aragil said:
Mrs. Maggott- more is always more.
....there was always an understanding that they were going to be 'his versions'- that is, some of the scenes were going to be PJ's and not professor
Tolkien's.
When he said he was going to be faithful it was always to the "feel of
Middle-earth" and the "spirit of the
books".
Accusing him of additions in my mind is quite ridiculous.
....it should hardly be surprising that a new artist would insert their own "additions" into the work.
We are always being told here what "the critics" say. One thing that most critics, of most subjects, sometimes say is: "this work would have been
better if it were shorter". That is what the adage "less is more" means.
Scenes that are "PJ's and not Prof T's" may be "visions" but they are not "versions".
I don't know whether that was ALL he said, that he was "going to be faithful to the feel....the spirit of the books". The problem about that, though, is that he didn't stick often enough to what he said. Some of his inventions have the "feel" and "spirit", not of the books, but of the circus, or of that ancient "swashbuckler" film that I've mentioned before, probably ad nauseam.
You mean that "accusing" him of making additions is ridiculous, or that making "accusations" that the additions he made were bad additions is ridiculous? Calling such ideas "accusations" is hyberbole, and, either way, of course, I disagree.
I've said before, a few additions are to be expected, and if they are appropriate then they are acceptable - as SOME of PJ's inventions ARE -I've even given examples.
Beyond the question of the quality of the additions, there are two points that refer specifically to these particular films:
We all know, and accept, that the source material is so large that omissions have to be made. Inventions take up time that could have been used for original material that "had to" be omitted.
This is the first serious attempt at filming what is unquestionably the most popular and best known literary work of the last century, and that work is renowned for its elaborate and precisely worked out plot lines and characterisations, and especially for its distinctive use of language. Because of those special characteristics, and because of what we heard from PJ, we expected, and believed, that the adaptations would deliberately, and exceptionally, prove to be "closer" than those given to other, lesser works. Our expectations, and beliefs, WERE realised, but only partially - it's the extent to which they were realised, or not, that is the subject of these discussions. The films could have set a standard; other "
artists" could have been let loose on the material, later!
