Quote:
Originally Posted by Urchinn
Third, and this is a big one to me, is the fact that most director's give little honor to source material. If Peter Jackson can hack up and distort/reinvent Tolkien's source material then he could never, ever complain if his (Jackson's) work was released only as a 4:3 dvd (or only a black and white version). Why? Because in disregarding the original work how could he complain if his version was altered in any way.
I've had too much coffee, folks! Sorry 'bout the rant.
|
Except Jackson didn't change tolkein's book/s and then resell the books, he made his own movies out of them. That's a completely new product, and is different than someone coming along and changing the ACTUAL TEXT of the tolkein books to make it say something DIFFERENT than what he wrote, and then passing them along as "improved" versions.
Can you imagine if Michael Jackson said, "let's add synthesizers to all these Beatles songs instead of trumpets, cellos and violins, because I think synthesizers sound better, and if the Beatles had access to this technology they would have used it? Since I now own the rights to these songs, I can do whatever I want with them because I think it sounds better (or will make me more money when I resell them)?" It's outrageous. But that's exactly what the movie colorizers are doing. It's no different at all.
Hell, I think it's outrageous that they even "computerized" the original Star Trek series with gaudy CGI. Retouching some skin blotches and flaws in the film and that kind of thing to RESTORE the original is one thing, but adding something completely new and different is way out of line, in my opinion. Not to mention presumptuous. Like I said, if we had taken that approach with Shakespeare's plays or other art work, a lot of it wouldn't even be recognizable today. I think that does a massive disservice to the historical record as well as to the artist.