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

RE: [mythsoc] Beowulf film

Expand Messages
  • David Bratman
    ... Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike: you still don t get it, do you? Jackson s distinctive sin wasn t that he made some films. His distinctive sin is that his films
    Message 1 of 108 , Sep 3 8:03 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      At 08:57 AM 9/3/2007 -0500, Mike Foster wrote:

      >Certainly the Jackson films could have been much better.
      >
      >Just as certainly, they brought many new readers to Tolkien. As you say
      >below, David,
      >"2) In the classic felix peccatum, the sin itself leads to the good
      >result."

      Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike: you still don't get it, do you?

      Jackson's distinctive sin wasn't that he made some films. His distinctive
      sin is that his films were BAD, and could have been better.

      The badness of his films is not what brought readers to the books. Better
      films would have brought more readers, because they would have been even
      more popular, and would have given viewers a much better idea of what
      Tolkien is like.

      I am quite certain that, had I never read LOTR, I would not have been drawn
      towards Jackson's films by anything I read about them, and had I seen them
      anyway, they would most certainly not have tempted me to read the book.
      They would have led me to expect something like Robert Jordan or David
      Eddings, writers I've tried and found boring, boring, boring.

      So, good for those who weren't put off that way; but how felix the peccatum
      for those like me who were put off, eh?
    • 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.