Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 328472" data-attributes="member: 4937">I do understand people that find FotR to be slow at first (my wife is among those), but what I don't understand is people prefering the movie.&nbsp; That leaves me speachless.I think I can clear up exactly why most people don't like LotR.&nbsp; Have any of you read, for example, 'Les Miserables', in an unabridged version?&nbsp; Same sort of pacing.&nbsp; Very slow at first, and mutliple branching paths, and then all the sudden the action picks up and all those paths start converging to a big climatic finish.&nbsp; Then the book goes on for another 100 pages.&nbsp; The problem that most people have with LotR is that it is not a modern novel.&nbsp; It doesn't have the sensibilities of a modern novel.&nbsp; It doesn't even try.&nbsp; So if you grew up with a diet of modern novels, movies, and so forth, its probably terribly off putting.&nbsp; I can understand that.I just can't understand what anyone saw in the movie (beyond the 1st 15 minutes).&nbsp; It was a kids charactiture of the story.&nbsp; Heck, at times it wasn't even that.&nbsp; And it was SLOW, TEDIOUS, and BORING.&nbsp; I kept waiting for PJ to get on with it at Weathertop.&nbsp; I kept waiting for him to get on with it at the Fords.&nbsp; I kept waiting and waiting for him to get on with in Moria.&nbsp; For crying out loud, how can you manage to slow down the pacing of the action any further?&nbsp; And yet, how could you manage to be more brisk with the critical character setting scenes with Aragorn, Boromir, Leoglas, and Gmili?&nbsp; And what's with Galadriel?&nbsp; I pity the poor person who hasn't read the book who is going to be going, &quot;Now why in the world are the Hobbits still speaking fondly of that ugly old radioactive elven witch back in the first movie?&quot;&nbsp; Most importantly, what writer would decide: &quot;You know, or hero just gets way too much screen time.&nbsp; Let's replace all his cool scenes with scenes of him cowering and quivering in pain, and at his biggest moment in the story will have a bit romantic character take his lines.&quot;&nbsp; What writer would take probably the most beloved peice of 20th century fiction and go, &quot;You know, these really famous lines.&nbsp; I think I could change em around and make em better.&nbsp; Forget shortening em up or something.&nbsp; Just rewrite the whole shabang.&quot;&nbsp; Kinda like a writer deciding, &quot;You know, better than just truncating the 'To Be or Not To Be' speach, I'll just rewrite so its better.&nbsp; 'Should I off myself, or not.&nbsp; I don't know.&nbsp; Life can be real tough sometimes.'&nbsp; Actually, that's better written than what PJ did with Aragorn's, &quot;I am Aragorn son of Aragorn and if by life or death I can save you, I will.&quot;My only explanation is perhaps that those that liked the movie, and found it more exciting, intense, fearful, or what not (since I found it none of those things) is that some people are just more visual than others and did not understand it until it was _SHOWN_ to them.&nbsp; Then, suddenly, they got it - not because the movie was better, because it was a pale shadow - but because it was a movie.&nbsp; I mean, how in the world could you prefer the visual presentation of the Weathertop scene in the movie (which was lame, well lit, looked like a stage, and was kinda campy) to the sharply realized and terrifying on in the book UNLESS you never quite _saw_ the one in the book?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 328472, member: 4937"] I do understand people that find FotR to be slow at first (my wife is among those), but what I don't understand is people prefering the movie. That leaves me speachless. I think I can clear up exactly why most people don't like LotR. Have any of you read, for example, 'Les Miserables', in an unabridged version? Same sort of pacing. Very slow at first, and mutliple branching paths, and then all the sudden the action picks up and all those paths start converging to a big climatic finish. Then the book goes on for another 100 pages. The problem that most people have with LotR is that it is not a modern novel. It doesn't have the sensibilities of a modern novel. It doesn't even try. So if you grew up with a diet of modern novels, movies, and so forth, its probably terribly off putting. I can understand that. I just can't understand what anyone saw in the movie (beyond the 1st 15 minutes). It was a kids charactiture of the story. Heck, at times it wasn't even that. And it was SLOW, TEDIOUS, and BORING. I kept waiting for PJ to get on with it at Weathertop. I kept waiting for him to get on with it at the Fords. I kept waiting and waiting for him to get on with in Moria. For crying out loud, how can you manage to slow down the pacing of the action any further? And yet, how could you manage to be more brisk with the critical character setting scenes with Aragorn, Boromir, Leoglas, and Gmili? And what's with Galadriel? I pity the poor person who hasn't read the book who is going to be going, "Now why in the world are the Hobbits still speaking fondly of that ugly old radioactive elven witch back in the first movie?" Most importantly, what writer would decide: "You know, or hero just gets way too much screen time. Let's replace all his cool scenes with scenes of him cowering and quivering in pain, and at his biggest moment in the story will have a bit romantic character take his lines." What writer would take probably the most beloved peice of 20th century fiction and go, "You know, these really famous lines. I think I could change em around and make em better. Forget shortening em up or something. Just rewrite the whole shabang." Kinda like a writer deciding, "You know, better than just truncating the 'To Be or Not To Be' speach, I'll just rewrite so its better. 'Should I off myself, or not. I don't know. Life can be real tough sometimes.' Actually, that's better written than what PJ did with Aragorn's, "I am Aragorn son of Aragorn and if by life or death I can save you, I will." My only explanation is perhaps that those that liked the movie, and found it more exciting, intense, fearful, or what not (since I found it none of those things) is that some people are just more visual than others and did not understand it until it was _SHOWN_ to them. Then, suddenly, they got it - not because the movie was better, because it was a pale shadow - but because it was a movie. I mean, how in the world could you prefer the visual presentation of the Weathertop scene in the movie (which was lame, well lit, looked like a stage, and was kinda campy) to the sharply realized and terrifying on in the book UNLESS you never quite _saw_ the one in the book? [/QUOTE]

Verification