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

Re: [mythsoc] Jackson as historical

Expand Messages
  • Lisa Deutsch Harrigan
    I don t think Jackson was talking to us in that quote. We Understand. He is talking to the rest of Them, the mundanes who confuse Star Trek, Star Wars, and
    Message 1 of 158 , Feb 12, 2004
      I don't think Jackson was talking to us in that quote. We Understand. He
      is talking to the rest of Them, the mundanes who confuse Star Trek, Star
      Wars, and Lord of the Rings. They are ALL Science Fiction AND Fantasy,

      I never forget when Star Wars came out and the mundanes were confused
      because it wasn't sparkling clean like Star Trek and 2001. How could it
      be SF if it isn't clean?

      He was explaining to Them, that it wouldn't look like those sparkling
      clean cutsey Fantasy pictures with unicorns or pegasii. Remember that to
      Them, that is High Fantasy. Remember the plastic version of King Arthur
      with the shiney armor that was out a number of years ago? Oh, Yeah, That
      type Fantasy.

      Frankly, since Tolkien wrote his stories as historicals rather than as
      cutsey fairy tales, Jackson didn't really have much choice in the
      matter, and must have been stating the obvious to the uninformed.

      How you derive from the quoted statement that he didn't realize he was
      working with five cultures I really don't understand. I read in numerous
      articles about the team working to make sure that each culture WAS
      different, each one taking its "cues" from different parts of history,
      as was written and drawn by Tolkien.

      Mythically yours,

      dianejoy@... wrote:

      >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/ .
      >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
      >Yahoo! Groups Links
    • 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
        > 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.