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

Re: spotty review

Expand Messages
  • marcfcs
    ... pipeline. I ll believe that when I see it. I can t imagine Hollywood doing a big budget 3 movie fantasy series where most of the audience are going to
    Message 1 of 158 , Feb 5, 2004
      --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, David Bratman <dbratman@e...> wrote:
      >
      > Wait and see. I hear that Stephen R. Donaldson is in the
      pipeline.

      I'll believe that when I see it. I can't imagine Hollywood doing
      a big budget 3 movie fantasy series where most of the audience are
      going to absolutely loath the main character by about 20 minutes
      into the first movie. If they really want to do fantasy trilogies,
      I expect they will find something more conventional or at least
      something with a likable anti-hero.


      > >Instead, the Hollywood lesson learned from
      > >LOTR seems to be make more big budget epic ancient/medieval war
      > >movies.
      >
      > Sure, and some of them could easily be big-budget-epic-ancient-
      medieval-war
      > fantasies. Most of the post-Tolkien epic fantasies better fit
      those
      > adjectives than LOTR does.
      >
      True, but I don't see any serious movement towards doing this at the
      moment in Hollywood.

      >
      > >I've often thought that Frodo sacrificing himself at Mt.
      > >Doom to destroy the ring would be a plausible ending for LOTR.
      >
      > No, because that would be suicide, and completely antithetical to
      Tolkien's
      > morality. Even Gollum doesn't commit suicide, though in the
      drafts Tolkien
      > does consider the idea of having Gollum do so.
      >

      I think you could create a version that didn't qualify as suicide as
      you have been describing it. For example, Frodo charges at Gollum
      after losing the ring knowing he is almost certain to go over the
      edge with Gollum, but not knowing for sure.


      Regards,

      Marc

      marclists@...
    • dmsherwood_heather
      ... has, ... completely ... comeuppance ... life. ... expectations ... an ... one ... kind ... that ... a ... explained ... argue ... discussion ... Hi I m
      Message 158 of 158 , Mar 8, 2004
        --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, "marcfcs" <marcfcs@a...> wrote:
        > --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, David Bratman <dbratman@e...> wrote:
        >
        > >
        > > But neither of these describe Thomas Covenant. He is not
        > uninteresting, he
        > > is positively annoying. Nor is he merely detestable, but a
        > detestable
        > > person one is supposed to identify with (to an extent) as a
        > viewpoint
        > > character, without - at least as far as I read, three long weary
        > books of
        > > it - having a turning point or apotheosis of sympathy as Lear
        has,
        > or
        > > getting his due comeuppance as Richard III does.
        >
        > Two points: 1) I don't think you are supposed to identify with
        > Covenant. I think Donaldson goes out of his way to block you from
        > identifying with him(though as I said before, I know nothing about
        > his motivations beyond what is in the books, so I could be
        completely
        > wrong).
        >
        > 2) I don't have a problem with Covenant not getting his
        comeuppance
        > or having a turning point and learning some deep lesson about
        life.
        > The universe is an imperfect place. I don't mind if fiction
        > reflects that sometimes. I like it when a work subverts
        expectations
        > and does not unfold in a traditional way. It doesn't bother me if
        an
        > anti-hero character doesn't have a heart of gold and doesn't grow
        one
        > later (and isn't punished for that in some act of cosmic justice by
        > the author).
        >
        > > The problem with this moment is not the sentiment - for surely an
        > ancient
        > > king no more intends to outlive his son and heir than a modern
        > Oprah guest
        > > does - but the phrasing and style with which it is said.
        >
        > The phrasing is the worst part and the one that is most relevant to
        > me for enjoying the movie. However, the sentiment is wrong as well
        > as an adaptation of Tolkien since this clearly goes against the
        kind
        > of "men of the north" heroic ethos that Tolkien gives to Rohan.
        > Lamenting the death of a son is 1 thing. Saying no father should
        > outlive their children is not the right sentiment for a culture
        that
        > honors noble death more than survival at any costs. This changes
        a
        > culture that Tolkien meant to be a little alien to his audience and
        > makes it more like modern people in medieval clothing. Can anyone
        > imagine Beowulf or Sigurd saying such a thing, however you want to
        > phrase it? Not that Tolkien doesn't modernize those types of
        > characters a little, but not that much.
        >
        > Finally, as far as the whole post-Romantic thing goes, I've
        explained
        > my point and you clearly understand it now. We could probably
        argue
        > endlessly about the exact usage of the specific words I chose and I
        > doubt it would be of interest to anyone else reading this
        discussion
        > group. So, lets just let it drop.
        >
        > Regards,
        >
        > Marc
        >
        > marclists@a...

        Hi I'm (dmsherwood53@...) & I'm breaking into a conversation
        where the protagonists have agrred to let it drop wvery uncivilised
        of me.
        If your still listening coupla points:
        I agree theris a post-romantic sensibility.
        I think this and its opposite the romantic sensibility ties deeply
        intowhat a person is; wants to be; fears being; all thaT shimola
        I think ROMANCES using the term v widely tie into this more deeply
        than ordinary books tho its part of why anybody cares a damn about any
        art at all.
        Its a mistake to talk about a romance as tho it was a bad attempt to
        do what an ant-romance was doing and vice-versa-which was mostly what
        you guys were doing- altho take this to extremes and we all end us
        reading our own diaries and never confrunting another POV (Which
        Lewis thought the reason why there are booksat all)
        dmsherwood53@...
        PS Have you readthe NEW WEIRD fiction goes much further into anti-
        romantic vision than Donaldson eg a;lmost any CHINA MEILVILLE's books
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.