Purism - Quixotic?

[N.E. Brigand]

How is that a concession? The battles are part of the story!

You wrote that the film's opening needed to be less twee than the book's to appeal to a wide audience. It's a concession to a wide audience who expects their films to open with a bang, to change the story structure to give them that.

Yes, I like the movement of the book too ... but strictly speaking, the Tale actually starts with the Prologue and a whole dollop of history.

Since there is no such thing as an absolutely faithful adaptation, we're all working on a sliding scale. (And of course we're all talking about our own tastes: why should I care if the rest of the audience likes the film of LotR if I don't -- Forty million Frenchmen can't be right!) The book prologue's serving of history is a good deal less cinematically exciting: if the tone were preserved, it would largely be dry. Now, Ken Burns' The Civil War, for one of many instances, shows how history can be kept pretty engaging on film, but I was willing to make that concession to a general audience. How much paratext should a film copy - cover, title page, publication information, Ring verse, table of contents (I have seen two online discussions of the chapter titles in LotR), Doug Anderson and Hammond & Scull's separate Notes on the Text, Foreword, Prologue, and Shire Map?

[Pearly Di]

How much paratext should a film copy - cover, title page, publication information, Ring verse, table of contents (I have seen two online discussions of the chapter titles in LotR), Doug Anderson and Hammond & Scull's separate Notes on the Text, Foreword, Prologue, and Shire Map?

Yes, yes , N.E. Brigand. Very cute.



So the film began by showing us the Last Alliance.

Fine by me.



-edit-

Minor edit to remove mild but slightly unnecessary snark.

[Pearly Di]

Aaaaaaaaaand she double-posts.

Great.

[Frelga]

From 1965 to 2001, thirty-six years, Ballantine sold 32 million copies of LotR, or fewer than a million a year. (Link) Phenomenal for a book, but it would be deadly for a film. And even if all 32 million copies produced lifelong fans who would never miss the movie, that's still only half the ticket sales.

Now, Prim, you know better than that! How many people are going to read your copy of Harry Potter? More than one I bet! Books can be shared, gifted, re-read over and over, re-sold, donated to libraries where scores of people might read the same copy. Movie goers pay per person, per viewing. If you could count how many times each LOTR book was read all the way through, by anybody anywhere, I bet the number would dwarf the movie ticket sales.

This post was brought to you by Frelga Against Fuzzy Math coalition.

[axordil]

If you could count how many times each LOTR book was read all the way through, by anybody anywhere, I bet the number would dwarf the movie ticket sales.

I don't. Anyone who read a borrowed copy then bought it, in my experience.

[Alatar]

And some people like me have bought multiple copies. I have 6 different editions of LotR and a couple of copies of some of those.

[Frelga]

True, but many people also watched the movies multiple times.

[Crucifer]

Exactly. I went to each of them three times, with three different groups of people.

[Alatar]

I think I saw Fellowship 5 times in the Cinema. The other two only 3 times each. Of course then there was the DVDs and SEs.

I honestly have no idea at this stage how many times I've read the book or seen the films.

[Primula Baggins]

Of course I had to make some assumptions, but Ax and Alatar's points are why I assumed roughly one book, one reading. Four people in our household have read the book, and we own four copies. Before my three kids read it, I owned three. My mother owns three, and she's the only LotR reader in her house.

These kinds of calculations can be nothing but fuzzy math. They remind me of the "equation" that is supposed to tell us how many intelligent civilizations exist in our galaxy right now. It's a series of unknowns, and its only interest lies in seeing how making different assumptions affects the result.

[Anduril]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purist#Pur ... ertainment again:

# Comic book and manga purists sometimes vocalize their dislike of conversion of material into television or films, which is allegedly often modified to appeal to a more mainstream audience to varying degrees of skill.

I guess this applies to this fandom as well... "dumbing down" characters, etc...

# [The term] The Lord of the Rings purists ... especially refers to those who adamantly detest the Peter Jackson-directed trilogy for deviating even in minor detail from the original text.

I'm not this puristy... as I said, I'm mostly fine with cosmetic changes such as plate armor.

con't:

At the very least, the term is meant to delineate direct opposition to "fangirls".

Well, isn't everyone else opposed to (stereotypical) fangirls?

[Frelga]

Those detestable fangirls! Fanwomen on the other hand, are the epitome of taste and discernment.

[Pearly Di]

Those detestable fangirls! Fanwomen on the other hand, are the epitome of taste and discernment.

Preach it, sister!