Books to movies to books was Re: What should we do next?.

[Geoff Bannister]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Stephen Vandecasteele <vand195550 at ...> 
wrote:

SV: 
> As good as JKR may or may may not be I find it difficult to believe that the books were 
as good as the movies. With the movies you can identify with one charactor or another in 
the sense that you can't by reading the books imo.

Geoff:
Two thoughts.

Since you have said on more than one occasion that you haven't 
read the books and have castigated those of us who have dared 
to compare them to the films, how can you make a sensible, 
reasonedcomparison of the two media forms?

Secondly, as an example, I first read LOTR over 50 years ago, 
a year or so after "Return of the King" was published. For a long 
time I read it once a year. From the books, I developed a very 
clear view of the characters and the landscape of Middle-Earth and 
approached the films very cautiously - especially after the disastrous 
Bakshi animated version in 1978. I have to say that I was greatly 
impressed by Peter Jackson's work and have felt at ease with both 
book and film.

Digressing to pick up a comment from Goddlefrood, the incorporation 
of parts of the second book into the last film was an enlightened act 
by Peter Jackson because it got the timeline right. Tolkein split the 
action of the second book and followed Frodo and Sam's story 
through to Frodo's capture at Kirith Ungol before returning to 
the others. Hence, it is easy to forget that his rescue by Sam 
was taking place as the Battle of the Pelennor Fields was approaching 
its climax.