Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyBrooke
Well, I try to never read implieds into anything anybody says on a forum - for one thing, tone of voice (which is crucial to how I communicate....I have different tones of voice for almost everything, and my friends very quickly catch on to them.), facial expressions, and personalities don't translate well - I am on of those people who likes what ifs, and I tend to comment on them.
|
Well I shall have to post with more caution then
Quote:
Galin wrote: 'And considering how poor I think these adaptations are (and I obviously cannot speak for Christopher Tolkien), 'better' would need to be significantly better, possibly starting with rewrites on page one, and a wholly different take on certain characters, tone, focus, action, 'modernization' and humor.'
LadyBrooke responded: Agreed - which is why I said that a contract would have been a must in that situation.
|
This is what you posted about a contract:
'So then you make a deal....I'll let you use this, but you have to do this, change that, and do this. And you get it written in a legally binding contract. (...)
What is Christopher going to let Jackson use in exchange for any real say? Jackson already has what he needs to do a film based on
The Lord of the Rings or
The Hobbit. And you
seem to agree that for Christopher Tolkien to put himself in this position he must be given a lot of power with respect to creativity and content, power that I don't think anyone imagines he's really going to get.
Possibly getting some things changed is no assurance of a faithful sum total in any case, so realistically why go there if all you
can be assured of is the Jackson PR machine shouting the most famed Tolkien name now alive as an advisor.
Quote:
I don't see how my wish places anybody anywhere - it was a pondering of a hypothetical, which has no real power. As far as I know, I am not the goddess of movie making or script writing. 
|
Yet even wishes
might contain unfair (from a given person's opinion) criticism.