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

blog re. Tolkien movies

Expand Messages
  • John D Rateliff
    For those who are actually interested in the Peter Jackson films, Kristin Thompson, author of the excellent new book detailing the history of the films making
    Message 1 of 8 , Sep 7 9:01 PM
      For those who are actually interested in the Peter Jackson films,
      Kristin Thompson, author of the excellent new book detailing the
      history of the films' making (THE FRODO FRANCHISE), has started up a
      blog devoted to the topic; it also looks to feature news about the
      progress or otherwise of filming THE HOBBIT.

      http://www.kristinthompson.net/blog/

      Jackson bashers are advised to skip it; nothing to see here, move it
      along.

      --JDR
    • Anthony Burdge
      Hey all, I know John you said Jackson haters move along and I did for a few minutes to make coffee and allow the fact that my spirit compels me to do so oh
      Message 2 of 8 , Sep 8 8:03 AM
        Hey all,
        I know John you said "Jackson haters move along" and I did for a few minutes to make coffee and allow the fact that my spirit compels me to do so oh so much---I have been following this discussion on Ms Thompson's "Frodo Franchise" and and very irked by the books very nature. The very duality of Frodo+Franchise is contrary to the spirit of the author and the soul of the work to me, let alone others I have had conversation with. Isn't the industrial, commercial machine anti-LOTR? Please, correct me if I am wrong but to myself it is the fight against such things that JRRT's speaks to.
        Secondly I cannot say I am entirely anti-Jackson film, there were alot of things I enjoyed, on the physical aspect, and having met some of the actors I really appreciate the dedication a few of them had to the project. It is the screenplay that needed ALOT of work. Jessica (my partner) and I as some may recall, wrote "Humiliated Heroes: PJ's Interpretation of the LOTR" for Translating Tolkien Text and Film by Walking Tree Press, and there we speak of the flat representation of Tolkien's heroes, and how "making their journey believable" as Phillipa Boyens said on the LOTR DVD's was not a viable excuse. Our essay was deemed repetitive as was that of Janet Croft's and other scholars by Ms. Thompson in her review of the Tolkien on Film, which cites the above work. This I believe was a precursor for her argument on anti-Jacksonians leading up to the release of her work Frodo Franchise.
        Thompson's "Franchise" discusses the fandom around the film, which is completely fine and I do not wish anyone away from loving the films, but since when does "hundreds of ancillary products attest to its importance"---again this is a tired way of showing a film's importance, and insinuates that material and capitalistic gain is not only what drives fandom, but the importance of the work--why should we have more plasticity and frippery around a film shoved down our throats, why not encourage more critical analysis, whether good or bad about the films. This just shows the Western Society's industrial machine has more dominance over how we are supposed to judge a work as individuals that by saying that material goods, money and franchises are good, and everyone buy buy buy, then we are submitting ourselves to what armies of good opposed in LOTR.
        It is unfortunate that such a thing states "There is no end in sight" so what those opposed have to be sequestered and quarantined? This encourages further separation of us against them, film vs book arguments and degredation of community. I can understand those who have a vested interest in the Hobbit as a film and attention to works around Tolkien's original but honestly do I need to sell myself to the almighty dollar to voice an opinion?

        Best,
        Anthony


        Anthony S Burdge
        Chairman Heren Istarion:
        New York's Tolkien Society
        www.herenistarion.org

        ---------------------------------
        Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Carl F. Hostetter
        For those who are uninterested in thinking critically about the Peter Jackson films, Kristin Thompson, author of the excellent new book detailing the history
        Message 3 of 8 , Sep 8 8:44 AM
          For those who are uninterested in thinking critically about the Peter
          Jackson films, Kristin Thompson, author of the excellent new book
          detailing the history of the films' making (THE FRODO FRANCHISE), has
          started up a blog devoted to the topic; it also looks to feature news
          about the progress or otherwise of filming THE HOBBIT.

          http://www.kristinthompson.net/blog/

          Jackson strokers are advised to make it your home page; lots to see
          here, come right in.

          --CFH


          On Sep 8, 2007, at 12:01 AM, John D Rateliff wrote:

          > For those who are actually interested in the Peter Jackson films,
          > Kristin Thompson, author of the excellent new book detailing the
          > history of the films' making (THE FRODO FRANCHISE), has started up a
          > blog devoted to the topic; it also looks to feature news about the
          > progress or otherwise of filming THE HOBBIT.
          >
          > http://www.kristinthompson.net/blog/
          >
          > Jackson bashers are advised to skip it; nothing to see here, move it
          > along.
          >
          > --JDR
          >
        • Walkermonk@aol.com
          Mr. Rateliff made a funny! Anthony, **great** post. I wasn t sure what it was in response to exactly until Carl copied the original post, but even without
          Message 4 of 8 , Sep 8 9:04 AM
            Mr. Rateliff made a funny!

            Anthony, **great** post. I wasn't sure what it was in response to exactly
            until Carl copied the original post, but even without knowing, I still loved
            your point about material standards and how they should *not* be the criteria
            for whether we love and appreciate Tolkien's works. Keep it up.

            Mr. Rateliff's "warning" is like being told not to go play in the garbage,
            or eat McDonalds big-macs, or watch reality TV. No fear. I have many better
            things to do with my time. Rest assured, those who care not one whit for the
            destruction of Tolkien's characters are free to have as many blogs as they
            choose with no attention or concern expressed from me.

            Grace Walker Monk
            proud Jackson-basher


            In a message dated 9/8/2007 10:45:53 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
            Aelfwine@... writes:

            For those who are uninterested in thinking critically about the Peter
            Jackson films, Kristin Thompson, author of the excellent new book
            detailing the history of the films' making (THE FRODO FRANCHISE), has
            started up a blog devoted to the topic; it also looks to feature news
            about the progress or otherwise of filming THE HOBBIT.

            http://www.kristinthompson.net/blog/

            Jackson strokers are advised to make it your home page; lots to see
            here, come right in.

            --CFH


            On Sep 8, 2007, at 12:01 AM, John D Rateliff wrote:

            > For those who are actually interested in the Peter Jackson films,
            > Kristin Thompson, author of the excellent new book detailing the
            > history of the films' making (THE FRODO FRANCHISE), has started up a
            > blog devoted to the topic; it also looks to feature news about the
            > progress or otherwise of filming THE HOBBIT.
            >
            > http://www.kristinthompson.net/blog/
            >
            > Jackson bashers are advised to skip it; nothing to see here, move it
            > along.
            >
            > --JDR
            >









            ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Anthony and Jessica
            I ve been a lurker on this forum for far too long. There are just a couple of points I just HAVE to note with my midmorning coffee... [;)] First-- Grace,
            Message 5 of 8 , Sep 8 9:56 AM
              I've been a lurker on this forum for far too long. There are just a
              couple of points I just HAVE to note with my midmorning coffee... [;)]

              First-- Grace, Carl, & Anthony all said it perfectly & to the point.
              You guys all rock. We should all chat in more detail about starting our
              very own MythSoc Jackson-basher's Club. [:-B] However, I am still
              compelled to drop in my shire penny's worth....

              What I find most disturbing is not that there are Jackson-strokers out
              there-- perhaps Mr. Rateliff & Ms. Thompson being two of the most
              irksome for me today-- but that there is this perpetual need to be
              defensive and offensive to anyone else with an opposing view. This need
              to destroy, defame, or detract from the opposition smacks of
              totalitarianism.... calling Sauron and President Bush.... next up there
              will be pogroms and ghettos created by the Frodo Francise for the likes
              of us who WELCOME a chance to argue their point, to TALK to others with
              an opposing view.... isn't that what the MythSoc is really all about, or
              have I been deluded in that view as well since I'm a lowly
              Jackson-FILM-basher.

              Are we NOT here for discussion? What is tired and tiring is that the
              Pro-Jackson squad are anti-discussion. I think there are maybe a
              half-dozen that come to mind (most of whom are members of Mythsoc, are
              on this forum, and I have had discussions with about the films-- NOTE
              the term: discussions). There is nothing wrong with being pro-film: as
              long as you are pro-discussion. Mr. Rateliff's remark reminds me so
              very much of the He-Man Woman-Hater's Club from the Little Rascals. How
              childish is that?

              Ms. Thompson is cut from the same cloth & to have a book devoted to the
              "Frodo Francise" is to shout from the rooftops that she hasn't a clue
              about what is behind Tolkien's works, or even what Jackson's team sought
              to recreate, however poorly.

              Tolkien discusses time and again (hello: the LETTERS) about the
              "machine" and it being not only the embodiment of Evil but the aspect of
              Saruman that continues into our age. Franchise is this machine & to put
              Frodo in that same category is like saying that since McDonald's has
              sold so well, has seeped into the many corners of our doomed little
              planet, and is frequented by the vast legion of cavernous maws that are
              what our race has become, then the Golden Arches should be deemed
              America's #1 Health Food. That popularity equates goodness, and goodness
              signifies health. The same argument should be applied to gas-guzzling
              motor-vehicles: that since they are SO much more popular than the
              nay-sayers who fritter on about how these behemoths destroy the
              environment the fact that they destroy the environment should be ignored
              & not mentioned.

              So I guess what Mr. Rateliff SHOULD have said is that anyone with a mind
              to discuss Jackson's films, Tolkien's works, or Ms. Thompson's views,
              should all move along because the folks frequenting that blog are too
              insecure in their views to engender anything remotely like discussion.
              Mr. Rateliff, you should find out if Haliburton would like to become a
              sponsor of Ms. Thompson's blog. You all have the same motives in mind,
              after all.

              I've run out of coffee & have been inflamatory enough for today so...
              In Fellowship
              Jessie




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Ellen
              I haven t been keeping score but as far as I can tell the anti-Jackson posts on here far outnumber the pro-Jackson ones, so claiming that those with minority
              Message 6 of 8 , Sep 8 10:26 AM
                I haven't been keeping score but as far as I can tell the anti-Jackson
                posts on here far outnumber the pro-Jackson ones, so claiming that those
                with minority (pro-Jackson) viewpoints are behaving in a totalitarian
                manner is hyperbole. Comparing anyone who disagrees with you to
                Haliburton is a bigger hyperbole.

                Frankly, I'm sick of the whole discussion and am no longer going to read
                any more posts that include the subject "Jackson" or "movies."

                Been there, discussed that, agree with a lot of what has been said on
                both sides. Sick to death of it all. (And yes, I chose to read it, and
                am now choosing to no longer do so.)

                Ellen Denham


                Anthony and Jessica wrote:
                >
                > I've been a lurker on this forum for far too long. There are just a
                > couple of points I just HAVE to note with my midmorning coffee... [;)]
                >
                > First-- Grace, Carl, & Anthony all said it perfectly & to the point.
                > You guys all rock. We should all chat in more detail about starting our
                > very own MythSoc Jackson-basher's Club. [:-B] However, I am still
                > compelled to drop in my shire penny's worth....
                >
                > What I find most disturbing is not that there are Jackson-strokers out
                > there-- perhaps Mr. Rateliff & Ms. Thompson being two of the most
                > irksome for me today-- but that there is this perpetual need to be
                > defensive and offensive to anyone else with an opposing view. This need
                > to destroy, defame, or detract from the opposition smacks of
                > totalitarianism.... calling Sauron and President Bush.... next up there
                > will be pogroms and ghettos created by the Frodo Francise for the likes
                > of us who WELCOME a chance to argue their point, to TALK to others with
                > an opposing view.... isn't that what the MythSoc is really all about, or
                > have I been deluded in that view as well since I'm a lowly
                > Jackson-FILM-basher.
                >
                > Are we NOT here for discussion? What is tired and tiring is that the
                > Pro-Jackson squad are anti-discussion. I think there are maybe a
                > half-dozen that come to mind (most of whom are members of Mythsoc, are
                > on this forum, and I have had discussions with about the films-- NOTE
                > the term: discussions). There is nothing wrong with being pro-film: as
                > long as you are pro-discussion. Mr. Rateliff's remark reminds me so
                > very much of the He-Man Woman-Hater's Club from the Little Rascals. How
                > childish is that?
                >
                > Ms. Thompson is cut from the same cloth & to have a book devoted to the
                > "Frodo Francise" is to shout from the rooftops that she hasn't a clue
                > about what is behind Tolkien's works, or even what Jackson's team sought
                > to recreate, however poorly.
                >
                > Tolkien discusses time and again (hello: the LETTERS) about the
                > "machine" and it being not only the embodiment of Evil but the aspect of
                > Saruman that continues into our age. Franchise is this machine & to put
                > Frodo in that same category is like saying that since McDonald's has
                > sold so well, has seeped into the many corners of our doomed little
                > planet, and is frequented by the vast legion of cavernous maws that are
                > what our race has become, then the Golden Arches should be deemed
                > America's #1 Health Food. That popularity equates goodness, and goodness
                > signifies health. The same argument should be applied to gas-guzzling
                > motor-vehicles: that since they are SO much more popular than the
                > nay-sayers who fritter on about how these behemoths destroy the
                > environment the fact that they destroy the environment should be ignored
                > & not mentioned.
                >
                > So I guess what Mr. Rateliff SHOULD have said is that anyone with a mind
                > to discuss Jackson's films, Tolkien's works, or Ms. Thompson's views,
                > should all move along because the folks frequenting that blog are too
                > insecure in their views to engender anything remotely like discussion.
                > Mr. Rateliff, you should find out if Haliburton would like to become a
                > sponsor of Ms. Thompson's blog. You all have the same motives in mind,
                > after all.
                >
                > I've run out of coffee & have been inflamatory enough for today so...
                > In Fellowship
                > Jessie
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Anthony and Jessica
                To continue-- because I choose to: Ellen-- you ve misread my point. I m not comparing someone who disagrees with me to totalitarians, BUT those who don t want
                Message 7 of 8 , Sep 8 10:41 AM
                  To continue-- because I choose to:
                  Ellen-- you've misread my point. I'm not comparing someone who
                  disagrees with me to totalitarians, BUT those who don't want to
                  discuss their views with anyone else. I welcome any & all discussion--
                  and am sick to death of this attitude that if you don't have warm &
                  fuzzy feelings towards Jackson's creation, then your views are just
                  not worth hearing.
                  And where would life be without the grand hyperbole? Note the
                  definition of the word: "statements are exaggerated. ...may be used to
                  evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, and is not
                  meant to be taken literally."
                  Feel free not to read this post. I'm getting more coffee.

                  ~Jessie

                  --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, Ellen <carnimiriel@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > I haven't been keeping score but as far as I can tell the anti-Jackson
                  > posts on here far outnumber the pro-Jackson ones, so claiming that
                  those
                  > with minority (pro-Jackson) viewpoints are behaving in a totalitarian
                  > manner is hyperbole. Comparing anyone who disagrees with you to
                  > Haliburton is a bigger hyperbole.
                  >
                  > Frankly, I'm sick of the whole discussion and am no longer going to
                  read
                  > any more posts that include the subject "Jackson" or "movies."
                  >
                  > Been there, discussed that, agree with a lot of what has been said on
                  > both sides. Sick to death of it all. (And yes, I chose to read it,
                  and
                  > am now choosing to no longer do so.)
                  >
                  > Ellen Denham
                  >
                  >
                  > Anthony and Jessica wrote:
                  > >
                  > > I've been a lurker on this forum for far too long. There are just a
                  > > couple of points I just HAVE to note with my midmorning coffee... [;)]
                  > >
                  > > First-- Grace, Carl, & Anthony all said it perfectly & to the point.
                  > > You guys all rock. We should all chat in more detail about
                  starting our
                  > > very own MythSoc Jackson-basher's Club. [:-B] However, I am still
                  > > compelled to drop in my shire penny's worth....
                  > >
                  > > What I find most disturbing is not that there are Jackson-strokers out
                  > > there-- perhaps Mr. Rateliff & Ms. Thompson being two of the most
                  > > irksome for me today-- but that there is this perpetual need to be
                  > > defensive and offensive to anyone else with an opposing view. This
                  need
                  > > to destroy, defame, or detract from the opposition smacks of
                  > > totalitarianism.... calling Sauron and President Bush.... next up
                  there
                  > > will be pogroms and ghettos created by the Frodo Francise for the
                  likes
                  > > of us who WELCOME a chance to argue their point, to TALK to others
                  with
                  > > an opposing view.... isn't that what the MythSoc is really all
                  about, or
                  > > have I been deluded in that view as well since I'm a lowly
                  > > Jackson-FILM-basher.
                  > >
                  > > Are we NOT here for discussion? What is tired and tiring is that the
                  > > Pro-Jackson squad are anti-discussion. I think there are maybe a
                  > > half-dozen that come to mind (most of whom are members of Mythsoc, are
                  > > on this forum, and I have had discussions with about the films-- NOTE
                  > > the term: discussions). There is nothing wrong with being pro-film: as
                  > > long as you are pro-discussion. Mr. Rateliff's remark reminds me so
                  > > very much of the He-Man Woman-Hater's Club from the Little
                  Rascals. How
                  > > childish is that?
                  > >
                  > > Ms. Thompson is cut from the same cloth & to have a book devoted
                  to the
                  > > "Frodo Francise" is to shout from the rooftops that she hasn't a clue
                  > > about what is behind Tolkien's works, or even what Jackson's team
                  sought
                  > > to recreate, however poorly.
                  > >
                  > > Tolkien discusses time and again (hello: the LETTERS) about the
                  > > "machine" and it being not only the embodiment of Evil but the
                  aspect of
                  > > Saruman that continues into our age. Franchise is this machine &
                  to put
                  > > Frodo in that same category is like saying that since McDonald's has
                  > > sold so well, has seeped into the many corners of our doomed little
                  > > planet, and is frequented by the vast legion of cavernous maws
                  that are
                  > > what our race has become, then the Golden Arches should be deemed
                  > > America's #1 Health Food. That popularity equates goodness, and
                  goodness
                  > > signifies health. The same argument should be applied to gas-guzzling
                  > > motor-vehicles: that since they are SO much more popular than the
                  > > nay-sayers who fritter on about how these behemoths destroy the
                  > > environment the fact that they destroy the environment should be
                  ignored
                  > > & not mentioned.
                  > >
                  > > So I guess what Mr. Rateliff SHOULD have said is that anyone with
                  a mind
                  > > to discuss Jackson's films, Tolkien's works, or Ms. Thompson's views,
                  > > should all move along because the folks frequenting that blog are too
                  > > insecure in their views to engender anything remotely like discussion.
                  > > Mr. Rateliff, you should find out if Haliburton would like to become a
                  > > sponsor of Ms. Thompson's blog. You all have the same motives in mind,
                  > > after all.
                  > >
                  > > I've run out of coffee & have been inflamatory enough for today so...
                  > > In Fellowship
                  > > Jessie
                  > >
                  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                • Lynn Maudlin
                  Nice, chewy posts from the Northeast! Thank you both-- I also am saddened by the blurring of descriptions: discussion, argument, bashing - they are three
                  Message 8 of 8 , Sep 8 12:46 PM
                    Nice, chewy posts from the Northeast! Thank you both--

                    I also am saddened by the blurring of descriptions: discussion,
                    argument, bashing - they are three different things (yes, they may
                    exist on a continuum - but the fact that you can turn up music in your
                    headphones so loud as to permanently deafen yourself hasn't stopped
                    anyone from using iPods, etc. - we are somehow able to recognize the
                    difference between a safe and reasonable sound level and a painful,
                    destructive one).

                    The culture is very big on this, especially in the last 20-30 years or
                    so (it's harder to have good perspective in my pre-adult days); the
                    word "awesome" now means "really good" and "tolerance" now means
                    "approval."

                    Much of the political and media world operate by trying to shut down
                    dissent or discussion. Yes, it is the Franchisation of Tolkien and if
                    he were not in heaven focusing on the glory of God, he'd be ticked
                    off; sadly it is a machine he set in motion himself by selling the
                    film rights. I have to trust that the money he received made his life
                    more pleasant and enjoyable and take comfort in the fact that he
                    himself hasn't had to watch this happen (I can just see Boyens and
                    Jackson mudslinging with the man himself, were he still living:
                    "Authors are not the best judge of adaptations! He understands books,
                    not movies," etc.).

                    I sincerely hope that people will endeavor to engage as mature humans
                    and not feces-flinging apes; by and large I believe we have (I can't
                    attest to earlier go-rounds).

                    Jessie, I loved the example below:

                    > Franchise is this machine & to put Frodo in that same category is
                    > like saying that since McDonald's has sold so well, has seeped into
                    > the many corners of our doomed little planet, and is frequented by
                    > the vast legion of cavernous maws that are what our race has become,
                    > then the Golden Arches should be deemed America's #1 Health Food.
                    > That popularity equates goodness, and goodness signifies health.

                    yikes!!!

                    -- Lynn --
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.