Re: [mythsoc] Tolkien . . . on screen adaptation
- John D Rateliff <sacnoth@...> wrote:
>I don't think it would have made any difference. Tolkien would haveTrue enough, but mostly because it either _couldn't_ be done well or _wouldn't_ be done well; the insistence of film people, despite their collectively spotty track record, that they know what they're doing and renowned long-selling fiction writers don't, means there's no effective difference between the two. From Tolkien's point of view, the principle arises from the practice.
>hated any adaptation, no matter how well done, no matter how well any
>special effects were handled, no matter how long or short the
>results. And he would have hated any changes, no matter how
>insignificant. He did not like green eggs and ham, he did not like
Nor is the green-eggs-and-ham guy a good reference. He said he didn't like green eggs and ham because he hadn't tried them. Tolkien did like, or at least didn't mind so much, the idea of dramatization of his work _until_ he'd tried it. Applying Rateliff's Law, I find that his generous comments about allowing "other minds and hands" to have their way with his creation predate his experiences with Terence Tiller and Morton Grady Zimmerman, will his declarations that LOTR is not suitable for dramatization come immediately on his encounter with what dramatists did with his book. (Though he should have known, as his OFS criticism of fantasy drama and his expression of loathing for Disney predate either.)