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

Re: [mythsoc] PETER JACKSON TALKS LORD OF THE RINGS

Expand Messages
  • David S. Bratman
    ... I guess I m glad he feels that way, but I wouldn t. To me Middle-earth has a subcreational reality that no reproduction, no matter how true even to my own
    Message 1 of 8 , Nov 12, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      On Sun, 12 Nov 2000, Peter Jackson wrote:

      > it just dawns on
      > me from time to time that here I am in Bag End or here I am in Helm's Deep
      > and there is Aragorn there and there's Gandalf and here's Frodo.
      >
      > There are moments when do feel you are physically transported into the book
      > which is amazing. You put the technology to one side and that's incredibly
      > unique.

      I guess I'm glad he feels that way, but I wouldn't. To me Middle-earth
      has a subcreational reality that no reproduction, no matter how true even
      to my own personal vision, can replicate. I cannot forget, even for a
      moment, that what I am looking at is a reproduction. What I could say is
      "yes, this is what it _looks like_," and I hope I will indeed say that
      when I see the film. Certainly the trailer was fairly promising.

      > These films are not official Lord of The Rings films. The Tolkien estate is
      > not involved. Professor Tolkien has passed away. These are not like the
      > official authorised movies. These are an interpretation and they are our
      > interpretation collectively of these characters in this story.

      What does he mean by "the official authorised movies"? Bakshi and
      Rankin-Bass? Those films (which also appeared after Tolkien's death,
      btw) were neither more nor less authorized than this one. The Tolkien
      estate had nothing to do with any of them. Bakshi was authorized by the
      owners of the film rights, by the same process (indeed, I think the same
      persons) who authorized Jackson. (Rankin-Bass is another, murkier story.)

      David Bratman
    • stephen@stephen.com
      ... Perhaps he s just saying they re not authentic Tolkien creations; they re just his own interpretation. As opposed to Dune, for example, which had Herbert
      Message 2 of 8 , Nov 13, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        David Bratman wrote (quoting Peter Jackson):
        >> These films are not official Lord of The Rings films. The Tolkien estate is
        >> not involved. Professor Tolkien has passed away. These are not like the
        >> official authorised movies. These are an interpretation and they are our
        >> interpretation collectively of these characters in this story.
        >
        >What does he mean by "the official authorised movies"? Bakshi and
        >Rankin-Bass? Those films (which also appeared after Tolkien's death,
        >btw) were neither more nor less authorized than this one. The Tolkien
        >estate had nothing to do with any of them. Bakshi was authorized by the
        >owners of the film rights, by the same process (indeed, I think the same
        >persons) who authorized Jackson. (Rankin-Bass is another, murkier story.)

        Perhaps he's just saying they're not authentic Tolkien creations; they're
        just his own interpretation. As opposed to Dune, for example, which had
        Herbert claiming to approve the vision of the film. It seems unlikely to me
        that Jackson considers the Bakshi and Rankin-Bass films to be of much
        significance at all.

        - Stephen
      • David S. Bratman
        Stephen - In other words, you think that when Peter Jackson said These [i.e. his films] are not like the official authorised movies, he meant the official
        Message 3 of 8 , Nov 13, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          Stephen -

          In other words, you think that when Peter Jackson said "These [i.e. his
          films] are not like the official authorised movies," he meant the
          official authorized movies of _other books_, not ones of LOTR. Is that
          your import?

          If that's what he meant, the word "the" misled me. See, it really can
          matter what the meaning of a little word is.

          David Bratman
        • WendellWag@aol.com
          In a message dated 11/14/00 2:02:55 AM Eastern Standard Time, dbratman@genie.idt.net writes:
          Message 4 of 8 , Nov 14, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 11/14/00 2:02:55 AM Eastern Standard Time,
            dbratman@... writes:

            << In other words, you think that when Peter Jackson said "These [i.e. his
            films] are not like the official authorised movies," he meant the
            official authorized movies of _other books_, not ones of LOTR. Is that
            your import?

            If that's what he meant, the word "the" misled me. See, it really can
            matter what the meaning of a little word is.
            >>

            I suspect that Peter Jackson didn't mean anything very clear by his
            statement. I think that he was just trying to say that the movies were his
            interpretation of the books and not Tolkien's own vision. That has nothing
            to do with authorized in the usual sense of the world. Furthermore, there's
            no guarantee that a movie that's authorized in the usual sense will
            necessarily be better than one that isn't.

            Even if the author was involved in the actual production of the movie, that
            doesn't mean that the film will be better. Does anyone think that because
            Stephen King directed _Maximum Overdrive_ that it was therefore the best film
            made from his works? Or that the films made from Michael Crichton's novels
            that he directed himself were the best ones? Or that because Mickey Spillane
            played Mike Hammer in _The Girl Hunters_ and Richard Wright played Bigger
            Thomas in (and wrote the screenplay for) the 1950 version of_Native Son_ that
            these were the best possible versions of these works?

            Wendell Wagner
          • stephen@stephen.com
            ... I agree. I took his statement as vague grammar and spoken idiom in an attempt to say something he hadn t thought through or written down. My impression
            Message 5 of 8 , Nov 14, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              Wendell Wagner wrote:
              >I suspect that Peter Jackson didn't mean anything very clear by his
              >statement. I think that he was just trying to say that the movies were
              >his interpretation of the books and not Tolkien's own vision.

              I agree. I took his statement as vague grammar and spoken idiom in an
              attempt to say something he hadn't thought through or written down. My
              impression is that what he was saying could be more accurately written as
              "... not, like, the official authorized movies." with a 'valley girl' type of
              usage of the work 'like'.

              - Stephen
            • stephen@stephen.com
              ... Come to think of it, I agree with this also. Yes. I think he probably said not, like, the official authorized movies . making a comparison to
              Message 6 of 8 , Nov 14, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                David Bratman wrote:
                >In other words, you think that when Peter Jackson said "These [i.e. his
                >films] are not like the official authorised movies," he meant the
                >official authorized movies of _other books_, not ones of LOTR. Is that
                >your import?
                >
                >If that's what he meant, the word "the" misled me. See, it really can
                >matter what the meaning of a little word is.

                Come to think of it, I agree with this also. Yes. I think he probably said
                "not, like, 'the official authorized movies'." making a comparison to
                authorized movies in general. Probably it would have been a lot clearer on
                TV or radio.

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