MIddlearth, OZ and faithfulness

[Sauron the White]

davem... I was paraphrasing the objections to the films. However, the idea has been expressed here many times that as adaptations, the films were not very faithful - or faithful enough in some eyes - and that is the standard that renders the films not very good in the eyes of some. I will search some past threads to find that for you.

You do not have to go very far to find people evaluating things on the basis of FAITHFULNESS. Here is something written by a rather intelligent and informed member of this board who is praising a different adaption and pointing it out its faithfulness. Apparently, being faithful to the text was something important to this poster and influenced thier high opinion.

And that's the point I'd emphasise - it is possible to produce a brilliant, beautiful, powerful & faithful adaptation of LotR. Its just that PJ didn't manage to do it, whereas Sibley, Bakewell & the BBC did.

This was from the thread - Greatest Sin of Peter Jacksons . In fact, this poster felt that the word FAITHFUL was so important, more so than the other qualities that they cited that they took the trouble to highlight in bold red coloring. Obviously, faithfulness, was rather important to them and how they evaluated adaptions of JRRT into other mediums.

There was an entire thread devoting to complaining how the movies should have been more faithful to the books where posters voiced their opinion on this very subject.

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=14331

Why Cant Movies be like books? I believe that was the thread title. The presumption being that the simple act of being more like the book somehow, someway would have made the films better just for that one reason. I do not make up this stuff.