On adaptations: LOR & BG

LucianG · December 19th, 2002, 04:40 AM

The much anticipated second movie in the Lord of the Rings trilogy premiered yesterday. From what I have seen in the press, reviews have been very good to excellent. Elvis Mitchell of the New York Times said, ""The director Peter Jackson's scrupulous devotion to the spirit of J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy manifests itself in a gripping, intense fashion." Eleanor Ringel Gillespie, film critic for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, gave it an A- and said, "That said, Jackson totally gets Tolkien."

In the case of a director adapting the work of another, it is so good to see someone who understands his or her subject and has the vision to bring the work to the screen in manner that is reasonably faithful to the original work. While Sam Raimi made minor changes in his adaptation of Spiderman, overall, his movie was easily recognizable as Spiderman. Roger Ebert even has minor complaints on Jackson's work, but concludes, "To do what he has done in this film must have been awesomely difficult, and he deserves applause, but to remain true to Tolkien would have been more difficult, and braver." Even in Ebert's complaints, there still is praise.

I sincerely hope that any adaptation of Battlestar Galactica, whether remake or continuation, is well written, well acted, and recognizable as Battlestar Galactica. In addition, I hope that those adapting Battlestar Galactica receive accolades similar to those above from critics and fans alike. From what I have read about Mr. Moore's efforts so far, including from his own responses, I have little confidence that either will be the case.

LucianG · December 19th, 2002, 09:13 AM

On LOTR:

A friend saw it last night and said it was "Absolutely Magnificent!"

vmnjn · December 19th, 2002, 12:34 PM

The difference is money and the honcho in charge.

LotR has a far larger budget than Universal or SciFi is willing to risk.

Also IIRC, the honcho in charge of LotR considers himself a big Tolkeen? fan.

The tolkeen fans got lucky with these movies. While I have heard of "deviations" from the original, most agree that they were either needed or at least acceptable.

Lucky daggits....

The Blue Mule · December 19th, 2002, 12:51 PM

Sorry here, but whats Georges Lucas's excuse for crappy film making?

Remember all I'm Pro Continuation. Just wanted to back that up in case you might of forgotten.

Peace

Rich.

vmnjn · December 19th, 2002, 02:19 PM

While the new movies are okay, they just don't seem to have the magic of the first three.

The wierdest part of it for me is I really can't explain what bothers me about them.

The acting ain't great but then the originals had some stinker parts too.

I know this is going to sound silly, but the originals just seemed more "real" somehow.

Maybe its just because we are all older, and while I am still not mature(just ask my wife), maybe our point of view has shifted enough to take some of that magic away.

Odd isn't it? I want to have my family enjoy BG, but I want myself to enjoy Star Wars.

jewels · December 19th, 2002, 05:46 PM

The Tolkein fans ARE lucky. Peter Jackson (and the cast & crew that will follow the man anywhere) stayed true to what they knew they would have to do. And the people at New Line looked beyond the $$$$ and caught the vision.

To quote something from LotR:FotR (book version):

"All that is gold does not glitter. Not all those who wander are lost.
The old that is strong does not whither. Deep roots are not reached by the frost. From the ashes a flame shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring...."
said of Strider the Ranger (Aragorn, son of Arathorn; heir to the throne of Gondor.)

Muffit: you can have some fun musing on this one!!! LOL
Jewels

oldwardaggit · December 19th, 2002, 06:21 PM

I still think that because of the lack of CGI, in the old days they had to tap into your imagination and sense of wonder. Being that there will never be anything as great as your own imagination, the new movies will always fall short because they try to show you everything.

The scariest movie is the one where they don't show the shark or the one where they show the darkness in a staircase leading down but all you hear is faint scary sounds.

I watched a show one time and it was supposed to be real scary things caught on tape. High tech mikes were placed in the bottom of a huge ship and when they took a bar of metal and banged it against the side of this ship; you could faintly hear a Childs voice echoing through out the ship. It's what I thought that kid was saying, that scared me. It sounded like Help.

OWD