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

Re:Tolkien vs. Jackson as outsider artists

Expand Messages
  • Cole Matson
    Lynn Maudlin wrote: Yes,
    Message 1 of 66 , Aug 28, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Lynn Maudlin wrote:

      <<The issue of "stridency" goes very much to the passion with which
      people love these books and the degree of their disappointment.>>

      Yes, I think you're right.

      <<I have NO PROBLEM with you (or anyone) loving the movies. Like almost
      everything in life, personal reactions vary widely and there is no
      "correct" response. So you are more than welcome to love the movies
      (forever, if you like-- <grin> ) and we are more than welcome to be
      profoundly disappointed in the movies, and shake our respective fists
      in Jackson's direction because he's the one responsible for our loss.>>

      Agreed.

      <<And I argue that it *is* a loss: this is the first time LotR has been
      filmed live-action; it's a huge and expensive proposition and not done
      casually; it may never be done again in our lifetimes - and *this* is
      what we got. For those of us who value different qualities in Tolkien
      than Jackson does (I forgot that he only read the book twice -
      *sheeesh*), it is a genuine loss.>>

      I haven't yet made up my mind on whether it was an overall loss, but it very
      well may have been (with still, I would argue, some gains, primarily in
      terms of cinematic images - I also really liked the score). From a selfish
      POV, since I agree LOTR probably won't be filmed again anytime soon - looks
      like there goes my chance to play a Rider of Rohan!

      <<So just as you are reluctant to be targeted as an "unworthy" reader of
      Tolkien, the folks disappointed in the movies are reluctant to be
      targeted as "bashers.">>

      I hear you. Just as it would be rude for you to characterize me as some
      ignorant fantasy fan who is *obviously* not serious about Tolkien, it would
      be rude for me to characterize you as an arrogant Tolkien purist who has it
      in for anyone who even *suggests* the idea of an adaptation. So...I won't!
      Especially since I have no desire to and know that isn't true.:-)

      <<Coming to a place of perhaps-mystified mutual respect is a good thing,
      imho - you know, like "I can't love the movies as you do, even though
      I wish I could, and I don't understand how you manage it, but okay -
      I'm glad they work for you.">>

      LOL - Like I don't understand why anyone would want to ruin a good steak by
      cooking it until it's well done and all the warm juicy redness is gone, but
      hey, if they can somehow manage to enjoy a charcoal-encrusted steak, good
      for them!

      <<About your military analogy, I think Jackson is a #2 officer who
      believes he is a #1 officer; I don't think anybody on the list would
      see him as a #3 officer...>>

      I think you're right about that last statement, and my fears were coming
      from misunderstandings of people's statements. As for Jackson, he may be a
      #2 (or even a #1) officer who thinks he's a #4 officer (the one who made
      few, only minor mistakes and lost no men).

      <<I remain convinced that Jackson mostly doesn't appreciate how much he
      doesn't know (when it comes to Tolkien) and how much he doesn't
      "get"... he is a product of his era, his age, and his education as a
      filmmaker (which tells him he needs to improve "character arcs"--).>>

      As I believe someone else said earlier, I don't think being a filmmaker of
      his era, age, and education is necessarily doomed to not get Tolkien, but it
      would take someone of considerable strength, understanding, and will to
      overcome those barriers.

      Cole


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Mike Foster
      In the cool light of day the morning after viewing this, Jo and I discovered that, while the movie was certainly wonderfully done, it was a bit off-putting for
      Message 66 of 66 , Sep 7, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        In the cool light of day the morning after viewing this, Jo and I
        discovered that, while the movie was certainly wonderfully done, it was
        a bit off-putting for the reasons Pat and Carl noted below-though, as
        noted before, the girl's fate was something I would much rather not have
        known in advance.

        As Jo said, "It's fine that good finally overcame evil, but did there
        have to be so much evil?" The ending, where the girl's death amounts to
        the saving of her brother and her final glimpse of a beatific heavenly
        vision with a God the Father (as well as David Crosby) lookalike seems
        to be an obvious Christian parallel.

        In reviewing this thread, especially the business with the grapes, it
        seems fitting to cite Chesterton's "The Ethics Of Elfland" and his
        Doctrine of Conditional Joy, where all good and evil hang on a random
        choice to do or not to do a simple deed: Eve's apple, Pandora's box.
        Tolkien mentions this in "On Fairy Stories." It certainly looms in the
        amplification of the power of the Ring from -The Hobbit- to -The Lord of
        the Rings-, where what had been a handy little talisman for Bilbo
        becomes life or death for Frodo. That's why Jackson's plot change from
        Faramir refusing to take the Ring from Frodo to the muddled digression
        to Osgiliath is one of the more egregious offenses in the screenplay.

        Mike

        -----Original Message-----
        From: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mythsoc@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
        Of Carl F. Hostetter
        Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 8:48 AM
        To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Pan's Labyrinth


        On Aug 22, 2007, at 8:22 AM, Patrick H. Wynne wrote:
        > watching a helpless adolescent girl (probably delusional)
        > being physically and psychologically abused for two hours, then shot
        > dead, is NOT my idea of a good time!
        >

        Boy howdy.

        > Am I the only one who absolutely loathed this film?
        >

        No, you are not.
        >



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