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

Fungi and Vegetables

Expand Messages
  • David J. Finnamore
    ... Well, however any of that may be, the fact remains that in the Shire in Tolkien s Middle-earth, Farmer Maggot, if no one else, grew mushrooms *in fields* -
    Message 1 of 11 , Mar 4, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      mary s wrote:

      > As for mushroom culture, don't Pennsylvania farmers grow whole basements full
      > of them?
      >
      > I can see where -visually- carrots would be funnier: capering young hobbits
      > reach down, grab the leaves, and pull: then run away with swinging, bright
      > orange, handfuls. A hat (say) full of amorphous brown lumps would not
      > photograph as well.

      And stephen@... wrote:

      > The carrot thing made me think of something I never thought about before. Do
      > hobbits cultivate mushrooms in fields? Does anyone do that in our times? I
      > think of mushrooms as being collected in the woods. Did farmer Maggot have a
      > private mushroom forest that Frodo poached from?

      And Juliet Blosser offered:

      > http://www.mushroomcouncil.com/
      > has some information on how mushrooms are grown in modern times, for the
      > curious :)

      Well, however any of that may be, the fact remains that in the Shire in Tolkien's Middle-earth, Farmer Maggot, if no one else, grew mushrooms *in fields* - swampy or marshy fields, maybe, but fields in some sense. And it was *Frodo*, while being raised in Brandy Hall, who stole *mushrooms* from the farmer's *fields*. However anyone else might grow mushrooms at any time in any other place seems beside the point. Whether or not mushrooms photograph well seems to me beside the point. If true, it simply provides a challenge to the film maker to
      develop or refine his technique, not an opportunity to change the story.

      The actors who play Merry and Pippin also indicate that they grew up in Hobbiton, and met in Maggot's field to steal the carrots - completely unbelievable considering how far it was, nevermind the fact that Merry grew up in Buckland, and Pippin in Tuckburrow, neither in Hobbiton. It seems arrogant and unnecessary to me for Jackson to presume to change such details.

      I think I'll make my own film of LotR. In it, the hobbits will flee from cloaked unicycle riders, be rescued by Munchkins (High Munchkins, of course, which Frodo will recognize when he hears them sing to Rumplestiltskin), take a shortcut to rutabagas, be lulled to sleep and nearly eaten by Old Man Peach Tree, spend a short time at Bombadil's gingerbread house, give the Barrow Downs, Bree, Weathertop, and the Troll-shaws entirely amiss and go straight on to Rivendell where they will meet Snow White and the Seven Dwarves and live happily ever
      after.

      --
      David J. Finnamore
      Nashville, TN, USA
      http://personal.bna.bellsouth.net/bna/d/f/dfin/index.html
      --
    • James P. Robinson III
      Now, that movie, I might go see. Unlike certain others. Jim As the clock struck 02:46 PM 3/4/2001 -0600, David J. Finnamore took pen in ... --
      Message 2 of 11 , Mar 4, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Now, that movie, I might go see. Unlike certain others.

        Jim

        As the clock struck 02:46 PM 3/4/2001 -0600, David J. Finnamore took pen in
        hand and wrote:

        >I think I'll make my own film of LotR. In it, the hobbits will flee from
        >cloaked unicycle riders, be rescued by Munchkins (High Munchkins, of
        >course, which Frodo will recognize when he hears them sing to
        >Rumplestiltskin), take a shortcut to rutabagas, be lulled to sleep and
        >nearly eaten by Old Man Peach Tree, spend a short time at Bombadil's
        >gingerbread house, give the Barrow Downs, Bree, Weathertop, and the
        >Troll-shaws entirely amiss and go straight on to Rivendell where they will
        >meet Snow White and the Seven Dwarves and live happily ever
        >after.
        >
        >--
        >David J. Finnamore
        >Nashville, TN, USA
        >http://personal.bna.bellsouth.net/bna/d/f/dfin/index.html
        >--
        >
        >
        >
        >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
        >
        >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

        --
        =================================================
        James P. Robinson III jprobins@...

        All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
        author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with
        an attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
        given in writing.
        =================================================
      • Matthew S Winslow
        On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 14:46:04 -0600 David J. Finnamore ... First, I must admit that I m not too keen on the story being changed, but when I see comments such
        Message 3 of 11 , Mar 6, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 14:46:04 -0600 "David J. Finnamore"
          <daeron@...> writes:
          > It seems arrogant and unnecessary to me for
          > Jackson to presume to change such details.

          First, I must admit that I'm not too keen on the story being changed, but
          when I see comments such as these, my first question is, 'have you seen
          the movie yet?' I have worked on film scripts in the past and I know that
          changes often have to be made to condense an author's story into the
          correct time frame. Has anyone heard the BBC production of LOTR? It ran
          for 13 episodes of over an hour each, and it had to condense the story
          considerably. The LOTR movies are going to be /less than half/ this
          length. How is Jackson going to get the LOTR into only 6 hours??? I
          dunno. But I haven't seen the final product, nor has anyone else here, so
          I think it might be best /not/ to judge the films before we see them.
          Anyone who wants the film to reflect the books 'exactly' (whatever that
          means: we're talking two diff't media here!) is very naive. For the time
          being, I would like to think that Jackson has made some decisions that I
          may not have, but that he's doing so in order to save the 'best' part of
          the story.

          I /am/ concerned about carrots instead of mushrooms (although I much
          prefer carrots -- love 'em, actually -- and despise mushrooms -- why
          would anyone eat the same thing that can grow btwn your toes if you don't
          wash enough? <g>); I'm concerned about 'Arwen, Warrior Princess'; I'm
          concerned about a lot I read from the posts that Joan forwards. But I
          don't think /any/ of us should judge until the actual movies come out.
          Then, and only then, can we declare Jackson the anti-Christ (or
          whatever).

          I guess what I'm ultimately trying to say is that books and film are two
          diff't media (duh), and that in order to fit everything into /only/ six
          hours, Jackson and the screenwriters had to make some decisions. They are
          not Tolkien, nor do they have the incredible talent and acumen shown on
          this list, so /of course/ they're going to make decisions we don't agree
          with. But let's not get so arrogant as to know a priori /why/ those
          changes were made.

          Although I'm still baffled about the carrots....

          Matt

          Currently Reading: The False House by James Stoddard
          ________________________________________________________________
          GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
          Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
          Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
          http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
        • James P. Robinson III
          While I think the carrots thing is indefensible, I believe Matt has made many excellent points. In fact, he explains in a nutshell why I never go to see movie
          Message 4 of 11 , Mar 6, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            While I think the carrots thing is indefensible, I believe Matt has made
            many excellent points. In fact, he explains in a nutshell why I never go
            to see movie made from books I enjoyed.

            Jim

            As the clock struck 08:05 AM 3/6/2001 -0800, Matthew S Winslow took pen in
            hand and wrote:
            >On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 14:46:04 -0600 "David J. Finnamore"
            ><daeron@...> writes:
            > > It seems arrogant and unnecessary to me for
            > > Jackson to presume to change such details.
            >
            >First, I must admit that I'm not too keen on the story being changed, but
            >when I see comments such as these, my first question is, 'have you seen
            >the movie yet?' I have worked on film scripts in the past and I know that
            >changes often have to be made to condense an author's story into the
            >correct time frame. Has anyone heard the BBC production of LOTR? It ran
            >for 13 episodes of over an hour each, and it had to condense the story
            >considerably. The LOTR movies are going to be /less than half/ this
            >length. How is Jackson going to get the LOTR into only 6 hours??? I
            >dunno. But I haven't seen the final product, nor has anyone else here, so
            >I think it might be best /not/ to judge the films before we see them.
            >Anyone who wants the film to reflect the books 'exactly' (whatever that
            >means: we're talking two diff't media here!) is very naive. For the time
            >being, I would like to think that Jackson has made some decisions that I
            >may not have, but that he's doing so in order to save the 'best' part of
            >the story.
            >
            >I /am/ concerned about carrots instead of mushrooms (although I much
            >prefer carrots -- love 'em, actually -- and despise mushrooms -- why
            >would anyone eat the same thing that can grow btwn your toes if you don't
            >wash enough? <g>); I'm concerned about 'Arwen, Warrior Princess'; I'm
            >concerned about a lot I read from the posts that Joan forwards. But I
            >don't think /any/ of us should judge until the actual movies come out.
            >Then, and only then, can we declare Jackson the anti-Christ (or
            >whatever).
            >
            >I guess what I'm ultimately trying to say is that books and film are two
            >diff't media (duh), and that in order to fit everything into /only/ six
            >hours, Jackson and the screenwriters had to make some decisions. They are
            >not Tolkien, nor do they have the incredible talent and acumen shown on
            >this list, so /of course/ they're going to make decisions we don't agree
            >with. But let's not get so arrogant as to know a priori /why/ those
            >changes were made.
            >
            >Although I'm still baffled about the carrots....
            >
            >Matt
            >
            >Currently Reading: The False House by James Stoddard
            >________________________________________________________________
            >GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
            >Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
            >Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
            >http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
            >
            >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
            >
            >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

            --
            =================================================
            James P. Robinson III jprobins@...

            All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
            author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with
            an attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
            given in writing.
            =================================================
          • David S. Bratman
            ... As nobody has seen the movie yet, this is a disingenuous question. ... Indeed. But aside from being two letters shorter, how does carrots condense
            Message 5 of 11 , Mar 6, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              At 08:05 AM 3/6/2001 , Matt wrote:

              >"David J. Finnamore" writes:
              >> It seems arrogant and unnecessary to me for
              >> Jackson to presume to change such details.
              >
              >First, I must admit that I'm not too keen on the story being changed, but
              >when I see comments such as these, my first question is, 'have you seen
              >the movie yet?'

              As nobody has seen the movie yet, this is a disingenuous question.

              >I have worked on film scripts in the past and I know that
              >changes often have to be made to condense an author's story into the
              >correct time frame.

              Indeed. But aside from being two letters shorter, how does "carrots"
              condense "mushrooms"?

              >Has anyone heard the BBC production of LOTR? It ran
              >for 13 episodes of over an hour each, and it had to condense the story
              >considerably.

              Yes I have. Several times. It's a brilliant piece of work. It condenses
              without changing things wantonly or unnecessarily. So does Orson Scott
              Card's stage adaptation, which I've acted in. Other adaptations have
              failed to do this. Have you ever read the Zimmerman treatment of LOTR? (A
              copy was on display at Marquette during the 1999 Mythcon.) It's amazingly
              hideous, far worse even than it sounds judging from Tolkien's furious
              letter condemning it.

              In that letter, Tolkien wrote that if details are to be added to an already
              crowded world, they should at least fit the world described. Tolkien wrote
              mushrooms. He did not write carrots.

              >The LOTR movies are going to be /less than half/ this
              >length. How is Jackson going to get the LOTR into only 6 hours??? I
              >dunno. But I haven't seen the final product, nor has anyone else here, so
              >I think it might be best /not/ to judge the films before we see them.

              Nobody is judging the films. We are commenting on the information
              available to us so far, and doing so in appropriate terms. David Finnamore
              wrote "seems", which is the appropriate tone. Some of the pieces of
              information we've received may not even be true. We are not condemning the
              film, we are just expressing tentative opinions based on what we know, as a
              way of entertainingly passing the time while we wait for the film.

              To distribute these tidbits of information, and to expect people not to
              comment on what they think of them, would be inhuman.

              >Anyone who wants the film to reflect the books 'exactly' (whatever that
              >means: we're talking two diff't media here!) is very naive. For the time
              >being, I would like to think that Jackson has made some decisions that I
              >may not have, but that he's doing so in order to save the 'best' part of
              >the story.

              There are many condensation and adaptations decisions made in the BBC radio
              version that change the books greatly but do not misrepresent them. I'm
              thinking in particular of the decision to cut back and forth between the
              stories in Books 3-5, instead of presenting them nearly whole. I expect
              Jackson to make the same decision. This is something in which the nature
              of the media, books and films, do encourage differences.

              But what does any of this have to do with mushrooms v. carrots?

              >I /am/ concerned about carrots instead of mushrooms ... I'm
              >concerned about a lot I read from the posts that Joan forwards. But I
              >don't think /any/ of us should judge until the actual movies come out.
              >Then, and only then, can we declare Jackson the anti-Christ (or
              >whatever).

              Nobody that I know has condemned Jackson utterly. The most I would say is
              that if he does all of the bad things that I've read - and seen and heard
              with my own eyes and ears on the trailer - he will be making a film much
              less good than he could have, in ways completely unjustified by the needs
              of condensation and adaptation. So long as we reserve the right to be
              pleasantly surprised by the film when it appears, we are not being
              unreasonable.

              >I guess what I'm ultimately trying to say is that books and film are two
              >diff't media (duh), and that in order to fit everything into /only/ six
              >hours, Jackson and the screenwriters had to make some decisions.

              Some decisions are necessary for those purposes. Some are not.

              >They are
              >not Tolkien, nor do they have the incredible talent and acumen shown on
              >this list, so /of course/ they're going to make decisions we don't agree
              >with. But let's not get so arrogant as to know a priori /why/ those
              >changes were made.

              Did anybody say they did?

              David Bratman
            • David S. Bratman
              Another thought. ... It would be pretty silly to have told Tolkien he should not have condemned the Ackerman film plan based on the Zimmerman treatment (which
              Message 6 of 11 , Mar 6, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Another thought.

                At 03:12 PM 3/6/2001 , I wrote:

                >Have you ever read the Zimmerman treatment of LOTR? (A
                >copy was on display at Marquette during the 1999 Mythcon.) It's amazingly
                >hideous, far worse even than it sounds judging from Tolkien's furious
                >letter condemning it.

                It would be pretty silly to have told Tolkien he should not have condemned
                the Ackerman film plan based on the Zimmerman treatment (which is a plot
                summary of a few thousand words, not even a film script), but that he must
                wait for the film to come out before he said anything.

                David Bratman
              • Bill
                Comes out of lurk mode to point out what may be, to me at least, a painfully obvious reason for the change: Lawsuits. A sad fact of life, but I can imagine
                Message 7 of 11 , Mar 6, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  Comes out of lurk mode to point out what may be, to me at least,
                  a painfully obvious reason for the change:
                  Lawsuits.
                  A sad fact of life, but I can imagine someone saying
                  "We better not use mushrooms. Someone's gonna sue us when
                  little Tommy plays hobbit and eats a poison mushroom. Let's change
                  it
                  to..oh...I dunno..something healthy, like..umm..carrots!"
                  <shrugs>
                  ok...maybe it's a reach..

                  Back to lurk mode........


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Trudy Shaw
                  Hadn t thought of that. More likely than some of the other possible reasons, I d say. Wish I knew PJ and could ask him. Of course, til the movie comes out we
                  Message 8 of 11 , Mar 7, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hadn't thought of that. More likely than some of the other possible reasons, I'd say. Wish I knew PJ and could ask him. Of course, 'til the movie comes out we won't know if the mushrooms have been completely supplanted (pun not intended, but I did notice it and typed it anyway).
                    -- Trudy


                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: Bill
                    To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 11:04 PM
                    Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Fungi and Vegetables


                    Comes out of lurk mode to point out what may be, to me at least,
                    a painfully obvious reason for the change:
                    Lawsuits.
                    A sad fact of life, but I can imagine someone saying
                    "We better not use mushrooms. Someone's gonna sue us when
                    little Tommy plays hobbit and eats a poison mushroom. Let's change
                    it
                    to..oh...I dunno..something healthy, like..umm..carrots!"
                    <shrugs>
                    ok...maybe it's a reach..

                    Back to lurk mode........


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


                    Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

                    Click here for Classmates.com


                    The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org

                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • ERATRIANO@aol.com
                    In a message dated 03/07/2001 12:09:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, lunacy@ici.net writes:
                    Message 9 of 11 , Mar 7, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In a message dated 03/07/2001 12:09:47 AM Eastern Standard Time,
                      lunacy@... writes:

                      << "We better not use mushrooms. Someone's gonna sue us when
                      little Tommy plays hobbit and eats a poison mushroom. Let's change
                      it
                      to..oh...I dunno..something healthy, like..umm..carrots!" >>

                      Yeah, I was just thinking psychedelic 'shrooms too, but still.... this is
                      sacred! ggg

                      Lizzie
                    • David J. Finnamore
                      At the risk of appearing to contradict myself, I d like to thank Matt Winslow for reminding me to be more cautious and gracious in my critical wording (I will
                      Message 10 of 11 , Mar 7, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        At the risk of appearing to contradict myself, I'd like to thank Matt Winslow for reminding me to be more cautious and gracious in my critical wording (I will likely need to be reminded again =>/ ), and thank David Bratman for answering Matt for me far better, on the whole, than I could have done myself.


                        David S. Bratman wrote:

                        > At 08:05 AM 3/6/2001 , Matt wrote:
                        >
                        > >"David J. Finnamore" writes:
                        > >> It seems arrogant and unnecessary to me for
                        > >> Jackson to presume to change such details.
                        > >
                        > >First, I must admit that I'm not too keen on the story being changed, but
                        > >when I see comments such as these, my first question is, 'have you seen
                        > >the movie yet?'
                        >
                        > As nobody has seen the movie yet, this is a disingenuous question.

                        Well, maybe not disingenuous if rhetorical, as I take it.


                        > Nobody is judging the films. We are commenting on the information
                        > available to us so far, and doing so in appropriate terms.

                        > We are not condemning the
                        > film, we are just expressing tentative opinions based on what we know, as a
                        > way of entertainingly passing the time while we wait for the film.

                        Quite right.


                        > >/of course/ they're going to make decisions we don't agree
                        > >with. But let's not get so arrogant as to know a priori /why/ those
                        > >changes were made.

                        That, I think, is a good point, Matt.

                        I find Bill <lunacy@...>'s suggestion about the lawsuit somewhat plausible. The only thing is, this film is aimed at adults and older children - too old to eat poison mushrooms because they saw them eaten in a film. Jackson said he had to edit down from R-rated (violent) material to be sure he could get a PG-13 rating. But these in days of the supreme rule of lawyers (nomarchy?), who knows?

                        --
                        David J. Finnamore, a.k.a. Not-Jackson
                        Nashville, TN, USA
                        http://personal.bna.bellsouth.net/bna/d/f/dfin/index.html
                        --
                      • Christine Howlett
                        A stretch, but least an imaginative stretch. Enjoy the lurk. Christine ... From: Bill To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                        Message 11 of 11 , Mar 7, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          A stretch, but least an imaginative stretch. Enjoy the lurk.
                          Christine

                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: Bill <lunacy@...>
                          To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com <mythsoc@yahoogroups.com>
                          Date: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 12:08 AM
                          Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Fungi and Vegetables


                          > Comes out of lurk mode to point out what may be, to me at least,
                          > a painfully obvious reason for the change:
                          > Lawsuits.
                          > A sad fact of life, but I can imagine someone saying
                          > "We better not use mushrooms. Someone's gonna sue us when
                          > little Tommy plays hobbit and eats a poison mushroom. Let's change
                          > it
                          > to..oh...I dunno..something healthy, like..umm..carrots!"
                          > <shrugs>
                          > ok...maybe it's a reach..
                          >
                          > Back to lurk mode........
                          >
                          >
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.