Quote:
Originally Posted by Sauron the White
But to argue that a film - any film - is not "faithful" to the book is simply like arguing that today is not like yesterday. Its obvious and irrelevant. The transfer of the written word on a large number of pages is going to render a different product when it is placed on film - a totally different artistic medium.
. . .
Korhan has hit upon something. JRRT himself understand that when he sold the book as a film there would be changes. He understood that as an important part of the process of turning a book into a film. And good reasons for those changes abounded and were explained regardless of how anyone accepted them or rejected them.
|
Wait a sec and hold on! Let's consider this point generally.
I don't think it is necessarily or automatically irrelevant to consider how well a movie adapts a novel. For every film adaptation I've ever seen of a major novel, part of the discussion has always involved the nature of the adaptation. It is part of understanding how movies differ from novels and what the two different art forms need to engage their particular kind of art. We can learn more about a book if we understand what parts lend themselves well to cinematic reproduction and what parts don't. We can also learn more about films.
Frankly, to me, in seeing how and where PJ's films differ from LotR, we can see that PJ was working with two inspirations, his love of Tolkien and his love of Lucas. Those two inspirations worked to create the films.
Just as it is well to consider what Tolkien's expectations were when he sold the film rights. But that does not limit anyone from examining the question himself. It's all in the nature of discussion and there's no reason to bound our expectations by those Tolkien might have had.
By the way, are we discussing a film that hasn't been made yet? And a book of revisions previously unpublished that some of us haven't read yet? Now there's proof positive of the nature of human conversation.
