As for the other trilogy of movies, we went to see Return of the King last week. I was really surprised at the number of kids at the show (it was an afternoon matinee) but I must admit that they were exceptionally well-behaved. I can't see any reason to bring a young child to a movie that lasts over three hours. However, they weren't disruptive so I can't complain at length (as much as I'd like to *grin*).
There are a number of reviewers of the Lord of the Rings trilogy who haven't read the books recently (or even at all). Are these reviews valid? Some say that the movies should be viewable by everyone, not just the "select few" that have the patience to read the book. However, I think that it's not uncommon for some forms of entertainment to require pre-requisites.
Let's take an extreme example - weekly television shows, such as soap operas. If I watched a random soap opera, could I complain if things that happened previously weren't explained sufficiently? Of course not, that would be foolish. Likewise, could I critize Austin Powers 2 for not repeating character development that was done in the previous movie? No.
But what if the pre-requisite is in a different medium? Let's look at the opposite situation- Could I review the Nitpicker's Guide to Star Trek: The Next Generation without ever having seen an episode of the television show? What value would that review have for you? In my mind, reviews of the Lord of the Rings movies by people who have not read the books should be treated just as lightly.
posted by FlyingSheep @ 9:58 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home