LittleHobbit
Menegroth
May 12 2016, 11:54pm
Views: 3092
|
|
I agree with just about everything you've wrote...
|
|
|
ESPECIALLY THIS:
Here is the correct answer: as long as the films produced have VALUE and are of HIGH QUALITY, it doesn't matter how many there are. Three good films is more good films than one, regardless of how many installments were printed of the source.
But also don't forget the stupid comments like, ''OMG this trilogy is so bloated'' and the tired, overused, totally worn out and now therefore meaningless analogy of ''too little butter spread over too much bread'' (or something like that)!
I mean, who cares if the movies were stretched from one to two, or three? As you say, as long as the movies are good, this is a non-issue.
I myself like to phrase this as ''The movies should fail or stand on their own''. Regardless of the source material. FORGET THE SOURCE MATERIAL. Books are books, movies are movies. The two mediums are quite different. As obvious as this may sound, it's one of the greatest truths out there.
(This post was edited by LittleHobbit on May 12 2016, 11:57pm)
|
