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

Be Very Afraid

Expand Messages
  • SusanPal@aol.com
    Okay, so I just read a Reuters interview with Peter Jackson where he said that he and Fran Walsh have made some major additions/changes to the plot of THE TWO
    Message 1 of 15 , Feb 23, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Okay, so I just read a Reuters interview with Peter Jackson where he said
      that he and Fran Walsh have made some major additions/changes to the plot of
      THE TWO TOWERS. Also, evidently the scouring of the Shire *won't* be
      included in ROTK! Eeep!

      So now even I'm getting nervous.

      I'll still go see them (and I still love the first one) -- but David and
      others whose reading can be ruined by films might want to boycott.

      Susan
    • Sweet & Tender Hooligan
      ... Hmm. Maybe he s overcompensating. You know, he talked about how closely the first film would follow the book, and then had to deal with everyone grousing
      Message 2 of 15 , Feb 24, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        > Okay, so I just read a Reuters interview with Peter Jackson
        > where he said that he and Fran Walsh have made some major
        > additions/changes to the plot of THE TWO TOWERS.

        Hmm. Maybe he's overcompensating. You know, he talked about how closely the
        first film would follow the book, and then had to deal with everyone
        grousing about the minor additions/changes that he did make. So perhaps
        he's just bracing everyone in advance. :)

        > Also, evidently the scouring of the Shire *won't* be
        > included in ROTK! Eeep!

        Heh. This doesn't surprise me in the least. If I was writing the film, I
        wouldn't include this either. It works in the book, of course, but that's a
        /lot/ of resolution for a film.

        -

        s&th
        cirhsein@...

        "Besides being complicated, reality, in
        my experience, is usually odd."
        - C.S. Lewis
      • David S. Bratman
        ... OK, Susan, so _now_ do you understand how we feel? ... Look, I m not twinging in horror at the thought of what Jackson will do next. Frankly, I think he s
        Message 3 of 15 , Feb 25, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          At 08:29 AM 2/23/2002 , Susan Palwick wrote:

          >Okay, so I just read a Reuters interview with Peter Jackson where he said
          >that he and Fran Walsh have made some major additions/changes to the plot of
          >THE TWO TOWERS. Also, evidently the scouring of the Shire *won't* be
          >included in ROTK! Eeep!
          >
          >So now even I'm getting nervous.

          OK, Susan, so _now_ do you understand how we feel?


          >I'll still go see them (and I still love the first one) -- but David and
          >others whose reading can be ruined by films might want to boycott.

          Look, I'm not twinging in horror at the thought of what Jackson will do
          next. Frankly, I think he's already mauled and distorted the story so much
          that it won't do any more harm to keep doing it, and could maintain the
          integrity of his story. I've concluded, for instance, that he _should_
          follow his original instinct and send Arwen to Rohan with the Grey Company.
          Insofar as he's insulted LOTR by his changes, this wouldn't insult it any
          more, and it would fit in with his vision.

          Remember, my complaints with Jackson are not that he "ruined" the book for
          me the way Bakshi did. He hasn't. My complaint is quite different, and
          having apparently already stunned the list into silence by elaborating on
          this at great length, I'm disinclined to repeat myself.

          Even if I were moved to boycott Jackson's sequels, it wouldn't work. If I
          don't like some piece of Tolkienian artwork, I can ignore it. But to
          prevent myself from being bludgeoned with Jackson's vision, I'd have to
          resign from this list, withdraw from the Mythopoeic Society and all
          organized Tolkien fandom, and during the release period of the sequels
          avoid all articles about Tolkien and pretty much all mass media for a
          period of months.

          David Bratman
        • SusanPal@aol.com
          In a message dated 2/25/2002 2:20:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ... Well, I dunno: probably not, since I m not as passionate about the issue as you are,
          Message 4 of 15 , Feb 25, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 2/25/2002 2:20:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
            dbratman@... writes:


            > OK, Susan, so _now_ do you understand how we feel?
            >
            Well, I dunno: probably not, since I'm not as passionate about the issue as
            you are, because even if the next two movies were far worse than I think they
            will be, they wouldn't interfere with my enjoyment of the orignal text.

            > Remember, my complaints with Jackson are not that he "ruined" the book for
            > me the way Bakshi did. He hasn't. My complaint is quite different, and
            > having apparently already stunned the list into silence by elaborating on
            > this at great length, I'm disinclined to repeat myself.
            >
            I've never been on a *less* silent list than this one -- I don't think you've
            stunned anybody into silence! On the contrary, I think you encouraged some
            excellent discussion of various reader- and viewer-response issues.

            > Even if I were moved to boycott Jackson's sequels, it wouldn't work. If I
            > don't like some piece of Tolkienian artwork, I can ignore it. But to
            > prevent myself from being bludgeoned with Jackson's vision, I'd have to
            > resign from this list, withdraw from the Mythopoeic Society and all
            > organized Tolkien fandom, and during the release period of the sequels
            > avoid all articles about Tolkien and pretty much all mass media for a
            > period of months.
            >
            Well, you can boycott them to the extent of not contributing your $8 or
            whatever to the zillions of dollars he's likely to make (yeah, I know, starts
            seeming futile, doesn't it?). And you can avoid list threads you know to be
            about the films. Or you could start your own Tolkien list -- "about the book
            only" -- and make it one of the ground rules that no discussion of the films
            would be tolerated. There are probably other people who feel as you do in
            Tolkien fandom. Why not start your own SIG?

            But it sounds to me as if at least *part* of your complaint is that Jackson's
            version is just too damn popular, and because it sure looks to me as if the
            popularity of the film(s) is bringing more people to the books, I have a hard
            time being unhappy about that.

            But then, I like the first movie, and expect to like the others too -- even
            if they *don't* include the scouring of the Shire (which several people have
            now convinced me is probably a wise omission). Although I have to say that
            I'm also really looking forward to the DVD of FotR, which will include --
            integrated into the current footage -- the thirty minutes of cut scenes,
            Galadriel's gifts to the Fellowship and the developing Legolas/Gimli
            friendship and such.

            Susan


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • David S. Bratman
            ... Since it wouldn t, why are you now bothered? When I explained why _I_ was bothered, your response was to point out that the original text remains
            Message 5 of 15 , Feb 26, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              At 07:51 PM 2/25/2002 , Susan Palwick wrote:

              >dbratman@... writes:
              >
              >> OK, Susan, so _now_ do you understand how we feel?
              >>
              >Well, I dunno: probably not, since I'm not as passionate about the issue as
              >you are, because even if the next two movies were far worse than I think they
              >will be, they wouldn't interfere with my enjoyment of the orignal text.

              Since it wouldn't, why are you now bothered? When I explained why _I_ was
              bothered, your response was to point out that the original text remains
              unchanged. That didn't mollify me, and apparently it now wouldn't mollify
              you either.


              >> Remember, my complaints with Jackson are not that he "ruined" the book for
              >> me the way Bakshi did. He hasn't. My complaint is quite different, and
              >> having apparently already stunned the list into silence by elaborating on
              >> this at great length, I'm disinclined to repeat myself.
              >>
              >I've never been on a *less* silent list than this one -- I don't think you've
              >stunned anybody into silence! On the contrary, I think you encouraged some
              >excellent discussion of various reader- and viewer-response issues.

              I've seen very little response to the posts I made last Thursday, which is
              when I think I stunned the list. (Comment continues on other threads.) In
              particular, I've asked you one question twice to which I've seen no reply.


              >Well, you can boycott them to the extent of not contributing your $8 or
              >whatever to the zillions of dollars he's likely to make (yeah, I know, starts
              >seeming futile, doesn't it?).

              Not that it's futile. I have no objection on grand moral principle to
              Jackson getting any of my money, which is what it would take to make me
              boycott something I otherwise want to see. If I had, I wouldn't have seen
              the first film.


              >And you can avoid list threads you know to be
              >about the films. Or you could start your own Tolkien list -- "about the book
              >only" -- and make it one of the ground rules that no discussion of the films
              >would be tolerated. There are probably other people who feel as you do in
              >Tolkien fandom. Why not start your own SIG?

              Oh, come _on_. Have you ever tried, in the real world, to impose a
              conversational moratorium on an obviously intriguing topic? I've seen it
              tried: I've never seen it succeed. Even us "film-haters" love to talk
              about how much we hate it. You can't ignore a 500-pound gorilla, and it's
              futile to try.


              >But it sounds to me as if at least *part* of your complaint is that Jackson's
              >version is just too damn popular, and because it sure looks to me as if the
              >popularity of the film(s) is bringing more people to the books, I have a hard
              >time being unhappy about that.

              Well, if it were less popular, it'd do less harm, so that is an element in
              my complaint - not one reason (nothing wrong per se with popularity), an
              element. I want to see more accumulated evidence, and NOT just from
              film-lovers, of how much film-viewers who then read the book for the first
              time actually like it, before I make any conclusions on your last point.


              >But then, I like the first movie, and expect to like the others too -- even
              >if they *don't* include the scouring of the Shire (which several people have
              >now convinced me is probably a wise omission).

              On what grounds? The grounds that the film-makers have given ("audiences
              won't sit still for further adventures after the climax") are foolish -
              I've seen many complaints about films that end too abruptly on this
              principle - and would apply equally well to the book - except that the book
              works despite that. I wonder why - no, actually I don't wonder why: I
              know. It's because Tolkien knew more about storytelling than a bunch of
              film executives making guesses about what audiences will sit still for. If
              those executives had vetted the book, they would have killed that scene in
              the book too.


              >Although I have to say that
              >I'm also really looking forward to the DVD of FotR, which will include --
              >integrated into the current footage -- the thirty minutes of cut scenes,
              >Galadriel's gifts to the Fellowship and the developing Legolas/Gimli
              >friendship and such.

              Which I've already said I intend to get too.


              David Bratman
            • SusanPal@aol.com
              In a message dated 2/26/2002 11:56:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ... Yes, it does mollify me in terms of the *text.* Changes might interfere with my enjoyment
              Message 6 of 15 , Feb 26, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 2/26/2002 11:56:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
                dbratman@... writes:


                > >> OK, Susan, so _now_ do you understand how we feel?
                > >>
                > >Well, I dunno: probably not, since I'm not as passionate about the issue
                > as
                > >you are, because even if the next two movies were far worse than I think
                > they
                > >will be, they wouldn't interfere with my enjoyment of the orignal text.
                >
                > Since it wouldn't, why are you now bothered? When I explained why _I_ was
                > bothered, your response was to point out that the original text remains
                > unchanged. That didn't mollify me, and apparently it now wouldn't mollify
                > you either.

                Yes, it does mollify me in terms of the *text.* Changes might interfere with
                my enjoyment of the FILM; they wouldn't interfere with my enjoyment of the
                book. If I enjoy a scene in the book which isn't in the film, my response
                is, "Oh, good, but I can still read it in the book!"

                I was more dismayed to lose the Scouring of the Shire in RotK than I was, for
                instance, to lose Tom Bombadil in FotR, because I've always enjoyed the first
                more than the second. Strictly personal taste.


                > I've seen very little response to the posts I made last Thursday, which is
                > when I think I stunned the list. (Comment continues on other threads.) In
                > particular, I've asked you one question twice to which I've seen no reply.
                >

                I'm sorry; I haven't deliberately been avoiding anything, but I must have
                missed your question in the blizzard of posts on this most definitely
                NON-silent list. Please ask it again!

                > >And you can avoid list threads you know to be
                > >about the films. Or you could start your own Tolkien list -- "about the
                > book
                > >only" -- and make it one of the ground rules that no discussion of the
                > films
                > >would be tolerated. There are probably other people who feel as you do in
                >
                > >Tolkien fandom. Why not start your own SIG?
                >
                > Oh, come _on_. Have you ever tried, in the real world, to impose a
                > conversational moratorium on an obviously intriguing topic? I've seen it
                > tried: I've never seen it succeed. Even us "film-haters" love to talk
                > about how much we hate it. You can't ignore a 500-pound gorilla, and it's
                > futile to try.
                >

                If you love to talk about how much you hate it, then won't you love talking
                about how much you hate the other two, also? If you love talking about that,
                I don't understand the concern about how unavoidable it will be.

                >
                > >But it sounds to me as if at least *part* of your complaint is that
                > Jackson's
                > >version is just too damn popular, and because it sure looks to me as if
                > the
                > >popularity of the film(s) is bringing more people to the books, I have a
                > hard
                > >time being unhappy about that.
                >
                > Well, if it were less popular, it'd do less harm, so that is an element in
                > my complaint - not one reason (nothing wrong per se with popularity), an
                > element. I want to see more accumulated evidence, and NOT just from
                > film-lovers, of how much film-viewers who then read the book for the first
                > time actually like it, before I make any conclusions on your last point.
                >
                I'm interested in that point too, but I'm not sure how we'd be able to
                determine that any moviegoers who read the book and *didn't* like it would
                have liked it better if they hadn't seen the film; I suspect that many of
                them never would have read the book at all. In any event, I suspect I'll
                have some folks in this category -- filmgoers who aren't yet book-readers --
                in my class next fall, so I'm eager to see their reactions. An instructor at
                my school had her freshman comp students read FotR *before* the film came
                out, and a lot of them hated it and said they couldn't imagine anyone ever
                reading this stuff for pleasure -- but one wonders how many of these kids
                read for pleasure anyway (plus, freshman comp students tend to be resistant
                as a matter of course, because it's a required class and they don't want to
                be there). My course is upper-division and the students will be
                self-selected, so I hope to have a happier experience than she did!

                >
                > >But then, I like the first movie, and expect to like the others too --
                > even
                > >if they *don't* include the scouring of the Shire (which several people
                > have
                > >now convinced me is probably a wise omission).
                >
                > On what grounds? The grounds that the film-makers have given ("audiences
                > won't sit still for further adventures after the climax") are foolish -
                > I've seen many complaints about films that end too abruptly on this
                > principle - and would apply equally well to the book - except that the book
                > works despite that.

                Well, someone addressed this point well on this list (I don't remember who;
                I'm sorry!). That person pointed out that the episode feels anti-climactic
                to a number of *readers*: again, personal taste. The simplest "ground,"
                though, would be the length issue; it will already be a three-hour film, and
                including that scene too would simply make it too long for a theatrical
                release. And the recovery of the Shire may be easier to indicate off-screen
                than other things, like the destruction of the Ring.

                In any event, I imagine you're relieved that THE SILMARILLION probably
                *won't* ever be made into a film!

                Susan


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • David S. Bratman
                ... Which is exactly the point you made to me, when _I_ objected to the film. The Susan Palwick who quoted the Famous Writer anecdote to me would say to you
                Message 7 of 15 , Feb 26, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 04:49 PM 2/26/2002 , Susan Palwick wrote:

                  >> Since it wouldn't, why are you now bothered? When I explained why _I_ was
                  >> bothered, your response was to point out that the original text remains
                  >> unchanged. That didn't mollify me, and apparently it now wouldn't mollify
                  >> you either.
                  >
                  >Yes, it does mollify me in terms of the *text.* Changes might interfere with
                  >my enjoyment of the FILM; they wouldn't interfere with my enjoyment of the
                  >book. If I enjoy a scene in the book which isn't in the film, my response
                  >is, "Oh, good, but I can still read it in the book!"

                  Which is exactly the point you made to me, when _I_ objected to the film.
                  The Susan Palwick who quoted the Famous Writer anecdote to me would say to
                  you that since you _can_ still read it in the book, you have nothing to
                  complain about. That, after all, is why the Famous Writer wasn't bothered
                  by his film, and he was the author, which you and I aren't.


                  >>I've seen very little response to the posts I made last Thursday, which is
                  >>when I think I stunned the list. (Comment continues on other threads.) In
                  >>particular, I've asked you one question twice to which I've seen no reply.
                  >
                  >I'm sorry; I haven't deliberately been avoiding anything, but I must have
                  >missed your question in the blizzard of posts on this most definitely
                  >NON-silent list. Please ask it again!

                  Susan, in the _very paragraph to which you are replying_, I explained what
                  I meant by "silence": that my posts on Thursday met with very little
                  response. Comment, i.e. non-silence, I went on to say, continues on other
                  threads. There is no point is needling me about how un-silent the list is.

                  I started to dig through my outbox looking for the question I posed you,
                  and found that there were a lot of other points I considered much more
                  important, to which I've also had no response, though they weren't phrased
                  in the form of direct questions. Really, I'd have to send all the posts
                  over again, and how do I know that would do any more good than sending them
                  the first time?

                  "Say something once / Why say it again?" - David Byrne


                  >If you love to talk about how much you hate it, then won't you love talking
                  >about how much you hate the other two, also? If you love talking about that,
                  >I don't understand the concern about how unavoidable it will be.

                  You don't? Have you never encountered the paradox of "the thing you love
                  to hate" before?


                  >I'm interested in that point too, but I'm not sure how we'd be able to
                  >determine that any moviegoers who read the book and *didn't* like it would
                  >have liked it better if they hadn't seen the film; I suspect that many of
                  >them never would have read the book at all.

                  Somewhere among my blizzard of posts which met with little response were
                  two replying to objections to Berni's post on Oz, in which I discussed how
                  it would be possible to determine whether they'd have liked it better
                  without having seen the film first - not in replicable scientific terms,
                  of course, but with a fair degree of subjective human accuracy.


                  >> On what grounds? The grounds that the film-makers have given ("audiences
                  >> won't sit still for further adventures after the climax") are foolish -
                  >> I've seen many complaints about films that end too abruptly on this
                  >> principle - and would apply equally well to the book - except that the book
                  >> works despite that.
                  >
                  >Well, someone addressed this point well on this list (I don't remember who;
                  >I'm sorry!). That person pointed out that the episode feels anti-climactic
                  >to a number of *readers*: again, personal taste.

                  I do not recall having seen such a post, and I've _never_ seen that as a
                  widespread complaint about the book, even from people eager to criticize
                  LOTR across the board. Every possible opinion under the sun will be
                  someone's personal taste, but I have strong reason to believe this isn't
                  widespread.


                  >The simplest "ground,"
                  >though, would be the length issue; it will already be a three-hour film, and
                  >including that scene too would simply make it too long for a theatrical
                  >release.

                  The length issue is a non-issue. First, Return is (excluding Appendices)
                  the shortest of the three volumes: it's about 3/4 the length of Fellowship,
                  and if you cut out the post-victory-celebration stuff, it's less than 2/3;
                  second, it has considerably less plot, especially expository plot, than
                  Fellowship. If they can stuff Fellowship, plus the first chapter of Book
                  3, into one 3-hour movie, they will have no trouble getting all the story
                  into the other two movies, no trouble at all. Unless, of course, they want
                  to devote literally half the running time to battles, which they probably
                  will. In which case it's still not the Scouring's fault for being too long.


                  David Bratman
                • Trudy Shaw
                  ... From: David S. Bratman To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 7:33 PM Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Be Very Afraid ... A recent piece of
                  Message 8 of 15 , Feb 27, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: David S. Bratman
                    To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 7:33 PM
                    Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Be Very Afraid


                    >>The simplest "ground,"
                    >>though, would be the length issue; it will already be a three-hour film, and
                    >>including that scene too would simply make it too long for a theatrical
                    >>release.

                    >The length issue is a non-issue. First, Return is (excluding Appendices)
                    >the shortest of the three volumes: it's about 3/4 the length of Fellowship,
                    >and if you cut out the post-victory-celebration stuff, it's less than 2/3...
                    >
                    >David Bratman

                    A recent piece of news, which probably won't make you any happier, is that the entire Cirith Ungol/Shelob account is most likely going to be pushed into the third movie, probably for the very reason you cite. Also, I'll just point out that eliminating the Scouring (whatever that means--entirely, partially, condensed, mentioned, moved off-screen) isn't the same as eliminating all the "post-victory-celebration stuff." The Grey Havens will definitely be included--as definite as anything can be in the world of movies--as we know it's been filmed and Jackson says it's his favorite part of the book. Not as long as the Scouring, but it will take _some_ screen time.
                    --Trudy




                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Janet Croft
                    I d hate to see the Scouring dropped entirely. I didn t think much of it when I was younger, though I never skipped it, but as I grew older I began to see how
                    Message 9 of 15 , Feb 27, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I'd hate to see the Scouring dropped entirely. I didn't think much of it
                      when I was younger, though I never skipped it, but as I grew older I began
                      to see how this really tied together the themes of pacifism vs. violence,
                      maturity gained through danger and self-sacrifice, and how intrusive a
                      political system should be in everyday life. I should think the pacifism
                      vs. violence theme would play well on the screen, but I suppose Tolkien's
                      complex attitude towards this topic might be too confusing for the
                      scriptwriters to convey to the audience in a short time. Given Jackson's
                      track record so far, I can see him skipping straight from the Fields of
                      Cormallen to the Gray Havens, with Aragorn's coronation and wedding
                      telescoped into one scene... but how is he going to tie up the Sam and Rosie
                      story if he skips the Scouring? Leaving this out will just leave all the
                      hobbit character arcs hanging in mid-air. Grr. Well, no point getting mad
                      about it before I see it, I suppose.

                      Janet
                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Trudy Shaw [mailto:tgshaw@...]
                      Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 8:28 AM
                      To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Be Very Afraid



                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: David S. Bratman
                      To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 7:33 PM
                      Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Be Very Afraid


                      >>The simplest "ground,"
                      >>though, would be the length issue; it will already be a three-hour
                      film, and
                      >>including that scene too would simply make it too long for a
                      theatrical
                      >>release.

                      >The length issue is a non-issue. First, Return is (excluding
                      Appendices)
                      >the shortest of the three volumes: it's about 3/4 the length of
                      Fellowship,
                      >and if you cut out the post-victory-celebration stuff, it's less than
                      2/3...
                      >
                      >David Bratman

                      A recent piece of news, which probably won't make you any happier, is
                      that the entire Cirith Ungol/Shelob account is most likely going to be
                      pushed into the third movie, probably for the very reason you cite. Also,
                      I'll just point out that eliminating the Scouring (whatever that
                      means--entirely, partially, condensed, mentioned, moved off-screen) isn't
                      the same as eliminating all the "post-victory-celebration stuff." The Grey
                      Havens will definitely be included--as definite as anything can be in the
                      world of movies--as we know it's been filmed and Jackson says it's his
                      favorite part of the book. Not as long as the Scouring, but it will take
                      _some_ screen time.
                      --Trudy




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


                      Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                      ADVERTISEMENT




                      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]
                    • SusanPal@aol.com
                      In a message dated 2/27/2002 7:41:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time, jbcroft@ou.edu ... Well, we ve already met Rosie, and there are already shots on the
                      Message 10 of 15 , Feb 27, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        In a message dated 2/27/2002 7:41:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time, jbcroft@...
                        writes:


                        > how is he going to tie up the Sam and Rosie
                        > story if he skips the Scouring? Leaving this out will just leave all the
                        > hobbit character arcs hanging in mid-air. Grr. Well, no point getting mad
                        > about it before I see it, I suppose.
                        >

                        Well, we've already met Rosie, and there are already shots on the
                        Quintissential LotR site of Sam holding Elanor -- and I've heard a rumor that
                        the third film end with Elanor telling *her* children what became of all the
                        other characters -- so he'll squeeze it in there somehow. I'm guessing a
                        homecoming scene to the Shire with no scouring.

                        Susan


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • David S. Bratman
                        ... Interesting, but it doesn t bother me any more than putting The Departure of Boromir in the first film. ... Didn t mean to say it was: just pointing out
                        Message 11 of 15 , Feb 27, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          At 06:28 AM 2/27/2002 , Trudy wrote:

                          > A recent piece of news, which probably won't make you any happier, is that
                          >the entire Cirith Ungol/Shelob account is most likely going to be pushed
                          >into the third movie, probably for the very reason you cite.

                          Interesting, but it doesn't bother me any more than putting "The Departure
                          of Boromir" in the first film.

                          >Also, I'll
                          >just point out that eliminating the Scouring (whatever that means--entirely,
                          >partially, condensed, mentioned, moved off-screen) isn't the same as
                          >eliminating all the "post-victory-celebration stuff."

                          Didn't mean to say it was: just pointing out how much of Return is that part.


                          At 06:41 AM 2/27/2002 , Janet wrote:
                          >I'd hate to see the Scouring dropped entirely. I didn't think much of it
                          >when I was younger, though I never skipped it, but as I grew older I began
                          >to see how this really tied together the themes of pacifism vs. violence,
                          >maturity gained through danger and self-sacrifice, and how intrusive a
                          >political system should be in everyday life.

                          All true, and all the more surprising then that, in the first drafts
                          (written after the final assault on Mount Doom had been largely achieved),
                          Frodo is an active fighter who kills the chief ruffian (not yet identified
                          with Saruman) in dramatic single combat!

                          >I should think the pacifism
                          >vs. violence theme would play well on the screen, but I suppose Tolkien's
                          >complex attitude towards this topic might be too confusing for the
                          >scriptwriters to convey to the audience in a short time.

                          They did a good job with conveying the ambiguities of Boromir's character.

                          >Given Jackson's
                          >track record so far, I can see him skipping straight from the Fields of
                          >Cormallen to the Gray Havens, with Aragorn's coronation and wedding
                          >telescoped into one scene... but how is he going to tie up the Sam and Rosie
                          >story if he skips the Scouring? Leaving this out will just leave all the
                          >hobbit character arcs hanging in mid-air. Grr. Well, no point getting mad
                          >about it before I see it, I suppose.

                          I don't see this as more of a problem than getting the hobbits their swords
                          was.

                          David Bratman
                        • Janet Croft
                          I don t see this as more of a problem than getting the hobbits their swords was. David Bratman I found it kind of shabby how Aragorn just kind of tossed them
                          Message 12 of 15 , Feb 27, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I don't see this as more of a problem than getting the hobbits their swords
                            was.

                            David Bratman

                            I found it kind of shabby how Aragorn just kind of tossed them at the
                            hobbits, wrapped in an old burlap sack... Call me a traditionalist, but
                            outside of Terry Pratchett I like to see magical blades acquired with a
                            little more style. (Inside of Terry Pratchett it's too dark to use a sword!)

                            Janet




                            Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                            ADVERTISEMENT




                            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]
                          • SusanPal@aol.com
                            In a message dated 2/27/2002 11:17:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ... Is there any indication in the film that the blades are magical? The only one I can think
                            Message 13 of 15 , Feb 27, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              In a message dated 2/27/2002 11:17:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
                              jbcroft@... writes:


                              > Call me a traditionalist, but
                              > outside of Terry Pratchett I like to see magical blades acquired with a
                              > little more style.

                              Is there any indication in the film that the blades are magical? The only
                              one I can think of in that category is Sting, which *does* have a bit more
                              ceremony attached to it.

                              SP


                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Janet Croft
                              Not in the film, but in the book they are enchanted; Merry s in particular has to be. Janet ... From: SusanPal@aol.com [mailto:SusanPal@aol.com] Sent:
                              Message 14 of 15 , Feb 27, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Not in the film, but in the book they are enchanted; Merry's in particular
                                has to be.

                                Janet
                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: SusanPal@... [mailto:SusanPal@...]
                                Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:19 PM
                                To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Be Very Afraid


                                In a message dated 2/27/2002 11:17:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
                                jbcroft@... writes:


                                > Call me a traditionalist, but
                                > outside of Terry Pratchett I like to see magical blades acquired with a
                                > little more style.

                                Is there any indication in the film that the blades are magical? The only
                                one I can think of in that category is Sting, which *does* have a bit more
                                ceremony attached to it.

                                SP


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


                                Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                ADVERTISEMENT




                                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]
                              • David S. Bratman
                                ... The significant Barrow-downs sword is Merry s, because it s the one he uses to stab the Lord of the Nazgul. In the book, there is nothing magic about the
                                Message 15 of 15 , Feb 27, 2002
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  At 10:18 AM 2/27/2002 , Susan wrote:

                                  >Is there any indication in the film that the blades are magical? The only
                                  >one I can think of in that category is Sting, which *does* have a bit more
                                  >ceremony attached to it.

                                  The significant Barrow-downs sword is Merry's, because it's the one he uses
                                  to stab the Lord of the Nazgul.

                                  In the book, there is nothing magic about the sword, at least in terms of
                                  Sam's definition of magic. Sting is magical (glows when orcs are near)
                                  because it was forged by the Elves. Merry's sword is uniquely harmful to
                                  the Nazgul because it was forged by his enemies, the Dunedain, for the
                                  specific purpose of battling him.

                                  "So passed the sword of the Barrow-downs, work of Westernesse. But glad
                                  would he have been to know its fate who wrought it slowly long ago in the
                                  North-kingdom, when the Dunedain were young, and chief among their foes was
                                  the dread realm of Angmar and its sorcerer king. No other blade, not
                                  though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so
                                  bitter ..."

                                  One might consider that quality to be magic of a kind, but it's still not
                                  inconsistent with how Aragorn got the sword in the film. In _The Hobbit_,
                                  the dwarves find Orcrist and Glamdring abandoned in a troll-cave.

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