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

Re: It's 'British', but is it any good?

Expand Messages
  • Michael Martinez <michael@xenite.org>
    ... always ... of scamps ... necessary. ... actual pop ... the late ... his bedroom, ... British ... I get the impression that Dumbledore may have been a
    Message 1 of 15 , Dec 15, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, WendellWag@a... wrote:

      > Well, sort of. I don't think that it's true to say that the kids
      always
      > defer to authority. Harry and Ron and Hermione are actually kind
      of scamps
      > who are willing to go around the adults whenever they think it's
      necessary.
      > It is true though that there's a bizarre lack of anything like the
      actual pop
      > culture of modern British children. The books are clearly set in
      the late
      > '90's/early '00's, since, for instance, Dudley has a computer in
      his bedroom,
      > but otherwise there's no trace of any of the real activities of
      British
      > children of Harry and Ron and Hermione's age.

      I get the impression that Dumbledore may have been a Hogwarts dropout
      who made up for lost time in the Wizarding world's equivalent of
      college. He seems to encourage Harry, Ron, and Hermione to challenge
      authority. Look at the way he shelters outcasts at Hogwarts like
      Hagrid and that Defense Against the Dark Arts professor who was a
      werewolf (forget his name, sorry). And then there is Alan Rickman --
      I mean, Severus Snape. He is another of Dumbledore's dropout cronies.

      I think Rowling preaches second chance educationalism.

      (Of course, being a high school dropout myself, I suppose I could be
      reaching a little on this one....)
    • Michael Martinez <michael@xenite.org>
      ... to ... filmmakers ... fantasy. ... movies are ... Making it ... costlier version ... not enough. ... visualizations by ... idiosyncratic ... strong ... I m
      Message 2 of 15 , Dec 15, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, Jeremy Robinson <jrobinson@c...>
        wrote:
        > 'The Two Towers'.
        > By contrast, Tolkien (or the ghost of the professor) has everything
        to
        > complain about.
        > The 'Lord of the Rings' films have wound up being everything the
        filmmakers
        > intended to avoid: camp, heavy metal macho versions of mediaeval
        fantasy.
        > Nothing wrong with that, of course: some of the most enjoyable
        movies are
        > camp, heavy metal macho versions of mediaeval fantasy.
        > But if you're adapting Tolkien, you expect something a little more.
        Making it
        > an over-the-top, expensive remake of 'Sinbad' isn't enough. A
        costlier version
        > of TV's 'Hercules' or 'Xena'-bigger stars, longer running time-is
        not enough.
        > The New Line Cinema films have lots going for them: pretty
        visualizations by
        > Lee and Howe (therein lie the claims of 'authenticity'), an
        idiosyncratic
        > score by Shore (but John Williams beats him there), and one or two
        strong
        > performances (the magnificent Chris Lee as Saruman).

        I'm not sure, but I don't think that is a very positive review of
        Peter Jackson's Tolkien-inspired work.

        Now, while I have occasionally grumbled in the past myself, I have
        generally supported the films because I would like to see more
        attempts at adaptations.

        Quite frankly, I really like the Harry Potter movies. Their
        faithfulness to the original material is a major plus. If the film
        industry wants to adapt popular books to the big screen, it should
        remember that the majority of the audience is yearning to see the
        books brought to life, not raped (and, unfortunately, rape is what
        usually occurs in these projects). Characters and ideas can be given
        shape in such a way as to evoke a sense of familiarity in the
        audience members who have read the book, or they can go off in new
        directions and hopefully the audience will want to see how the film-
        makers would have written the book.

        Andre Norton had her name taken off the "Beastmaster" movies because
        she was appalled at what the film-makers did to her work. About the
        only resemblance to the original story was that a guy went around
        with some animals he could communicate with. The television carried
        her name, but it was more faithful to the movies than to the books.

        Most people I have discussed these matters with want to see Tolkien's
        world as they envisioned it brought to life. I think that, if enough
        adaptations are attempted, a sort of visual consensus will develop,
        such that one final, more-or-less objective adaptation will emerge.

        Of course, the faster way to achieve that goal would be to have
        Christopher Columbus work with Christopher Tolkien. But that ain't
        likely to happen, so we really need to look forward to a series of
        LoTR adaptations. In fact, we should either encourage that to
        happen, or else everyone will need to volunteer for longevity
        experiments so we can ensure we'll still be around when the best
        adaptation is finally made.
      • WendellWag@aol.com
        In a message dated 12/15/2002 3:52:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, ... Well, not really, because on simple things like the name of the actors, the director, the
        Message 3 of 15 , Dec 15, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 12/15/2002 3:52:52 PM Eastern Standard Time,
          michael@... writes:


          > I have no idea of who funded the Bond film, but the IMDB is about as
          > far from "reliable" as you can get with a source of information.

          Well, not really, because on simple things like the name of the actors, the
          director, the writers, the producers, and all the other things that they did,
          it's the best accurate, quick source we have. To tell somebody that they
          have to use other sources than the IMDb for simple things like that is to
          tell them that they have to do hours of research to verify things that are
          quite probably correct anyway. If you have reason to think that the money
          for _Die Another Day_ doesn't partly come from British producers, cite your
          sources. Otherwise I'm going to assume it's so because the IMDb says so, and
          I don't have several hours to do the research to find out otherwise.

          Also, if you have a long list of errors in the IMDb, I'd like to see it, so I
          can know in the future how accurate the IMDb is and in what sorts of things
          it tends to be inaccurate.

          Wendell Wagner


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Croft, Janet B
          ... From: WendellWag@aol.com [mailto:WendellWag@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 11:17 AM To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [mythsoc] It s
          Message 4 of 15 , Dec 16, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            -----Original Message-----
            From: WendellWag@... [mailto:WendellWag@...]
            Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 11:17 AM
            To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [mythsoc] It's 'British', but is it any good?


            In a message dated 12/15/2002 11:54:47 AM Eastern Standard Time,
            jrobinson@... writes:


            > Yeah, and it's the nostalgia for a vanished age (which never existed in
            the
            > first place) of Enid Blyton/ Agatha Christie mystery plots, where pupils
            > misbehave after hours (but only to solve mysteries, never to drink, do
            > drugs
            > or have sex), where they always ultimately defer to authority (they call
            > teachers 'sir'), never swear (apart from 'bloody'), don't wear designer
            > gear
            > or labels, or skateboard, or smoke, or listen to music, or watch TV, or
            > play
            > computer games, or do any of the things real kids do (there's not a single
            > poster of Britney Spears or Sum 41 or the like in Harry's bedroom).
            >

            Well, sort of. I don't think that it's true to say that the kids always
            defer to authority. Harry and Ron and Hermione are actually kind of scamps
            who are willing to go around the adults whenever they think it's necessary.

            It is true though that there's a bizarre lack of anything like the actual
            pop
            culture of modern British children. The books are clearly set in the late
            '90's/early '00's, since, for instance, Dudley has a computer in his
            bedroom,
            but otherwise there's no trace of any of the real activities of British
            children of Harry and Ron and Hermione's age.

            Wendell Wagner


            There's a little more pop culture in the books, I think -- references to
            Muggle soccer teams and so on. But I think the lack of a lot of explicit
            cultural references may have been a conscious attempt not to date the books
            and movies too much by placing them in a very specific time period. I think
            that's something I would have done if I wanted to write fiction that would
            still be readable decades later.

            Janet Croft

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


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

            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
            <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • David S. Bratman
            ... What you re criticizing here I actually found tremendously refreshing, and would have found even more so were I today a child reader/viewer of these
            Message 5 of 15 , Dec 16, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              At 09:16 AM 12/15/2002 , jrobinson@... wrote:

              > Yeah, and it's the nostalgia for a vanished age (which never existed in the
              > first place) of Enid Blyton/ Agatha Christie mystery plots, where pupils
              > misbehave after hours (but only to solve mysteries, never to drink, do
              > drugs
              > or have sex), where they always ultimately defer to authority (they call
              > teachers 'sir'), never swear (apart from 'bloody'), don't wear designer
              > gear
              > or labels, or skateboard, or smoke, or listen to music, or watch TV, or
              > play
              > computer games, or do any of the things real kids do (there's not a single
              > poster of Britney Spears or Sum 41 or the like in Harry's bedroom).

              What you're criticizing here I actually found tremendously refreshing, and
              would have found even more so were I today a child reader/viewer of these
              characters' age.

              Kids were doing all of these things, or their equivalents, 30-35 years ago
              in my childhood - at which time the media were full of stories about wild
              and self-indulgent youth (the way they're calling the same people
              self-indulgent middle-agers today) - but not all kids did them, nor did all
              kids in children's literature of the time do them. I got pretty tired of
              being told by the media that I did not exist, and I'm no more reconciled to
              it now.

              - David Bratman
            • David S. Bratman
              ... I would more than agree with that. The IMDB is not perfect, but by any reference source standards - not just online standards - it is impressively
              Message 6 of 15 , Dec 16, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                At 02:40 PM 12/15/2002 , Wendell Wagner wrote:
                >In a message dated 12/15/2002 3:52:52 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                >michael@... writes:
                >
                >>> I have no idea of who funded the Bond film, but the IMDB is about as
                >> far from "reliable" as you can get with a source of information.
                >
                >Well, not really, because on simple things like the name of the actors, the
                >director, the writers, the producers, and all the other things that they did,
                >it's the best accurate, quick source we have.

                I would more than agree with that. The IMDB is not perfect, but by any
                reference source standards - not just online standards - it is impressively
                complete and accurate with its basic information about films. By
                comparison with most online reference sources, it is absolutely awesome,
                and stands far above any other original free online database on any
                subject, in its combination of quantity and quality. Even professional
                film reviewers refer to it often, and with the same confidence they'd apply
                to any written source. When I see people recommending the vastly
                over-rated "Encyclopedia of Arda" as an online Tolkien reference source, I
                shake my head sadly, and I've given up on using it myself even if my Foster
                isn't handy ... but I'd use the IMDB above any film reference book.

                >Also, if you have a long list of errors in the IMDb, I'd like to see it, so I
                >can know in the future how accurate the IMDb is and in what sorts of things
                >it tends to be inaccurate.

                I don't know how accurate it is about things like funding (a subject I have
                no interest in, and which I don't consider the kind of "basic information"
                Wendell was enumerating above), but my list of the kinds of errors found in
                the IMDB's basic information include: 1) many "ghost" films that never
                reached production not clearly identified as such (though the experienced
                user can quickly tell); 2) spotty casting information on many very old and
                obscure films; 3) occasional typoes; 4) missing biographical data in the
                people database; 5) incomplete correlation between cast lists and the
                character tages in the quotes database.

                - David Bratman
              • alexeik@aol.com
                In a message dated 12/15/2 5:17:37 PM, Wendell wrote:
                Message 7 of 15 , Dec 16, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 12/15/2 5:17:37 PM, Wendell wrote:

                  <<It is true though that there's a bizarre lack of anything like the actual
                  pop
                  culture of modern British children. The books are clearly set in the late
                  '90's/early '00's, since, for instance, Dudley has a computer in his bedroom,
                  but otherwise there's no trace of any of the real activities of British
                  children of Harry and Ron and Hermione's age.
                  >>

                  I suspect that those would all be considered "Muggle activities". Would a
                  computer actually *work* at Hogwarts?
                  Alexei
                • Croft, Janet B
                  If you had read Hogwarts: A History you would know that most Muggle artifacts won t work at Hogwarts. H. Granger You always have it out of the library so no
                  Message 8 of 15 , Dec 16, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    If you had read Hogwarts: A History you would know that most Muggle
                    artifacts won't work at Hogwarts.

                    H. Granger

                    You always have it out of the library so no one else can read it!

                    R. Weasley

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: alexeik@... [mailto:alexeik@...]
                    Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 1:55 PM
                    To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: Re: [mythsoc] It's 'British', but is it any good?



                    In a message dated 12/15/2 5:17:37 PM, Wendell wrote:

                    <<It is true though that there's a bizarre lack of anything like the actual
                    pop
                    culture of modern British children. The books are clearly set in the late
                    '90's/early '00's, since, for instance, Dudley has a computer in his
                    bedroom,
                    but otherwise there's no trace of any of the real activities of British
                    children of Harry and Ron and Hermione's age.
                    >>

                    I suspect that those would all be considered "Muggle activities". Would a
                    computer actually *work* at Hogwarts?
                    Alexei

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

                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
                    <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Daran Grissom
                    The Two Towers . By contrast, Tolkien (or the ghost of the professor) has everything to complain about. The Lord of the Rings films have wound up being
                    Message 9 of 15 , Dec 16, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      "'The Two Towers'.
                      By contrast, Tolkien (or the ghost of the professor) has everything to
                      complain about.
                      The 'Lord of the Rings' films have wound up being everything the filmmakers
                      intended to avoid: camp, heavy metal macho versions of mediaeval fantasy.
                      Nothing wrong with that, of course: some of the most enjoyable movies are
                      camp, heavy metal macho versions of mediaeval fantasy.
                      But if you're adapting Tolkien, you expect something a little more. Making it
                      an over-the-top, expensive remake of 'Sinbad' isn't enough. A costlier version
                      of TV's 'Hercules' or 'Xena'-bigger stars, longer running time-is not enough.
                      The New Line Cinema films have lots going for them: pretty visualizations by
                      Lee and Howe (therein lie the claims of 'authenticity'), an idiosyncratic
                      score by Shore (but John Williams beats him there), and one or two strong
                      performances (the magnificent Chris Lee as Saruman).
                      But the New Line Cinema versions of Tolkien are hampered by so many defects:
                      - calamitous casting choices (Elijah Wood and Sean Astin as Frodo and Sam-I
                      don't think so! Cate friggin' Blanchett; Hugo Weaving, etc);
                      - massive and wide-ranging alterations and cuts from the source material, plus
                      too many additions;
                      - some under-developed and awkward design (too much plastic fantasy a la
                      'Hercules' and 'Xena');
                      - relentless emphasis on macho violence and action scenes, which are more
                      Warhammer and heavy rock than Tolkien.

                      During the first few minutes of the prologue of 'Fellowship' in the theatre
                      last December, you thought, wow, this is gonna be good. By the end, after that
                      interminable fight beside the Anduin between the Company and the orcs and
                      Aragorn lopping off Lurtz's head you thought, this is good fun, but it's not
                      Tolkien. It's Arny's 'Conan' meets 'The Wind in the Willows' by way of 'The
                      Matrix', but it's not Tolkien (and not as good as any of those).

                      Where the 'Harry Potter' films scored so well in being 'faithful' to the
                      source material (you wouldn't want professional grump J.K. Rowling dogging
                      your subsequent career with lawsuits), the 'Lord of the Rings' adaptions
                      stumble. In staying faithful to their English fantasy sources, Mr 'Home Alone'
                      (Columbus) has fared better than Mr 'Braindead' (Jackson). With the New Line
                      Cinema adaptions, you'll get three films which have some pacey action
                      sequences, loadsa monsters and fx, stunts galore, but with only occasional
                      moments illustrating the melancholy, the breadth and the multi-layered
                      elements of Tolkien's book. Something of the reverse would be a more accurate
                      and convincing adaption of Tolkien, though.

                      Advance rumours that the Helm's Deep battle lasts for 45 minutes 'bodes ill'
                      (as Gimli might put it). It shows how Osbourne, Jackson, Walsh, Boyens et al
                      have unbalanced their adaption of Tolkien in favour of endless battles. In my
                      copy of 'The Two Towers', the "Helm's Deep" chapter is 21 pages long-out of
                      432 pages in the book. In other words, 5 percent; in the film, if rumours're
                      true at 45 mins, it's expanded to 30 percent. That unbalances Tolkien's
                      fiction way too much.
                      Yes, 'Lord of the Rings' is about a war ('War of the Ring', one of Tolkien's
                      alternative titles, is a more accurate title for the whole book). But
                      Tolkien's depiction of war at the end of the Third Age of Middle-earth doesn't
                      mean one CG action sequence after another.

                      In 'The Two Towers' I'm hoping for all the things that made the first film so memorable:

                      ageing actors in dodgy camp leather costumes;
                      masses of hairy fright wigs and beards (Frodo, Gandalf, Gimli);
                      actors practising their scowls, grimaces and looks of awe;
                      American actors struggling with Gloucestershire accents (Astin's 'Mr Frodo!');
                      orcs like goggle-eyed Marty Feldmans out of 'Young Frankenstein' ('yes,
                      master?'), or the Devil's idiotic lackeys in 'Time Bandits' (if only the orcs
                      were as good as Feldman);
                      religious mumbo-jumbo;
                      ponderously s---l---o---w line readings (hopefully, Blanchett-a disastrous
                      Galadriel-won't appear in 'The Two Towers');
                      pantomime villains;
                      endless macho action;
                      and pointless and embarrassing additions to Tolkien."



                      To be honest I find this to be an extremely unfair evalution of how well the adaptation from book to movie went in the LotR. I will admit that if the battle of Helm's Deep is, in fact, longer than 30 minutes it will be excessive. However, there is quite a few pages in the beginning of Two Towers that deal with setting of the stage of Middle-earth, and these are now simply visuals and have shortened the text somewhat. While on the subject of visuals, the creatures of Middle-earth are now also presented instead of discribed. I am still looking forward to seeing Ents by the way, no matter how Jackson chooses to show them.

                      It also seems to me that if the stunt effects of LotR seems to be a more costly version of the stunts in Hurcules and Xena that would be because they are. Many of the swordmasters and trainers, heck even many of the fighting extras, worked on both shows before this. The gentlemen who plays Eomer was on Xena many times.

                      Of one thing I am well informed: that the special effects in the Lord of the Rings is the best you will see in the world at this time. Only one other company has more resources and know how than WETA, and that is Industrial Light and Magic, and they don't do minatures, foam latex, and are literally laughing at the use of forced perspective in the LotR movies. Many people may not realize this, but several times during the filming of Star Wars: episode II, Hayden Christiansen did not do exactly as stage direction dictated, thus pieces of him were digitally removed and reanimated where the director thought they should be. This is what special effecs means to most of the movie industry right now, the artistry of LotR is exhilirating by comparison. That being said every special effects commentary I have ever heard said that they wanted to imitate the ones in the old Sinbad movies, so you're stuck there.

                      As for the soundtrack by Howard Shore; I would ask anyone to name a better score for a major motion picture in the last, oh, let's say twenty years, with the exception of John Williams (which I believe to be the last redeeming pleasure of the Star Wars Saga). If someone does have a better selection, I'd very much like to hear it.

                      I don't know if anyone saw that adaptation of "David Copperfield," that was made a few years back. It was on PBS for two hours a night for a week I think. It omitted not one word of dialouge, not one scene, or described room. I got incredibly bored in about ten minutes, and decided to just reread the book. I started the book Monday evening, finished Thursday, the movie ended that next Sunday. I think I got the better end of the bargain. This movie is an artistic interpretation of an epic mythological war. We cannot criticize what an Ent looks like, because they all look different to us. We can't say that Orlando Bloom doesn't look like Paris from the Iliad (his next role is that of Paris in the movie "Troy") because Paris looks different to each of us.

                      Personally I am very unhappy that there isn't more poetry, Tom Bombadil, or Barrow Downs in the first movie (How is Pippin to kill the "Witch King" in the Return of the King, if he doesn't have a sword forged specifically to kill him?) but it's not my interpretation. I didn't have the guts to approach New Line with the insane idea of spending nearly 300 million dollars with no guarantee.

                      DCG





                      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]
                    • tghsaw
                      ... From: Daran Grissom To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com ; jkotchevar@hotmail.com Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 12:37 AM Subject: Re: [mythsoc] It s British ,
                      Message 10 of 15 , Dec 18, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: Daran Grissom
                        To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com ; jkotchevar@...
                        Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 12:37 AM
                        Subject: Re: [mythsoc] It's 'British', but is it any good?



                        >...I got incredibly bored in about ten minutes, and decided to just reread the book. I started the book Monday evening, finished Thursday, the movie ended that next Sunday. I think I got the better end of the bargain.

                        Also the response a lot of reviewers that I read and a few moviegoers I talked to (to be honest, I didn't talk to very many) had to the first Harry Potter movie, which had been made with the author on set every day to be sure things were done "correctly" (it wasn't just the threat of future lawsuits from her that kept the production in line).

                        >We cannot criticize what an Ent looks like, because they all look different to us.

                        Brought home by the fact that among reviewers who saw pre-release showings of the LotR-TTT movie, those who had strong reactions to the Ents were about evenly divided between "they were wonderful" and "they were awful." The Ents in the movie aren't exactly as I've pictured them, but I don't think they contradict the description in the book. What I especially did like, is that each one is different from every other one.
                        The same is true of people's opinions about whether the actors look like the characters. I've seen the most varied opinion on Aragorn, from "He looks exactly like I've always pictured him," to "Huh? *That's* supposed to be Aragorn?" The majority of the actors don't particularly resemble the way I picture the characters they're playing, but that doesn't make them wrong--and a few of them are so spot on for me that it's uncanny.


                        >Personally I am very unhappy that there isn't more poetry, Tom Bombadil, or Barrow Downs in the first movie (How is Pippin to kill the "Witch King" in the Return of the King, if he doesn't have a sword forged specifically to kill him?) but it's not my interpretation.

                        [*whisper*](It's Merry, not Pippin.)[/*whisper*] The question about the sword is answered in the extended version of the movie--not with the same answer as in the book, but to my mind it's plausible. But the extended edition is basically made for people who know the book. I don't see the omission causing a problem *within* the movies at all (i.e., if we don't import extra material from the book). Needing a special sword isn't even part of the prophecy. It's a detail that's very easily omitted without, IMHO, doing serious damage to the story--in addition to the fact that the moviegoer would have to remember that detail for two years before it came into play.

                        There's also some poetry added in the extended version of LotR-FotR, and we've already been told about one piece of poetry that's not in the theatrical version of LotR-TTT, but will most likely be in the extended version. (For the record, the change in the first movie that I feel most seriously hurts the story as a whole is the omission of the Conspiracy--and that's *not* added in the extended version.)

                        >I didn't have the guts to approach New Line with the insane idea of spending nearly 300 million dollars with no guarantee.

                        In the end that's what it all comes down to, I believe--no one connected with these movies has claimed they're supposed to be the definitive screen version of The Lord of the Rings. They're one man's interpretation of it, more so than with most movies made these days (for which I'm glad--can you imagine if they'd been done by committee?!). He happens to be someone with whom I sometimes agree and sometimes disagree, but when we disagree, he can still gives me something to think about. His Galadriel is definitely not mine, for example, but the way he depicts her has made me think a little more about how complex a character she is. And sometimes I just plain *disagree* with him, and don't even get anything to reflect on out of it.

                        Perhaps before too long, inexpensive software will let anyone produce their own version of LotR (or Harry Potter, or David Copperfield...) Until then, or until someone else makes an adaptation of his or her interpretation of the book, we can sit and watch what the story looks like as it plays out inside PJ's brain, which, IMHO, is a fairly interesting brain, as brains go.

                        He takes risks, which means some things he does will work, and some probably won't. But I wouldn't want to give up the former because of the latter--because some of his risks that *do* work take my breath away. Someone who knows the movie world (which I certainly don't) said that the biggest risk taken in LotR-FotR, from a filmmaker's perspective, was to allow the movie to stop long enough to show the Fellowship mourning for Gandalf after they leave Moria. I'll gladly suffer through nuclear Galadriel if it means I can have that scene. [I started listing more of what I saw as successful risks, but that could go on for awhile...]


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • tghsaw
                        ... From: David S. Bratman To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 11:14 AM Subject: Re: [mythsoc] OT: Using IMDB info ... reference source
                        Message 11 of 15 , Dec 19, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: David S. Bratman
                          To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 11:14 AM
                          Subject: Re: [mythsoc] OT: Using IMDB info


                          >I would more than agree with that. The IMDB is not perfect, but by any
                          reference source standards - not just online standards - it is impressively
                          complete and accurate with its basic information about films.


                          This question sent me back to IMDb to see if they'd corrected the one mistake I'd found and emailed them about. They'd sent me one of those "Thank you for your message. Someone will look into it right away," emails, but those don't always mean much. And, yes, it has been corrected. I don't know how long it took them, since it's been a few months and I hadn't bothered to check until now. The error could probably be put into the "older and obscure movies" category, as it had 30-something Billy Boyd acting in a western from a time before he
                          was born--evidently confusing him with a "Bill Boyd" from that era.

                          --Trudy




                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.