By way of a general comment, shame need not adhere to anyone who enjoys or does not enjoy the TTT movie. The same must (against my will) be said of the Books as a whole. Though I think someone wrongheaded for not liking LotR, there is no shame in it. I don't think I'm telling anyone something they don't already know, I'm just hoping to bring this particular of the debate to a close.<P><B>Tar Palantir:</B><P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The points I addressed were ones in which he painted with too broad a stroke. Like his comments about Helm's Deep vs. Cleansing of Isengard, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I must point out that H. had been researching Tolkien's letters, and was using Tolkien's words in this regard; hence, to argue against choosing to include the Cleansing of Isengard and exclude the battle of Helm's Deep is to argue against Tolkien.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> ... like his comments about LotR being an "eminently readable screenplay", like intimating that choice of directors was the key, like not adding details of costume, set, location and music into the equation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>The quoted points are, of course, worthy of debate, and could stand support, as could the stance against the points.<P>What does it mean to be an "eminently readable screenplay"? In terms of drama, I suppose it would mean that the scenery, stage directions, and dialogue, as well as all that is necessary to make a believable dramatic presentation, are contained in the text itself. Does that serve as a fair description of "eminently readable screenplay"?<P>Choice of directors is inevitably going to affect the nature of a movie. The director is THE key creative decision maker.<P>By the way, there are things I really enjoyed about the TTT movie. The central theme of this thread is: <B>The changes Jackson made to the story from book to film, resulted in the film being unworthy of the book Tolkien wrote.</B>
|