Was Peter Jackson's LotR trilogy a good film adaptation?

[jaques]

Originally Posted by RichardD

Why should we not expect "literature" to be "a good book"? What is it about "a good book" that allows people to dismiss it if it's not "literature"?

I've read "literature", and I find it boring, stilted and just too much hard work for too little entertainment. I much prefer to read "good books". If you tell me that LOTR qualifies as "literature", I'll accept that. As I found it boring, stilted and just too much hard work for too little entertainment, it certainly fits my definition of "literature". It's also wide of the mark in terms of being "a good book".

I'm not against a book being informative and intellectually demanding. It's just that I have hundreds of non-fiction works that fulfill those particular criteria, and when I read them I find that my knowledge base increases as well. When I read non-fiction, I expect to be entertained, and LOTR simply isn't entertaining enough, consistently enough, to work for me.

Movies are a different kettle of fish. I'm not unusual in wanting to be entertained by movies. There's a whole genre designed to intelectually stimulate and challenge; we call them "art house movies", and they struggle to pull in enough people to cover their costs. For the other 99.9% of sinema-goers, I think that I can safely say that we want something that looks good, sounds good, and tells a good story. LOTR ticked all of those boxes for me.

Nitpicking over how Elvish archers were ordered to "wait then fire" is frankly daft. How precisely do you know that such an order is superfluous? Perhaps the elves, as accomplished individual hunters, were more used to independant fire. In which case, telling them to hold for a disciplined volley makes perfect sense. I could nitpick the other nitpicks, but I really CBA. And it wouldn't change anybody's point of view anyway.

There are two defining characteristics of Literature. The first is that it tends to be dramatic (serious, deep-thinking, highbrow) and the second is that it is crafted in a manner that withstands critical scrutiny. Neither of these has anything to do with how entertaining the work is.

It is very unfortunate that the determiners of Literary quality tend to be people so obsessed with these two qualities that they find a work entertaining if it possesses them, regardless of whether the work contains anything whatsoever that the rest of us would find amusing.

Because lovers of Literature care primarily about the craft demonstrated by a work, entertainment tends to subdivide into two categories: that which is Serious and Literary versus that which is Entertaining but (all too often) Sloppy.

I happen to occupy an unfortunate middle ground. I do not want my entertainment to be sloppy, but I cannot be entertained on the basis of meticulous craftsmanship alone.

Those who insist that "good books" and "good movies" should not be criticized for their flaws are essentially denying me the right to hope for the entertainment that I most enjoy, which is to say an entertaining book or film that is also superbly crafted.

[royaldoy]

[/quote]

There are two defining characteristics of Literature. The first is that it tends to be dramatic (serious, deep-thinking, highbrow) and the second is that it is crafted in a manner that withstands critical scrutiny. Neither of these has anything to do with how entertaining the work is..[/quote]

Hale-a-Freakin'- ukelele!!! That's what this thread has been from the beginning. I'd love to debate this topic but I have not the time or the brain power to do so. Just reading that one simple paragraph makes me smile inside, all warm and fuzzy like. I couldn't agree more and nitpicking about this movie which is either great, good or just okay depending on who you are is pointless, because no matter how bad you think this movie may be, there are THOUSANDS of other movies out there that are just plain crap. You don't have to love it, but you dont have to hate it right?? Aww who cares, if you hate it, you hate it. Just go back to watching something that is emotionless and has less Hobbit love.

[Ormus]

Originally Posted by RichardD

Why should we not expect "literature" to be "a good book"? What is it about "a good book" that allows people to dismiss it if it's not "literature"?

I've read "literature", and I find it boring, stilted and just too much hard work for too little entertainment. I much prefer to read "good books". If you tell me that LOTR qualifies as "literature", I'll accept that. As I found it boring, stilted and just too much hard work for too little entertainment, it certainly fits my definition of "literature". It's also wide of the mark in terms of being "a good book".

I'm not against a book being informative and intellectually demanding. It's just that I have hundreds of non-fiction works that fulfill those particular criteria, and when I read them I find that my knowledge base increases as well. When I read non-fiction, I expect to be entertained, and LOTR simply isn't entertaining enough, consistently enough, to work for me.

Movies are a different kettle of fish. I'm not unusual in wanting to be entertained by movies. There's a whole genre designed to intelectually stimulate and challenge; we call them "art house movies", and they struggle to pull in enough people to cover their costs. For the other 99.9% of sinema-goers, I think that I can safely say that we want something that looks good, sounds good, and tells a good story. LOTR ticked all of those boxes for me.

Nitpicking over how Elvish archers were ordered to "wait then fire" is frankly daft. How precisely do you know that such an order is superfluous? Perhaps the elves, as accomplished individual hunters, were more used to independant fire. In which case, telling them to hold for a disciplined volley makes perfect sense. I could nitpick the other nitpicks, but I really CBA. And it wouldn't change anybody's point of view anyway.

Many will disagree with this...but I would classify the Harry Potter series as literature (esp. books 6 and 7). If you want it to be deep and full of underlying themes it is...but if you just want to read a good story it can be that too. The Hobbit is of similar comparison: If literary and mythical allusions are your thing, you can list the comparisons to Beowulf and the Niebelungenlied, but you can also ignore that and just read it as an intelligently crafted childrens story. Stories can be taken how the reader wants to take them. Intelligence in literary structure does not automatically negate any entertaining elements the story may have.