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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dimwhit" data-source="post: 1220972" data-attributes="member: 2576">OK, I'm going to make a comment, and it will probably tick people off. But it's not directed at anyone in particular. I think that people who expect/demand that a movie adapted from source material (like a book) be strictly true to the book should be doomed to despise every movie adaptation ever made. Or be forbidden to actually see any of them. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> A movie should only be judged on its own merits, not on how it stacks up to the book upon which it is based. It's just not a fair comparison, and its unreasonable to expect such dedication from a movie. The best movie adaptation ever made (IMHO) still deviated from its book. That being The Shawshank Redemption. And it's source book was only a 100-page novella. The movie was well over 2 hours long. Movies are a different medium. Just because you think a scene in a book would make a great scene in a movie, doesn't mean that's the case. Books are allowed to do a lot of things with a story that a movie can't. Anyway, I'll end my rant. It's all just my opinion, but I think I'd like to actually see RotK before I slam PJ and the gang for leaving out a scene or two. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification