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

SFSite Editorial On RotK and PJ

Expand Messages
  • Bill
    This pretty much sums up how I feel as well. http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue358/editorial.html [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Message 1 of 8 , Mar 2, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      This pretty much sums up how I feel as well.

      http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue358/editorial.html


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Carl F. Hostetter
      The article in question, and Peter Jackson himself, presume that Jackson s films won so many Oscars because the Academy were able to look past the fantasy to
      Message 2 of 8 , Mar 2, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        The article in question, and Peter Jackson himself, presume that
        Jackson's films won so many Oscars because the Academy were able to
        look past the fantasy to the underlying drama. (What the nature and
        effect of this supposed drama is, or what makes it special or
        unprecedented or worthy of Best Picture, is not explained or identified
        or even hinted at.) Whereas my opinion is that the movies won so many
        awards precisely because the Academy did _not_ look past "the fantasy",
        by which this author and Jackson seem to mean the otherworldly,
        unrealistic, and spectacle in the movies, but were swayed precisely
        _by_ the spectacle and, above all, the monstrous box-office. For if
        they _had_ sought the drama in the movies, I fail to see how they could
        not have noticed that there is almost no "there" there, among the
        stereotypical, cardboard characterizations, the poor acting (largely a
        result, I am prepared to believe, of holding them hostage to a smarmy,
        vague, paper-thin, and occasionally non-sensical script and to
        video-game sensibilities and kinetics), the clumsy and facile plot, and
        the cheap sentiment. In this regard, Jackson's movies are little more
        exceptional, noteworthy, or substantive than George Lucas' latter-day
        _Star Wars_ movies, which have utterly sacrificed story on the altar of
        digital wonder. The only reason Jackson has succeeded with the Academy
        where George Lucas has (thus far) failed is the unrelenting pace of
        release (creating a sense of unity and enormity of achievement) and the
        unprecedented ticket-sales. Further, Jackson films succeeded with the
        Academy because it emphasized utterly those aspects of Tolkien's story
        -- the militaristic, the fantastic, and the kinetic -- that Tolkien
        himself de-emphasized, rightly recognizing that it has little to do
        with the real meaning, power, and significance of his story, and in
        fact would be a hindrance to it -- again, as the films amply
        demonstrate. (And we may note that it is precisely in this realm of
        emphasis that the legions of Tolkien "imitators" on the bookshelves
        also fail ... except of course with the market.)



        On Mar 2, 2004, at 3:36 PM, Bill wrote:

        > This pretty much sums up how I feel as well.
        >
        > http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue358/editorial.html
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        > ---------------------~-->
        > Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
        > Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US &
        > Canada.
        > http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
        > http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/DtIolB/TM
        > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
        > ~->
        >
        > The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Carl F. Hostetter
        I should clarify that by saying that Tolkien did not share Jackson s emphasis of the militaristic, the fantastic, and the kinetic , I mean fantasy in the
        Message 3 of 8 , Mar 2, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          I should clarify that by saying that Tolkien did not share Jackson's
          emphasis of "the militaristic, the fantastic, and the kinetic", I mean
          "fantasy" in the sense that Jackson and the author of the article in
          question use it: swords-and-socery, wizards-dragons-unicorns, etc.,
          which is most emphatically _not_ what Tolkien considered to be the
          essential nature and elements of fantasy.

          I would also like to point out that the piece in question seems to
          equate approval of the films with approval of Tolkien's story. And yet
          so many defend the films by pointing out that they are different
          "visions", i.e., different stories, and necessarily so by virtue of the
          supposedly novel fact that movies and books are different. I have never
          agreed that a film and a book cannot tell the same story in its
          essentials; but clearly Jackson's story is _not_ Tolkien's; and so I
          fail to see why approval or disapproval of one for its virtues or lack
          thereof should be regarded as a statement on the other.

          Carl
        • Bill
          It s your right to feel as you do Carl. I happen to agree with the editorial. The movies are made, the awards won. Time to move on. ... [Non-text portions of
          Message 4 of 8 , Mar 2, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            It's your right to feel as you do Carl.
            I happen to agree with the editorial.
            The movies are made, the awards won.
            Time to move on.


            Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

            > I should clarify that by saying that Tolkien did not share Jackson's
            > emphasis of "the militaristic, the fantastic, and the kinetic", I mean
            > "fantasy" in the sense that Jackson and the author of the article in
            > question use it: swords-and-socery, wizards-dragons-unicorns, etc.,
            > which is most emphatically _not_ what Tolkien considered to be the
            > essential nature and elements of fantasy.
            >
            > I would also like to point out that the piece in question seems to
            > equate approval of the films with approval of Tolkien's story. And yet
            > so many defend the films by pointing out that they are different
            > "visions", i.e., different stories, and necessarily so by virtue of the
            > supposedly novel fact that movies and books are different. I have never
            > agreed that a film and a book cannot tell the same story in its
            > essentials; but clearly Jackson's story is _not_ Tolkien's; and so I
            > fail to see why approval or disapproval of one for its virtues or lack
            > thereof should be regarded as a statement on the other.
            >
            > Carl
            >
            > The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >




            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Carl F. Hostetter
            Gee, thanks for informing me that I have a right to feel as I do. I wouldn t have known otherwise. Of course, you don t seem really to mean what you say, since
            Message 5 of 8 , Mar 2, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Gee, thanks for informing me that I have a right to feel as I do. I
              wouldn't have known otherwise.

              Of course, you don't seem really to mean what you say, since you then
              go on to say, basically, that I should shut up ("move on", in your
              euphemism).

              I really resent your patronizing tone.

              Carl


              On Mar 2, 2004, at 7:42 PM, Bill wrote:

              > It's your right to feel as you do Carl.
              > I happen to agree with the editorial.
              > The movies are made, the awards won.
              > Time to move on.
            • Bill
              Carl.. I see you now presume to know not only what JRRT would think but also what I am thinking as well. I was not patronising you. If anyone in any of these
              Message 6 of 8 , Mar 2, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Carl..
                I see you now presume to know not only what JRRT would think
                but also what
                I am thinking as well.
                I was not patronising you. If anyone in any of these
                discussions has been patronising,
                it's been you. You can couch it in whatever verbal refinery you
                want, but you
                have been snobby and condescending.
                I've tried to be polite, I've tried to be humorous. Obviously,
                any attempt to defend
                Jackson is to be sneered at by you. "Time to move on" was my
                recognition that
                no argument I could present would change that opinion. The original
                comment was
                my surrendering to that fact.
                Believe me, if I wanted you to "shut up" as you put it, I would
                not couch it in
                any vague phrasing, as anyone of my friends would tell you
                Unpatronizingly yours,
                Bill





                Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

                > Gee, thanks for informing me that I have a right to feel as I do. I
                > wouldn't have known otherwise.
                >
                > Of course, you don't seem really to mean what you say, since you then
                > go on to say, basically, that I should shut up ("move on", in your
                > euphemism).
                >
                > I really resent your patronizing tone.
                >
                > Carl
                >
                > On Mar 2, 2004, at 7:42 PM, Bill wrote:
                >
                > > It's your right to feel as you do Carl.
                > > I happen to agree with the editorial.
                > > The movies are made, the awards won.
                > > Time to move on.
                >
                >
                > The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >




                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Bill
                make that verbal finery. Although a case could be made for the existence of verbal refineries in classrooms, I suppose. Tiredly, Bill
                Message 7 of 8 , Mar 2, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  <sigh> make that verbal finery.
                  Although a case could be made for the existence of verbal refineries in
                  classrooms, I suppose.
                  Tiredly,
                  Bill
                  Bill wrote:

                  > Carl..
                  > I see you now presume to know not only what JRRT would think
                  > but also what
                  > I am thinking as well.
                  > I was not patronising you. If anyone in any of these
                  > discussions has been patronising,
                  > it's been you. You can couch it in whatever verbal refinery you
                  > want, but you
                  > have been snobby and condescending.
                  > I've tried to be polite, I've tried to be humorous. Obviously,
                  > any attempt to defend
                  > Jackson is to be sneered at by you. "Time to move on" was my
                  > recognition that
                  > no argument I could present would change that opinion. The original
                  > comment was
                  > my surrendering to that fact.
                  > Believe me, if I wanted you to "shut up" as you put it, I would
                  > not couch it in
                  > any vague phrasing, as anyone of my friends would tell you
                  > Unpatronizingly yours,
                  > Bill
                  >
                • Carl F. Hostetter
                  Bill, I don t have to know what you think; we _all_ can see what you _wrote_, which was (and is) textbook patronization. You presume that the only purpose of
                  Message 8 of 8 , Mar 3, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Bill, I don't have to know what you think; we _all_ can see what you
                    _wrote_, which was (and is) textbook patronization.

                    You presume that the only purpose of writing is to change opinion. This
                    is false. I _expressed_ my opinion, and you expressed yours.

                    The problem is that you are not content to leave it there, or to allow
                    others to express their opinion when it is not favorably disposed
                    towards Jackson's films, but instead engage in _ad hominem_ ("snobby",
                    "condescending") and attempts to silence dissent ("move on"). I did
                    nothing of the kind to you; why do you feel it is at all appropriate to
                    treat me so shabbily?

                    Carl




                    On Mar 3, 2004, at 12:42 AM, Bill wrote:

                    > Carl..
                    > I see you now presume to know not only what JRRT would think
                    > but also what
                    > I am thinking as well.
                    > I was not patronising you. If anyone in any of these
                    > discussions has been patronising,
                    > it's been you. You can couch it in whatever verbal refinery you
                    > want, but you
                    > have been snobby and condescending.
                    > I've tried to be polite, I've tried to be humorous.
                    > Obviously,
                    > any attempt to defend
                    > Jackson is to be sneered at by you. "Time to move on" was my
                    > recognition that
                    > no argument I could present would change that opinion. The
                    > original
                    > comment was
                    > my surrendering to that fact.
                    > Believe me, if I wanted you to "shut up" as you put it, I
                    > would
                    > not couch it in
                    > any vague phrasing, as anyone of my friends would tell you
                    > Unpatronizingly yours,
                    > Bill
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Carl F. Hostetter wrote:
                    >
                    >> Gee, thanks for informing me that I have a right to feel as I do. I
                    >> wouldn't have known otherwise.
                    >>
                    >> Of course, you don't seem really to mean what you say, since you then
                    >> go on to say, basically, that I should shut up ("move on", in your
                    >> euphemism).
                    >>
                    >> I really resent your patronizing tone.
                    >>
                    >> Carl
                    >>
                    >> On Mar 2, 2004, at 7:42 PM, Bill wrote:
                    >>
                    >>> It's your right to feel as you do Carl.
                    >>> I happen to agree with the editorial.
                    >>> The movies are made, the awards won.
                    >>> Time to move on.
                    >>
                    >>
                    >> The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
                    >> Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                    > ---------------------~-->
                    > Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
                    > Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US &
                    > Canada.
                    > http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
                    > http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/DtIolB/TM
                    > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                    > ~->
                    >
                    > The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.