Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

use material from many other book, et alia

Expand Messages
  • odzer@aol.com
    ... What do you mean, Michael, please elaborate? in other news..... I just saw the movie. Ugh! Further catastrophe. It was just awful, worse than expected,
    Message 1 of 13 , Dec 30, 2003
      From: "Michael Martinez" <michael_martinez2@...>writes:

      >I never expected the movies to be faithful to the book. I have long
      >
      >maintained that Peter wasn't legally able to be completely faithful
      >
      >to Tolkien because he would have had to use material from many other
      >
      >books to be so.

      What do you mean, Michael, please elaborate?


      in other news.....

      I just saw the movie.

      Ugh!

      Further catastrophe.

      It was just awful, worse than expected, though I should have been prepared by
      now for dismay at yet more 'plot inventions that needlessly change the
      meaning in exactly the wrong direction'.


      Well, in my lifetime i have faith someone will do another version, someday
      maybe with a smaller budget and certainly a better script.


      Oh and one point among many ?!?!?!? moments-why decide to have a single orc
      command the whole army, and make the king of the nazgul a minor sideshow at
      best, certainly not in charge, or especially threatening in any way?


      AAAAHHHH, so stupid, that script!

      -John Potts
    • Bill
      If the trilogy had been an artistic and commercial failure, perhaps you might have hope. I m thinking specifically of Dune which was a boxoffice flop but was
      Message 2 of 13 , Dec 30, 2003
        If the trilogy had been an artistic and commercial failure, perhaps
        you might have hope.
        I'm thinking specifically of Dune which was a boxoffice flop but was
        redone a few years
        back by the Sci Fi Channel.
        But despite some criticism, PJ's LoTR has been a major success money
        wise and garnered
        critics awards.I doubt anyone will think remake for fity years or so.
        As I've said before, I'm just glad his adaptation is as good as it is.
        I first rerad the books 35
        years ago, and never thought they'd do a decent movie of it.
        Bill

        Odzer@... wrote:

        > Well, in my lifetime i have faith someone will do another version, someday
        > maybe with a smaller budget and certainly a better script.




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • JP Massar
        ... Yes, that was perhaps the weirdest twist of all. After all, they spent a lot of time in the earlier parts of RotK and TTT, playing UP the Witch King. In
        Message 3 of 13 , Dec 30, 2003
          >
          >Oh and one point among many ?!?!?!? moments-why decide to have a single orc
          >command the whole army, and make the king of the nazgul a minor sideshow at
          >best, certainly not in charge, or especially threatening in any way?
          >
          >
          >AAAAHHHH, so stupid, that script!

          Yes, that was perhaps the weirdest twist of all.

          After all, they spent a lot of time in the
          earlier parts of RotK and TTT, playing UP the Witch King.

          In TTT, he becomes aware of the Ring in Osgiliath and hence
          in the possession of Gondor (by all logical analysis) yet that
          never plays further.

          He leads the armies out of Minas Morgul. He talks to Gothmog
          about Gandalf and gives Gothmog commands before the battle.

          Gandalf talks to Pippin about him, setting up an obvious confrontation.

          And then he essentially vanishes from the plot.

          We know from the previews there were shots of a confrontation
          between him on his fell beast and Gandalf on Shadowfax.

          I really get the impression they just ran out of time and 'cut and pasted'
          frantically toward the end of production.
        • WendellWag@aol.com
          In a message dated 12/30/2003 8:13:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, odzer@aol.com ... I don t know exactly what Michael Martinez means here, but I suspect that
          Message 4 of 13 , Dec 31, 2003
            In a message dated 12/30/2003 8:13:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, odzer@...
            writes:

            > From: "Michael Martinez" <michael_martinez2@...>writes:
            >
            > >I never expected the movies to be faithful to the book. I have long
            > >
            > >maintained that Peter wasn't legally able to be completely faithful
            > >
            > >to Tolkien because he would have had to use material from many other
            > >
            > >books to be so.
            >
            > What do you mean, Michael, please elaborate?
            >

            I don't know exactly what Michael Martinez means here, but I suspect that
            what he's saying is that to do a faithful movie of _The Lord of the Rings_, it
            would be necessary to use information that's not in _The Lord of the Rings_ but
            only in _The Silmarillion_ or one of the History of Middle Earth books. I
            guess that he's saying that, since Tolkien Enterprises (i.e., Saul Zaentz) only
            owns the cinematic rights to _The Lord of the Rings_ and _The Hobbit_ and the
            Tolkien family has no intention of allowing anything else to be used in a
            movie, it would be impossible to make the movie faithful. I'm not sure. If one
            makes movie from book A (which you own the rights for) from an author, is it
            illegal to use information in book B (which you don't own the rights for) from
            the same author to interpret how one turns the book into a screenplay. For
            instance, suppose that you weren't given the hero's last name in book A, but you
            are in book B. Can you use the name in your screenplay? Suppose you weren't
            given the hero's hair color in book A, but you are in book B. Can you give the
            hero that hair color?

            Is this your point, Michael?

            Wendell Wagner


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Elizabeth R. Milner
            Probably not a movie, but maybe a mini-series? ... perhaps ... but was ... success money ... or so. ... as it is. ... version, someday
            Message 5 of 13 , Dec 31, 2003
              Probably not a movie, but maybe a mini-series?


              --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, Bill <lunacy2@m...> wrote:
              > If the trilogy had been an artistic and commercial failure,
              perhaps
              > you might have hope.
              > I'm thinking specifically of Dune which was a boxoffice flop
              but was
              > redone a few years
              > back by the Sci Fi Channel.
              > But despite some criticism, PJ's LoTR has been a major
              success money
              > wise and garnered
              > critics awards.I doubt anyone will think remake for fity years
              or so.
              > As I've said before, I'm just glad his adaptation is as good
              as it is.
              > I first rerad the books 35
              > years ago, and never thought they'd do a decent movie of it.
              > Bill
              >
              > Odzer@a... wrote:
              >
              > > Well, in my lifetime i have faith someone will do another
              version, someday
              > > maybe with a smaller budget and certainly a better script.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Bill
              The only reason the Dune miniseries was made was because the movie was such a flop. What network or studio is going to be able to invest the dollars in a
              Message 6 of 13 , Dec 31, 2003
                The only reason the Dune miniseries was made was because the movie
                was such a flop.
                What network or studio is going to be able to invest the dollars
                in a miniseries? The amount of
                money needed for sets and CGI's to even come close to PJ's would
                make it prohibitive.Let alone
                they would not be able to immediately recoup those expenditures
                with the ticket sales a theatrical
                movie would give them.
                Of course, they could use cheaper sets and effects, but given the
                huge success of the movies, I just
                can't see them doing it.
                There will most likely be miniseries of the Tolkclones instead,
                such as the rumored Robert Jordan
                miniseries. They can market the DVD's later without having to
                compete with a theatrical version.

                Elizabeth R. Milner wrote:
                Probably not a movie, but maybe a mini-series?
              • darancgrissom@sbcglobal.net
                You know my friends and I see previews before the movies and then after the film think our time would have been better spent just watching the equivalent
                Message 7 of 13 , Jan 1, 2004
                  You know my friends and I see previews before the movies and then after the
                  film think our time would have been better spent just watching the
                  equivalent number of previews instead of the film. That's the feeling I got
                  watch RotK, like I was watching a long preview of the Extended Edition DVD.
                  I think in the ast movie especially Jackson made the plot difficult to
                  understand by cutting out scenes and you could almost hear in the background
                  "It'll be in the DVD."
                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: JP Massar [mailto:massar@...]
                  Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 7:31 PM
                  To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com; mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [mythsoc] use material from many other book, et alia

                  We know from the previews there were shots of a confrontation
                  between him on his fell beast and Gandalf on Shadowfax


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Michael Martinez
                  ... When I did some research for one of the artists at Weta, they asked a specific question about how certain things should appear. I pointed out that the
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jan 1, 2004
                    --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, odzer@a... wrote:
                    > From: "Michael Martinez" <michael_martinez2@y...>writes:
                    >
                    > >I never expected the movies to be faithful to the book. I have
                    > >long maintained that Peter wasn't legally able to be completely
                    > >faithful to Tolkien because he would have had to use material
                    > >from many other books to be so.
                    >
                    > What do you mean, Michael, please elaborate?

                    When I did some research for one of the artists at Weta, they asked a
                    specific question about how certain things should appear. I pointed
                    out that the details had been published in the HISTORY OF MIDDLE-
                    EARTH books. The reply I received was (and I am summarizing from
                    memory here): "Yes, Peter has all the books, has read them all, but
                    we can only use THE LORD OF THE RINGS and THE HOBBIT, so we're
                    looking for any passages in those books we may have missed...."

                    Providing some guidance on how to design Anduril was most
                    challenging. And though I have no idea of how much of my own
                    research and commentary influenced their design, the sword definitely
                    fits what I suggested to them.

                    They wanted more than what Tolkien had written in "The Ring Goes
                    South", so I suggested they look at what Tolkien had written about
                    Glamdring and Orcrist. Those swords were forged by Elves (whereas
                    Narsil had been forged by Telchar of Nogrod), but Anduril was
                    REFORGED by Elves -- perhaps Noldorin smiths who had lived in
                    Eregion, maybe even in Beleriand. It's an unprovable connection, but
                    the descriptions for Glamdring and Orcrist were at least included in
                    the allowable canon.
                  • Michael Martinez
                    ... I wouldn t be surprised if people start bidding on the rights as soon as they become available again in a few years. There are, after all, numerous
                    Message 9 of 13 , Jan 1, 2004
                      --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, Bill <lunacy2@m...> wrote:
                      > But despite some criticism, PJ's LoTR has been a major success
                      > money wise and garnered critics awards. I doubt anyone will think
                      > remake for fity years or so.

                      I wouldn't be surprised if people start bidding on the rights as soon
                      as they become available again in a few years. There are, after all,
                      numerous examples of "Hobbit" plays (and the two radio adaptations
                      for "The Lord of the Rings" itself).

                      The franchise has proven to be extremely flexible and commercial over
                      the past 35 years.

                      There is potential for spinoffs, remakes, and re-emphasizations. For
                      example, the American Elemental Films (the independent production
                      company making the "Ancanar" movie) wanted to do a film
                      called "Elessar", based on Aragorn's early years. They were told the
                      rights to that story were tied up with Peter's films.

                      There is pent-up demand for Tolkien movies. I expect to see more in
                      the coming years, not fewer or none.
                    • Bill
                      Such spinoffs wouldn t surprise me. . But the original statement dealt with a new mini-series version remake of the trilogy and I still can t see that
                      Message 10 of 13 , Jan 1, 2004
                        Such spinoffs wouldn't surprise me.
                        . But the original statement dealt with a new mini-series version
                        remake of the trilogy and I still can't see that happening very
                        quickly.

                        Michael Martinez wrote:

                        > --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, Bill <lunacy2@m...> wrote:
                        > > But despite some criticism, PJ's LoTR has been a major success
                        > > money wise and garnered critics awards. I doubt anyone will think
                        > > remake for fity years or so.
                        >
                        > I wouldn't be surprised if people start bidding on the rights as soon
                        > as they become available again in a few years. There are, after all,
                        > numerous examples of "Hobbit" plays (and the two radio adaptations
                        > for "The Lord of the Rings" itself).
                        >
                        > The franchise has proven to be extremely flexible and commercial over
                        > the past 35 years.
                        >
                        > There is potential for spinoffs, remakes, and re-emphasizations. For
                        > example, the American Elemental Films (the independent production
                        > company making the "Ancanar" movie) wanted to do a film
                        > called "Elessar", based on Aragorn's early years. They were told the
                        > rights to that story were tied up with Peter's films.
                        >
                        > There is pent-up demand for Tolkien movies. I expect to see more in
                        > the coming years, not fewer or none.
                        >
                        > The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
                        >
                        >
                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mythsoc/
                        >
                        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        > mythsoc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        >
                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                        > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Carl F. Hostetter
                        A really outstanding and (for a journalist) exceptionally informed article: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2004/01/02/
                        Message 11 of 13 , Jan 2, 2004
                          A really outstanding and (for a journalist) exceptionally informed
                          article:

                          http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2004/01/02/
                          they_took_our_precious/
                        • SusanPal@aol.com
                          I disagree with the writer s statement that Jackson uses Merry and Pippin, in this third film, almost exclusively for comic relief. I find the scene in
                          Message 12 of 13 , Jan 2, 2004
                            I disagree with the writer's statement that Jackson uses Merry and Pippin, in
                            this third film, "almost exclusively for comic relief." I find the scene in
                            which Pippin swears fealty to Denethor, although Denethor proceeds to mock him
                            and Gandalf acts impatient, to be quite moving: J-Pippin is asserting his
                            own dignity, the fact that he has gifts to offer, even though other people
                            discount him. Nor does the conversation between Gandalf and Pippin about death
                            come across as "comic relief" (although it does distort Tolkien's words). And
                            although it's true that Eomer mocks Merry's prowess in battle, Eowyn hotly
                            defends him, and since we're meant to side with her, clearly we're meant to side
                            with him, too.

                            I thought the film actually did quite a nice job of capturing the hobbits'
                            sense (which is described in the book) of being very small actors on a very
                            large stage. I suspect that by the time the film got to this point, the Boston
                            Globe writer was too influenced by other disappointments to perceive the
                            non-comic emotional overtones of the Merry and Pippin scenes.

                            I remain far more troubled by the use of Gimli as persistent comic relief.

                            Susan


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Stolzi@aol.com
                            In a message dated 1/2/2004 1:27:38 PM Central Standard Time, ... Boston ... Agree on both these points. Diamond Proudbrook [Non-text portions of this message
                            Message 13 of 13 , Jan 2, 2004
                              In a message dated 1/2/2004 1:27:38 PM Central Standard Time,
                              SusanPal@... writes:

                              >I thought the film actually did quite a nice job of capturing the hobbits'
                              >sense (which is described in the book) of being very small actors on a very
                              >large stage. I suspect that by the time the film got to this point, the
                              Boston
                              >Globe writer was too influenced by other disappointments to perceive the
                              >non-comic emotional overtones of the Merry and Pippin scenes.

                              >I remain far more troubled by the use of Gimli as persistent comic relief


                              Agree on both these points.



                              Diamond Proudbrook


                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.