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

Re: [mythsoc] Re: Robert Zemeckis Beowulf

Expand Messages
  • Walkermonk@aol.com
    Excellent points. And you already know, David, of my frustrations with those whose say there s too much to film in the book and so must cut (of course I
    Message 1 of 108 , Aug 18, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Excellent points. And you already know, David, of my frustrations with those
      whose say there's too much to film in the book and so must cut (of course I
      understand that!) but then add their own extra, time-eating, and at times
      ridiculous scenes. Like eight minutes of troll fighting and such. :-)

      But again, I agree with your point about capturing the spirit of the text
      and think it could be done while being reasonable faithful to the actions of the
      book. Or maybe I'm just being absurdly optimistic.

      Grace

      In a message dated 8/18/2007 8:57:21 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
      dbratman@... writes:

      A film of a book that is _too_ faithful to the text is likely to be
      stultified and boring. The adaptation process does require a creative
      imagination. I ask only that this creative imagination be faithful to the
      spirit of the text.

      With "Call of Cthulhu", any question of strict adherence to the text was
      drowned out in my mind by the sheer brilliance with which the filmers had
      found the perfect tone and style for conveying the spirit of a Lovecraft
      story. That was far, far more important than whether they stuck to the
      exact plot, which I didn't even remember all that well.







      ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
      http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • aveeris523@aol.com
      ... appropriate. ************************************** Check out AOL s list of 2007 s hottest products.
      Message 108 of 108 , Dec 7, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 12/7/07 9:41:39 AM, dbratman@... writes:


        >
        > Very much the opposite opinion here. I don't recall anything harmful being
        > done to the text, but the image was definitely a problem. Tolkien says she was
        > "beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful." The only word in this
        > that Jackson seems to have followed was "terrible" - and he seems to be using
        > it in the sense of "scary and terrifying," rather than "eliciting awe" which
        > is what Tolkien presumably meant.
        >
        > Good point David! Beautiful and Terrible like an angel would have been more
        appropriate.




        **************************************
        Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
        products.

        (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)


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