Quote:
|
So if you're such a "purist" that if it didn't come from Tolkien's pen, it's crap, then I'm sorry. A filmed version of exactly what I'm reading in LotR would be boring as sh*t.
|
I'm not a purist. My complaint with the last two movies is that they weren't far enough removed from the books for purposes of cinema. As standalone movies they were crap unless you were filling in the holes with knowledge available from reading the books.
With
Lord of the Rings this worked because the story is more focused. Plus, they weren't sure how it would go so they were more firm with editing decisions. With the later movies I felt they were just saying "well, we have to keep it under three hours, so put a lot in that just hints at what they'll eventually be able to see in the 9 hour extended DVD and damn coherence for the theater experience."
The same complaint I have about most of the Harry Potter movies, really.
It is a movie, not a video book on tape. And definitely not a severely abridged video book on tape.
As for the sequel. I have no doubt that many writers could produce reasonable extensions of the novels but the reason I see it as "difficult" is that I just don't really have any curiosity about that world beyond what was already covered so it'll have to work hard to catch my interest and if they fail (at the general audience level) it will be viewed as a blow to the whole franchise (which is not something I agree with but is the general result of failed sequels).