[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>in an adaptation, where the object is to reproduce as closely as possible the experience of the original story<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I couldn't agree less with this statement, and as such the changes do not bother me. If you agree with the above statement, you will object to any changes that have to do with anything besides time restrictions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>What is the purpose of an adaptation? To release something that has the same name and is roughly identifiable as the same material? Why not just write an original screenplay and enjoy complete freedom of artistic expression? Actually I don't dislike the changes that have been made to characterisation and plot just because they represent a departure from the original material. I object to them because they are clumsy alterations that seem to imply a completely unfounded attitude that the writers of the screenplay knew better than Tolkien how to tell Tolkien's story. Truth to tell it's specifically <I>The Two Towers</I> that inspired this feeling: I quite liked <I>Fellowship</I>, minor irritations notwithstanding, although it's not exactly the best film I've ever seen; but most of the adapted scenes in the latest film are just lame when compared to the original versions. <P>This is what I meant in my earlier post when I said that the films have been made with contempt for Tolkien's abilities as a storyteller. Characters speak trite film lines that Tolkien would have cut off his hands rather than use; emphasis falls on unimportant scenes to the detriment of more pivotal moments; scenes that are in the novels are cut to make room for completely new scenes that just appear to waste space, and scenes that are retained are rewritten badly. They even threw away that gift of a cliffhanger that was already written for them, which will mean that a space has to be found in the next film, already pretty action-packed anyway, to make room for Cirith Ungol.<P>I take your point, Saucepan Man, but I'm afraid I never was much of a realist. I know that the requirement for financial backing places limitations on film makers, but that doesn't mean that I like or accept it. I think I'm upset because the films, especially the latest, could have been much more than they are. Yes, they're better than other sword-and-sorcery films, but that was a foregone conclusion, given the original material. I'm also not quite so certain that the success of the venture was so much in question. All one has to do is to look at the sales record of the books to see that it's a story that interests people. Several films have come out recently based on comics with a much smaller circulation, and the only reason there hadn't been a real fantasy blockbuster was because nobody had given one the budget and writers it needed.<P>There you have my main objection: rewritten material that can't stand up to what it replaces, and which demonstrates by the fact of the substitution a misguided belief in the author's superiority over Tolkien. As long as the story's originator is treated like a silly old duffer who couldn't write for a popular audience I shall continue to be offended by the results.