Commentators have addressed the question of whether the observed differences are appropriate. The differences of content created by the necessary compression and transformation of Tolkien's story inevitably result in differences of style. The film version differs in content from the written version in several ways, including cutting some scenes, adding scenes, adjusting scenes to cope with other changes, such as moving some action to different locations, and adding some minor characters. The film scholar Kristin Thompson, reviewing an early book on Tolkien on Film, wrote that " scholars seem particularly irked by the films' enormous popularity, not just among fans but also among reviewers", noting that the films have brought a "vastly enlarged" audience to The Lord of the Rings, and perhaps millions of new readers to the book and that there are "book-firsters" and "film-firsters" among Tolkien fans, as evidenced (she writes) by the message boards on. įilmgoers and non-academic reviewers rated the films as almost perfect, The Two Towers actually scoring "a rare 100%" on Rotten Tomatoes, and gaining many Oscars and other film awards. Although long for a film trilogy, this was short compared to Tolkien's work, presenting the films' makers with a major challenge of abridgement, compression, and transformation for the production of the series. The series runs for 9 hours, 18 minutes in the "theatrical" or cinema version, and 11 hours, 26 minutes in the extended version released on DVD. The budget was $281 million, and together the three films grossed over $2.9 billion worldwide. Peter Jackson's film series was released as three films between 20. Main article: The Lord of the Rings (film series) The development of fan films such as Born of Hope and The Hunt for Gollum, and of a modern folklore with characters such as elves, dwarves, wizards, and halflings, all derived from Jackson's rendering of Tolkien, have been viewed as measures of this success.īoth book and film versions of The Lord of the Rings have been extremely successful in their way, enjoyed by the public and non-academic reviewers alike, attracting the attention of scholars to the differences between them. Scholars, critics, actors and fans have seen Jackson's version as a success, on its own terms, as an adaptation of Tolkien, and as going beyond Tolkien into a sort of modern folklore. They have however found the characters and the story greatly weakened by Jackson's emphasis on action and violence at the expense of psychological depth the loss of Tolkien's emphasis on free will and individual responsibility and the replacement of Frodo's inner journey by an American monomyth with Aragorn as the hero.Ĭommentators admired the simultaneous use of images, words, and music to convey emotion, evoking the appearance of Middle-earth, creating wonderfully believable creatures, and honouring Tolkien's Catholic vision with images that can work also for non-Christians. They have admired Jackson's ability to film the long and complex work at all the beauty of the cinematography, sets, and costumes the quality of the music and the epic scale of his version of Tolkien's story. Tolkien's 1954–1955 The Lord of the Rings, remarking that while both have been extremely successful commercially, the film version does not necessarily capture the intended meaning of the book. Commentators have compared Peter Jackson's 2001–2003 The Lord of the Rings film trilogy with the book on which it was based, J.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |