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

RE: [mythsoc] Beowulf film

Expand Messages
  • Mike Foster
    David, and since I d rather not be patronizing or hectoring, I ll only use your name once, First of all, whether better films would ve brought more readers to
    Message 1 of 108 , Sep 3, 2007
      David, and since I'd rather not be patronizing or hectoring, I'll only
      use your name once,
      First of all, whether better films would've brought more
      readers to the books is hypothesis contrary to fact. We'll just never
      know. The films exist. In ways both great and small, they could've
      been much better. But it's not like the book fell into the Cracks of
      Doom and was destroyed.
      Secondly, because the Jackson -Lord of the Rings- was
      released serially, many of the Jackson-incited readers took up the books
      after -The Fellowship- film because they wanted to know what happened.
      Thus their first experience of -The Two Towers- and -The Return of the
      King- was from the text, not the movie. So, for one example, when
      Gandalf exorcises a psoraisisistic Theoden in the second Jackson film,
      they would've seen Jackson's infidelity to the text. Are you saying
      that had you seen the films first, you would never have read the books?
      Too bad. You would have missed a much more comprehensive and artful
      version of the story.
      Thirdly, isn't it the goal of societies like this one, The
      Tolkien Society, and Beyond Bree to encourage a wider readership of
      Tolkien? If Jackson or Bakshi or Rankin-Bass or Leonard Nimoy (highly
      unlikely) did this, didn't their "sin" have a good effect?
      Fourthly, is there anything to be gained by reiterating this
      argument? It seems like we're retreading paths we have wended down
      before. Why not sum it up in a clerihew?

      -----Original Message-----
      From: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mythsoc@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
      Of David Bratman
      Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 10:04 AM
      To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com; mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [mythsoc] Beowulf film

      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

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

      Jackson's distinctive sin wasn't that he made some films. His
      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.
      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
      towards Jackson's films by anything I read about them, and had I seen
      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
      for those like me who were put off, eh?

      [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 10:38 AM
        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]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.