| |
|
Much confusion. My Bad.
I thought you were talking about LOTR.
I didn't like Harry Potter much, either. Because it was a really good example of a film being brought to a book - a really cowardly, uninspired production. And the special effects looked rushed, too.
In the case of LOTR, exactly the opposite is true. Jackson took the text and made it his own - stylistically, narratively, thematically... It looks like nothing else, it feels like nothing else. I think people got off on its idiosyncrasies. And New Line took such a risk w/ it. You are aware the company was terrified the whole fucking thing would go down if it bombed? And then to allow Jackson the kind of creative freedom they did.... cool.
Comparisons between Potter and LOTR are balls. One was a safe, rather dull film, and the other: pretty much heroic and daring. Jackson deserves all the kudos he gets, in my book. And I think I'd stick by most of the above even if I didn't really like it.
[ 25-02-2002: Message edited by: You and Runce ] |
|
|
