Harry and LOTR

[susanbones2003]

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "susanbones2003" <rkdas at ...> 
wrote:
>
> --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Theresa" <anmsmom333@> wrote:
> SNIPPED
> > 
> > Two - I like LOTR. Yes it is highly detailed but I fell in love 
> with 
> > them back in High School (which was some time ago as I am 43 
now). 
> > Anyway, I think LOTR is one of the reasons I began to love HP so 
> > much in the beginning - though I will admit I like HP better 
now. 
> > One thing though for those who love Jacksons version of LOTR the 
> > films, he changed quite a few things from the books too - so 
Steve 
> > Kloves isn't the only one. I think the one major change that got 
> me 
> > was someone who died in the movies at one of the battles didn't 
in 
> > the books. I sat next to a really die hard Tolkien fan who 
nearly 
> > threw her popcorn at the screen. I won't say any more since some 
> of 
> > you haven't read and/or seen the films. But I really think the 
> books 
> > and the films are worth reading/seeing.
> SNIPPED AGAIN!
> 
> > Theresa
> > 
> 
> Hi Theresa
> (Treading carefully now to keep this post on topic...)
> The art of adaptation is very tricky, as we have seen in HP films 
> and yes, I am one of those HP fans who didn't much care for some 
of 
> the things Alphonso Cuaron did with my most favorite HP book. 
> Adaptation says so much about what a scriptwriter/director thinks 
of 
> the original work. We HP fans have learnt to roll with the 
punches, 
> I believe. We know very well how little input we have into how the 
> films are made. I think the thing you can say about HP is that 
while 
> there is always some room for playfulness, many times they are 
> approached from an expedient point of view. How do we trim this 
baby 
> down?  No, Chris Columbus wasn't expedient but he wasn't creative 
> enough from what I read on this list. He went "tumptetump" from 
one 
> set piece to the next. Big action, predictable reactions, 
> predictable is the worst criticism I guess you can lodge against a 
> director. I do think he cared to bring the WW to life. If he'd 
been 
> coupled with a very creative guy with a vision, then perhaps we'd 
> have gotten a stellar HP movie. GOF was very nice, no question, 
but 
> the love of HP, I just don't think we've seen a director who's 
> actually invested in HP. Please don't tell me AC was. I think he's 
> primarily invested in himself. And how cute/goth he could make HP 
> look and feel. Great for all of you who think HP is really a goth 
> story but I never saw it that way. Washed out colors and poor 
little 
> innocent birdies getting creamed by the Whomping willow were AC's 
> ideas, not Jo's. And so back to the point, adaptation reflects how 
> invested in a story a director can be. From that vantage point, to 
> even begin to take on LOTR, one must either be a raving lunatic or 
> totally in love with the books (or both). Changes, yes, big 
changes. 
> Arwen, anyone? Major reworking. Trumping up "cinematic tension" 
yes, 
> but the heart is still there. I just hope before it's all over, we 
> see a  director/script team who love HP as much as Peter, Fran and 
> Philippa loved LOTR. That, that would be something!
> Jen D. 
> (Kept it on topic for the most part! Hah!)
> 
> > Theresa
> >
>