|
Post by coldenhaulfield on May 6, 2017 0:48:44 GMT
I don't understand how you're in the cutting room and justify cutting Christopher Lee's scenes from this movie, which has a run time of like 212 minutes or whatever it is, after the prominence of his character in the previous installments, particularly the first. And his death scene is only a few minutes long. Basically, he appears on the roof of his tower, trash talks everyone, and then finally pisses Brad Dourif off enough to get stabbed to death by him. Anticlimactic as that is, I agree -- it should've been in (all versions of) the film. I seriously doubt anybody would've noticed another five minutes!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2017 1:11:20 GMT
And his death scene is only a few minutes long. Basically, he appears on the roof of his tower, trash talks everyone, and then finally pisses Brad Dourif off enough to get stabbed to death by him. Anticlimactic as that is, I agree -- it should've been in (all version of) the film. I seriously doubt anybody would've noticed another five minutes! It is, especially compared to his death from the book. Basically, Saruman managed to convince the Ents to let him go free (because the Ents are idiots). From there, he managed to put together a mob of bad human men and stormed The Shire, enslaving the hobbits just so Frodo and his friends wouldn't have a peaceful home to return to. Unfortunately, he under-estimated them, and when the four hobbity heroes return, they stage a revolution. The hobbits unseal a tin of whoop-ass on the humans, cornering Saruman and Wormtongue. Then Saruman dies by getting stabbed to death by Wormtongue after abusing him one too many times and crumbles into dust. His spirit rises into the air, tries to go into the West, but is rejected and he scatters like dust on the wind Wormtongue gets killed by the hobbits immediately afterwards. Obviously, this mini-climax after the main climax of the ring and Mordor's destruction would never work on-screen and had to be cut. Like I've said twice now, The Lord of the Rings was not written with the film medium in mind in any way, whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on May 6, 2017 1:50:01 GMT
Anticlimactic as that is, I agree -- it should've been in (all version of) the film. I seriously doubt anybody would've noticed another five minutes! It is, especially compared to his death from the book. Basically, Saruman managed to convince the Ents to let him go free (because the Ents are idiots). From there, he managed to put together a mob of bad human men and stormed The Shire, enslaving the hobbits just so Frodo and his friends wouldn't have a peaceful home to return to. Unfortunately, he under-estimated them, and when the four hobbity heroes return, they stage a revolution. The hobbits unseal a tin of whoop-ass on the humans, cornering Saruman and Wormtongue. Then Saruman dies by getting stabbed to death by Wormtongue after abusing him one too many times and crumbles into dust. His spirit rises into the air, tries to go into the West, but is rejected and he scatters like dust on the wind Wormtongue gets killed by the hobbits immediately afterwards. Obviously, this mini-climax after the main climax of the ring and Mordor's destruction would never work on-screen and had to be cut. Like I've said twice now, The Lord of the Rings was not written with the film medium in mind in any way, whatsoever. Crazy. And interesting. Thanks. Isn't there essentially a "vision" of this -- the Hobbits enslaved, Shire ablaze -- in... Fellowship? Or one of them? I could be conflating it with one of the Hobbit flicks. It's been a really long time since I've seen the Rings trilogy. Maybe a decade.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2017 1:56:35 GMT
It is, especially compared to his death from the book. Basically, Saruman managed to convince the Ents to let him go free (because the Ents are idiots). From there, he managed to put together a mob of bad human men and stormed The Shire, enslaving the hobbits just so Frodo and his friends wouldn't have a peaceful home to return to. Unfortunately, he under-estimated them, and when the four hobbity heroes return, they stage a revolution. The hobbits unseal a tin of whoop-ass on the humans, cornering Saruman and Wormtongue. Then Saruman dies by getting stabbed to death by Wormtongue after abusing him one too many times and crumbles into dust. His spirit rises into the air, tries to go into the West, but is rejected and he scatters like dust on the wind Wormtongue gets killed by the hobbits immediately afterwards. Obviously, this mini-climax after the main climax of the ring and Mordor's destruction would never work on-screen and had to be cut. Like I've said twice now, The Lord of the Rings was not written with the film medium in mind in any way, whatsoever. Crazy. And interesting. Thanks. Isn't there essentially a "vision" of this -- the Hobbits enslaved, Shire ablaze -- in... Fellowship? Or one of them? I could be conflating it with one of the Hobbit flicks. It's been a really long time since I've seen the Rings trilogy. Maybe a decade. Yep. Galadriel's mirror showed that vision. Jackson and co still wanted to work The Scourging of the Shire into the film any way they could, and that's how they did it. Hilariously, they could probably make a lot of money just filming deleted segments from the book as their own one shot films, and yet they've never even tried to take advantage of it.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on May 6, 2017 2:08:41 GMT
Crazy. And interesting. Thanks. Isn't there essentially a "vision" of this -- the Hobbits enslaved, Shire ablaze -- in... Fellowship? Or one of them? I could be conflating it with one of the Hobbit flicks. It's been a really long time since I've seen the Rings trilogy. Maybe a decade. Yep. Galadriel's mirror showed that vision. Jackson and co still wanted to work The Scourging of the Shire into the film any way they could, and that's how they did it. Hilariously, they could probably make a lot of money just filming deleted segments from the book as their own one shot films, and yet they've never even tried to take advantage of it. I still like the idea someone floated in another thread of a Game of Thrones style TV series, anthology style. There seems to be so much they could mine for stories nothwithstanding their apparent disute(s) with the Tolkien family/estate.
|
|
camimac
Sophomore
@camimac
Posts: 915
Likes: 355
|
Post by camimac on May 6, 2017 2:24:04 GMT
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said the stew scene was for comedic relief. I think the rest of what you are doing is over thinking it. Interesting and amusing, but over thinking. But if we were to seriously believe the stew was that bad, I guess one thought is: Eowyn does not taste what she cooks; or 2. in honor of Aragorn, et al, maybe she prepared a special rohirric stew that Eowyn did not realize that only those of rohan truly appreciated; and 3. you can make a bad stew, if an ingredient in it is burned, or, it could have to do with how it is seasoned, like too much salt for instance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2017 2:31:43 GMT
Yep. Galadriel's mirror showed that vision. Jackson and co still wanted to work The Scourging of the Shire into the film any way they could, and that's how they did it. Hilariously, they could probably make a lot of money just filming deleted segments from the book as their own one shot films, and yet they've never even tried to take advantage of it. I still like the idea someone floated in another thread of a Game of Thrones style TV series, anthology style. There seems to be so much they could mine for stories nothwithstanding their apparent disute(s) with the Tolkien family/estate. That would work, actually. It wouldn't necessarily be action-packed, though, but there would still be adventure and interesting things happening. They could adapt The Lord of the Rings into a TV series with no legal trouble, since the rights to The Hobbit and LotR have been out of the Tolkien Estate's hands for decades now. Ol' J.R.R. had to pay some bills, and selling the film rights to his best-selling works was the best means of doing so at the time. I have to shake my head at the fact that a professor at a high-profile university who was ALSO a best-selling author (and a freakin' war vet) apparently wasn't getting paid enough to cover all his monetary needs. What the hell? The dispute between the Tolkien family and the film industry mostly stems from the Ralph Bakshi animated adaptation turning out... lackluster. Basically, they swore off supporting ANY film adaptations of Daddy Tolkien's work after that.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on May 6, 2017 11:22:17 GMT
I still like the idea someone floated in another thread of a Game of Thrones style TV series, anthology style. There seems to be so much they could mine for stories nothwithstanding their apparent disute(s) with the Tolkien family/estate. That would work, actually. It wouldn't necessarily be action-packed, though, but there would still be adventure and interesting things happening. They could adapt The Lord of the Rings into a TV series with no legal trouble, since the rights to The Hobbit and LotR have been out of the Tolkien Estate's hands for decades now. Ol' J.R.R. had to pay some bills, and selling the film rights to his best-selling works was the best means of doing so at the time. I have to shake my head at the fact that a professor at a high-profile university who was ALSO a best-selling author (and a freakin' war vet) apparently wasn't getting paid enough to cover all his monetary needs. What the hell? The dispute between the Tolkien family and the film industry mostly stems from the Ralph Bakshi animated adaptation turning out... lackluster. Basically, they swore off supporting ANY film adaptations of Daddy Tolkien's work after that. Yeah, it's shocking to think Tolkien could live such a distinguished and interesting life and still wind up being preyed on for the rights to his Middle Earth stuff. Litigious aspects aside I still think there's big money in the idea.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2017 1:01:29 GMT
That would work, actually. It wouldn't necessarily be action-packed, though, but there would still be adventure and interesting things happening. They could adapt The Lord of the Rings into a TV series with no legal trouble, since the rights to The Hobbit and LotR have been out of the Tolkien Estate's hands for decades now. Ol' J.R.R. had to pay some bills, and selling the film rights to his best-selling works was the best means of doing so at the time. I have to shake my head at the fact that a professor at a high-profile university who was ALSO a best-selling author (and a freakin' war vet) apparently wasn't getting paid enough to cover all his monetary needs. What the hell? The dispute between the Tolkien family and the film industry mostly stems from the Ralph Bakshi animated adaptation turning out... lackluster. Basically, they swore off supporting ANY film adaptations of Daddy Tolkien's work after that. Yeah, it's shocking to think Tolkien could live such a distinguished and interesting life and still wind up being preyed on for the rights to his Middle Earth stuff. Litigious aspects aside I still think there's big money in the idea. Guess it kind of shows the plight of the educator is older than many people think. Yeah, which is why I find it odd they can't capitalize on it. They could even do it animated if they wanted to save money. The guys who made Avatar: The Last Airbender and The Legend of Korra would probably jump at the chance to bring Middle-earth to life on the little screen every week if they were given the chance.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on May 7, 2017 1:24:41 GMT
Yeah, it's shocking to think Tolkien could live such a distinguished and interesting life and still wind up being preyed on for the rights to his Middle Earth stuff. Litigious aspects aside I still think there's big money in the idea. Guess it kind of shows the plight of the educator is older than many people think. Yeah, which is why I find it odd they can't capitalize on it. They could even do it animated if they wanted to save money. The guys who made Avatar: The Last Airbender and The Legend of Korra would probably jump at the chance to bring Middle-earth to life on the little screen every week if they were given the chance. What do you think is more likely: this concept we're discussing or a full-on reboot of the trilogy?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2017 1:46:32 GMT
Guess it kind of shows the plight of the educator is older than many people think. Yeah, which is why I find it odd they can't capitalize on it. They could even do it animated if they wanted to save money. The guys who made Avatar: The Last Airbender and The Legend of Korra would probably jump at the chance to bring Middle-earth to life on the little screen every week if they were given the chance. What do you think is more likely: this concept we're discussing or a full-on reboot of the trilogy? Before Game of Thrones took off, I would have laughed at the idea of TV seriously trying to tackle the fantasy genre, but they're put in the money and work to prove it can be done. So I'd say its a toss-up. On the cinematic end, the trends Peter Jackson and the Harry Potter series started ("just film everything in one go" and "keep filming every year like you're working on a TV show") have become commonplace. On TV's end, some stations are getting a lot ballsier with the sheer scope of what they're willing to tackle.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on May 7, 2017 1:50:02 GMT
What do you think is more likely: this concept we're discussing or a full-on reboot of the trilogy? Before Game of Thrones took off, I would have laughed at the idea of TV seriously trying to tackle the fantasy genre, but they're put in the money and work to prove it can be done. So I'd say its a toss-up. On the cinematic end, the trends Peter Jackson and the Harry Potter series started ("just film everything in one go" and "keep filming every year like you're working on a TV show") have become commonplace. On TV's end, some stations are getting a lot ballsier with the sheer scope of what they're willing to tackle. Yep. I would only add that, incidentally, I think a full reboot of Harry Potter 1-7 will occur before either of the Tolkien possibilities. I'm sure you'll be thrilled over that given your love of the books/Rowling and the high regard in which you hold them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2017 2:03:36 GMT
Before Game of Thrones took off, I would have laughed at the idea of TV seriously trying to tackle the fantasy genre, but they're put in the money and work to prove it can be done. So I'd say its a toss-up. On the cinematic end, the trends Peter Jackson and the Harry Potter series started ("just film everything in one go" and "keep filming every year like you're working on a TV show") have become commonplace. On TV's end, some stations are getting a lot ballsier with the sheer scope of what they're willing to tackle. Yep. I would only add that, incidentally, I think a full reboot of Harry Potter 1-7 will occur before either of the Tolkien possibilities. I'm sure you'll be thrilled over that given your love of the books/Rowling and the high regard in which you hold them. Honestly, as average as I find the Potter book series to be, I'd be open to a televised version of those if it was properly done. The films, for the most part, did not do them much justice. Starting at around Film 3, they still technically followed the outline of the books they were supposed to be adapting, but without a lot of the more interesting story elements, character development, and even proper context for some of the scenes. If nothing else, a properly paced Harry Potter TV series could actually justify having a supporting cast of wonderful British actors as the faculty of Hogwarts, unlike the films where I would watch then and ask, "Why in the name of God did they bother hiring Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, John Hurt, Jim Broadbent, Richard Harris, Michael Gambon, (and so on and so forth until you've milked the whole British acting community dry) if they just go through the same motions in every movie! I think Alan Rickman's face froze into that permanent sneer at this point!"
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on May 7, 2017 4:24:31 GMT
Yep. I would only add that, incidentally, I think a full reboot of Harry Potter 1-7 will occur before either of the Tolkien possibilities. I'm sure you'll be thrilled over that given your love of the books/Rowling and the high regard in which you hold them. Honestly, as average as I find the Potter book series to be, I'd be open to a televised version of those if it was properly done. The films, for the most part, did not do them much justice. Starting at around Film 3, they still technically followed the outline of the books they were supposed to be adapting, but without a lot of the more interesting story elements, character development, and even proper context for some of the scenes. If nothing else, a properly paced Harry Potter TV series could actually justify having a supporting cast of wonderful British actors as the faculty of Hogwarts, unlike the films where I would watch then and ask, "Why in the name of God did they bother hiring Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, John Hurt, Jim Broadbent, Richard Harris, Michael Gambon, (and so on and so forth until you've milked the whole British acting community dry) if they just go through the same motions in every movie! I think Alan Rickman's face froze into that permanent sneer at this point!"I like the movies from a fan standpoint, but from exactly three onward, they sort of overtly presume that you've read the books and therefore don't explain or (like you said) afford "proper context" to a lot of what's happening. This by definition makes them sort of failed cinematic adaptations. I realize it's a series of films, but if you started anywhere after two you wouldn't fully understand what the hell was going on, I don't think.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2017 5:46:54 GMT
Honestly, as average as I find the Potter book series to be, I'd be open to a televised version of those if it was properly done. The films, for the most part, did not do them much justice. Starting at around Film 3, they still technically followed the outline of the books they were supposed to be adapting, but without a lot of the more interesting story elements, character development, and even proper context for some of the scenes. If nothing else, a properly paced Harry Potter TV series could actually justify having a supporting cast of wonderful British actors as the faculty of Hogwarts, unlike the films where I would watch then and ask, "Why in the name of God did they bother hiring Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, John Hurt, Jim Broadbent, Richard Harris, Michael Gambon, (and so on and so forth until you've milked the whole British acting community dry) if they just go through the same motions in every movie! I think Alan Rickman's face froze into that permanent sneer at this point!"I like the movies from a fan standpoint, but from exactly three onward, they sort of overtly presume that you've read the books and therefore don't explain or (like you said) afford "proper context" to a lot of what's happening. This by definition makes them sort of failed cinematic adaptations. I realize it's a series of films, but if you started anywhere after two you wouldn't fully understand what the hell was going on, I don't think. Pretty much. People love to give Chris Columbus crap, but his Harry Potter films were by far the most coherent and accessible to newcomers. He also gets points for being the best at working with the child actors out of all the directors who helmed the series. After he left, I really felt the quality of a lot of the kids' performances would wildly fluctuate from film to film, though I think Radcliffe suffered from his departure the most. At the time of the last Potter film, I was convinced he was just a bad actor. Then I saw The Woman in Black, Victor Frankenstein, and Now You See Me 2, and realized it was just the Potter directors making him look bad.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on May 7, 2017 13:49:05 GMT
I like the movies from a fan standpoint, but from exactly three onward, they sort of overtly presume that you've read the books and therefore don't explain or (like you said) afford "proper context" to a lot of what's happening. This by definition makes them sort of failed cinematic adaptations. I realize it's a series of films, but if you started anywhere after two you wouldn't fully understand what the hell was going on, I don't think. Pretty much. People love to give Chris Columbus crap, but his Harry Potter films were by far the most coherent and accessible to newcomers. He also gets points for being the best at working with the child actors out of all the directors who helmed the series. After he left, I really felt the quality of a lot of the kids' performances would wildly fluctuate from film to film, though I think Radcliffe suffered from his departure the most. At the time of the last Potter film, I was convinced he was just a bad actor. Then I saw The Woman in Black, Victor Frankenstein, and Now You See Me 2, and realized it was just the Potter directors making him look bad. Coincidentally, my girlfriend and I had a conversation about this a few days ago because she mentioned offhandedly that Azkaban is her least favorite of the films, which naturally made me almost do a spit-take at first. But as we talked about it she made some valid points not dissimilar to the crux of what you're saying here: mainly that the first two films are "accessible," warm, family films -- followed by an eccentric, avant-garde take on the third book by a foreign director essentially "doing a totally different thing on an artistic and stylistic level," as she put it. "It doesn't fit with the other seven." I countered that the unconventional plot mechanics of the third novel (e.g., time turner) are uniquely suited to a wildly different approach than the previous pair of films and the ones that follow it, but she pointed out that this actually detracted from (rather than going hand-in-hand with) her experience of the movie because doing all of that strangeness against the backdrop of Chris Columbus's "normal" Hogwarts would've been far more surprising and visually effective by contrast. I'm still mulling it over, because I've always held that one aloft as being prolly the only legitimately good "film," if you will. With respect to the kids, I think they generally improve over the course of the series, but it's two steps forward and one step back; lots of missed opportunities and moments where the performers sort of buckled under the weight of the material, which is saying something because it's nowhere as heavy or complex as, say, Stephen King's It or, of course, a Tolkien adaptation. I agree that Radcliffe shows the least growth over the course of the seven films, but I don't think I could call him "bad" at any point. At worst he is "serviceable," such as in most of Phoenix and stretches of Half-Blood Prince. I thought he stepped it up a notch in the Hallows films, which are my favorite in conjunction with (you guessed it) Prison of Azkaban. I've literally never seen him anything else; haven't seen any of the flicks you mentioned, unfortunately.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2017 18:22:33 GMT
Coincidentally, my girlfriend and I had a conversation about this a few days ago because she mentioned offhandedly that Azkaban is her least favorite of the films, which naturally made me almost do a spit-take at first. But as we talked about it she made some valid points not dissimilar to the crux of what you're saying here: mainly that the first two films are "accessible," warm, family films -- followed by an eccentric, avant-garde take on the third book by a foreign director essentially "doing a totally different thing on an artistic and stylistic level," as she put it. "It doesn't fit with the other seven." I countered that the unconventional plot mechanics of the third novel (e.g., time turner) are uniquely suited to a wildly different approach than the previous pair of films and the ones that follow it, but she pointed out that this actually detracted from (rather than going hand-in-hand with) her experience of the movie because doing all of that strangeness against the backdrop of Chris Columbus's "normal" Hogwarts would've been far more surprising and visually effective by contrast. I'm still mulling it over, because I've always held that one aloft as being prolly the only legitimately good "film," if you will. With respect to the kids, I think they generally improve over the course of the series, but it's two steps forward and one step back; lots of missed opportunities and moments where the performers sort of buckled under the weight of the material, which is saying something because it's nowhere as heavy or complex as, say, Stephen King's It or, of course, a Tolkien adaptation. I agree that Radcliffe shows the least growth over the course of the seven films, but I don't think I could call him "bad" at any point. At worst he is "serviceable," such as in most of Phoenix and stretches of Half-Blood Prince. I thought he stepped it up a notch in the Hallows films, which are my favorite in conjunction with (you guessed it) Prison of Azkaban. I've literally never seen him anything else; haven't seen any of the flicks you mentioned, unfortunately. I'm split on what I think of Azkaban, too. It's certainly not a bad film, but your girlfriend has a point about how it sticks out from the others. I think another part of the problem Radcliffe had was that a lot of smaller character moments Harry got from the books that made him more well-rounded were scissored off to keep the bigger things. I think I recall Harry being so used to being legitimately verbally abused by the Dersleys that he had difficulty discerning friendly teasing from his friends from actual insults. That certainly never came up in the films.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on May 7, 2017 20:43:47 GMT
Coincidentally, my girlfriend and I had a conversation about this a few days ago because she mentioned offhandedly that Azkaban is her least favorite of the films, which naturally made me almost do a spit-take at first. But as we talked about it she made some valid points not dissimilar to the crux of what you're saying here: mainly that the first two films are "accessible," warm, family films -- followed by an eccentric, avant-garde take on the third book by a foreign director essentially "doing a totally different thing on an artistic and stylistic level," as she put it. "It doesn't fit with the other seven." I countered that the unconventional plot mechanics of the third novel (e.g., time turner) are uniquely suited to a wildly different approach than the previous pair of films and the ones that follow it, but she pointed out that this actually detracted from (rather than going hand-in-hand with) her experience of the movie because doing all of that strangeness against the backdrop of Chris Columbus's "normal" Hogwarts would've been far more surprising and visually effective by contrast. I'm still mulling it over, because I've always held that one aloft as being prolly the only legitimately good "film," if you will. With respect to the kids, I think they generally improve over the course of the series, but it's two steps forward and one step back; lots of missed opportunities and moments where the performers sort of buckled under the weight of the material, which is saying something because it's nowhere as heavy or complex as, say, Stephen King's It or, of course, a Tolkien adaptation. I agree that Radcliffe shows the least growth over the course of the seven films, but I don't think I could call him "bad" at any point. At worst he is "serviceable," such as in most of Phoenix and stretches of Half-Blood Prince. I thought he stepped it up a notch in the Hallows films, which are my favorite in conjunction with (you guessed it) Prison of Azkaban. I've literally never seen him anything else; haven't seen any of the flicks you mentioned, unfortunately. I'm split on what I think of Azkaban, too. It's certainly not a bad film, but your girlfriend has a point about how it sticks out from the others. I think another part of the problem Radcliffe had was that a lot of smaller character moments Harry got from the books that made him more well-rounded were scissored off to keep the bigger things. I think I recall Harry being so used to being legitimately verbally abused by the Dersleys that he had difficulty discerning friendly teasing from his friends from actual insults. That certainly never came up in the films. Yep. Not unlike the entire subplot with Hermione and the house elves being cut. You lop off enough of that stuff when adapting an 800-page book and you're left with people racing through what almost feels like an outline of major plot points. Order of the Phoenix is the worst offender for this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2017 20:53:18 GMT
I'm split on what I think of Azkaban, too. It's certainly not a bad film, but your girlfriend has a point about how it sticks out from the others. I think another part of the problem Radcliffe had was that a lot of smaller character moments Harry got from the books that made him more well-rounded were scissored off to keep the bigger things. I think I recall Harry being so used to being legitimately verbally abused by the Dersleys that he had difficulty discerning friendly teasing from his friends from actual insults. That certainly never came up in the films. Yep. Not unlike the entire subplot with Hermione and the house elves being cut. You lop off enough of that stuff when adapting an 800-page book and you're left with people racing through what almost feels like an outline of major plot points. Order of the Phoenix is the worst offender for this. It really sounds like TV would have been a more suitable venue for the Potter series, then. Not necessarily whole 20 episode hour episode seasons/series, but if each book was given a couple of two-hour episodes, they would probably have been fine. In other words, a TV series done the British way. "You lop off enough of that stuff when adapting an 800-page book and you're left with people racing through what almost feels like an outline of major plot points." This is basically what happened with the Ralph Bakshi animated Lord of the Rings. He wanted to make a fully animated trilogy, but Warner Bros got cold feet made him cut it down to just two films (before just calling the whole thing off with one film, leaving Rankin-Bass to finish it with an hour and a half animated musical). The man was forced to stuff the entirety of Fellowship of the Ring AND The Two Towers into 2 hours and 18 minutes. You can imagine how... "well", that went over.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on May 8, 2017 1:44:30 GMT
Yep. Not unlike the entire subplot with Hermione and the house elves being cut. You lop off enough of that stuff when adapting an 800-page book and you're left with people racing through what almost feels like an outline of major plot points. Order of the Phoenix is the worst offender for this. It really sounds like TV would have been a more suitable venue for the Potter series, then. Not necessarily whole 20 episode hour episode seasons/series, but if each book was given a couple of two-hour episodes, they would probably have been fine. In other words, a TV series done the British way. "You lop off enough of that stuff when adapting an 800-page book and you're left with people racing through what almost feels like an outline of major plot points." This is basically what happened with the Ralph Bakshi animated Lord of the Rings. He wanted to make a fully animated trilogy, but Warner Bros got cold feet made him cut it down to just two films (before just calling the whole thing off with one film, leaving Rankin-Bass to finish it with an hour and a half animated musical). The man was forced to stuff the entirety of Fellowship of the Ring AND The Two Towers into 2 hours and 18 minutes. You can imagine how... "well", that went over. Yeah, I've seen all the animated films. The Bakshi is particularly half-baked. I think The Hobbit is actually pretty good.
|
|