LOTR are not the orginals... fantasy of that type had been written before-
Tolkien is just the author that general public seems to think created the
genre
Maire
Hard SF- Jan BOTM "Starfish" by Peter Watts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hardsf
Original Fantasy- Jan BOTM "ANubis Gates" by Tim Powers
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/original_fantasy
Soft SF- Jan BOTM "Dispossessed" by Ursula le Guin
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soft_sf
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Science Fiction and Fantasy Listserv [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
> Behalf Of Dan Hicks
> Sent: Saturday, 5 January 2002 2:43 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [SF-LIT] Lord of the Rings review
>
>
> Joe and List,
>
> A couple of years ago, I made a similar statement to this list about the
> books. I said that I had almost never seen or heard anyone panning the
> novels that make up the LORD OF THE RINGS. There followed several posts
> from readers who didn't like LOTR for one reason or another. To
> that point,
> I had thought they were some kind of sacred writ that nobody would dare
> criticize harshly. I assumed that nobody would bother to read through all
> three of the long novels if he/she didn't like them.
>
> I do believe that the novels were quite an accomplishment. Very few works
> of LOTR type fantasy have even come close to the quality of the originals.
>
> I agree that the film is great, and not just because of the
> superior special
> effects. Usually when an SF or fantasy adaptation film fails, it
> is because
> the screenwriter, producer, director, or some combination thereof, did not
> follow the original book or story closely enough. In this, the
> first, LOTR
> film, the producers have taken great pains to follow the book
> very closely.
> I too could pick a few nits, but why bother? They did a better job than
> with the vast majority of fantasy/SF adaptations.
>
> When the film ended, my first thought was, I thought this was
> supposed to be
> a three-hour movie! I looked at my watch, and found that three hours had
> indeed passed. The movie did not seem nearly that long.
>
> The success of this film, as well as that of the first Harry Potter movie,
> should teach Hollywood the following truths:
>
> (1) People -- even children -- will sit through and enjoy a long
> film if it
> is a good one.
>
> (2) Adapting published books to the screen can make for a
> successful film.
>
> (3) It pays to follow the book as closely as possible.
>
> (4) We don't need an overpaid Bruce Willis or Arnold Schwarzenegger in a
> film to make us go and see it, if we are intrigued by the story of or the
> ideas in the film.
>
> I would like to think that Hollywood will learn these things.
> However, I am
> sure they will interpret the success of Harry Potter and Fellowship of the
> Ring to mean just one thing: We need to make more movies that resemble
> Harry Potter and LOTR. Prepare for a bunch of bad fantasy films...some of
> which might even star Bruce Willis or Arnold Schwarzenegger!
>
> Dan J. Hicks
>
> "The idea is like grass. It craves light, likes crowds, thrives on
> cross-breeding, grows better for being stepped on."
> --Ursula K. Le Guin
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> Joe Karpierz <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >I'll have to say that this is the first and ONLY bad comment I've heard
> about LotR. My
> > wife and I went last night and were totally blown away with how
> fantastic
> this movie is.
> > We didn't even know three hours had gone by. Peter Jackson and company
> were as faithful
> > to the books as they could be (although there were one or two
> nits my wife
> and I had, but
> > they were inconsequential) in three hours. The deviations from
> the novel
> were reasonable,
> > and didn't detract from the story one bit, in our opinion.
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > ;,//;, ,;/ | Joe Karpierz
> > . o:::::::;;/// | [log in to unmask]
> > >::::::::;;\\\ |
> > ''\\\\\'" ';\ | "If at first the idea is not
> absurd, then
> there is no
> > hope for it." - Albert Einstein
> >
|