RE: [mythsoc] Beowulf film
- At 10:59 AM 9/3/2007 -0500, Mike Foster wrote:
>First of all, whether better films would've brought moreWe can't know absolutely, but we can make pretty good guesses, just like we
>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.
deal with hypotheticals in our daily lives all the time. Imagine that
instead of Jackson's films we had gotten much worse films, that nobody had
liked and had bombed at the box office. May we not assume that such films
would have attracted fewer readers to the book than the actual films did?
If so, then surely we can assume that films with fewer of Jackson's known
flaws (and you are not claiming that Jackson is flawless), and which did
not substitute other flaws in their place, would have done better still
than the actual films.
>Secondly, because the Jackson -Lord of the Rings- wasTrue enough, but I'm not discussing those viewers, but the ones who were
>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.
not moved to pick up Tolkien at all.
>Are you sayingIndeed it would have been too bad. And it is a too bad thing that is
>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.
happening _right now_ in the real world, at the same time as your "felix
peccatum." We can't prove it, because how can we ever know that a person
who never reads Tolkien would like him? But we can triangulate from the
testimony of those who have read Tolkien and know what they would have
thought from the films alone.
>Thirdly, isn't it the goal of societies like this one, TheAs I already told you privately, it did. Yet it may also have a bad effect
>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?
even worse. See the recently posting Christine VanSaders, who wrote, "a
crappy Tolkien inspired work may drive more readers from the book than it
would ever bring."
>Of course, the fact that many new readers came to Tolkien does notBut the imperfections were not the cause of the good result.
>excuse the imperfections of Jackson's films. The point is that bad
>actions can have good results: the lesson of Gollum.
>Fourthly, is there anything to be gained by reiterating thisIf you don't think this argument is worthwhile, why are you pursuing it?
>argument? It seems like we're retreading paths we have wended down
- 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]