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

Re: [mythsoc] it's not in Tolkien

Expand Messages
  • David Bratman
    ... A spirit appearing the shape of a disembodied corporeal eye. That s not what the Eye depicted by Tolkien is. Again, it s not the mistake itself that s the
    Message 1 of 84 , May 7, 2007
      At 10:57 AM 5/7/2007 +0000, Cristina A. Montes wrote:

      >I had no problems with visually representing Sauron as an eye (no pun
      >intended). But this is on the premise that he is not a disembodied
      >corporeal eye, but a spirit appearing in the form of an eye.

      A spirit appearing the shape of a disembodied corporeal eye. That's not
      what the Eye depicted by Tolkien is.

      Again, it's not the mistake itself that's the problem here. That's merely
      sloppy, and I've seen worse. It's the taking over Jackson's quite
      different, quite specific image and attributing it to Tolkien, without even
      realizing that you're doing it, that's the problem.

      >I think what David referred to was a list of misconceptions that
      >originate from the movie. I am in favor of such a list, not for the
      >purpose of putting down scholars who make mistakes or, for that
      >matter, bashing Peter Jackson but for the sake of
      >maintaining high standards in scholarly studies on JRRT.

      Yes. The question of whether Jackson's decisions made sense cinematically,
      and the question of how much he deviated from Tolkien at all, are separate
      questions from the one of whether we should keep them separate in our
      minds. And above all whether a scholar writing a paper should.

      >(I, personally, like the movies.
      >They're not perfect reproductions of the original, but I believe it's
      >impossible to make a movie that's 100% faithful to its source
      >material, so I tend to be forgiving as long as the movie is at least
      >80% faithful, and faithful where it counts.)

      Now, the question of whether one likes the movies and the question of how
      faithful they are to Tolkien are also separate questions from each other.
      So I'll say that I enjoyed watching the movies as movies, but that the "80%
      faithful where it counts" is such a ludicrous overestimate that I must
      protest. There is a certain vague resemblance in broad outlines of plot
      and character (well, some of the characters, anyway). But "where it
      counts" is the feel, the spirit, the ethos, the morality of Tolkien. And
      there the only faithfulness is a residuum of about 5% that even Jackson
      couldn't eliminate despite his best efforts to.

      >Anyway, my own list of movie deviations from the source material, in
      >no particular order:
      >I'm sure there are more.

      Understatement of the year, and a strangely picayune list, considering what
      we're facing here. Remember Gaffer Gamgee's complaint? "And while you've
      been trapessing in foreign parts, chasing Black Men up mountains from what
      my Sam says, though what for he don't make clear, they've been and dug up
      Bagshot Row and ruined my taters!"

      - David Bratman
    • William Cloud Hicklin
      ... which a man from our present day ... hamburger. The futurians ... German city of Hamburg. Were you ... Kennedy being a jelly doughnut? ... LOL!
      Message 84 of 84 , May 25, 2007
        --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, David Emerson
        <emerdavid@...> wrote:
        > >There was once a science-fiction story in
        which a man from our present day
        > >wakes up in the distant future and asks for a
        hamburger. The futurians
        > >reply, "A hamburger is a citizen of the
        German city of Hamburg. Were you
        > >cannibals in those days?"
        > Does this have something to do with John F.
        Kennedy being a jelly doughnut?
        > emerdavid

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.