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

Re: [mythsoc] Public response

Expand Messages
  • David S Bratman
    ... When did that phrase, or words close to it, become a tired old film cliche? J-Theoden says almost exactly the same thing before the J-battle of J-Helm s
    Message 1 of 9 , Jan 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      At 01:43 PM 1/1/2003 -0500, Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

      >As Arden Smith will attest, I took one look at that painting and said:
      >"And so it begins" (in my best G'Kar voice).

      When did that phrase, or words close to it, become a tired old film
      cliche? J-Theoden says almost exactly the same thing before the J-battle
      of J-Helm's Deep, and IIRC J-Gandalf says something like it at the end of
      the movie.

      - DB
    • David F. Porteous
      The BBC did Gormenghast rather well because they did not approach it as one might
      Message 2 of 9 , Jan 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        <<David Bratman wrote: All around I really liked the BBC Gormenghast....>>

        The BBC did Gormenghast rather well because they did not approach it as one
        might approach a fantasy novel, they took it as a costume drama and the BBC
        does them better than anyone. Christopher Lee was also in that.

        <<Sparkdog wrote: I've never heard, or read of, someone saying "The book was
        a disappointment after seeing the movie.">>

        Dracula. It dawned on me when I remembered Christopher Lee. As someone who
        likes horror films more than any other genre -- and I don't mean this modern
        rubbish with knives and chainsaws and popcorn, but proper horror films where
        the bad guy leers or laughs archly and the set is used for at least half a
        dozen other films -- I had been watching the Hammer horror films since I was
        five. When I came to buy the book Dracula, when I was about nine, I found
        it the worst kind of impenetrable nonsense. Diaries? Where did the diaries
        come from? After watching what is probably the version which most closely
        conforms to the book (I am told) -- Francis Ford Coppola's version -- I
        tried to read it again and failed in the first few pages. Then in 2001 I
        tried again and faired little better. I have seen countless Dracula films
        but I have never seen page 30 of that book I bought when I was nine. It is
        approximately six feet away from me now and still looks brand new.

        I cannot say whether I would have been able to read the book if I had never
        seen any Dracula films -- if indeed that's actually possible -- but I know
        that my impressions of the story have been so set that I cannot accept the
        written version. I find it both possible and likely that these films will,
        far from encouraging other readers of LotR, actually discourage them. And
        I'm in agreement with David Bratman in that the films will taint the
        interpretation of everyone else. I had seen the LotR cartoon before reading
        the book and even years later I found those images springing to my mind,
        especially during the Nazgul bed-hitting scene.

        I hope the artwork produced independently of the films does come to echo
        them, that would be quite tragic and artistically redundant

        -- David.
      • Matthew Winslow
        ... I m coming out of lurking to ask sparkdog to articulate for us in a bit more depth what he means by the existence of a movie /in no way/ [emphasis mine,
        Message 3 of 9 , Jan 2, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          spark654@... [spark654@...] wrote:
          > In a message dated 12/31/02 10:16:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,
          > mythsoc@yahoogroups.com writes:
          >
          > > > the existence of a movie in no way affects the books already
          > > > out there.
          > >
          > > But it DOES affect =the response of the public= to the books already out
          > > there.
          >
          > I don't see this. Again, "The book was better than the movie" is a modern
          > cliche.

          I'm coming out of lurking to ask sparkdog to articulate for us in a bit more
          depth what he means by 'the existence of a movie /in no way/ [emphasis mine,
          of course] affects the books already out there.' So far, I've seen the
          assertion, the denial of the assertion (with an example of how the movie does
          affect the book) which would seem to deflate sparkdog's original thesis, and
          then a denial of the denial, but again without any actual defense -- just
          assertion.

          Sparkdog, please elucidate what you mean by 'the existence of a movie in no
          way affects the books already out there.' By itself, that statement is so
          large in its scope as to be almost meaningless.

          Thanks.

          --
          Matthew Winslow mwinslow@... http://x-real.firinn.org/
          "Poets have been mysteriously silent on the topic of cheese."
          --GK Chesterton
          Currently reading: J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.