Jacob Proffitt Jacob at
Wed Jun 5 15:17:41 EDT 2002

---Original Message From: Michelle Thomas
> Films just can't be as good as books.

Oh, I disagree.  Sure, they can't be as good in the same ways, but
that's because it really is a different medium.  But some truly gifted
artists are in film, too, and some films are as good as (or at least
close to) the books they're based on.  Lord of the Rings is one that I
think comes very close to being as good as its source.  Since it's an
adaptation of a truly fine book, it's a little tough to really determine
that, but to me, Peter Jackson did an *excellent* job translating the
book to the screen and deserves serious kudos for managing
it--particularly recognizing that film is a much more collaborative
medium and it takes a really strong hand that is, at the same time,
nurturing and encouraging to carry out a uniformly excellent work.  Oh,
and (being comfortable) hiring a lot of really talented people to
assist--like whoever did the editing (fantastic job) and those who did
the sfx.

Again, it's not as good in all the same ways.  But it *is* as good as a
film as the book is as a book.  I catch flack from some people when I
say things like that, though.  To some, LOTR is such a core
work--practically fantasy canon--that nothing can be allowed to compete
or claim equivalent stature.  To me, though, that's too much privilege
granted to LOTR.  It's good, it's even great, but other works are on the
same level.  I just don't buy that nothing new can rival foundational
works of greatness.

Jacob Proffitt

To unsubscribe, email dwj-request at with the body "unsubscribe".
Visit the archives at

More information about the Dwj mailing list