Quote:
Originally Posted by Inziladun
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think the issue lies with the question of how the original authors viewed their product to start with.
Did they see their work as a primarily a commercial product in itself, a means to a living? If so, they probably wouldn't be all that fussed about a muffed adaptation that misses the mark of the source material completely.
Is that what Tolkien had in mind when he wrote his books?
|
The boundaries are very blurred with Tolkien. He certainly didn't sit down with the intention of writing LotR as a money spinner, it was more the culmination of a lifetime's imaginings.
And a little nudge from the publisher who wanted a sequel to The Hobbit. I think there may be a letter referring to how The Hobbit helped pay for medical bills in the days before the NHS. There's certainly something about how selling film rights helped pay for private school fees. And he enjoyed the money brought in from the books in his and Edith's old age. Academics in the UK have never become rich just from lecturing, sidelines are always necessary.
In any case, I doubt that whether the author enjoyed earning money from his/her work would have any bearing on whether they enjoyed any films. Alan Moore for example must have earnt a packet by now but he never watches the films of his stories.
And I don't think the films
do miss the mark completely. They capture one person's vision, and it's not possible to capture everyone's.