Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerwen
Davem, I have no opinion on this particular movie yet since, again, it hasn't been released here yet– but honestly, you certainly seem to be saying the main criterion for a "good" film is that it sell tickets.
|
Well, if it doesn't sell tickets its certainly a 'bad' film from the filmmakers' point of view. TH, as with LotR before it, had to appeal to a broad audience. What has to be admitted is that Jackson could have done a lot worse, and been a lot less respectful of the material than he was. There were a number of places in all the films where he messed up (less, to my mind, in AUJ than in LotR), but a straight page to screen adaptation wouldn't have worked - why no Cirdan at the White Council? Simple - the general audience would be asking 'Who's the beardy-weirdy Elf over there?' So you'd need screen time accounting for who he is and why he's there and why everybody is showing him respect.
AUJ, like the LotR films, have to make profit or they don't get made. In order to make profit they have to appeal to a wide audience. So, given those restrictions, I think AUJ is a 'good' film. And if I was your average film goer, or even just someone who'd read the book few times I'd be more than happy with it. Actually, I suspect I'd be happier with the LotR films if it wasn't for the BBC Radio version, which showed it is possible to adapt the book faithfully and make it work.
(written on a phone, so bear with any mistakes)