Re: Most disappointing films.

On Sat, 8 Mar 2025 19:08:10 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
<usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:

In article <ambesj5kquo052k8ehg9nfduu7967q3bpj@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person  <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:23:19 -0500, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

Part 1 is mostly about the difficulties of adapting
The Hobbit to a film, including the critical error of
expanding from 2 to 3 films at the last moment,

>
In addition to the even more critical error of thinking it needed 2
films to begin with.
>
Rankin-Bass did it in 80 minutes. Adding Beorn back would have
stretched to ... maybe 90 minutes.

>
I will say, I thought they did a great job with Beorn.
He should be scary.
>
Many really critical errors, starting with the "Make this short
fairly light novel into an Epic Trilogy(TM) just like Lord
of the Rings itself" ... but I think the most destructive
individual error was having Sauron revealed to Gandalf.
This is so completely "some other universe" from the Lord of
the Rings, where Sauron's presence being unknown is a major
factor, that it almost seems like Jackson didn't read the
books, though he obviously did from the LotR movies.

They did such a great job with Radagast that at least some of those
claiming that Bombadil was not in the films of /LOTR/ (whether Bakshi
or PJ) because "he couldn't be captured on film" changed their mind.

Just as, when PJ's /FOTR/ came out, the snarking about "the difference
between Elf and Man in Bakshi is about 6 f-stops" stopped when Arwen
descended from her horse.

And I had a lot of fun, for a while, pointing out to others
complaining about a PJ fault, that Bakshi had done it correctly. These
were all minor things; the one I remember is the "who said what" at
the gate to Moria.

So PJs films weren't without their uses ... they just weren't telling
the same story as the book.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"