Thanks for pointing me to that essay! I thought it was excellent.
So you post on TORC, or used to? I wonder if I've ever encountered you there? I post as Cressida, though I haven't been very active there since last spring.
Applying the points of the article to fandom once again: something about LOTR fandom clicked for me while reading that essay and your reaction, about why some people are driven completely up the wall by the movies and others absolutely cannot understand why they feel that way. I really think the scripts for the movies are full of logical fallacies. They want us to accept post hoc as propter hoc, they have many non sequiturs that the audience must scramble to fill in, they sometimes argue from ignorance in ways that the audience may not be naturally inclined to follow, etc. Some people, for whatever reason, find it easy to go along with these fallacies and follow them in the direction that Peter Jackson & co. apparently want them to go. A kinder way of putting that might be to say that the filmmakers rely on the audience making intuitive leaps along with them. But to those who see the fallacies as fallacies, who aren't willing or able to make the leaps unless led to do so by a chain of evidence, the movies are going to be profoundly unsatisfying.
Whatever people say about the movie adaptations of the Harry Potter books, at least they do not have that problem.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-09-10 05:50 pm (UTC)So you post on TORC, or used to? I wonder if I've ever encountered you there? I post as Cressida, though I haven't been very active there since last spring.
Applying the points of the article to fandom once again: something about LOTR fandom clicked for me while reading that essay and your reaction, about why some people are driven completely up the wall by the movies and others absolutely cannot understand why they feel that way. I really think the scripts for the movies are full of logical fallacies. They want us to accept post hoc as propter hoc, they have many non sequiturs that the audience must scramble to fill in, they sometimes argue from ignorance in ways that the audience may not be naturally inclined to follow, etc. Some people, for whatever reason, find it easy to go along with these fallacies and follow them in the direction that Peter Jackson & co. apparently want them to go. A kinder way of putting that might be to say that the filmmakers rely on the audience making intuitive leaps along with them. But to those who see the fallacies as fallacies, who aren't willing or able to make the leaps unless led to do so by a chain of evidence, the movies are going to be profoundly unsatisfying.
Whatever people say about the movie adaptations of the Harry Potter books, at least they do not have that problem.