Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12_30
Actually, skimming back through this thread I find "rabid" a rather apt description. I was hoping that movie makers would read the Barrow-Downs for good ideas but I confess I would be quite embarassed to find that PJ had read this thread. The old pre-LOTR-movie threads had plenty of healthy debate about what the movies might hold, but there was little venom involved, unlike this thread which consists mostly of venom.
This discussion is not up to Down's standards at all.
|
Here, here,
Mark.
I'm not known for my great enthusiasm for the movie--
--but it does have to be pointed out that Tolkien himself once posited the possibility that other hands would add to his stories and some of his academic essays discuss how subsequent writers change stories (see, for example, his essay on
Sir Gawain and the Green Knight).
There isn't anything necessarily wrong with adding a female character
per se. If Tolkien's creation really cannot accept the inclusion of a new female character, then maybe there is something to the arguments that Tolkien has a problem with female characters.)
I might not have much faith in Jackson to create a character who belongs in Tolkien's Middle-earth, but every artist does have a right to create his own vision. (Where Jackson earns my ire is his claim that he was faithful to Middle-earth. Such a statement completely ignores he debt also to Star Wars). Until we actually see the movies, we don't know what direction he is taking. All of this is just movie hype and a way of generating buzz about the movie.
And in some ways it reminds me of the horrible vituperation visited on Amy Winehouse when she died. There are plenty of male rock stars who suffered the same affliction but they never received the vitriole she did. Why all the focus on the female character and not on the dwarves?