Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tsyr" data-source="post: 284256" data-attributes="member: 354">Edena, as others have stated, it isn't a yes/no better/worse question.As you are so fond of breaking things down into little factoids, lets do that, shall we? Fact 1) Tolkien wrote a great book.Fact 2) PJ made a great movie based on Tolkien's great book.Can we agree on those two? Good. Lets move on.Fact 3) Books can take a day or more to read.Fact 4) Movies are generaly over in 2-4 hours at most.Can we agree on those as well? Good. Lets move on.Fact 5) Tolkien's book would have been an abysmally long movie.Fact 6) PJ's movie would be a sickly short book.Now, carring 5 and 6 to their logical conclusion, we haveFact 7) Tolkien's book would not make for a great movie, as is.Fact 8) PJ's movie would not make for a great book, as is.Now, you can disagree with those two, and tolkien purists might disagree with fact 7, but looking at it objectivly, I can't see the original book making any sort of a good movie. TV series, maybe, movie, no.Now, that leads to the conclusion...Fact 9) Tolkien's book and PJ's movie must by nessessity be different, and while they both work for the medium they were presented in, are not by divine law ideal for all other itterations of the same story in different mediums.Follow?To elaborate on 9...PJ's version of the story was better FOR WHAT HE WAS DOING than Tolkien's original version would have been.Likewise, Tolkien's original version of the story worked better FOR WHAT HE WAS DOING than PJ's edited script would have.</blockquote>

Verification