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

Re: [mythsoc] Movie announcement

Expand Messages
  • Walter Padgett
    status of defense ? ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Message 1 of 49 , Oct 28 8:40 AM
      status of "defense" ?

      On 10/27/06, WendellWag@... <WendellWag@...> wrote:
      > In a message dated 10/27/2006 11:26:02 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
      > dbratman@... <dbratman%40earthlink.net> writes:
      > Amusing that your post should have generated a defense in the form of a
      > reference to "Young Sherlock Holmes," . . .
      > Please note that I was not defending the novel and proposed movie _Here,
      > There Be Dragons_. Here's what I wrote:
      > > For what it's worth, it appears to me that the author of this book knows
      > > perfectly well when Tolkien, Lewis, and Williams met. It appears that
      > what
      > he's
      > > doing in this book (and the movie, if it gets made) is something like
      > what's
      > > done in the movie _Young Sherlock Holmes_. In it, we're told that Holmes
      > > and Watson, who in the books didn't meet until they were adults,
      > actually
      > met
      > > when they were school boys (and they met Moriarty at the same time). In
      > other
      > > words, the author is treating the Inklings as if they were fictional
      > characters whose
      > > biographies one can rewrite because (the author claims, tongue in cheek,
      > that) the
      > > story you've been told about them so far isn't the complete story and
      > only
      > now can
      > > the real story be told. It's a pretty common thing to do in this kind of
      > story.
      > When I begin an E-mail with "For what it's worth", that's a sign that I'm
      > just explaining what's going on and not claiming that it's a good idea. I
      > was
      > defining the genre of this piece of fiction. Note that at no point do I
      > make
      > any aesthetic judgement about this story. I thought that some people were
      > claiming that the author didn't know when Tolkien, Lewis, and Williams
      > met. I
      > was saying that he does (apparently) know when they met and doesn't care.
      > If I think something is a good story or at least could be a good story,
      > I'll
      > say so.
      > Wendell Wagner
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • 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
        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

        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.