Boromir88:
Quote:
|
But then I look at PJ, and realize oh he just did it for the blood and gore, there's no symbolism in it (but I still like to think he intended it for symbolic purposes lol).
|
This is actually a difference that makes no difference. Consider the sculptures that line the Acropolis or Notre Dame. The artist is unknown, so no one can know their intentions. That doesn't take anything away from what they make you feel or think when you see them.
Or for that matter, consider a major influence on Tolkien,
Beowulf. Who wrote it? By all accounts, it was composed by committee, of sorts. Everyone who sang it added their own two cents to the mix. It wasn't "fixed" in text until it was written down. The same for the "Ilyad" and the "Oddysey." In that case, there was no one "intent" because there was no one artist.
For what it's worth, I think Tolkien made better artistic decisions than Peter Jackson when telling this story for the most part. His characters are better developed (mostly) than Jackson's, and the magic of Middle Earth is more mysterious and subtle (certainly) than Jackson's. But differences are bound to appear when speaking in different mediums. Literature isn't movies (and vice-versa).
P.S. I made a similar comment on
this thread--Popularist or Literati Check it out. It's worth a read, and says some very applicable things about the book/movie argument.