--- Original Message ---
From: "David Bratman" <dbratman@...
> So fans of Tolkien's Hobbit are perfectly entitled to enjoy this movie. But
> if they say that they enjoyed it in the same way they enjoyed the book, or
> that they found the two alike in spirit, they will suffer this damning
> penalty: I won't believe them.
In my mind, they're 2 entirely different entities.
> In fact,
> Movie-Thorin is more like Aragorn should be, and Richard Armitage (at least
> today) would make a better Aragorn than the too-soft and unseasoned Viggo
> Mortensen did.
I agree with this. I thought Movie-Thorin was fantastic.
> Jackson injects crises of confidence into these characters in an attempt to
> humanize them, to make them easier for a supposed modern reader to identify
> with. There are two flaws in this reasoning.
I agree it's flawed reasoning; as has been previously mentioned, however, this
is taught in screenwriting courses and workshops as something one simply MUST
do. (I've taken screenwriting courses and workshops.) Another reason it's flawed
is that Jackson (and Boyens and the other writers he collaborates with) are now
established enough that they can ignore what they were taught in film school and
write a story to its strengths rather than to conform to current trends. It's
surprising to me that they don't take more chances and depart from "the usual."
(Yes, I was satisfied with the LotR movies and the current Hobbit movie, but
that doesn't mean I don't think they could have been made even better with some
Joan Marie Verba