(unknown)

[Tim]

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "susanbones2003" <rkdas at ...> 
wrote:
>
> --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "susanbones2003" <rkdas@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "joxy" <joxy@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Karen" <kchuplis@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What did they "invent"?
> > > 
> > > They invented dozens of complete scenes,
> > > and when they used original scenes they often invented a whole 
> lot 
> > of
> > > crass dialogue to ruin them.
> > > Just start at the beginning of FOTR, as Frodo jumps into 
> Gandalf's
> > > cart and hugs him like a long-last uncle - a ludicrous 
invention 
> > and
> > > pathetic dialogue!
> > > I won't bore with any more details; the string of inventions
> > > throughout the three films is well-known - notorious many would 
> > say.
> > > So sad, when they had the privilege of access to far more 
> original
> > > material than they could ever have used, so that they had no 
> need 
> > of
> > > inventing anything.
> > > But they didn't always invent, and there is much original 
> material 
> > in
> > > the films, action and dialogue, which is a lot better than 
> nothing 
> > at all!
> > 
> > Jen D. here,
> > You won't get me trying to convince you that all the invented 
> stuff 
> > they did was great. I just can't fight that battle with a serious 
> > fan. But you will agree that Tolkien didn't always write in a way 
> that would be amenable to film. When you look at the things they 
> > invented, some times it was to get something established quickly. 
> > Like that jumping into Gandalf's arms. And it would have been 
> > idiotic had Frodo been his proper age. They chose to emphasis the 
> > child-like nature of the Hobbits and then went one step further 
> and 
> > made them almost youngsters, untried, innocent. But did it matter 
> to 
> > you how much detail they went into in order to depict Middle 
Earth 
> > properly? The Shire, all those many, many locations and the 
> infinite 
> > detail? I just finished reading the books and I can clearly see 
> how 
> > they rearranged information, created things, truncated or left 
out 
> > so much. And it's not exactly the same story, of course not, but 
> > it's got much of the same heart. That's my peeve with HP movies. 
> > Sometimes I don't feel the film maker actually understood the 
> heart 
> > of the film. Putting in stuff can be self-indulgent, or it can 
> serve 
> > to make a better story, cinematically. I know they were going for 
> a 
> > better story cinematically. I never ever felt like they were 
> > indulging themselves, or cutting a corner even. But I know you 
> have 
> > many people on your side. I won't convince you. Let's just hope 
> the 
> > next HP gets someone who is intent on getting at the heart of 
that 
> > story because it is definitely the most difficult book to get 
> > through!
> > J
> > >
> >
>

A lot of LOTR book fans were disappointed with the films because of 
the departures the screenwriters made from the original story.  
However, a lot of people who may have read the books once (and may 
have had a hard time getting through them) found the films engaging 
and went back and gave the books another look... because they now had 
images in the heads to go along with the story.  People fell in love 
with the trilogy because of the films.

The same holds true to HP fans.  I did not pick up the books until 
after I had seen the first film.  So, for me, it's easier to accept 
the changes made from book to film as I was a fan of the films 
first... but I can easily understand how someone who was a fan of the 
books before the first film came out would be upset at what was 
changed.

Tim A