Into the Wardrobe

Oh, Lynn, I'm gonna butter you on toast, here. ;)>

What does a filmmaker's personal life have to do with the quality of his adherence to source material?

That's all I'm talking about. PJ could have a been lapsed Episcopalian, rough-edged, two fisted drinker a la John Huston (who directed some of the greatest American films) which has no bearing on how well he could follow CSL's material.

If Lewis' material is such that only an Englishman and contemporary of his could direct it (which you seem to be saying), then his material isn't worth producing because it's so insular and lacking in Story. Good stories are universally popular with sympathetic cultures. You can take Little Red Hidinghood to any Western or even Eastern culture and most people will understand it.

How does PJ "disembowel" Tolkien's characters? I don't understand your reasoning here.

Perhaps I'm not communicating as I ought. When I say "adhere to CSL's view," I mean "adhere to what CSL was trying to say in his story." I'm not talking about mimicking his life, his morals.

My point about When Worldviews Collide is that Peter Jackson isn't able to even appreciate that he eviscerated Tolkien's characters. Everyone suffers (and Faramir most egregiously - although what he did to Sam and Frodo is right up there), but starting from the first film, Aragorn is portrayed in the film as tortured and reluctant about his kingship. Tolkien's Aragorn is nothing of the sort. Gimli is made comic relief (what, Pippin wasn't enough?!).

But I suspect this isn't the right place to have an indepth discussion of the character of characters, at least not when the topic is CSL's space trilogy...?

(best two out of three throws? ).

Did you read LotR before seeing the films? (just checking--!)

Lynn, where have you been all these years since the movies came out! It's so nice to have your help disemboweling Jackson's disembowelment of LotR! I (and a few others here) have railed againt PJ for a long time and it's good to hear from you on these forums.

All that you say is true, and I have talked of my frustration of commenting on the movie because there are just so many things to shake one's head at (and no, for me it's nothing to do with whether the correct pluperfect form of an Elvish verb was engraved on the hilt of a sword that we only see slashing into an orc's neck, or whether Galadriel's eyes were the correct colour. Those are mere details).

For me the primary sin of the movies (though there are numerous other types that I could go on for pages about) can be summed up by the scene of Pippin throwing the stone into the hole in Moria. In the book it was ominous and deafening in its subtlety and threatening atmosphere. In the movie, PJ effectively said "you want ominous, I'll give you ominous" and tosses and entire suit of armour clattering down the hole. I can just hear the claims of the need for "cinematic" and "pacing". If I never hear those words used again about movies it will be a blessing -- valuable concepts in movie making when used properly, but these days the terms are used almost exclusively to let the director off the aesthetic hook so that he can depend only on penultigazillion dollar budgets for special effects and explosions and chase scenes. Another prime sample scene that illustrates this point about lack of subtlety and atmosphere and tone (though they occur throughout the films) is when Gandalf does the exorcism thing on King Theoden. In the book it is a powerful scene that could have been done to great effect with almost no special effects besides a light streaming in through an upper window. But in the movie you could almost hear the special effects people saying "look at this cool morphing software -- we've just GOT to use it somewhere!". I half expected Theoden's head to spin around 360 degrees in imitation of the famous Exorcist scene (and don't get me started on the many ripped-off scenes from Star Wars -- oops, I mean "homages" -- Gaah! another useful concept but so waaay overused that I cringe to hear the word coming from every director's mouth these days to explain their lack of creativity and reliance one more explosion).

And then there is the obsession with...oh well, I'd better stop before I get to page 37 of this post. Basically, yes, cinema is different from the written word and can accomplish different things. But once again it is an idea that has been abused and used whenever a director wants to justify his efforts no matter how inadequate.

whew! I'm done, you can relax (for now at least:-)

(what forum was this again -- oh yeah, as you said, Space Trilogy *backs off from diversion*)
--Stanley