A film is but another's interpretation of a work. Whether a book or story, myth or even screenplayu, every hand that touches it will change it in some manner. Richard the third was a wholly different person to me depending on who played him and whether the context was film or stage, although the words were for the most part exactly the same in each telling. Likewise, I've seen midsummer night's dream played out at least a dozen times and each was an event unto itself while none veered in the slightest from the bard's exact lexicon.
Anyone who can't take what's been given as a treat to enjoy in it's own right is more anal than I by far, and I am one of the most anal beasts in the jungle. Each venue has it's strengths and weaknesses and few will properly overlap...be equal in measure while similar or even exactly the same in content.
I thought viewing the Exorcist was the scariest time I'd ever lived through in a fantasy sense...until I read the book; a much more frightening tale. But the images in the film only enhanced my reading the story in that each new visage had a face, all that was not contained within the film was more powerful given the memory of Regan and the pea soup incident et al. There was no need to compare the two as each was a wonderous telling of a story.
Ignore them hon. These are little more than trekkies who would argue with William Shatner about who the first Kirk was and who might have done a better job. As if they know, and more importantly, as if it matters. Entertainment is not created for prigs to second guess it's makers. Let's face it, if Tolkien were still alive he'd wet his pants that not only a cult has surrounded his grave, but that so many have delighted in his creation. That's what it's all about; a smile and sigh, not a debate and thumping. I'm only happy that the makers of lotr were aware of the significance of their enterprise and didn't hack it altogether like a few dozen films I could name.
Sorry:) Wen't on a bit. I'll try to be less verbose in the future:
no subject
Anyone who can't take what's been given as a treat to enjoy in it's own right is more anal than I by far, and I am one of the most anal beasts in the jungle. Each venue has it's strengths and weaknesses and few will properly overlap...be equal in measure while similar or even exactly the same in content.
I thought viewing the Exorcist was the scariest time I'd ever lived through in a fantasy sense...until I read the book; a much more frightening tale. But the images in the film only enhanced my reading the story in that each new visage had a face, all that was not contained within the film was more powerful given the memory of Regan and the pea soup incident et al.
There was no need to compare the two as each was a wonderous telling of a story.
Ignore them hon. These are little more than trekkies who would argue with William Shatner about who the first Kirk was and who might have done a better job. As if they know, and more importantly, as if it matters. Entertainment is not created for prigs to second guess it's makers.
Let's face it, if Tolkien were still alive he'd wet his pants that not only a cult has surrounded his grave, but that so many have delighted in his creation. That's what it's all about; a smile and sigh, not a debate and thumping. I'm only happy that the makers of lotr were aware of the significance of their enterprise and didn't hack it altogether like a few dozen films I could name.
Sorry:) Wen't on a bit. I'll try to be less verbose in the future: