Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="barsoomcore" data-source="post: 1306128" data-attributes="member: 812">It seems, Sir Whiskers, that your primary argument is that the movies do not possess the depth and power of the books. To this I make no argument whatsoever. That's self-evident.The books are masterpieces, surely among the great literary works of the century. The movies are pretty good movies (even, for Fellowship and RotK, great movies). In terms of sheer artistic power, I happily agree that there is no comparision.But I don't agree that the changes made to the story in the film have resulted in dramatic change to either the plot of the primary themes of the books. Now we may disagree on the notion of what constitutes a dramatic change, but let's try and find some middle ground.Agreed that the movies did not show the depth or the history of what was happening. But that's only a difference of degree, not of kind. Differences of degree do not form a dramatic change.It is entirely clear from the films -- from Fellowship on -- that the time of Men is at hand and that the influence of the elves is fading. Again, I agree that there are questions of degree, but I do not consider such difference to justify the use the term "dramatic difference".Again, the movies show this again and again. That it takes Faramir longer to come to the understanding of true wisdom does not mean that he does not come to the understanding.AGAIN, you seem to be saying that the movies do not provide the same amount of emotional impact, the same amount of intellectual investigation, the same amount of philosophical insight.And I agree. Absolutely, no question. What I disagree with is the notion that movies present a drastically different story or view of human nature than the novels.I'll only address this for completeness' sake -- that's not a theme, that's a function of the narrative. And, for completeness' sake, I'll repeat that I'm not saying that there were no changes to the narrative, nor that all changes were good ones. I am saying that the changes to the narrative did not drastically alter the plot or the theme of The Lord of the Rings.Here is my position on the subject:Of course there are many DETAILS in the books that are of greater or lesser importance, but they don't change the PLOT of the story. Obviously you can take any point of view as to what details are or are not important, and of course any movie made from a book will include certain details and exclude others -- the question isn't "How many details were included?" but rather, "Do the details that were included support the plot and key theme of the story?" I agree that certain key details were missed, or clumsily handled, but I do not agree that the details used undermine the plot and key theme of the story.I guess you are claiming to read minds then. There exist literally an infinite number of reasons why they might have made those changes, but you're concluding it must have been the one you find easiest to believe. But it doesn't matter.Why the changes were made is utterly immaterial unless you're just looking for ad hominem reasons to attack PJ's work. All that matters is the substance of the changes themselves.And I don't see that any of the changes (which may have been good or bad in and of themselves) drastically altered either the plot or the theme of Lord of the Rings.</blockquote>

Verification