RE: [mythsoc] Jackson as historical
- I'd say part of the fun of creating an alternate world is getting to create
or speculate on history---not so much doing alternate history (though
that's part of it), but also taking your history in a different direction
and seeing how it would play out. If Jackson thinks that doing fantasy as
history means his films will not be "an over-designed sort of film and not
"more earthy and organic," he is nuts. They are somewhat different, but
the same kinds of niches need to be filled to make a historical as opposed
Tolkien mentions realism of presentation, which is one element that makes
LOTR so effective. Fantasy needs this as much as history. You have to use
MORE imagination, not less, and figure out *any number of things* to make
an alternate world work. You have to figure out what technology gets
invented in your world, how magic works, what kind of architecture and
clothing you'll have. Much of this depends on our own history, but
wouldn't it be fun to do some twists?
Jackson based a lot of things in all three films on earth culture, even for
hobbits. I find it odd that he doesn't recall having to approve artistic
designs and other material items to dress FIVE various cultures: the
hobbits, the Rohirrim, the elves, the dwarves and the Gondorians. More
earthy and organic? Of course; Middle Earth is pre-industrial.
Does Jackson think fantasy is Science Fiction?
Either I have seriously misunderstood what he said, or he's not
communicating clearly what he means. ---djb
From: David Bratman dbratman@...
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:25:58 -0800
Subject: [mythsoc] Jackson as historical
Re Marc's recent comments: from the article linked to by Jack, here's Peter
Jackson explaining what he meant by intending his films as historicals:
"[We made] a conscious decision at the very beginning of our project, when
we were starting to get our team together, we set ourselves the job of
making more of an historical than a fantasy film, because I just thought
that would be interesting, to treat fantasy as history, as if it had a
degree of reality to it. So everything we did in the movie we tried to make
feel real and just tried to avoid an over-designed sort of film and tried
to make it more earthy and organic."
The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
Yahoo! Groups Links
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
- --- In email@example.com, "marcfcs" <marcfcs@a...> wrote:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, David Bratman <dbratman@e...> wrote:has,
> > But neither of these describe Thomas Covenant. He is not
> uninteresting, he
> > is positively annoying. Nor is he merely detestable, but a
> > person one is supposed to identify with (to an extent) as a
> > 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
> > 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
> 2) I don't have a problem with Covenant not getting his
> or having a turning point and learning some deep lesson aboutlife.
> The universe is an imperfect place. I don't mind if fictionexpectations
> reflects that sometimes. I like it when a work subverts
> and does not unfold in a traditional way. It doesn't bother me ifan
> anti-hero character doesn't have a heart of gold and doesn't growone
> later (and isn't punished for that in some act of cosmic justice bykind
> the author).
> > The problem with this moment is not the sentiment - for surely an
> > 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
> of "men of the north" heroic ethos that Tolkien gives to Rohan.that
> Lamenting the death of a son is 1 thing. Saying no father should
> outlive their children is not the right sentiment for a culture
> honors noble death more than survival at any costs. This changesa
> culture that Tolkien meant to be a little alien to his audience andexplained
> 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
> my point and you clearly understand it now. We could probablyargue
> endlessly about the exact usage of the specific words I chose and Idiscussion
> doubt it would be of interest to anyone else reading this
> group. So, lets just let it drop.Hi I'm (dmsherwood53@...) & I'm breaking into a conversation
where the protagonists have agrred to let it drop wvery uncivilised
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)
PS Have you readthe NEW WEIRD fiction goes much further into anti-
romantic vision than Donaldson eg a;lmost any CHINA MEILVILLE's books