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

Re: Jackson con't

Expand Messages
  • William Cloud Hicklin
    ... made some films. His ... and could have been ... at the bare minimum, ... the films are GOOD, not bad. Hence one must ... inspires viewers to become ...
    Message 1 of 108 , Sep 4, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, John D Rateliff
      <sacnoth@...> wrote:
      > On Sep 3, 2007, at 8:03 AM, David Bratman

      > > 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.
      > This argument fails, since the films are GOOD
      at the bare minimum,
      > SUPERB at their best......Irrelevant, since
      the films are GOOD, not bad. Hence one must
      > conclude that their excellence is what
      inspires viewers to become
      > readers.

      Allow me to throw up an alternative proposition:
      that the problem with the movies lies precisely
      in the fact that they aren't abysmally bad. In
      fact they're rather above the Hollywood average,
      for what that's worth. Although they're
      wretched as adaptations of Tolkien, one might
      even say distortions of Tolkien, they're half-
      decent qua movies.

      I see that as a Bad Thing: had Jackson's films
      been as execrable as Rankin-Bass and Bakshi,
      then they could be easily dismissed, written
      off, forgotten; and non-readers with even a
      modicum of intelligence who saw them would have
      concluded, "Hmmm, since the books have such a
      following they must be better than that- I'll
      have to check them out:" as many in the
      Seventies did.

      Unfortunately Jackson's flicks have enough
      Spielbergian rock 'em sock 'em spectacle, enough
      cutting-edge sfx, enough nods to the original in
      the visuals and pseudo-Sindarin dialogue, that
      non-readers' response, I'm afraid, is that
      they've 'seen' Tolkien: been there, done that,
      got the mithril shirt (only $499.95 from
      Sideshow/Weta!) There's no need for most of this
      postliterate generation to bother with boring
      old books: Hey, dude, print is dead; and the
      publication of editions with movie tie-in
      covers simply reinforces the impression that
      there's no difference, and no need to read.

      The sad fact is that millions more people,
      especially under thirty, have seen the films
      than have read the books, and PJ's amoral
      action-adventure version has become the default
      standard (and this without getting into the
      'juvenilisation' of Lord of the Rings in the
      public eye thanks to the blitzkrieg of Burger
      King goblets and suchlike rubbish). To those of
      us who have spent many years arguing for
      Tolkien's place in the literary canon this has
      been a huge retrograde step.
    • 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

        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.