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

Re: Jackson con't

Expand Messages
  • Lynn Maudlin
    Actually, John, I think part of what s interesting and actively worthwhile about the discussion is the demonstration of variety of opinion. You say the films
    Message 1 of 108 , Sep 5, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Actually, John, I think part of what's interesting and actively
      worthwhile about the discussion is the demonstration of variety of
      opinion. You say "the films are GOOD at the bare minimum, SUPERB at
      their best" and I think they are ADEQUATE at their best. This is
      interesting to me; I respect your opinion and I'm intrigued that our
      responses are so very different.

      I don't see the films as "superb works of art" - the point you seem to
      keep side-stepping is that Jackson could have been much, much more
      faithful to Tolkien's novel and not have sacrificed a single bit of
      his "art"--

      That's the frustrating thing, for so many of us: the problem is 95% in
      the script, the part most easily solved by paying attention to the
      source material.

      *sigh*
      -- Lynn --

      --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, John D Rateliff <sacnoth@...> wrote:
      >
      > On Sep 3, 2007, at 8:03 AM, David Bratman wrote:
      > > Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike: you still don't get it, do you?
      > >
      > > 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.
      > ...<snip>...
      > In any case, you're mistaking a hypothetical for the front line.
      > Jackson's films, being superb works of art, don't need the excuse
      > that "out of this evil, at least some good came". They're self-
      > evidently a positive good in themselves. So much so that their
      > admirers can even project worst-case scenarios, such as the one Mike
      > advanced, and hold their own on that front as well.
    • 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.