The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Are film makers getting lazy? The answer would be a resounding yes. Just look at the films of a certain Mr Jerry Bruckheimer. The basis for this argument is founded in the recent popularity of literary adaptations over original scripts. This often however leads to many problems, either if a person has read the book they moan about the sections that have inevitably been left out or the newcomer to a text is totally confused by what is going on. Lord of the Rings is a case in point. Perhaps it is the best fantasy film ever but it is still very confusing to the uninitiated non-fan. Gandalf travelled to the far reaches of middle earth to find Sauron at Islengard. What? Who’s Sauron? Where’s Islengard? And what happened to the rest of the earth? What the hells going on! However some fans of the book are completely different. Where’s Tom Bombadil? Why is Galadriel glowing like that? Why’s Liv Tyler in it!
This seems to show that there’s no pleasing some people. What did fans expect a five hour re-enactment of the entire of the Fellowship of the Ring. It’s not economically feasible in terms of production costs as well as the fact that it would never make a profit. The film in my view does a great job of creating an atmosphere and action which greatly resembles Tolkien’s world without overly complicating the plot with names and places which never actually are seen in the film. Peter Jackson has ably created a film which is true to the book while still being accessible to a multiplex audience.
As I have talked about Lord of the Rings, it seems at the moment I cannot miss mentioning a certain other Fantasy film which has been released. Harry Potter? Yep thought you might have heard of the titular wizard and his band of merry friends. Again a book adored by millions is turned into a film. But in reality does it work? Well in this case almost. Hogworts is created in great detail and the film follows the books narrative almost word for word in places. However there are still bits which had to be cut, such as the escape of Hagrid’s dragon Norbert ably assisted by Harry, Ron and Hermione. However, because the book is short and very descriptive not much has been cut. It is Chris Columbus’ direction which is at fault with this. There is none of the mystery of the castle, none of the fear of Voldemort and Quidititch is a strangely boring experience. Perhaps this is because of the younger target audience, whereas LOTR’s stays true to its dark atmosphere this is light and airy with little menace, even Fluffy looks as though a good stroke would calm him down. Also the characters are portrayed as strangely annoying, although picture perfect they seem to have been created from an amalgamation of the most irritating child characters ever put on screen. For a start what makes Harry and Ron befriend Hermione, she’s so annoying. At least in the book she is shown to be intelligent and not whiny and nagging like in the film.
However, Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings have shown that adaptations of books can be a success especially when you consider the box office taken by both films already. Just don’t mention Hannibal!
This seems to show that there’s no pleasing some people. What did fans expect a five hour re-enactment of the entire of the Fellowship of the Ring. It’s not economically feasible in terms of production costs as well as the fact that it would never make a profit. The film in my view does a great job of creating an atmosphere and action which greatly resembles Tolkien’s world without overly complicating the plot with names and places which never actually are seen in the film. Peter Jackson has ably created a film which is true to the book while still being accessible to a multiplex audience.
As I have talked about Lord of the Rings, it seems at the moment I cannot miss mentioning a certain other Fantasy film which has been released. Harry Potter? Yep thought you might have heard of the titular wizard and his band of merry friends. Again a book adored by millions is turned into a film. But in reality does it work? Well in this case almost. Hogworts is created in great detail and the film follows the books narrative almost word for word in places. However there are still bits which had to be cut, such as the escape of Hagrid’s dragon Norbert ably assisted by Harry, Ron and Hermione. However, because the book is short and very descriptive not much has been cut. It is Chris Columbus’ direction which is at fault with this. There is none of the mystery of the castle, none of the fear of Voldemort and Quidititch is a strangely boring experience. Perhaps this is because of the younger target audience, whereas LOTR’s stays true to its dark atmosphere this is light and airy with little menace, even Fluffy looks as though a good stroke would calm him down. Also the characters are portrayed as strangely annoying, although picture perfect they seem to have been created from an amalgamation of the most irritating child characters ever put on screen. For a start what makes Harry and Ron befriend Hermione, she’s so annoying. At least in the book she is shown to be intelligent and not whiny and nagging like in the film.
However, Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings have shown that adaptations of books can be a success especially when you consider the box office taken by both films already. Just don’t mention Hannibal!
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
Are film makers getting lazy? The answer would be a resounding yes. Just look at the films of a certain Mr Jerry Bruckheimer. The basis for this argument is founded in the recent popularity of literary adaptations over original scripts. This often however leads to many problems, either if a person has read the book they moan about the sections that have inevitably been left out or the newcomer to a text is totally confused by what is going on. Lord of the Rings is a case in point. Perhaps it is the best fantasy film ever but it is still very confusing to the uninitiated non-fan. Gandalf travelled to the far reaches of middle earth to find Sauron at Islengard. What? Who’s Sauron? Where’s Islengard? And what happened to the rest of the earth? What the hells going on! However some fans of the book are completely different. Where’s Tom Bombadil? Why is Galadriel glowing like that? Why’s Liv Tyler in it!
This seems to show that there’s no pleasing some people. What did fans expect a five hour re-enactment of the entire of the Fellowship of the Ring. It’s not economically feasible in terms of production costs as well as the fact that it would never make a profit. The film in my view does a great job of creating an atmosphere and action which greatly resembles Tolkien’s world without overly complicating the plot with names and places which never actually are seen in the film. Peter Jackson has ably created a film which is true to the book while still being accessible to a multiplex audience.
As I have talked about Lord of the Rings, it seems at the moment I cannot miss mentioning a certain other Fantasy film which has been released. Harry Potter? Yep thought you might have heard of the titular wizard and his band of merry friends. Again a book adored by millions is turned into a film. But in reality does it work? Well in this case almost. Hogworts is created in great detail and the film follows the books narrative almost word for word in places. However there are still bits which had to be cut, such as the escape of Hagrid’s dragon Norbert ably assisted by Harry, Ron and Hermione. However, because the book is short and very descriptive not much has been cut. It is Chris Columbus’ direction which is at fault with this. There is none of the mystery of the castle, none of the fear of Voldemort and Quidititch is a strangely boring experience. Perhaps this is because of the younger target audience, whereas LOTR’s stays true to its dark atmosphere this is light and airy with little menace, even Fluffy looks as though a good stroke would calm him down. Also the characters are portrayed as strangely annoying, although picture perfect they seem to have been created from an amalgamation of the most irritating child characters ever put on screen. For a start what makes Harry and Ron befriend Hermione, she’s so annoying. At least in the book she is shown to be intelligent and not whiny and nagging like in the film.
However, Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings have shown that adaptations of books can be a success especially when you consider the box office taken by both films already. Just don’t mention Hannibal!
This seems to show that there’s no pleasing some people. What did fans expect a five hour re-enactment of the entire of the Fellowship of the Ring. It’s not economically feasible in terms of production costs as well as the fact that it would never make a profit. The film in my view does a great job of creating an atmosphere and action which greatly resembles Tolkien’s world without overly complicating the plot with names and places which never actually are seen in the film. Peter Jackson has ably created a film which is true to the book while still being accessible to a multiplex audience.
As I have talked about Lord of the Rings, it seems at the moment I cannot miss mentioning a certain other Fantasy film which has been released. Harry Potter? Yep thought you might have heard of the titular wizard and his band of merry friends. Again a book adored by millions is turned into a film. But in reality does it work? Well in this case almost. Hogworts is created in great detail and the film follows the books narrative almost word for word in places. However there are still bits which had to be cut, such as the escape of Hagrid’s dragon Norbert ably assisted by Harry, Ron and Hermione. However, because the book is short and very descriptive not much has been cut. It is Chris Columbus’ direction which is at fault with this. There is none of the mystery of the castle, none of the fear of Voldemort and Quidititch is a strangely boring experience. Perhaps this is because of the younger target audience, whereas LOTR’s stays true to its dark atmosphere this is light and airy with little menace, even Fluffy looks as though a good stroke would calm him down. Also the characters are portrayed as strangely annoying, although picture perfect they seem to have been created from an amalgamation of the most irritating child characters ever put on screen. For a start what makes Harry and Ron befriend Hermione, she’s so annoying. At least in the book she is shown to be intelligent and not whiny and nagging like in the film.
However, Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings have shown that adaptations of books can be a success especially when you consider the box office taken by both films already. Just don’t mention Hannibal!