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

Re: [mythsoc] 1966 Hobbit cartoon

Expand Messages
  • John Rateliff
    Hi Wendell There s a copy deposited in the Marquette Archives, but it s never been published. I had a chance to buy a photocopy of it once years ago (circa
    Message 1 of 6 , Jan 10, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Wendell
         There's a copy deposited in the Marquette Archives, but it's never been published. I had a chance to buy a photocopy of it once years ago (circa 1994) but cd not afford to at the time and doubt that opportunity will come again. Janet Croft does discuss it some in one of her articles on film adaptations of Tolkien's work, but I don't have the reference to that handy. 
         I'll read through the whole thing and taken a lot of notes, so one of these days I'll do a blog post giving a sense of just how loopy the whole thing was. Flashes of brilliance, but weird beyond belief.
         --John R.

      P.S.: Did some checking, and Janet's piece I was thinking of is called "Three Rings for Hollywood", wh. is available here:  http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/C/Janet.B.Croft-1/three_rings_for_hollywood.htm  Brief, but gives some idea of Boorman's approach.



      On Jan 10, 2012, at 7:10 PM, WendellWag@... wrote:
      Hey, I would love to be able to see that planned John Boorman adaptation.  Is there a screenplay for it available online or anywhere else?
       
      Wendell Wagner
       
      In a message dated 1/10/2012 2:31:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, sacnoth@... writes:
      Be warned that it makes all previously known adaptations of Tolkien's work look scrupulously faithful by comparison. Well, except for the John Boorman one.


    • WendellWag@aol.com
      Thanks for this link, John. I ve read things like this before about the Boorman film script. I think I would be less bothered by reading the Boorman script
      Message 2 of 6 , Jan 11, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks for this link, John.  I've read things like this before about the Boorman film script.  I think I would be less bothered by reading the Boorman script than by reading the scripts that Jackson or Bakshi actually used in their versions, even though I would never approve any of them actually being made into a film (as Jackson and Bakshi, alas, actually did do).  All three of them come across as typical "Oh, I'm so creative that you can trust me in any changes I make."  Boorman though seems to be brilliant but insane.  After enjoying what he wrote, I would urge him to quit using drugs and get some psychological help.
         
        Wendell Wagner
         
        In a message dated 1/11/2012 12:33:00 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, sacnoth@... writes:
        P.S.: Did some checking, and Janet's piece I was thinking of is called "Three Rings for Hollywood", wh. is available here:  http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/C/Janet.B.Croft-1/three_rings_for_hollyw ood.htm  Brief, but gives some idea of Boorman's approach.
      • Darrell A. Martin
        ... Wendell: C mon, tell us what you really think. ::grin:: I think Jackson s films are helped tremendously by three things. First, the production values are
        Message 3 of 6 , Jan 11, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          On 1/11/2012 3:14 AM, WendellWag@... wrote:
          >
          >
          > Thanks for this link, John. I've read things like this before about the
          > Boorman film script. I think I would be less bothered by reading the
          > Boorman script than by reading the scripts that Jackson or Bakshi
          > actually used in their versions, even though I would never approve any
          > of them actually being made into a film (as Jackson and Bakshi, alas,
          > actually did do). All three of them come across as typical "Oh, I'm so
          > creative that you can trust me in any changes I make." Boorman though
          > seems to be brilliant but insane. After enjoying what he wrote, I would
          > urge him to quit using drugs and get some psychological help.
          > Wendell Wagner

          Wendell:

          C'mon, tell us what you really think. ::grin::

          I think Jackson's films are helped tremendously by three things. First,
          the production values are so high that one sometimes loses sight of the
          liberties he is taking with the text. Second, Bakshi set the bar so
          terribly, astoundingly, low that anything that follows would be hard put
          not to shine by comparison. And third, whatever else one might say,
          Jackson does seem to genuinely *like* Tolkien's works.

          No, I am not satisfied with the end result of his re-imagining.

          - He misunderstands Orcs completely (they should be average to small in
          stature, dull, boring, dangerous only in groups, terrified of any "tark"
          and no match for any decent human or elf warrior with odds less than
          about 10 to 1).

          - He gets Theoden wrong at the core, in an area dear to Tolkien's heart,
          honor in the face of overwhelming odds.

          - He thinks Liv Tyler (a pleasant enough looking young woman, I suppose)
          to be a suitable Arwen, and that Arwen deserves a bigger slice of the
          plot pie.

          - And he butchers Gimli beyond any hope of defense. Comic relief is the
          Hobbits' job. Gimli is who you want when you go in that proverbial dark
          alley, where LOTS of nasty people who don't like you live. He is the
          stumpy-legged guy who RUNS across Rohan, making a mockery of a marathon,
          keeping up with a Dunadan and an Elf by sheer force of will, not
          something to be "tossed". *ptui*

          But although mountainous, island, New Zealand could not provide any
          landscape suitable for the plains of Rohan (the Gothic steppes) the
          scenery is wonderful. I love Hobbiton, even when I "notice things". I
          like Boromir. As unimpressed as I am with Frodo, I appreciate the other
          Hobbits, especially Sam. Gandalf comes across well. My opinion of
          Galadriel improves with each viewing. And the visual representation of
          Sauron is imaginative and *right*, especially his death throes.

          And then there is Gollum. What can I say? Jackson's computer animated
          creation *IS* Gollum, and I can't imagine having any mental picture of
          the character that is not Jackson's, ever again.

          So, "alas" that Jackson did what he did? I cannot agree. Even though his
          Gondorians are not 7th Century Roman/Byzantines, as everyone knows they
          ought to be....

          Darrell
        • Croft, Janet B.
          A slightly better version of my paper is here,
          Message 4 of 6 , Jan 11, 2012
          • 0 Attachment

            A slightly better version of my paper is here, http://ou.academia.edu/JanetCroft/Papers/977728/Three_Rings_for_Hollywood_Scripts_for_The_Lord_of_the_Rings_by_Zimmerman_Boorman_and_Beagle

             

            For final published version, see: Croft, Janet Brennan. “Three Rings for Hollywood: Scripts for The Lord of the Rings by Zimmerman, Boorman, and Beagle.” (Book chapter) Fantasy Fiction Into Film. Ed. Leslie Stratyner and James R. Keller. McFarland, 2007. 7-20.

             

            Janet Brennan Croft

            Associate Professor
            Head of Access Services
            University of Oklahoma Libraries
            Bizzell 106NW
            Norman OK 73019
            405-325-1918
            Fax 405-325-7618
            jbcroft@...
            http://ou.academia.edu/JanetCroft

            http://libraries.ou.edu/
            Editor of Mythlore
            http://www.mythsoc.org/mythlore.html

            Book Review Editor of Oklahoma Librarian http://www.oklibs.org/oklibrarian/current/index.html

            "Humans need fantasy to be human. To be the place where the rising ape meets the falling angel." -Terry Pratchett

             

            From: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mythsoc@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Darrell A. Martin
            Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 5:10 AM
            To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [mythsoc] 1966 Hobbit cartoon

             

             

            On 1/11/2012 3:14 AM, WendellWag@... wrote:

            >
            >
            > Thanks for this link, John. I've read things like this before about the
            > Boorman film script. I think I would be less bothered by reading the
            > Boorman script than by reading the scripts that Jackson or Bakshi
            > actually used in their versions, even though I would never approve any
            > of them actually being made into a film (as Jackson and Bakshi, alas,
            > actually did do). All three of them come across as typical "Oh, I'm so
            > creative that you can trust me in any changes I make." Boorman though
            > seems to be brilliant but insane. After enjoying what he wrote, I would
            > urge him to quit using drugs and get some psychological help.
            > Wendell Wagner

            Wendell:

            C'mon, tell us what you really think. ::grin::

            I think Jackson's films are helped tremendously by three things. First,
            the production values are so high that one sometimes loses sight of the
            liberties he is taking with the text. Second, Bakshi set the bar so
            terribly, astoundingly, low that anything that follows would be hard put
            not to shine by comparison. And third, whatever else one might say,
            Jackson does seem to genuinely *like* Tolkien's works.

            No, I am not satisfied with the end result of his re-imagining.

            - He misunderstands Orcs completely (they should be average to small in
            stature, dull, boring, dangerous only in groups, terrified of any "tark"
            and no match for any decent human or elf warrior with odds less than
            about 10 to 1).

            - He gets Theoden wrong at the core, in an area dear to Tolkien's heart,
            honor in the face of overwhelming odds.

            - He thinks Liv Tyler (a pleasant enough looking young woman, I suppose)
            to be a suitable Arwen, and that Arwen deserves a bigger slice of the
            plot pie.

            - And he butchers Gimli beyond any hope of defense. Comic relief is the
            Hobbits' job. Gimli is who you want when you go in that proverbial dark
            alley, where LOTS of nasty people who don't like you live. He is the
            stumpy-legged guy who RUNS across Rohan, making a mockery of a marathon,
            keeping up with a Dunadan and an Elf by sheer force of will, not
            something to be "tossed". *ptui*

            But although mountainous, island, New Zealand could not provide any
            landscape suitable for the plains of Rohan (the Gothic steppes) the
            scenery is wonderful. I love Hobbiton, even when I "notice things". I
            like Boromir. As unimpressed as I am with Frodo, I appreciate the other
            Hobbits, especially Sam. Gandalf comes across well. My opinion of
            Galadriel improves with each viewing. And the visual representation of
            Sauron is imaginative and *right*, especially his death throes.

            And then there is Gollum. What can I say? Jackson's computer animated
            creation *IS* Gollum, and I can't imagine having any mental picture of
            the character that is not Jackson's, ever again.

            So, "alas" that Jackson did what he did? I cannot agree. Even though his
            Gondorians are not 7th Century Roman/Byzantines, as everyone knows they
            ought to be....

            Darrell

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