View Single Post
Old 08-10-2007, 06:46 PM   #5
After a brisk nap
Elegantly copy+pasted
 
After a brisk nap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,773
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SnorkleCat View Post
Brisk Nap, if you found Jackson's LOTR to be a snooze fest, then one wonders if you also found the books to be so. I find Boorman's vision offensive. Directors who "improve" upon other people's creations so outrageously are little more than parasites.
Give me a break. I enjoy the novel. And PJ's films are relatively faithful adaptations of it. They are, however, execrable cinema.

The responsibility of a director making a film based on a book is not to "put the book up on the screen". It is to make a great movie. Sometimes that means doing something completely different, maybe even changing the meaning of the story to its direct opposite, like in The Shining or Blade Runner. The most successful adaptations are often those that take extreme liberties with the source material.

It is the current vogue for translating literally between page and screen that is parasitic. Film makers are not providing their own inspiration, but hoping that the attractions of the source material (or at least the established fan-base) will be sufficient to make the film a success.

I'm not sure Boorman's LOTR would have been any good. He is however a talented director, and he made a number of good movies around the same time. At least it sounds pretty funny, and like it would have been an interesting film to watch.
__________________
Please excuse me. I've got to see a man about a dog.
After a brisk nap is offline