Sequels that outdid the original

[Mikey]

Well we probably differ in that I don't regard "It's not identical to the book" as a valid criticism.

I personally am one of those who is a fan of the novels and not of the films, and have further made comparisons between the two. However, "it's not indentical to the book" is not the totality of my criticism of the films. Rather, it is an incomplete and out-of-context point in that criticism, and to reduce someone's argument to that aphorism seems rather to be hyperbolic to the point of absurdity. Instead, the comparison is a valid criticism because of the depth and evocative points which the films fail to capture due to Jackson's choice of points of divergence.

And I've never read the books anyway - from what I hear of them they are horribly boring to read.

They are not, but they aren't easy either. Bear in mind the scope of Tolkien's initial efforts in creating his universe - he created an entire mythological cycle, history, even languages complete with grammar and evolutionary changes - as well as the fact that he was an Oxford chair of English, and you will get an idea of the style of writing. Verbosity and an exaggerated narrative style =/= boring in his case, any more than they do in the case of Dickens (who really did get paid by the word) or Stoker.

[Reliant121]

Strangely enough I can't cope with Dickens either. Stoker is just within my limits of tolerance.

[Vic]

For those who haven't read The Lord of the Rings because it was too hard a slog, please push through. I had made two attempts to read that tome and failed, it was only when the movies came out that I sat down and forced myself to read them. The readability opens up considerably, I am glad that I did so.

[Graham Kennedy]

Well we probably differ in that I don't regard "It's not identical to the book" as a valid criticism.

I personally am one of those who is a fan of the novels and not of the films, and have further made comparisons between the two. However, "it's not indentical to the book" is not the totality of my criticism of the films. Rather, it is an incomplete and out-of-context point in that criticism, and to reduce someone's argument to that aphorism seems rather to be hyperbolic to the point of absurdity.

It's what your criticisims came down to, at least the way you expressed them. One part felt "rushed". Rushed compared to what? In nine - or indeed twelve - hours of film, I can't say I found anything felt rushed particularly. Then you classifed another aspect as "stupid". You didn't make any attempt to say how. And the Souring of the Shire, your only comment on it was that it was important in the book. Well the movie isn't the book, and the scouring of the shire isn't of the least importance in the movie because no such thing happened.

If you want the criticisms to come across as more than "it's not like the book" you might try and give reasons. For example, if you think the movie suffered from not having the scouring of the shire, then explain why. How does the movie suffer from the lack of this? Judging from the rest of the movies, it seems like an aside; the Shire's role in the story is to be the unimportant place full of unimportant people, thus setting up the theme that it's a few of those apparently unimportant people upon whom history turns. But apart from being the home of those characters the Shire plays no other part in the films, so suddenly having it scoured... what would it be, other than an aside? Ten or twenty minutes of movie spent on a plotline that did nothing for the actual story.

Now maybe I have all that wrong... but you didn't make a case either way. You just said "it's important in the book", so yeah, I think the way I summed it up is perfectly valid.

Instead, the comparison is a valid criticism because of the depth and evocative points which the films fail to capture due to Jackson's choice of points of divergence.

None of which you addressed.

And I've never read the books anyway - from what I hear of them they are horribly boring to read.

They are not, but they aren't easy either. Bear in mind the scope of Tolkien's initial efforts in creating his universe - he created an entire mythological cycle, history, even languages complete with grammar and evolutionary changes - as well as the fact that he was an Oxford chair of English, and you will get an idea of the style of writing. Verbosity and an exaggerated narrative style =/= boring in his case, any more than they do in the case of Dickens (who really did get paid by the word) or Stoker.[/quote]

I'm aware of what he was up to and why already.

[Mikey]

I think you're a bit confused, GK - the criticisms to which you are specifically referring are ones which I believe were posted by someone else. I merely entered at this juncture because I, like the person who you were addressing, do compare the films unfavorably to the books - as I said, though, patently not simply because one diverges from the other. In my criticisms of the film, I have always expressly mentioned that it is not just the divergence but rather what is lost through Jackson's choices of points of divergence that weakens the films.

[RK_Striker_JK_5]

I've read LOTR and love them. I've watched LOTR and love them. They're different media.

[Graham Kennedy]

I think you're a bit confused, GK - the criticisms to which you are specifically referring are ones which I believe were posted by someone else. I merely entered at this juncture because I, like the person who you were addressing, do compare the films unfavorably to the books - as I said, though, patently not simply because one diverges from the other. In my criticisms of the film, I have always expressly mentioned that it is not just the divergence but rather what is lost through Jackson's choices of points of divergence that weakens the films.

Grr, must have messed up who said what in my head; apologies, I hate it when I do that.