January 26, 2004

Re: Everet No Rotten Tomatoes Thrown Here
Danny

Don't worry, I am not going to thrash you for saying that the films didn't measure up. Quite honestly, I agree that the films didn't measure up to the books, but I knew before they were started that they couldn't. Very rarely if ever will a book adaptated to film measure up to the original book.

That doesn't mean that I don't love the films. There are thousands or millions of possible permutations you could go through to try and bring LOTR to the big screen. I honestly beleive that Peter Jackson has created an adaptation that is among the best that could be created. That doesn't mean that it is perfect, but it should be remembered that it is not possible to adapt a story as complex and involved as LOTR to film perfectly.

So I will defend Peter Jacksons adaptation to film as a masterfully done film and a good adaptation of the books. I do beleive that certain changes could have made the films better, but I also understand why most of those decisons were made. When it comes down to it, Peter Jackson was going to have to make changes. I may not always agree with his choices, but there really were no easy choices in his job. He did a good job and produced a good film.

So I guess what it comes down to is what kind of fan you are. (I don't mean that in a bad way for anybody.) I love LOTR and consider it one of the greatest works of fiction ever written. Tolkien's writings have been my motivation as a painter and artist for years, and I relish creating visual interpetations of Tolkien's works and love seeing other artists efforts at the same. I know that my work rarely if ever comes close to capturing the magic Tolkien created, but I paint because few other subjects if any inspire that kind of creativity and interest in me. I suppose my fascination with visually interpeting Tolkien is part of why I love the films so much. I know there are problems and areas where the films don't measure up, but I knew that was inevitable so I am more forgiving than many. I do beleive there are many areas where the films come as close as film ever could come with this story. Anyway, I digress. As an artist it is such a fascinating and exhilerating thing to have another artists interpetation of Rivendel, or Minas Tirith, the Balrog, Shelob etc etc fleshed out so thoroughally that I can't help but relish the films.

I can also understand how much harder PJs job was. I have been guilty on a few occasions of taking artistic license in my paintings. Sometimes it is to such a degree that I don't like the paintings at all now. Anyway it is hard to adapt written word to visual composition, and even more dificult when you have to do a whole film.

So I say this. You are not entirely wrong if you say that the trilogy failed. That is it failed to be a perfect adaptation of the books. However we agree that the perfect adaptation essentially cannot be acheived. If your expectations are for perfection you are bound to be let down in just about anything. If you hold the films to a more reasonable standard than I feel they were a tremendous success. The heart of the story remains intact, though it does take a few hits. The major themes are well presented, and the characters are for the most part very well portrayed. So they were good adaptations of a masterpeice. Judging them as films on their own basis, I beleive they are excellent films. PJs world of middle earth (middle earth without the books as a standard) is fleshed out and tremendously beleivable in detail, scope, and scale. The story is sweeping and massive in scale and is compelling (owed mostly to the wonderful source it is derived from, though as a film many of the changes to the story are great film story telling.) So as films they are masterpeices. As adaptations of a masterpiece of literature they are good. Any adaptation of Tolkien's work to film will have serious shortcomings. PJ essentially had to pick his poison so to speak, and I feel that he came up with one of the best possible adaptations possible.

p.s. I agree with you about appologizing for the length of a post. People can see how long a post is before they start, and choose to read it. So why not just say what you have to say and let others decide if they think it is worth their time to read? Of course that comes from one who generally does long posts 8).