Just like the Transformers movie, can the LoTR trilogy be critiqued as an entity upon itself? Does the knowledge of the source material so completely destroy the work that it lacks the basic structure to hold up to scrutiny?
When a film is bad, or I disagree with it, I tend to say 'Yes, it could have been better'. But logically that statement should be applied universally. So when a good film adaption comes along it becomes increasingly difficult to say 'that could be improved on'. It only follows then to disregard previous expectations and judge the work for what it is.
I have a problem with Tim Burton's 'Planet of the Apes'. I feel it completely trashes the original in the name of modern cinema. But really, does its existance truly dilute the impact of the original? Not at all. I just was pre-disposed to a certain level of expectation and was left hanging. Now, taken for a work on its own, I found the film predictable, cardboard characters, and phoned-in acting. The best compliment one can give is the costumes are spot on.
This line of thinking is also one of my pet peeves with game reviews and sequels/ports. Sometimes its helpful to compare material previously available, but for the most part, I want to know how does this game stand on its own? How many reviews of Godfather or Scarface refer to the game as available on another system and compares the capabilities? That comparison then affects the scoring of the game. It belittles the effort and in effect says you don't have the complete package unless you experience every version of the game. Resident Evil 4 falls into it too, though luckily most scores remain uneffected.
Alright, I'm done.
Topic: Lord of the Rings (Read 7803 times)
