RE: [mythsoc] Beowulf film
- At 08:57 AM 9/3/2007 -0500, Mike Foster wrote:
>Certainly the Jackson films could have been much better.Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike: you still don't get it, do you?
>Just as certainly, they brought many new readers to Tolkien. As you say
>"2) In the classic felix peccatum, the sin itself leads to the good
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?
- 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
Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]