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

Re: [mythsoc] Re: Movie announcement

Expand Messages
  • David Bratman
    ... Yes, well, ahem, that s why I didn t mention Young Aragorn, because at least his appearance (if not a ride to Laketown) would be canonically allowable -
    Message 1 of 49 , Oct 27, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      "Patrick H. Wynne" <pwynne@...> wrote:

      >Call me Puddleglum, but that's exactly the sort of nonsense I expect we'll see
      >should Peter Jackson get around to filming a badaptation of _The Hobbit_ --
      >and Young Legolas and Young Gimli will probably take Young Aragorn along
      >for the ride to Laketown to help Bilbo and the Dwarves fight the dragon ...

      Yes, well, ahem, that's why I didn't mention Young Aragorn, because at least his appearance (if not a ride to Laketown) would be canonically allowable - like the shenanigans of Young Merry and Young Pippin at Bilbo's party in J*****n's previous film. The problem with that one was not that something of the sort couldn't have happened, it's that Tolkien wouldn't have written it so badly.

      As for Young Aragorn, I discussed this very point on p. 121 of the Marquette conference proceedings, in the context of Tolkien's 1965 revisions of _The Hobbit_. I noted that, though his conception of the Shire and Eriador had developed in the course of writing LOTR, after _The Hobbit_ had been published, in his revisions he decided not to be specific on this point, refraining from mentioning the Shire by name nor adding new details to the journey. "For that matter, he could have written Bilbo meeting the ten-year-old Estel (later known as Aragorn) in Rivendell, as so many fanwriters have chomped to do -- contrary to the dreams of some, Arwen was not there. But Tolkien was not a fanboy of his own work, and wisely refrained."

      So canonicity isn't the point. Wise refraining from the excesses of fanboyism: that's what we want here. Is that too much to ask?

      - David Bratman
    • Walter Padgett
      Yes, Ms. Dean, A great tale, indeed, is _The Silmarillion_. Yet how many operas would one fit into a movie of about 2 hours? What from the story would be
      Message 49 of 49 , Nov 21, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Yes, Ms. Dean,

        A great tale, indeed, is _The Silmarillion_. Yet how many operas would one
        fit into a "movie" of about 2 hours? What from the story would be
        selected? One Great Tale" is _The Silmarillion_, yet who could begin to
        understand all its nuances of meaning and fulfillment? And a more
        perplexing question yet-- to whom could the monumental tasks of reviewing
        and reading the existent body of literary criticism connected to that
        particular book be entrusted, if the purpose of making a movie out of the
        book were to be approached with what one could call "care"?

        No single individual could capture all the important nuances of the Hobbit.
        Yet in the hypnotic voice of John Houston the person of Gandalf entered out
        of Tolkien's book and into the life of the mind in a new and important
        way through the well-known animated version (78 min?) of that book. Just
        ask John Rateliff.
        We in part know Gandalf because of our understanding of the history of the
        "VOICE" of John Houston. This is my point.

        Who is Gandalf, now? Temporally, or con temporarily speaking, isn't it Sir
        ...... Mc ..... ?

        Isn't he also "Magneto"? (yes ... for X-Men fans, you get it)

        Do Hobbits play in the Silmarillion? Should Gandalf be played by John
        Houston in the movie version of The Silmarillion?

        Such questions should be considered in the making of a movie, either the
        HOBBIT or The Silmarillion.

        Did anyone enjoy *Arnold Schwarzenegger's *(aka, the brute's) versions of
        Robert E. Howard's CONAN THE BARBARIAN books? You should read the books and
        then check out those movies again. It can be quite arousing in that
        context.

        The Hobbit ... The Silmarillion ... whatever. Who cares who makes the
        money? WE only live so long, and the movies will last a lot longer than
        US. Money motivates, but does it actually make the movie? NO. Does it
        even sell the movie? ... ? Nooooo....

        The point is clear. WE have the spirit and the initiative to teach about
        Tolkien's writings. It is WE who should endeavor to do so.

        Thanks, Walter.







        On 11/21/06, Margaret Dean <margdean@...> wrote:
        >
        > Walter Padgett wrote:
        > >
        > > First of all, the Hobbit is a movie. It's doable, unlike LOTR; however
        > PJ
        > > would have done it, given his abilities.
        > >
        > > Second, The Silmarillion is an OPERA.
        >
        > Oh, the Silmarillion is =several= operas. My Tolkien discussion
        > group once decided that the tale of Turin would make a trilogy of
        > operas in the Wagnerian style, the story of Beren and Luthien
        > should be a ballet, and the Fall of Gondolin a disaster movie!
        > :)
        >
        > --Margaret Dean
        > <margdean@... <margdean%40erols.com>>
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.