Quote:
|
Where can you cite an objective and authoritative source on film who will tell us that the standard to judge a films quality or success is its slavish adherence to the book from which it is adapted?
|
Nowhere. The phrase 'slavish adherence' exists only in your own equivocating postings: words you shove into our mouths to create a strawman, which you then compound by an inversion of the Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.
Anything may be judged on whether it satisfies the excellence particular to its class. The excellence particular to adaptation is how well it adapts its object from one environment to another. This requires no authoritative citation because it's blindingly obvious to anyone who is possessed of rudimentary English and basic logic. I suppose I could cite the dictionary, but I'll assume you already know what the word means.
Now, let's stop this Osgiliation and get back to the issue you have been squirming so desperately to change the subject away from- your assertion that since movies are not books, any and all changes from one to the other are justifiable. Are you claiming that a film adaptation has no relation back to its original source? I challenged you to explain precisely what it is about the nature of cinema which mandates changing Theoden's age. You still haven't responded. You have no justification? So this postulate of yours really is empty handwaving, a transparent attempt to whitewash PJ's incompetence?
Come on, we're still waiting.