At 11:38 AM 12/2/2004 -0500, Lizzie wrote:
>You lay down on the carpet in an airport? Are you nuts? One could get
>stepped on. One could get dirty.
It was a clean carpet. And nobody was going to get stepped on. The area
was jammed with people waiting for a delayed flight.
>I maintain that it is Impossible to commit LOTR (or many another bit of
>lit) to film, and that Jackson did so much better than I would have
>imagined that I am happy.
He did better than Ralph Bakshi or Rankin-Bass, but unfortunately that is
not a compliment.
An A for effort is not a final grade.
Do you think we'd all still be reading LOTR fifty years later if _it_ had
merely been "better than one would have imagined" for "an impossible task"?
>Terry Gilliam? Is he one of the Monty Python guys? There's a Terry there
>somewhere. So, tell us about it.
Defining Terry Gilliam today as "one of the Monty Python guys" is pretty
much like defining another director, Ron Howard, as "the kid on the Andy
Griffith show." He directed "Brazil", "The Fisher King", and "Twelve
Monkeys". His Quixote project died because it was underfinanced and the
actor playing Quixote became seriously ill.
>> But none of it has anything whatever to do with Tolkien.
So this whole matter was brought up under cover of a discussion of
dramatization of Tolkien's book. A defense of the film as film, divorced
from Tolkien's book, is irrelevant to the point, and a distraction from the
painful truth that, as a dramatization, it's a miserable failure.