On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 10:31:16AM +1100, Mike Beggs wrote:
> Speaking of blowing things up, auteurs, and films related to Peter
> Jackson, did anyone see District 9? Definitely the best sci-fi and
> action film of the year, and it was both non-Hollywood and had a lot
> of things blow up.
Also speaking of Peter Jackson, the whole "series, sequels and remakes" complaint reveals its triteness if the Lord of the Rings trilogy is included in that. Lord of the Rings was written by Tolkien as a single work, and broken up into separate books because of the realities of publishing. The filmed trilogy was (as I understand it) filmed in one go, and then edited and released in three parts. In short, its release in three parts was an artifact of the fact that most of us don't want to sit through a nine hour film all in one go! As far as merit, to me it is faithful to the spirit of the original work - reactionary, brilliant, eccentric. Like the original, the film has few significant woman characters, one of which is a giant spider. There are major changes in both plot and characterization, needed (IMO) for transliteration from novel to film. I know that LOTR is widely hated among serious leftist, being dismissed as something for reactionaries and hippie types. But I always found it one of those reactionary things that is still worth reading and enjoying. Tolkien was no Pound, but to me his prose sang. Also, I love the world building; it rings true somehow. Often friends who can get past the pastoral longing are driven away from LOTR by the endless travel description.,But, to me, the glimpses of a Middle Earth that Tolkien more than half believed existed more or less as described is one of the great pleasure of LOTR. Bottom line: I don't think either the book or the filmed LOTR were crap. Of course, your goat may vary.