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

RE: [mythsoc] Jackson as historical

Expand Messages
  • dianejoy@earthlink.net
    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
    Message 1 of 158 , Feb 12, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      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
      to fantasy.

      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

      Original Message:
      From: David Bratman dbratman@...
      Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:25:58 -0800
      To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
      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
      http://mail2web.com/ .
    • 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
      • 0 Attachment
        --- 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
        > 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
        > wrong).
        > 2) I don't have a problem with Covenant not getting his
        > or having a turning point and learning some deep lesson about
        > The universe is an imperfect place. I don't mind if fiction
        > reflects that sometimes. I like it when a work subverts
        > and does not unfold in a traditional way. It doesn't bother me if
        > anti-hero character doesn't have a heart of gold and doesn't grow
        > 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
        > 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
        > honors noble death more than survival at any costs. This changes
        > 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
        > my point and you clearly understand it now. We could probably
        > endlessly about the exact usage of the specific words I chose and I
        > doubt it would be of interest to anyone else reading this
        > 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)
        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.