ohbut I can..
like, I never read beyond Fellowship in LOTR, and just saw Towers on dvd recently, which was sweeet.
I do tend to prefer films that are original screenplays, but Adaptation has to be a superlative exception.
woo Spike.
(like, I never read beyond Fellowship in LOTR, and just saw Towers on dvd recently, which was sweeet.
I do tend to prefer films that are original screenplays, but Adaptation has to be a superlative exception.
woo Spike.
Rapitinui get in the cage and I'll give you a treat,
Tue 6 Jan 2004, 4:23,
archived)
I didn't like adaptationbut I was in a fucking terrible mood
the films and the book of lord of the rings are really different things - the films are Peter Jackson's and the Books are Tolkein's. Tolkein can't write dialogue for shit and the pace is all wrong - yet it works because he's a genious. Jackson (and Walsch and Pippa whats her face)can write dialogue and his direction is genious.
/over explaining the bloody obvious
(,
Tue 6 Jan 2004, 4:27,
archived)
the films and the book of lord of the rings are really different things - the films are Peter Jackson's and the Books are Tolkein's. Tolkein can't write dialogue for shit and the pace is all wrong - yet it works because he's a genious. Jackson (and Walsch and Pippa whats her face)can write dialogue and his direction is genious.
/over explaining the bloody obvious
I dream that you agreeing with the analysisbut it's far more likely it was the closing of my tags
(,
Tue 6 Jan 2004, 4:30,
archived)
both really :)they're different forms, but the story is the same, even if some of the details are left out.
(
kitty meow meow,
Tue 6 Jan 2004, 4:31,
archived)
the only bit I liked in Adaptationwas the "deconstructionist" joke.
At which I laughed far, far too much.
(,
Tue 6 Jan 2004, 4:28,
archived)
At which I laughed far, far too much.
oh, i knowi was just whining.
and trying to make a general point.
(and trying to make a general point.
cwethan,
Tue 6 Jan 2004, 4:44,
archived)