Nothing scurrilous about it. Just merely connecting some very obvious dots. Why is it that those closest to the Tolkien academic community are the most critical of the movies compared to the general public? And why is it that many of these peope have contacts with those who write the journal articles and espouse the most anti-film opinions? And at the same time what is the "official" position of the Estate on the movies? No position at all thank you. Now isn't that convenient.
Case in point
Quote:
|
"I find both of the Jackson films to be travesties as adaptations... faithful only on a basic level of plot... Cut and compress as necessary, yes, but don't change or add new material without very good reason... In the moments in which the films succeed, they do so by staying close to what Tolkien so carefully wrote; where they fail, it tends to be where they diverge from him, most seriously in the area of characterization. Most of the characters in the films are mere shadows of those in the book, weak and diminished (notably Frodo) or insulting caricatures (Pippin, Merry, and Gimli)... [T]he filmmakers sacrifice the richness of Tolkien's story and characters, not to mention common sense, for violence, cheap humor, and cheaper thrills... [S]o many of its reviewers have praised it as faithful to the book, or even superior to it, all of which adds insult to injury and is demonstrably wrong..."
|
I wonder who said that? And do they have any financial interest in remaining loyal and friendly with the Tolkien Estate. That paragraph is nearly a template for post after post on this very site spewing anti film opinion.
Scurrilous? More like factual.