hint:
> it's not. Tolkein writing has more in common with the Encyclopedia
> Brittanica than it does an action film)

A small hint: If I were to go out to Usenet to promote my blog, I'm not
sure going straight to newsgroup.fans.name-of-author and insulting said
author is a good strategy.

> There's nothing more to say really, they're landmark films that should
> be watched. Legolas became a fan favorite and no matter what the hell
> happens to Bloom, he will always have that character ingrained in pop
> culture history like a Lando Calrissian.

"What a great actor! He reminds me of:

A) Dustin Hoffman!"
B) Humphrey Bogart!"
C) Gregory Peck!"
x D) Billy Dee Williams!"

Man, that's damning with faint praise. :)

> I'm convinced that between the three movies there is one good one. The
> first film could be shortened to one hour, the second to one, and the
> third to one, each comprising of an act to a single really good movie.
> Although I hesitate to call them really good.

You know, you _could_ wait for the third movie to come out before you pass
judgement on it. Just sayin'.

> You'll notice as Christian Bale or Hugh Jackman had their star-making
> franchises, in the in between years, they did films to expand their
> range, and increase their status. Bloom never did.

I guess we're not counting "Black Hawk Down", "Ned Kelly", "Troy",
"Kingdom Of Haven", "Elizabethtown", "The Armenian Genocide", "The Good
Doctor", "Zulu"...

I'm not a big fan of Jackson's work, or Orlando Bloom for that matter, but
honestly: a little bit of fact-checking now and then wouldn't hurt.

----------------------------------------------------------------
o...@panix.com If you're going to condemn people, could you
at least try to be fair about it?

[Bill O'Meally]

On 2014-02-13 16:02:15 +0000, O. Sharp said:

> Cutting out much, but tmc...@gmail.com writes in part:
>
>> You can argue whether or not Jackson's adaptation is faithful (hint:
>> it's not. Tolkein writing has more in common with the Encyclopedia
>> Brittanica than it does an action film)
>
> A small hint: If I were to go out to Usenet to promote my blog, I'm not
> sure going straight to newsgroup.fans.name-of-author and insulting said
> author is a good strategy.

Not to mention spelling said author's name correctly.
--
Bill O'Meally

[Wayne Brown]

This might explain why I like Tolkien's books so much more than Jackson's
films. As a child I often read the Encyclopædia Britannica for fun,
whereas I'm rather lukewarm about action films in general.

--
F. Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net>

Þæs ofereode, ðisses swa mæg. ("That passed away, this also can.")
from "Deor," in the Exeter Book (folios 100r-100v)

[electrics...@googlemail.com]

This article is dreadful on every level. Are you trying to demonstrate the need for an editorial process? Is this really a subtle commentary on how the internet lowering the barrier of entry for publication is a double edged sword? It certainly has no biographical or critical merit.

[electrics...@googlemail.com]

I had the junior single volume edition and couldn't get enough of it, if only we'd had the internet when I was little. The OP has probably only ever read comic books and novelizations of action films, he seems to be suggesting that Tolkien not writing his novel like a movie script, is somehow a flaw. I wonder if he is even aware of what a cultural phenomenon the Lord of the Rings was, long before Star Wars, and what other cultural phenomena have been directly or indirectly inspired by Tolkien's writing.

[Mike Scott Rohan]

On Friday, February 14, 2014 6:19:00 AM UTC, Wayne Brown wrote:

> This might explain why I like Tolkien's books so much more than Jackson's
>
> films. As a child I often read the Encyclopædia Britannica for fun,
>
> whereas I'm rather lukewarm about action films in general.
>

Of course. Your imagination produces what's required, a lot more satisfactorily than Peter Jackson's. I enjoy the odd action movie well enough, but it's like candyfloss (=cotton candy) for the mind; if you've a bit more brain, you naturally demand a bit more, and for that you need the original book. And that, for me, sums up a lot of the problem with Jackson's adaptations. He and Boyens do sincerely love the books, they do catch something of the magic -- visually, in particular -- but their response, for all the detail they drag in, is on a fairly shallow level, and heavily coloured -- you could almost say contaminated -- by the inbuilt cliches of lesser fantasies, comics and video games. The way, for example, that Jackson loves having combatants stand around and square off, snarling macho fashion at one another. That destroys the sweeping element of surprise in -- for example -- the confrontation with the orcs in Moria, the ride of the Rohirrim, or Aragorn's arrival at the siege of Minas Tirith. It's childish and unlikely. Or, on another level, the way he completely misunderstands Tolkien's subtle characterization of Denethor and Saruman. The result is LOTR Lite.

When I first saw Fellowship, my reaction was that it was a bit like an alternative version of an epic -- one of the less poetic Argonautica, for example, or one of the retreads of the Volsunga Saga, Das Gehhornte Sigfrid maybe. It worked, just not always as well. But having got his audience in, Jackson then created much less faithful, more action-y sequels. And he is doing much the same with the Hobbit. which suggests it's to some degree deliberate.

But he does get a good performance out of Bloom, one of the better features. However, to hear Bloom talk in everyday life, he's so laid back he almost falls over. He can be charming enough, maybe he isn't stupid, but the impression is that he lacks the drive and perhaps the sensitivity that makes Bale and others such multi-faceted actors. Bloom seems to be more of a filter feeder, browsing on what drifts by.

Cheers,

Mike Scott Rohan

[Sandman]

In article <8fb0405a-2b51-49d3...@googlegroups.com>, Mike Scott Rohan wrote:

> > Wayne Brown:

> > This might explain why I like Tolkien's books so much more than
> > Jackson's
>

> > films. As a child I often read the Encyclop�dia Britannica for fun, whereas

> > I'm rather lukewarm about action films in general.
>
> Of course. Your imagination produces what's required, a lot more
> satisfactorily than Peter Jackson's. I enjoy the odd action movie
> well enough, but it's like candyfloss (=cotton candy) for the mind;
> if you've a bit more brain, you naturally demand a bit more, and for
> that you need the original book.

Well, it's not a matter of either/or. You can have a "bit more brain" and enjoy
both the movies and the books. :)

> And that, for me, sums up a lot of the problem with Jackson's adaptations. He
> and Boyens do sincerely love the books, they do catch something of the magic
> -- visually, in particular -- but their response, for all the detail they drag
> in, is on a fairly shallow level, and heavily coloured

As is expected, with *any* movie adaptation of a book

> -- you could almost say contaminated -- by the inbuilt cliches of lesser
> fantasies, comics and video games.

Well, this is how stories are made. Nothing is unique, not even Tolkien books,
who was influenced by religion, cultures and both mythological and linguistic
influences.

I think a problem is that many that prefer the books over the movies make it
seem like the books were some sort of perfection in themselves that can be
"sullied" by the movies. Both the movies and the books are landmark achievements
in popular culture, and both were influenced by what came before

> The way, for example, that Jackson loves having combatants stand around and
> square off, snarling macho fashion at one another. That destroys the sweeping
> element of surprise in -- for example -- the confrontation with the orcs in
> Moria, the ride of the Rohirrim, or Aragorn's arrival at the siege of Minas
> Tirith.

I think I know what you mean, but it's not like the books in these cases didn't
have a similar stand-off (I'm not sure I agree with the "macho" thing in either
case) in those scenes, right? Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

> It's childish and unlikely. Or, on another level, the way he completely
> misunderstands Tolkien's subtle characterization of Denethor and Saruman. The
> result is LOTR Lite.

This has always bothered me. I mean, sure making an adaptation will make some
characters different, but this idea that someone has "misunderstood", and how
there is a "correct" way to understand their character is something I dislike.

For all we know, the moviemakers understood this perfectly and *choose* to take
a different approach for a number of reasons. Or they understood it and this is
their version of that understanding. I always dislike the approach of "I
understand Tolkien's texts better than the movie makers" approach

> When I first saw Fellowship, my reaction was that it was a bit like
> an alternative version of an epic

Not "a bit like"; it very much is an alternative version of an epic, seeing how
it is *impossible* to make the same version as the book as a movie. This is not
a weakness of the ones doing the adaptation, it is impossible to do

> one of the less poetic Argonautica, for example, or one of the retreads of the
> Volsunga Saga, Das Gehhornte Sigfrid maybe. It worked, just not always as
> well. But having got his audience in, Jackson then created much less faithful,
> more action-y sequels. And he is doing much the same with the Hobbit. which
> suggests it's to some degree deliberate.

Well, of course it is! Partly due to the obvious facts that it makes a shitload
of money, but also because the medium is totally different. While the books can
spend page after page on showing the inner thoughts and feelings of a character
while only seconds pass in story-time, movies don't have that privilege.
Everything is real-time, and it is up to the talent of the actor to portray as
much of this as possible in as short time as possible.

Movies, on the other hand, can visually present things quickly that a book
requires a lot of time to do. That's why quick-paced action sequences are so
effective on the screen.

Remember, you rarely (if ever) read a book that has a long-drawn car chase,
because you can't write interestingly about it, but on the screen it's very easy.

Many say that the battles in the books are briefly described (or not described
at all) due to Tolkien not wanting to "glorify battle", but I call that hogwash.
I think that Tolkien most certainly could write about battles without glorifying
it. I think the reason is that it's *HARD* to write action sequences.




--
Sandman[.net]

[Wayne Brown]

On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 17:03:16 in article <8fb0405a-2b51-49d3...@googlegroups.com> Mike Scott Rohan <mike.sco...@asgardpublishing.co.uk> wrote:
> Of course. Your imagination produces what's required, a lot more
> satisfactorily than Peter Jackson's. I enjoy the odd action movie
> well enough, but it's like candyfloss (=cotton candy) for the mind;
> if you've a bit more brain, you naturally demand a bit more, and for
> that you need the original book. And that, for me, sums up a lot of
> the problem with Jackson's adaptations. He and Boyens do sincerely
> love the books, they do catch something of the magic -- visually,
> in particular -- but their response, for all the detail they drag
> in, is on a fairly shallow level, and heavily coloured -- you could
> almost say contaminated -- by the inbuilt cliches of lesser fantasies,
> comics and video games. The way, for example, that Jackson loves
> having combatants stand around and square off, snarling macho fashion
> at one another. That destroys the sweeping element of surprise in --
> for example -- the confrontation with the orcs in Moria, the ride of
> the Rohirrim, or Aragorn's arrival at the siege of Minas Tirith. It's
> childish and unlikely. Or, on another level, the way he completely
> misunderstands Tolkien's subtle characterization of Denethor and
> Saruman. The result is LOTR Lite.

LOTR Lite! I love that description. It explains why watching the
films makes me feel both entertained and disappointed at the same time.
I leave the theater at the end thinking, "That was fun, but it could
have been *so much better*."

[Wayne Brown]

On Thu, 01 May 2014 03:45:10 in article <slrnlm42...@irc.sandman.net> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <8fb0405a-2b51-49d3...@googlegroups.com>, Mike Scott Rohan wrote:
>

<SNIP>

> While the books can
> spend page after page on showing the inner thoughts and feelings of a character
> while only seconds pass in story-time, movies don't have that privilege.
> Everything is real-time, and it is up to the talent of the actor to portray as
> much of this as possible in as short time as possible.

But shouldn't it be the SAME "inner thoughts and feelings" that the actor
is trying to portray? Frequently characters in the films appear to have
completely different personalities and motivations than in the books.

>
> Movies, on the other hand, can visually present things quickly that a book
> requires a lot of time to do. That's why quick-paced action sequences are so
> effective on the screen.
>
> Remember, you rarely (if ever) read a book that has a long-drawn car chase,
> because you can't write interestingly about it, but on the screen it's very easy.

And I usually find myself yawning through those on-screen car chases (or
barrel-and-orc chases down rivers) and thinking, "Enough with the stupid
chasing and fighting! Get back to the story! Give us some dialogue!"

>
> Many say that the battles in the books are briefly described (or not described
> at all) due to Tolkien not wanting to "glorify battle", but I call that hogwash.
> I think that Tolkien most certainly could write about battles without glorifying
> it. I think the reason is that it's *HARD* to write action sequences.

I think the battle scenes got all the description they needed, and any
more would have been just as tedious in the books as some of them were in
the films. The "Hobbit" films are the worst offenders in this regard.
Radagast's chase in the woods, the afore-mentioned barrel trip down
the river, the fight between the dwarves and Smaug, and the battle at
Lake Town were way overdone and absolutely horrible to sit through,
in my opinion. The battles at Helm's Deep, Isengard and the Pelennor
Fields in the LOTR films were much easier to take.

[Sandman]

In article <ljudjq$9ue$2...@dont-email.me>, Wayne Brown wrote:

> > Sandman:

> > While the books can spend page after page on showing the inner
> > thoughts and feelings of a character while only seconds pass in
> > story-time, movies don't have that privilege. Everything is
> > real-time, and it is up to the talent of the actor to portray as
> > much of this as possible in as short time as possible.
>
> But shouldn't it be the SAME "inner thoughts and feelings" that the
> actor is trying to portray? Frequently characters in the films
> appear to have completely different personalities and motivations
> than in the books.

Well, there's two answers to this question.

The first is that "should" implies there's only one possible interpretation
of the personality of a character in the books, and the movie makers/actors
failed to portray it. As always with the written word, interpretations are
very personal, and two persons may not always get the same interpretation
of a persons character as described in the books. The same applies to the
movies as well of course. One person can interprete an actors performance
to not at all be in line with what that character's personality in the
books are, while another may think it's pretty spot-on. This depends on
both persons interpretation of a character from BOTh the books and the
movies.

The second answer is that sometimes you CAN'T reproduce a characters
personalities for a number of reasons. One I mentioned is time.
Personalities are built over time, and in a book, the author can spend as
much time as he pleases fleshing out a character, but in a movie, you only
have 2-3 hours and many many characters. The other is that sometimes, and
for the same reasons, characters need to be combined, excluded or otherwise
changed in order to keep the pacing, so personality traits from two
character in the book is worked into one character in the movie, for
instance.

> > Sandman:

> > Movies, on the other hand, can visually present things quickly
> > that a book requires a lot of time to do. That's why quick-paced
> > action sequences are so effective on the screen.
>
> > Remember, you rarely (if ever) read a book that has a long-drawn
> > car chase, because you can't write interestingly about it, but on
> > the screen it's very easy.
>
> And I usually find myself yawning through those on-screen car chases
> (or barrel-and-orc chases down rivers) and thinking, "Enough with
> the stupid chasing and fighting! Get back to the story! Give us
> some dialogue!"

Which is fine, to each his own. But that can't be blamed on the movie
makers. Tastes differ :)

> > Sandman:

> > Many say that the battles in the books are briefly described (or
> > not described at all) due to Tolkien not wanting to "glorify
> > battle", but I call that hogwash. I think that Tolkien most
> > certainly could write about battles without glorifying it. I think
> > the reason is that it's *HARD* to write action sequences.
>
> I think the battle scenes got all the description they needed, and
> any more would have been just as tedious in the books as some of
> them were in the films.

Really? Battle of the Five Armies felt it got the description it deserved?
I mean, it wasn't described *at all* apart from Gandalf briefly summarizing
it.

> The "Hobbit" films are the worst offenders in this regard. Radagast's
> chase in the woods, the afore-mentioned barrel trip down the river, the
> fight between the dwarves and Smaug, and the battle at Lake Town were way
> overdone and absolutely horrible to sit through, in my opinion.

I'm not arguing with that, and even agree with many of these points. I'm
just saying that there is an obvious reason for why they're there.

> The battles at Helm's Deep, Isengard and the Pelennor Fields in the LOTR
> films were much easier to take.

And were, story-wise, hugely larger in the movies than in the books, where
they are just as large in scope, but only briefly glossed over where the
key points are just there for the story.

Tolkien was great at writing at length about dialogs and characters, but
the battles - which is a pretty central part of the story - were very
shallow.


--
Sandman[.net]

[Bill O'Meally]

On 2014-04-30 22:03:16 +0000, Mike Scott Rohan said:

>
> When I first saw Fellowship, my reaction was that it was a bit like an
> alternative version of an epic -- one of the less poetic Argonautica,
> for example, or one of the retreads of the Volsunga Saga, Das Gehhornte
> Sigfrid maybe. It worked, just not always as well. But having got his
> audience in, Jackson then created much less faithful, more action-y
> sequels. And he is doing much the same with the Hobbit. which suggests
> it's to some degree deliberate.
>

I very much agree. Wheras I enjoyed the first installment of TH
(barring the ridiculous Radagast and his rabbit sled), I abhorred the
second. Too much action at the expense of plot. I kept thinking to
myself, "How can I be so bored with so much action going on?" It
reminded me of a Baroque opera, where everything will just stop and
they have a ballet.
--
Bill O'Meally

[Mike Scott Rohan]

On Thursday, May 1, 2014 9:45:10 AM UTC+1, Sandman wrote:

>
> Well, it's not a matter of either/or. You can have a "bit more brain" and enjoy
>
> both the movies and the books. :)

But one enjoys the films on a much shallower level, simply because the depth of the books isn't there. To some extent its place is taken by visual spectacle, but even more so by slam-bang action, often added for the sake of video-gaming.

>
> As is expected, with *any* movie adaptation of a book

No, although one could be forgiven for thinking that. Some adaptations diminish the source, but others enhance it. The Prisoner of Zenda made much better films than the original book; Ben-Hur likewise -- but without wilfully distorting it. The TV version of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy was at least as good as the book, and Alec Guinness added an almost mystical dimension to Le Carre's protagonist; but it took away nothing. And I've seen a truly stunning Russian TV adaptation of Bulgakov's The Master & Margarita which went to enormous lengths to remain absolutely true to the book -- and was all the more successful as a result, far more so than earlier versions which tried to popularize it.

> > -- you could almost say contaminated -- by the inbuilt cliches of lesser
>
> > fantasies, comics and video games.
>
>
> Well, this is how stories are made. Nothing is unique, not even Tolkien books,
>
> who was influenced by religion, cultures and both mythological and linguistic
>
> influences.

There's a hell of a value difference between what influenced Tolkien and the third-rate influences on Jackson -- video games, for one, which are leeches on better fantasies.

>
>
>
> I think a problem is that many that prefer the books over the movies make it
>
> seem like the books were some sort of perfection in themselves that can be
>
> "sullied" by the movies. Both the movies and the books are landmark achievements
>
> in popular culture, and both were influenced by what came before

True, there are areas where the books might be improved. But the changes in the film are not those, and transparently were not made for that purpose.

>
>
>
> > The way, for example, that Jackson loves having combatants stand around and
>
> > square off, snarling macho fashion at one another. That destroys the sweeping
>
> > element of surprise in -- for example -- the confrontation with the orcs in
>
> > Moria, the ride of the Rohirrim, or Aragorn's arrival at the siege of Minas
>
> > Tirith.

> I think I know what you mean, but it's not like the books in these cases didn't have a similar stand-off (I'm not sure I agree with the "macho" thing in either

Then you don't know what I mean, because they don't. Take the moment in the film where the Moria orcs encircle the entire Fellowship; doesn't happen at all in the book.

>
> This has always bothered me. I mean, sure making an adaptation will make some
>
> characters different, but this idea that someone has "misunderstood", and how
>
> there is a "correct" way to understand their character is something I dislike.

Why you should dislike it you leave unexplained, but there *is* a right way to depict a character, which is the way the author wrote him; and there is certainly a wrong one, which is to turn him into somebody different, or even a total caricature. If you make Bill Sykes heroic, or even sympathetic, you destroy Oliver Twist completely. A truly foul case of this in the LOTR movies is Merry and Pippin. In Tolkien's original they're young adults, light-hearted but intelligent and capable characters; in the films they're irritating morons, more like Moxie and Pepsi from "Bored of the Rings". Elrond becomes a peevish racist, hardly "as kind as summer".

And Jackson/Boyens play equally fast and loose with other characters, just to milk the action a bit more. Like making Aragorn a needless ditherer. Like the Ents, refusing to help after their council, then having a sudden change of heart when they see trees cut down, as if they'd only just found out Orcs were doing this. Like playing Theoden's decay as some kind of crude possession which Gandalf exorcises, rather than subtle poisoning under the guise of medical care. Like playing Wormtongue as a drooling melodrama villain; he's much cleverer and more plausible than that. Like sending Elves to Helm's Deep -- by teleportation? it makes nonsense of times and distances. Like Faramir, dragging the hobbits off to Osgiliath for no purpose. Like Beorn chasing the dwarves...and so much, much more.

> For all we know, the moviemakers understood this perfectly and *choose* to take a different approach for a number of reasons.

Then they're bad reasons. You don't have to invoke some mystical insight to explain their alterations; they're adequately accounted for by second-rate talents. Let them write something original and let it stand or fall on its own; they shouldn't try to piggyback their own cheesy ideas on the back of a greater achievement. Anyhow, I've heard them talk at length about their approach, and their understanding didn't seem impressive.

>Or they understood it and this is their version of that understanding.

Then they'd be even bigger berks than I think they are.

>I always dislike the approach of "I understand Tolkien's texts better than the movie makers" approach

Again you say you dislike something, without saying why. And it's something that demands to be justified, because it's wrong. If the author doesn't know best, then what is he?

And if Jackson/Boyens do understand Tolkien's books better than I do, then their mucking about with them is still less defensible --- the equivalent of scrawling on a great painting. But I doubt they do. I know the books at least as well as any, and probably better than most -- and much of their source material. The Jackson/Boyens alterations come from no such knowledge, nor from any of the improvements that could be made in their narrative. Except perhaps one, the use of the sword instead of the banner of the Dunedain. That's neater, but it detracts from the sense of background.

>
>
>
> Not "a bit like"; it very much is an alternative version of an epic, seeing how it is *impossible* to make the same version as the book as a movie. This is not a weakness of the ones doing the adaptation, it is impossible to do

True, a book does have to be translated into cinematic terms. But translation has to be the word, not heedless hacking about. It's entirely possible to adapt a book without gratuitously buggering it about. Very few of Jackson/Boyens's alterations have any ciematic explanation.

>

> Well, of course it is! Partly due to the obvious facts that it makes a shitload
>
> of money, but also because the medium is totally different. While the books can
>
> spend page after page on showing the inner thoughts and feelings of a character
>
> while only seconds pass in story-time, movies don't have that privilege.
>
> Everything is real-time, and it is up to the talent of the actor to portray as
>
> much of this as possible in as short time as possible.

>
> Movies, on the other hand, can visually present things quickly that a book
>
> requires a lot of time to do. That's why quick-paced action sequences are so
>
> effective on the screen.

But that doesn't mean you have to add them for no good reason. And slow-paced sequences can work just as well, in the right place -- 2001 as against Star Wars.

> Remember, you rarely (if ever) read a book that has a long-drawn car chase,
>
> because you can't write interestingly about it, but on the screen it's very easy.
>
>
>
> Many say that the battles in the books are briefly described (or not described
>
> at all) due to Tolkien not wanting to "glorify battle", but I call that hogwash.
>
> I think that Tolkien most certainly could write about battles without glorifying
>
> it. I think the reason is that it's *HARD* to write action sequences.
>

It's no harder than anything else. And if Tolkien were diverted from writing something simply because it was hard, we'd never have had the books in the first place. When people say he doesn't describe battles at great length, they usually mean he doesn't wallow in dismembered limbs and exploding guts in the manner of modern filmmakers such as Jackson. But most good writing doesn't. Shakespeare and Tolstoy describe earth-shaking battles with considerable reticence, and it doesn't make them any less impressive. Tolkien as an Edwardian took no great delight in sadistic detail, the more so as it meant something all too real and serious to him; he left it implicit. But the atmosphere is there; the siege of Helm's Deep is superbly epic. Remember, he had actually seen battles, real ones, which most of us haven't.

Mike

[Mike Scott Rohan]

I find too many of the gratuitous additions make sense if considered as sources for a video game - the extended Moria battle in Fellowship, the pointless Warg attack in Two Towers, the barrel escape in the Hobbit, transformed into a sort of frenetic platform game. I'd almost rather have had a ballet!

Mike

[Paul S. Person]

On Thu, 22 May 2014 18:31:20 -0700 (PDT), Mike Scott Rohan
<mike.sco...@asgardpublishing.co.uk> wrote:

>On Thursday, May 1, 2014 9:45:10 AM UTC+1, Sandman wrote:

<snippo mucho>

>> As is expected, with *any* movie adaptation of a book
>
>No, although one could be forgiven for thinking that. Some adaptations diminish the source, but others enhance it. The Prisoner of Zenda made much better films than the original book; Ben-Hur likewise -- but without wilfully distorting it. The TV version of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy was at least as good as the book, and Alec Guinness added an almost mystical dimension to Le Carre's protagonist; but it took away nothing. And I've seen a truly stunning Russian TV adaptation of Bulgakov's The Master & Margarita which went to enormous lengths to remain absolutely true to the book -- and was all the more successful as a result, far more so than earlier versions which tried to popularize it.

When I finally read /M*A*S*H/, I was disappointed at how laid-back it
was. The film definitely goosed it up.

Some essentially reproduce the source, although it helps if the source
is short, as with /A Scanner Darkly/. Even that simplifies the
situation a bit and merges some characters, but seeing the film is
almost the same as reading the novella.

Some offer an entirely different perspective. It is a cliche that a
book /tells/ and a film /shows/, but /The Hunger Games/ and its two
sequels are /told/ in a very literal sense: they are written in the
first person present, as if you were sharing Katniss' head with her as
she goes through her adventures. The films, at least so far, by
eschewing voice-overs, are almost entirely /show/ (there is some
Necessary Exposition, but not much). In the book, you read what
Katniss tells you; in the film you see what happens and how she
reacts. And they both tell the same story, just in two very different
ways. The DVD of the second film actually came with an insert making
this point and encouraging the purchaser of the DVD to buy and read
the book as well.
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."

[No One In Particular]

On 5/22/2014 8:31 PM, Mike Scott Rohan wrote:
> On Thursday, May 1, 2014 9:45:10 AM UTC+1, Sandman wrote:
>
> Why you should dislike it you leave unexplained, but there *is* a right way to depict a character, which is the way the author wrote him; and there

is certainly a wrong one, which is to turn him into somebody
different, or even a total caricature. If you make Bill Sykes heroic, or
even sympathetic,

you destroy Oliver Twist completely. A truly foul case of this in the
LOTR movies is Merry and Pippin. In Tolkien's original they're young
adults,

light-hearted but intelligent and capable characters; in the films
they're irritating morons, more like Moxie and Pepsi from "Bored of the
Rings".

Elrond becomes a peevish racist, hardly "as kind as summer".
>
> And Jackson/Boyens play equally fast and loose with other characters, just to milk the action a bit more. Like making Aragorn a needless ditherer.

Like the Ents, refusing to help after their council, then having a
sudden change of heart when they see trees cut down, as if they'd only
just found

out Orcs were doing this.

> Mike
>



For better or worse I have always attributed those reductions of
character of Aragorn, Merry, Pippin, and so forth, to the current trends
in Hollywood of reluctant heroes. The main characters of the story do
not seek out adventure, but rather have adventure forced upon them,
folks who just get caught up in events greater than themselves without
conscious choice.

I think it is supposed to make the protagonist more relatable to the
common viewing audience, most of whom are not descended from ancient
kings in an unbroken line of father to son. We think...

Brian

[Sandman]

In article <b52c46aa-a5f0-480f...@googlegroups.com>, Mike Scott Rohan wrote:

> > Sandman:

> > Well, it's not a matter of either/or. You can have a "bit more
> > brain" and enjoy both the movies and the books. :)
>
> But one enjoys the films on a much shallower level, simply because
> the depth of the books isn't there. To some extent its place is
> taken by visual spectacle, but even more so by slam-bang action,
> often added for the sake of video-gaming.

True, but the point was that even us "smart enough" to fully enjoy the
books have no problem also enjoying the movies.

One could just as easily say that ones enjoyment of the books are on a more
limited level, and requires a whole lot more in terms of imagination to
fully grasp what a movie easily delivers every second - just as ones
enjoyment of the movies are on a more shallow visual level and requires
more in terms of reading between the lines to fully grasp what the books
delivers every second.

There are pros and cons with every medium, one isn't more "brainy" by
enjoying one over the other.

> > Sandman:

> > As is expected, with *any* movie adaptation of a book
>
> No, although one could be forgiven for thinking that. Some
> adaptations diminish the source, but others enhance it. The Prisoner
> of Zenda made much better films than the original book; Ben-Hur
> likewise -- but without wilfully distorting it. The TV version of
> Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy was at least as good as the book, and
> Alec Guinness added an almost mystical dimension to Le Carre's
> protagonist; but it took away nothing. And I've seen a truly
> stunning Russian TV adaptation of Bulgakov's The Master & Margarita
> which went to enormous lengths to remain absolutely true to the book
> -- and was all the more successful as a result, far more so than
> earlier versions which tried to popularize it.

I'm glad you liked these adaptations of typical non-action source material
(apart from Ben Hur). Like you, there were many that enjoyed the
adaptations of Lord of the Rings just as much. Tastes differ.

Also, medium evolves, all your examples are at least decades old, and it's
telling when you have no never examples. What I mean is that mediums
evolve, including books. Movies are way more about mass market appeal now
than in 1979 or 1952, which I agree is usually a bad thing. But it's also
something that makes it possible to make movies like the Lord of the Rings
movies, where the budget couldn't possibly have been greenlit unless it was
made with modern standards.

Also, most of the adaptations on your lists are not of fantasy visual-heavy
action packed stories, which makes it a lot easier to adapt it to the
screen.

> > > Mike Scott Rohan:

> > > -- you could almost say contaminated -- by the inbuilt cliches
> > > of lesser fantasies, comics and video games.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > Well, this is how stories are made. Nothing is unique, not even
> > Tolkien books, who was influenced by religion, cultures and both
> > mythological and linguistic influences.
>
> There's a hell of a value difference between what influenced Tolkien
> and the third-rate influences on Jackson -- video games, for one,
> which are leeches on better fantasies.

How so? For one, what are the video game influences you are in reference
to? I mean, we can all point out the religious and cultural influences
Tolkien had (which, in a word, is leeching on better fantasies)

But I'm curious about these influences you claim the movie maker's took
from video games? What video games?

And furthmore, wouldn't it be a bit like coming full circle? A lot of video
games takes influence from Lord of the Rings, so would it be a sin for the
movie to bring it back to the source material?

> > Sandman:

> > I think a problem is that many that prefer the books over the
> > movies make it seem like the books were some sort of perfection in
> > themselves that can be "sullied" by the movies. Both the movies
> > and the books are landmark achievements in popular culture, and
> > both were influenced by what came before
>
> True, there are areas where the books might be improved. But the
> changes in the film are not those, and transparently were not made
> for that purpose.

That... has nothing to do with what I just wrote.

> > > Mike Scott Rohan:

> > > The way, for example, that Jackson loves having combatants stand
> > > around and square off, snarling macho fashion at one another.
> > > That destroys the sweeping element of surprise in -- for example
> > > -- the confrontation with the orcs in Moria, the ride of the
> > > Rohirrim, or Aragorn's arrival at the siege of Minas Tirith.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > I think I know what you mean, but it's not like the books in these
> > cases didn't have a similar stand-off (I'm not sure I agree with
> > the "macho" thing in either
>
> Then you don't know what I mean, because they don't. Take the moment
> in the film where the Moria orcs encircle the entire Fellowship;
> doesn't happen at all in the book.

Yeah... so what's the problem again? Are the Moria goblins too "macho"?

> > Sandman:

> > This has always bothered me. I mean, sure making an adaptation
> > will make some characters different, but this idea that someone
> > has "misunderstood", and how there is a "correct" way to
> > understand their character is something I dislike.
>
> Why you should dislike it you leave unexplained, but there *is* a
> right way to depict a character, which is the way the author wrote
> him; and there is certainly a wrong one, which is to turn him into
> somebody different, or even a total caricature. If you make Bill
> Sykes heroic, or even sympathetic, you destroy Oliver Twist
> completely. A truly foul case of this in the LOTR movies is Merry
> and Pippin. In Tolkien's original they're young adults,
> light-hearted but intelligent and capable characters; in the films
> they're irritating morons, more like Moxie and Pepsi from "Bored of
> the Rings".

Again - this is YOUR interpretation of characters from the books against
YOUR interpretation of the characters in the movie. I, for one, do NOT
agree that Merry and Pippin are "irritating morons" in the movies. Hidden
underneath the light-hearted surface there is a lot of intelligence and
emotion seeping through, especially later in the story when they are
seperated.

> Elrond becomes a peevish racist, hardly "as kind as
> summer".

??? First time I ever heard anyone claim that the movie makers made Elrond
"racist".

> And Jackson/Boyens play equally fast and loose with other
> characters, just to milk the action a bit more. Like making Aragorn
> a needless ditherer.

I assume you mean regarding his heritage? In what way did they introduce
this dithering to "milk the action"?

> Like the Ents, refusing to help after their council, then having a sudden
> change of heart when they see trees cut down, as if they'd only just
> found out Orcs were doing this.

That's not a character change, though. It's a storyline change, and a
needless one, yes.

> Like playing Theoden's decay as some kind of crude possession which
> Gandalf exorcises, rather than subtle poisoning under the guise of
> medical care.

Also not a change of character. The end result is the same.

> Like sending Elves to Helm's Deep -- by teleportation? it makes nonsense
> of times and distances.

Not a character change, since apart from Haldir there were no
book-characters among them. Unlikely that elves would run to the aid of
humans, yes. Needless? Sure.

> Like Faramir, dragging the hobbits off to Osgiliath for no purpose.

This is the first valid character change in the list. Faramir was made
differently in the movie version, and I assume they had their reasons. And
I agree it's not an improvement. But in the end, it's not like it makes it
a bad movie. It's not like making Bill Sykes a hero. It's not like Faramir
was a servant of Sauron in the movie.

> > Sandman:

> > For all we know, the moviemakers understood this perfectly and
> > *choose* to take a different approach for a number of reasons.
>
> Then they're bad reasons

That's the problem with you guys - you think there are only one way to do
things the "right" way. That really bothers me, this elitism.

> You don't have to invoke some mystical insight to explain their
> alterations; they're adequately accounted for by second-rate talents.

Haha!

> > Sandman:

> > Or they understood it and this is their version of that
> > understanding.
>
> Then they'd be even bigger berks than I think they are.

Yes, because your understanding trumps everyone elses... :)

> > Sandman:

> > I always dislike the approach of "I understand Tolkien's texts
> > better than the movie makers" approach
>
> Again you say you dislike something, without saying why. And it's
> something that demands to be justified, because it's wrong. If the
> author doesn't know best, then what is he?

Author? I dislike the elitist viewpoint where you claim to have a better
understanding of a source material than the ones making an adaptation, and
thus only you know what is the "right" and "wrong" way to adapt the book to
movie.

> And if Jackson/Boyens do understand Tolkien's books better than I
> do, then their mucking about with them is still less defensible ---

Where "mucking about" is a judgement... from you, based on your
interpretation of the source material.

> the equivalent of scrawling on a great painting.

That's just ridiculos. .

> But I doubt they do. I know the books at least as well as any, and
> probably better than most -- and much of their source material. The
> Jackson/Boyens alterations come from no such knowledge, nor from any of
> the improvements that could be made in their narrative. Except perhaps
> one, the use of the sword instead of the banner of the Dunedain. That's
> neater, but it detracts from the sense of background.

See what I mean? :-D

> > Sandman:

> > Not "a bit like"; it very much is an alternative version of an
> > epic, seeing how it is *impossible* to make the same version as
> > the book as a movie. This is not a weakness of the ones doing the
> > adaptation, it is impossible to do
>
> True, a book does have to be translated into cinematic terms. But
> translation has to be the word, not heedless hacking about.

Since none of that has occured other than to a infinately small group of
elitist haters, I don't see the problem.

> It's entirely possible to adapt a book without gratuitously buggering it
> about. Very few of Jackson/Boyens's alterations have any ciematic
> explanation.

I disagree.

> > Sandman:

> > Well, of course it is! Partly due to the obvious facts that it
> > makes a shitload of money, but also because the medium is totally
> > different. While the books can spend page after page on showing
> > the inner thoughts and feelings of a character while only seconds
> > pass in story-time, movies don't have that privilege. Everything
> > is real-time, and it is up to the talent of the actor to portray
> > as much of this as possible in as short time as possible.
>
> > Movies, on the other hand, can visually present things quickly
> > that a book requires a lot of time to do. That's why quick-paced
> > action sequences are so effective on the screen.
>
> But that doesn't mean you have to add them for no good reason. And
> slow-paced sequences can work just as well, in the right place --
> 2001 as against Star Wars.

There are plenty of slow-paced sequenced in the LOTR movies, but fact
remains, those sequences does not give us the insight into the character's
mind that the books do, and can't possibly do - unless they all narrate
their own thoughts.

> > Sandman:

> > Remember, you rarely (if ever) read a book that has a long-drawn
> > car chase, because you can't write interestingly about it, but on
> > the screen it's very easy.
>
> > Many say that the battles in the books are briefly described (or
> > not described at all) due to Tolkien not wanting to "glorify
> > battle", but I call that hogwash. I think that Tolkien most
> > certainly could write about battles without glorifying it. I think
> > the reason is that it's *HARD* to write action sequences.
>
> It's no harder than anything else.

It is.

> And if Tolkien were diverted from writing something simply because it was
> hard, we'd never have had the books in the first place.

How do you figure? There are thousands of things he didn't write about in
the books - some of which are hard to write about. How do you determine
that it wasn't convenience rather than unwillingness that made him not
write about something? I mean, for examples, why aren't there music notes
for the songs? Why only the lyrics? Because conduction a musical piece is
actually pretty hard. It wasn't a matter of Tolkien being fully capable of
putting actual music to his songs and then electing not to write it down in
the books, it was because he didn't knew how.

> When people say he doesn't describe battles at great length, they usually
> mean he doesn't wallow in dismembered limbs and exploding guts in the
> manner of modern filmmakers such as Jackson. But most good writing
> doesn't. Shakespeare and Tolstoy describe earth-shaking battles with
> considerable reticence, and it doesn't make them any less impressive.
> Tolkien as an Edwardian took no great delight in sadistic detail, the
> more so as it meant something all too real and serious to him; he left it
> implicit. But the atmosphere is there; the siege of Helm's Deep is
> superbly epic. Remember, he had actually seen battles, real ones, which
> most of us haven't.

The Battle of the Five Armies is superbly... underwhelming. Both Pelennor
and Helm's Deep are pretty boringly described in the books, unfortunately.



--
Sandman[.net]

[Paul S. Person]

On Fri, 23 May 2014 20:12:50 -0500, No One In Particular
<brianc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>For better or worse I have always attributed those reductions of
>character of Aragorn, Merry, Pippin, and so forth, to the current trends
>in Hollywood of reluctant heroes. The main characters of the story do
>not seek out adventure, but rather have adventure forced upon them,
>folks who just get caught up in events greater than themselves without
>conscious choice.

Sounds a lot like Sam's rumination on the Great Stories: characters
enter them, characters leave them, but the Story goes on.

>I think it is supposed to make the protagonist more relatable to the
>common viewing audience, most of whom are not descended from ancient
>kings in an unbroken line of father to son. We think...

This presupposes that Aragorn is "the protoganist", that is, that the
story of /LOTR/ is the story of how Aragorn married Arwen and became
King of Gondor. Is that /really/ the story of the book? If not, if
Aragorn's story is secondary to the story of the book, then it really
doesn't matter if he is a spineless slacker (in the film, Arwen plays
Aragorn's spine, because he doesn't have one) who gets maneuvered by
adults into getting a job instead of a steadfast Heir who has spent,
what, the last 40 years trying to defeat Sauron and become King of
Gondor so that he can wed Arwen. All that matters is that he do in the
film a few of the things that he did in the book:

a) go after Merry and Pippin, thus convincing Sauron that the Ring was
on the West bank of the Anduin and not on the East Bank with Frodo and
Sam;
b) help Rohan defeat, or at least withstand, Saruman, so that the
Rohirrim could aid Gondor and he could look, to Sauron, more and more
like a young Ring-lord;
c) rally the Dead to help defeat Sauron's army at the Battle of the
Pelennor;
d) march on the Black Gate, again acting as a proud young Ring-lord
would do.

The problem with Aragorn is not with his changed character. The
problem is that, since the films do not tell the same story as the
book, his changed character catches the attention and presents itself
as an explanation. But an Aragorn who behaved exactly as he does in
the book would make no difference, for the story of the book, the
story the film fails to tell, and so the problem, lies elsewhere.

[Paul S. Person]

On 24 May 2014 07:49:51 GMT, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:

>In article <b52c46aa-a5f0-480f...@googlegroups.com>, Mike Scott Rohan wrote:

>> Elrond becomes a peevish racist, hardly "as kind as
>> summer".
>
>??? First time I ever heard anyone claim that the movie makers made Elrond
>"racist".

Mr Cranky's review
(http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/lordoftheringstwotowers.html), by
guest reviewer Trent Lott, is quite explicit and was done when /TT/
was released to the theaters.

In case you are having problems connecting "racist" with "Elrond" in
the review, this appears in the discussion of mixed-race marriage. It
should be kept in mind that many states outlawed mixed-race marriages
as part of the traditional family values of the '50s and refused to
recognize them when performed elsewhere, a situation which no doubt
left an awful lot of case law and precedents that can be used to deal
with homosexual marriages today, so, while the specific context is
Man/Elf, other combinations are definitely implicit in Mr Lott's
approval of Elrond's attitude.

Mr Cranky is (or rather was, as it appears to be quite moribund) a
site that focused on explaining, in technical film-school terms, why
the film under discussion sucked, but that didn't make him any less
insightful than more conventional reviewers.

[No One In Particular]

On 5/24/2014 12:31 PM, Paul S. Person wrote:
> On Fri, 23 May 2014 20:12:50 -0500, No One In Particular
> <brianc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

>
> Sounds a lot like Sam's rumination on the Great Stories: characters
> enter them, characters leave them, but the Story goes on.
>

Agreed. I thought that as I was typing. But, Sam is the everyman
character. He is the closest thing to the common man represented by the
Fellowship. All of the others were moved by grander motivations. (With
the questionable exceptions of Merry and Pippin.)

>> I think it is supposed to make the protagonist more relatable to the
>> common viewing audience, most of whom are not descended from ancient
>> kings in an unbroken line of father to son. We think...
>
> This presupposes that Aragorn is "the protoganist", that is, that the
> story of /LOTR/ is the story of how Aragorn married Arwen and became
> King of Gondor. Is that /really/ the story of the book? If not, if
> Aragorn's story is secondary to the story of the book, then it really
> doesn't matter if he is a spineless slacker (in the film, Arwen plays
> Aragorn's spine, because he doesn't have one) who gets maneuvered by
> adults into getting a job instead of a steadfast Heir who has spent,
> what, the last 40 years trying to defeat Sauron and become King of
> Gondor so that he can wed Arwen. All that matters is that he do in the
> film a few of the things that he did in the book:
>

Fair enough. Aragorn was the example I used, but you are correct, he is
not the primary protagonist. But I maintain that the changes in his
character, as well as many of the others, were still made as an attempt
to make those characters more accessible to the average moviegoer.

Brian

[Paul S. Person]

On Sat, 24 May 2014 21:30:46 -0500, No One In Particular

OK, I can see that it might be thought that that is what PJ &
accomplices thought they were doing. Whether it worked or not is, of
course, a different issue.

Myself, I think that their only concern was how to get from one Action
Sequence to the next with the least amount of meaningless filler (ie,
plot and characterization) possible. IOW, I don't think they had any
particular reason for anything they did, except, of course, the Action
Sequences. Particularly in the second and third films, where they
appear to have lost any interest in controlling the process but simply
strung stuff together until they decided the films were long enough.

In retrospect, it looks like I latched onto your statement and took
off in my own direction, no doubt confusing everybody.

[No One In Particular]

No harm done. Makes for good discussion... :)

Brian

[Sandman]

In article <86b2o9ln7u9ief38k...@4ax.com>, Paul S. Person wrote:

> > > Mike Scott Rohan:

> > > Elrond becomes a peevish racist, hardly "as kind as summer".
> >

> > Sandman:

> > ??? First time I ever heard anyone claim that the movie makers
> > made Elrond "racist".
>
> Mr Cranky's review
> (http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/lordoftheringstwotowers.html), by
> guest reviewer Trent Lott, is quite explicit and was done when /TT/
> was released to the theaters.

Haha, well this was a humor piece, surely. No one is that stupid.

> In case you are having problems connecting "racist" with "Elrond" in
> the review, this appears in the discussion of mixed-race marriage.

If we ignore the ludicrous "review" for a second, and focus on the idea of
Elrond being racists when he opposes to the wedding.

Arwen, after having lived a long life, gave up her immortality to wed
Aragorn. It's a fair chance that any reluctance from Elrond is directly
linked to the fact that his daughter would die before him as a result from
it.

> Mr Cranky is (or rather was, as it appears to be quite moribund) a
> site that focused on explaining, in technical film-school terms, why
> the film under discussion sucked, but that didn't make him any less
> insightful than more conventional reviewers.

Uh... I don't know, but it seemed that in a way you called the blathering
nonsense found in the link above "insightful"? I hope I'm mistaken.


--
Sandman[.net]

[Paul S. Person]

On 27 May 2014 05:15:27 GMT, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:

>In article <86b2o9ln7u9ief38k...@4ax.com>, Paul S. Person wrote:
>
>> > > Mike Scott Rohan:
>> > > Elrond becomes a peevish racist, hardly "as kind as summer".
>> >
>> > Sandman:
>> > ??? First time I ever heard anyone claim that the movie makers
>> > made Elrond "racist".
>>
>> Mr Cranky's review
>> (http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/lordoftheringstwotowers.html), by
>> guest reviewer Trent Lott, is quite explicit and was done when /TT/
>> was released to the theaters.
>
>Haha, well this was a humor piece, surely. No one is that stupid.

The point is that, had you been reading Mr Cranky, the post you are
responding to would not be the '[f]irst time [you] ever heard anyone
claim that the movie makers made Elrond "racist"'. Indeed, IIRC, other
reviewers made similar points, albeit much less enthusiastically and
with much less certainty.

>> In case you are having problems connecting "racist" with "Elrond" in
>> the review, this appears in the discussion of mixed-race marriage.
>
>If we ignore the ludicrous "review" for a second, and focus on the idea of
>Elrond being racists when he opposes to the wedding.
>
>Arwen, after having lived a long life, gave up her immortality to wed
>Aragorn. It's a fair chance that any reluctance from Elrond is directly
>linked to the fact that his daughter would die before him as a result from
>it.

I'm sure any anti-miscegenist from the 50's could come up with an
excellent argument for his position too. That doesn't change anything,
nor does simply repeating Elrond's view -- that is, his view in the
film. In the book, he took a more relaxed view: he only required that
Aragorn destroy Sauron and become King of Gondor. But he had no
objection to the marriage itself -- how could he, given his ancestry?

>> Mr Cranky is (or rather was, as it appears to be quite moribund) a
>> site that focused on explaining, in technical film-school terms, why
>> the film under discussion sucked, but that didn't make him any less
>> insightful than more conventional reviewers.
>
>Uh... I don't know, but it seemed that in a way you called the blathering
>nonsense found in the link above "insightful"? I hope I'm mistaken.

I think it was very insightful ... about Trent Lott.

I also think Mr Cranky did it this way because he, himself, did not
want to appear to be approving of racism, nor did he, himself, want to
simply point it out. He simply found it too obvious (to him) to
ignore.

This isn't quite my favorite review -- those would be Dave Berry's
reviews of /The Phantom Menace/ and /The Blair Witch Project/ -- but
it's my favorite /LOTR/ review.

The real value of Mr Cranky did not lie in the reviews, hilarious as
they often are, but in the ratings: /TT/ got only 1 bomb, making it
"almost tolerable". This is as good as getting 4 stars from Ebert, in
my experience.

/ROTK/
(http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/lordoftheringsreturnoftheking.html),
OTOH, received 2 bombs ("consistently annoying") and a review that is
not as amusing but much more typical of Mr Cranky.

Still, it could have been worse, as referring to the full list of
possible ratings, shown at http://www.mrcranky.com/, might suggest.

[Wayne Brown]

On Thu, 22 May 2014 20:31:20 in article <b52c46aa-a5f0-480f...@googlegroups.com> Mike Scott Rohan <mike.sco...@asgardpublishing.co.uk> wrote:

<a lot of excellent stuff that I snipped for the sake of brevity>

I don't usually write "me too" articles, but this one said what I wanted
to say so clearly and exactly that I can't resist. "Me, Too!"

[Wayne Brown]

On Fri, 23 May 2014 20:12:50 in article <llornp$eac$1...@speranza.aioe.org> No One In Particular <brianc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I think it is supposed to make the protagonist more relatable to the
> common viewing audience, most of whom are not descended from ancient
> kings in an unbroken line of father to son. We think...

I hate it when movies try to make characters "more relatable" to the
audience. When a film depicts a world or an era different from mine,
then I want the characters to be true to that time and place, and to
force *us* to adapt *ourselves* to their way of thinking in order to
understand and relate to *them*.

[Wayne Brown]

On Sat, 24 May 2014 21:30:46 in article <llrklr$let$1...@speranza.aioe.org> No One In Particular <brianc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Fair enough. Aragorn was the example I used, but you are correct, he is
> not the primary protagonist. But I maintain that the changes in his
> character, as well as many of the others, were still made as an attempt
> to make those characters more accessible to the average moviegoer.

As I've said before, I don't want Aragorn to think and act like us so
we can understand him. I want him to be presented in a way that forces
us to learn to think like him so that he becomes comprehensible to us.
In the books Aragorn and many of the other characters (like Elrond and
Galadriel) are wiser, nobler, and just plain *superior* to the average
person today and when watching them on-screen we should feel their
superiority and realize that we need to be better people ourselves in
order to truly understand them. If they remind us very much of ourselves
then they're not worth watching.

That's why I am always disappointed in film adaptations of Beowulf.
I haven't seen one yet that had me leaving the theater thinking, "So
*that's* what it felt like to be a 5th-century Geatish warrior, or at
least an 8th-century Anglo-Saxon peasant listening to a scop reciting
the story!"

[Wayne Brown]

On Sat, 24 May 2014 02:49:51 in article <slrnlo0k...@irc.sandman.net> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
> That's the problem with you guys - you think there are only one way to do
> things the "right" way. That really bothers me, this elitism.

For me it's very simple; the only "right" way to do a story is the way
the author did it. Books in general are superior to films in general,
and the author is always right.

[Paul S. Person]

On Tue, 27 May 2014 21:22:08 +0000 (UTC), Wayne Brown
<fwb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 May 2014 02:49:51 in article <slrnlo0k...@irc.sandman.net> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>>
>> That's the problem with you guys - you think there are only one way to do
>> things the "right" way. That really bothers me, this elitism.
>
>For me it's very simple; the only "right" way to do a story is the way
>the author did it. Books in general are superior to films in general,
>and the author is always right.

To the extent that 'the only "right" way to do a story is the way the
author did it' can be equated to "tells the same story", I agree with
you; to the extent that it confuses adaptation with transciption, I do
not.

[Wayne Brown]

In rec.arts.books.tolkien Paul S. Person <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 May 2014 21:22:08 +0000 (UTC), Wayne Brown
> <fwb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 24 May 2014 02:49:51 in article <slrnlo0k...@irc.sandman.net> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> That's the problem with you guys - you think there are only one way to do
>>> things the "right" way. That really bothers me, this elitism.
>>
>>For me it's very simple; the only "right" way to do a story is the way
>>the author did it. Books in general are superior to films in general,
>>and the author is always right.
>
> To the extent that 'the only "right" way to do a story is the way the
> author did it' can be equated to "tells the same story", I agree with
> you; to the extent that it confuses adaptation with transciption, I do
> not.

Suppose you took two people of similar tastes and writing styles, neither
of whom were familiar with the story, and had one read the book and the
other watch the film. Then you ask each to give you a written description
of the story. Ideally, from my viewpoint, it would be nearly impossible
to tell the descriptions apart.

Or to look at it another way: Take a group of people who all the read the
same book, but had different reactions to it. A particular person may
have laughed at parts that made someone else sad, and made someone else
angry. Now show them the film, and each should have the same reactions,
i.e. be amused or saddened or angered by the same things in the film as
in the book. In other words, the film should create the same reactions,
convey the same message, in effect, give the same *experience* as reading
the book, even though that experience may vary from one person to another.

Part of my "suspension of disbelief" when reading or watching a work of
fiction is to approach it as if the events depicted "really happened," and
I always give the written version the greatest "authority" in recounting
the story. So if the film differs in significant details my reaction is,
"But that's not the way it really happened!" I have the same problem
with non-fiction too. I greatly enjoyed the film "A Beautiful Mind"
until I read the book and found out that John Nash did not have visual
hallucinations; he merely heard voices. Now when I re-watch the film
my pleasure in it is severely diminished because it's not an accurate
depiction of what really happened.

I know, a lot of people value entertainment over getting information. But
for me, receiving accurate information often *is* the best entertainment.
Even in the LOTR books my favorite parts are the ones where people are
sitting around talking about the Elder Days and the history of the Elves
and so forth, not to mention all the stuff in the Appendices about the
languages and scripts. (I could have done with a lot more of that in
the films and a lot less time spent on the battles!) I'm not really
interested in role-playing games, but if I were, I wouldn't want to be a
warrior or a wizard or anything like that. I'd want to be someone like
Rumil of Tirion, the lore-master in the Silmarillion who invented writing.

[No One In Particular]

On 5/27/2014 4:21 PM, Wayne Brown wrote:
> On Fri, 23 May 2014 20:12:50 in article <llornp$eac$1...@speranza.aioe.org> No One In Particular <brianc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think it is supposed to make the protagonist more relatable to the
>> common viewing audience, most of whom are not descended from ancient
>> kings in an unbroken line of father to son. We think...
>
> I hate it when movies try to make characters "more relatable" to the
> audience. When a film depicts a world or an era different from mine,
> then I want the characters to be true to that time and place, and to
> force *us* to adapt *ourselves* to their way of thinking in order to
> understand and relate to *them*.
>

I don't necessarily approve of the changes myself. In fact, out of
everything that PJ changed in the LOTR movies, the lessening of the
characters is my biggest single complaint.

Brian

[Wayne Brown]

In alt.fan.tolkien Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>> Or to look at it another way: Take a group of people who all the read the
>> same book, but had different reactions to it. A particular person may
>> have laughed at parts that made someone else sad, and made someone else
>> angry. Now show them the film, and each should have the same reactions,
>> i.e. be amused or saddened or angered by the same things in the film as
>> in the book. In other words, the film should create the same reactions,
>> convey the same message, in effect, give the same *experience* as reading
>> the book, even though that experience may vary from one person to another.
>

> Care to give an example?

I can't, firstly because I've never gathered a group of people and
conducted such an experiment, and secondly because I don't think I've
ever seen a film that really got it right. That may be because I watch
comparatively few films, and even fewer that are based on books that
I've read, simply because the experience so often is disappointing.
The most recent thing I've seen was the second "Hobbit" film. Like the
first one it was a pleasant way to waste an afternoon (in spite of its
many annoyances), but I doubt I'll ever watch it again. In contrast,
I've read the book (along with LOTR and "The Silmarillion") more than
a dozen times, and probably will do so again someday.

[Paul S. Person]

On Wed, 28 May 2014 20:12:39 +0000 (UTC), Wayne Brown

<fwb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>In rec.arts.books.tolkien Paul S. Person <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 May 2014 21:22:08 +0000 (UTC), Wayne Brown
>> <fwb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 24 May 2014 02:49:51 in article <slrnlo0k...@irc.sandman.net> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That's the problem with you guys - you think there are only one way to do
>>>> things the "right" way. That really bothers me, this elitism.
>>>
>>>For me it's very simple; the only "right" way to do a story is the way
>>>the author did it. Books in general are superior to films in general,
>>>and the author is always right.
>>
>> To the extent that 'the only "right" way to do a story is the way the
>> author did it' can be equated to "tells the same story", I agree with
>> you; to the extent that it confuses adaptation with transciption, I do
>> not.
>
>Suppose you took two people of similar tastes and writing styles, neither
>of whom were familiar with the story, and had one read the book and the
>other watch the film. Then you ask each to give you a written description
>of the story. Ideally, from my viewpoint, it would be nearly impossible
>to tell the descriptions apart.

Then you would have a film that told the same story as the book.

As to examples, there have been several that do this recently, and
perhaps more:

Several of the Harry Potter movies, particularly the first two and the
last (treating both parts as one movie); the first film was actually
/criticized/ because it told the story so closely.

/The Satan Bug/, despite changing almost every detail (if the
descriptions cited details, you could tell them apart, but the actual
story is clearly the same).

/A Scanner Darkly/ which, despite being "animated", is effectively
live-action and which tracks the novella very well, with only a few
simplifications which are hard to notice, never mind put into a
summary of the story.

And, of course, the first two Hunger Games movies. The first one is
very instructive about the sorts of changes filming a story produces;
yet the satire /The Starving Games/ ("half the calories, twice the
fun"), while clearly a satire of the film, follows and so tells (in
abbreviated and very weird form) the same story as the film, and so
satirizes the book as well.

That might be another test of how good an adaptation is: would a
satire of /FOTR/, say, using the approach of /The Starving Games/,
satirize the book as well or only the movie? My guess would be that it
would satirize only the movie, because the movie just doesn't tell the
same story as the book.

[Paul S. Person]

On Thu, 29 May 2014 06:35:57 -0700 (PDT), tenworld <t...@world.std.com>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 4:12:39 PM UTC-4, Wayne Brown wrote:
>
>> Suppose you took two people of similar tastes and writing styles, neither
>> of whom were familiar with the story, and had one read the book and the
>> other watch the film. Then you ask each to give you a written description
>> of the story. Ideally, from my viewpoint, it would be nearly impossible
>> to tell the descriptions apart.
>

>it depends on how in depth you get. On many levels they are the same story. If you get down to Faramir's attitude or when the sword was reforged then you get different stories, but a book will always give more introspection while a movie will give visuals you might not have imagined.

Well, yes, at a sufficiently high level of abstraction, the stories
can be made to match each other: The One Ring, discovered in the
Shire, is transported to Rivendell and then carried to Mt Doom by
Frodo and Sam and there destroyed, taking Sauron with it. Other stuff
also happened. But is that really the story told by the book, or is it
merely a high-level plot summary?

You can't even specify how it was destroyed: in the film, it was
destroyed because Frodo grappled with Gollum and fell off the end of
the ledge; in the book, Gollum fell off that ledge "by chance, as we
say in Middle Earth". This may be the key difference between the two,
the one that shows that PJ & accomplices had no idea at all of what
JRRTs story was and explains why the films fail to tell the same
story.

Or maybe not. It's hard to be sure.

[Sandman]

In article <lm2vlu$8vu$4...@dont-email.me>, Wayne Brown wrote:

> > Sandman:

> > That's the problem with you guys - you think there are only one
> > way to do things the "right" way. That really bothers me, this
> > elitism.
>
> For me it's very simple; the only "right" way to do a story is the
> way the author did it.

But most of the complaints about the movies are not about how the author
did it, it's about your interpretation of what he wrote, which can differ
wildly, even amongst pro-book people.

> Books in general are superior to films in
> general, and the author is always right.




--

Sandman[.net]

[Wayne Brown]

On Wed, 04 Jun 2014 05:22:09 in article <slrnlott...@irc.sandman.net> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <lm2vlu$8vu$4...@dont-email.me>, Wayne Brown wrote:
>
>> > Sandman:
>> > That's the problem with you guys - you think there are only one
>> > way to do things the "right" way. That really bothers me, this
>> > elitism.
>>
>> For me it's very simple; the only "right" way to do a story is the
>> way the author did it.
>
> But most of the complaints about the movies are not about how the author
> did it, it's about your interpretation of what he wrote, which can differ
> wildly, even amongst pro-book people.

Most of my complaints are like this: "In the books, Faramir didn't try to
take Frodo and Sam back to Minas Tirith. It was Glorfindel, not Arwen,
who rescued Frodo at the Fords. There was nothing in the books about
Aragorn falling off a cliff into a river. Theoden was not "possessed"
by Saruman. Denethor did not leap off the Citadel. When the dwarves
escaped from the Woodland Elves the barrels were sealed shut and they
were not chased by Orcs. Smaug did not chase the dwarves around inside
the Lonely Mountain and there was no molten golden statue." Etc., etc.
Those things are not matters of interpretation, they're matters of fact.

When I see a Tolkien film for the first time (or any film based on
a book with which I'm extremely familiar) I want it to be follow the
book so closely that I'm able to predict which scene is coming next,
know exactly what will happen and who will be involved, and be able to
practically mouth their dialogue silently along with them.

>> Books in general are superior to films in
>> general, and the author is always right.
>
>
>
>

--

[Paul S. Person]

On Wed, 4 Jun 2014 15:55:10 +0000 (UTC), Wayne Brown
<fwb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>Most of my complaints are like this: "In the books, Faramir didn't try to
>take Frodo and Sam back to Minas Tirith. It was Glorfindel, not Arwen,
>who rescued Frodo at the Fords. There was nothing in the books about
>Aragorn falling off a cliff into a river. Theoden was not "possessed"
>by Saruman. Denethor did not leap off the Citadel. When the dwarves
>escaped from the Woodland Elves the barrels were sealed shut and they
>were not chased by Orcs. Smaug did not chase the dwarves around inside
>the Lonely Mountain and there was no molten golden statue." Etc., etc.
>Those things are not matters of interpretation, they're matters of fact.

Indeed they are.

>When I see a Tolkien film for the first time (or any film based on
>a book with which I'm extremely familiar) I want it to be follow the
>book so closely that I'm able to predict which scene is coming next,
>know exactly what will happen and who will be involved, and be able to
>practically mouth their dialogue silently along with them.

You are hoping for a transcription, not an adaptation. That's not a
bad thing, it just isn't very realistic.

There are a few that might come close enough to satisfy your criterion
... the first Harry Potter movie, for example, or /A Scanner Darkly/,
come quite close. But most adaptations do no such thing, and, for
them, the proper criterion is "do they tell the same story as the
book?".

And, no, the story is not the same as the plot or the characters or
the setting. The first two Hunger Games films tell the same story as
the corresponding book, but they are adaptations, not transcriptions.

[Sandman]

In article <lmnfgs$njp$2...@dont-email.me>, Wayne Brown wrote:

> > > > Sandman:
> > > > That's the problem with you guys - you think there
> > > > are only one way to do things the "right" way. That really
> > > > bothers me, this elitism.
> > >

> > > Wayne Brown:

> > > For me it's very simple; the only "right" way to do a story is
> > > the way the author did it.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > But most of the complaints about the movies are not about how the
> > author did it, it's about your interpretation of what he wrote,
> > which can differ wildly, even amongst pro-book people.
>
> Most of my complaints are like this:

I wasn't in reference to your complaints, but rather "most of the
complaints". See earlier in the thread for the exchange between me and Mike
for examples.

> When I see a Tolkien film for the first time (or any film based on a
> book with which I'm extremely familiar) I want it to be follow the
> book so closely that I'm able to predict which scene is coming next,
> know exactly what will happen and who will be involved, and be able
> to practically mouth their dialogue silently along with them.

Wow, that sounds boring. So why would you even see the movie in the first
place? Just read the book again if you want predictability.

--
Sandman[.net]

[Wayne Brown]

I've read about a lot of interesting things in history books, but I'd
like to be able to look back into the past and see those things happening
with my own eyes. In the same way, I'd like to be able to see the things
in Tolkien's "fictional history" happening with my own eyes.

As I've said before, part of my "suspension of disbelief" when reading
fiction is to pretend that I'm reading an eyewitness account of events
that "really happened." So naturally I want to see visual depictions
matching the written description pretty closely; otherwise it's jarring
and destroys the illusion of seeing the "real events" as they happen.

[Sandman]

In article <lmslq5$lvv$1...@dont-email.me>, Wayne Brown wrote:

> > > Wayne Brown:

> > > When I see a Tolkien film for the first time (or any film based
> > > on a book with which I'm extremely familiar) I want it to be
> > > follow the book so closely that I'm able to predict which scene
> > > is coming next, know exactly what will happen and who will be
> > > involved, and be able to practically mouth their dialogue
> > > silently along with them.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > Wow, that sounds boring. So why would you even see the movie in
> > the first place? Just read the book again if you want
> > predictability.
>
> I've read about a lot of interesting things in history books, but
> I'd like to be able to look back into the past and see those things
> happening with my own eyes. In the same way, I'd like to be able to
> see the things in Tolkien's "fictional history" happening with my
> own eyes.

But you're describing a six or seven hour long movie, if every scene and a
every piece of dialog and inner thought should be transcripted, and with
added visuals. Why not let your fantasies suffice to paint the picture of
the already existing words? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be satisfied with
someone else's "version" of the visuals either way :)

> As I've said before, part of my "suspension of disbelief" when
> reading fiction is to pretend that I'm reading an eyewitness account
> of events that "really happened." So naturally I want to see visual
> depictions matching the written description pretty closely;
> otherwise it's jarring and destroys the illusion of seeing the "real
> events" as they happen.

Only if you consider these supposed eyewitnes accounts to be verbatim to
reality, and only if you consider *your* interpretation of their words be
the only one and true and real interpretation of them.

That's the thing with the written word, it can be interpreted in a thousand
ways. Some ways *ARE* wrong, of course, but problem arises when one person
claims he is the one that got it 100% right, and starts claiming other got
it wrong based on this notion.



--
Sandman[.net]

[Troels Forchhammer]

In message <news:slrnlodh8c...@amelia.local>
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> spoke these staves:
>
> In message <lm5fvl$9bb$1...@dont-email.me>
> Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>

<snip>

>> Suppose you took two people of similar tastes and writing styles,
>> neither of whom were familiar with the story, and had one read
>> the book and the other watch the film. Then you ask each to give
>> you a written description of the story. Ideally, from my
>> viewpoint, it would be nearly impossible to tell the descriptions
>> apart.

I cannot agree that this is a valid criterion for the 'ideal'. I
firmly believe that the adapting artist must be free to pursue their
own artistic impulses and desires -- to make the story their own.

This has nothing to do with book / film, but adaptations _usually_
involve a change of medium (though not always -- Tolkien's retellings
of the V�lsungasaga and parts of the Arthurian legends are, IMO,
examples of adaptations that do not involve a change of medium. His
translation of _Beowulf_, however, is not, IMO, an adaptation, but a
translation).

However, while I insist on the freedom of the adapting artist to make
their own artistic product, and not to be judged _morally_ for their
choices of faithfulness or distance to the original, _I_, on my
side, is of course free to like or dislike the adaptation for
whatever reasons I darned well like -- including, if it so strikes
me, my evaluation of faithfulness. This, however, is a matter of
personal taste, and not a matter of evaluating the adaptation as art.

> Then you either have a bad book, a bad movie, or most likely,
> both.

While I agree on rejecting the concept of extreme faithfulness as the
ideal, I must also insist that this is nonsense. There is nothing
that prevents both from being extremely good -- the canons of
narrative art are not so very different between storytelling, book,
audio play, stage play, and film, so of course it is entirely
possible to make two excellent versions of the exact same story.

This whole idea that book and film should be so fundamentally
different in terms of modes of narrative art is, in my considered
opinion, patent nonsense.

> To expect a visual medium to produce the same impressions as one
> that is based on a construction in the reader's mind is absurd.

That depends on what you mean. Do note that the stipulation was "a
written description of the _story_" -- not a written description of
the physical appearance of the characters or other similar issues
(where there must necessarily be a limit to the level of detail that
can be included in a book). These, however, are merely extraneous and
insignificant filler -- it is the story that matters (the story,
including the personality, but not appearance, of the character,
really is _all_ that matters), and for that it is of course entirely
possible to tell the exact same story in different media, including
book and film.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does
knowledge.
- Charles Darwin (1809 - 1882)

[Rast]

Paul S. Person wrote on Sun, 25 May 2014 10:26:24 -0700:
> Myself, I think that their only concern was how to get from one Action
> Sequence to the next with the least amount of meaningless filler (ie,
> plot and characterization) possible.

To be fair, this is most big budget movies these days.


--
There walked into the lethal quicksands a very old man in tattered
purple, crowned with withered vine-leaves and gazing ahead as if upon the
golden domes of a fair city where dreams are understood. That night
something of youth and beauty died in the elder world. - H P Lovecraft

[Paul S. Person]

On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 00:14:19 -0500, Rast <ra...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Paul S. Person wrote on Sun, 25 May 2014 10:26:24 -0700:
>> Myself, I think that their only concern was how to get from one Action
>> Sequence to the next with the least amount of meaningless filler (ie,
>> plot and characterization) possible.
>
>To be fair, this is most big budget movies these days.

Which is why I don't find many of them worth watching more than, at
most, once.

Or, as we used to say at an Army post with a really formidable hill
between the Post Theater and the barracks, "It may have been worth the
35 cents, but it wasn't worth the walk back up the hill."