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

Re: [mythsoc] Beowulf film

Expand Messages
  • Walkermonk@aol.com
    David, if I hadn t met Prof. Foster, I would believe that indeed he doesn t get it. But I *have* met him. Prof. Foster, I am starting to believe that you are
    Message 1 of 108 , Sep 3, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      David, if I hadn't met Prof. Foster, I would believe that indeed he doesn't
      get it. But I *have* met him.

      Prof. Foster, I am starting to believe that you are being deliberately
      obtuse. Which is irritating when it comes from my 11-year-old in a discussion
      about the homework he doesn't want to do. With someone of your abilities, it's
      not irritating but rather kind of . . . sad. You're way too smart for this type
      of argument, Prof. Foster. David acknowledges (as do I) that yes, people
      read the books because of the movies. And, again, as David pointed out, people
      read the books because of Rankin-Bass and the other earlier ham-handed,
      laughably terrible animated films. The fact that people are drawn to the books does
      NOT by itself, as demonstrated above and explained quite clearly by David
      Bratman's emails, excuse the awfulness of Peter Jackson's films. And you know
      it.

      Grace Walker Monk


      In a message dated 9/3/2007 9:00:50 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
      mafoster@... writes:

      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."







      ************************************** 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.