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

Re: [mythsoc] Digest Number 1092

Expand Messages
  • spark654@aol.com
    In a message dated 1/1/03 4:14:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, ... This is all par for the course in filmmaking; actors get blue sheets, pink sheets, etc. every
    Message 1 of 7 , Jan 1, 2003
      In a message dated 1/1/03 4:14:26 PM Eastern Standard Time,
      mythsoc@yahoogroups.com writes:


      > A few actors said the script changes were coming so
      > fast at times that they have many scripts they never even got a chance to
      > look at.
      > Jackson described the process as laying down the tracks just in front of a
      > train as
      > it's rushing headlong toward you. You can't stop the train, so you just
      > have to
      > keep laying down the tracks as fast as you can. Some quality is bound to
      > get lost
      > here and there.
      >

      This is all par for the course in filmmaking; actors get blue sheets, pink
      sheets, etc. every day of production; Jackson's metaphor is the oldest one in
      Hollywood (I think it's been around since the 30's).


      Sparkdog


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Ernest S. Tomlinson
      ... Why so defensive? It is only a small act of common courtesy to ensure that when you quote someone in a post the source of the quotation is correctly
      Message 2 of 7 , Jan 1, 2003
        On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 17:09:07 EST, spark654@... said:

        > I'm sorry if anyone was offended, but I was getting bored with being told
        > how to write my own posts. If you don't like my posts, delete them.

        Why so defensive? It is only a small act of common courtesy to ensure
        that when you quote someone in a post the source of the quotation is
        correctly identified. Proper citation is essential to _all_ serious
        discourse, spoken or printed. You're going to have to get used to having
        your mistakes corrected, spark654; I've been online for ten years and it
        happens to me all the time.

        Ernest.
        --
        Ernest S. Tomlinson
        thiophene@...
      • Steve Schaper
        ... I got Pearce s biography of Tolkien for Christmas. I recommend it. That, plus some other comments from Carpenter raise questions in my mind about how well
        Message 3 of 7 , Jan 3, 2003
          > Message: 1
          > Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 15:29:23 -0000
          > From: "David F. Porteous" <dporteous@...>
          > Subject: Re: Broader world

          > One of the documentaries on the special extended edition of the Fellowship
          > of the Ring DVD (the one that comes with the Argonath bookends) seems to
          > answer this point. Tolkien was a pessimist by nature, so it said -- I have
          > heard no other discussion on the subject.

          I got Pearce's biography of Tolkien for Christmas. I recommend it. That,
          plus some other comments from Carpenter raise questions in my mind about
          how well Carpenter's biography catches Tolkien's life (apart from the
          raw facts). Tolkien was/is a Catholic and understands that we are
          battling the Long Defeat until Eru puts an end to it. So in that sense,
          perhaps, you could call him a pessimist. But he did not, according to
          Pierce, have a dour personality, but was quite capable of playfulness
          with his children and jolliness with his friends. In that sense, it
          would not, I think, be proper to think of him as a pessimist.

          According to the extended DVD, if that can be trusted, McClellan is
          playing Tolkien for the Gandalf-role, and the actor playing Saruman knew
          Tolkien in life, so perhaps there is some basis for that. Dunno.


          > Message: 3
          > Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003 08:41:58 -0800
          > From: David S Bratman <dbratman@...>
          > Subject: Veracity of Arthur
          >
          > An expectation that Arthurian stories should have some historical veracity
          > seems to me a vain hope. Arthur as we know him is fictional: there's
          > nothing for him to be veracious to.

          As we know him in the romances, perhaps. There seems to be indirect
          evidence for a Romano-British military leader of that name.

          > To set Arthur in the 5th century is not
          > veracity, it's an artistic choice.

          If they are depicting a Romano-British magistrate by that name, then it
          is veracity, while also being fictional. Something -did- slow down the
          Angles for a generation until the Yellow Plague decimated the remaining
          Romano-British.

          Of course the Arthurian Matter of the Romances is a different business
          and you may well have been talking about them, if so, no disagreement on
          my part.

          > Message: 15
          > Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 13:55:42 EST
          > From: alexeik@...
          > Subject: Re: Tolkien and technology

          > One should also note that the supposed "magic" of the Elves (like the
          > Silmarils, the palantíri, Galadriel's mirror, etc.) are really examples of a
          > very high technology, but one that isn't the product of an industrialised
          > system.

          But the result of oh, say, 30,000 years instruction by angels and
          archangels. I imagine one can get quite good at a craft or an art, in
          that amount of time. Especially with such tutelage.

          > Message: 17
          > Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003 11:04:26 -0800
          > From: David S Bratman <dbratman@...>
          > Subject: Re: Public response
          >
          > 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.
          >

          Towards the beginning of the Third Age of Mankind? ;-)

          Mid-90s, I would guess.

          > Message: 19
          > Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 14:39:34 EST
          > From: Stolzi@...
          > Subject: More evidence Orcs are smaller
          >
          > Merry, in the chapter "Flotsam and Jetsam," is describing how Saruman's
          > forces set forth to war.
          >
          > "I saw the enemy go: endless lines of marching Orcs; and troops of them
          > mounted on great wolves."
          >
          > (This would be where PJ got the idea for his little extraneous skirmish where
          > Aragorn takes a dive. But note that it would take an awfully "great" wolf to
          > hold a man w/o his feet dragging. Jackson's wolves looked more like hyenas,
          > though, maybe he thinks that is what a Warg looks like.)

          That one I can -almost- buy into, as I've read recently on the 'net that
          there was a breed of hyenas in northern Asia (and Europe?) that appear
          to have kept humans from moving north for quite some time - until they
          started having dogs with them - according to digs. Until then, you find
          the hyena dens with human bones. Lots of human bones. Then later, no
          hyenas, but evidence of dogs living with humans in their encampments.
          Tolkien doesn't seem to have been up on his Pleistocene fauna. One
          doesn't encounter wisents or Irish elk in Eriador, though one should.
          The closest he gets are the 'wild kine of Araw' I presume meaning
          Auroxen. But I'm fairly sure that Tolkien meant demon-possessed wolves -
          canis lupus.


          > Message: 22
          > Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003 12:00:20 -0800
          > From: "Ernest S. Tomlinson" <thiophene@...>
          > Subject: Re: On "LOTR: The Two Towers"; "improvement"?

          > I disliked Jackson's decision to retell (and not very well) the story of
          > the Rings of Power, the Last Alliance, and the loss of the Ring at the
          > beginning of his movie for a different reason. Tolkien's genius in _The
          > Lord of the Rings_ was to tell the story from the hobbits' perspective.

          At least in the extended DVD it will be possible to skip that intro and
          watch the other intro, with Bilbo telling Concerning Hobbits.

          Steve (hope I attributed correctly to everyone)
        • David S. Bratman
          ... I did not get the impression from Carpenter s biography that he thought Tolkien didn t have a jolly side. The impression I got was that Carpenter thought
          Message 4 of 7 , Jan 3, 2003
            At 02:55 PM 1/3/2003 , Steve Schaper wrote:

            >I got Pearce's biography of Tolkien for Christmas. I recommend it. That,
            >plus some other comments from Carpenter raise questions in my mind about
            >how well Carpenter's biography catches Tolkien's life (apart from the
            >raw facts). Tolkien was/is a Catholic and understands that we are
            >battling the Long Defeat until Eru puts an end to it. So in that sense,
            >perhaps, you could call him a pessimist. But he did not, according to
            >Pierce, have a dour personality, but was quite capable of playfulness
            >with his children and jolliness with his friends. In that sense, it
            >would not, I think, be proper to think of him as a pessimist.

            I did not get the impression from Carpenter's biography that he thought
            Tolkien didn't have a jolly side. The impression I got was that Carpenter
            thought Tolkien was more pessimistic than even his friends suspected.

            There are certainly corrections of emphasis (and a few of facts) to be made
            to Carpenter's biography, and rather more to his book _The Inklings_ (where
            he mischaracterizes Tolkien's relationship with Williams). But generally
            he does a remarkable job of catching his man: his passions, interests,
            character, personality.

            And I wouldn't underestimate getting the raw facts right. The facts in
            Carpenter are about 98% accurate; other Tolkien biographies - Grotta,
            White, the raft of children's books - are doing well to get 50%. And they
            don't catch the man, either. Pearce's book is better, but it's not a full
            biography; it doesn't attempt to tell the whole life, but covers one aspect
            in a biographical context.


            >> An expectation that Arthurian stories should have some historical veracity
            >> seems to me a vain hope. Arthur as we know him is fictional: there's
            >> nothing for him to be veracious to.
            >
            >As we know him in the romances, perhaps. There seems to be indirect
            >evidence for a Romano-British military leader of that name.

            Whom I went on and discussed in my next paragraph. But he's not the ARTHUR
            of a millennium's worth of myth and legend any more than the acorn is the
            oak. This is not just Chretien's romances I'm referring to, but everything
            about Arthur from Geoffrey of Monmouth on.


            >If they are depicting a Romano-British magistrate by that name, then it
            >is veracity, while also being fictional. Something -did- slow down the
            >Angles for a generation until the Yellow Plague decimated the remaining
            >Romano-British.

            If you take that approach, he's still fictional, though plenty of
            historical facts about post-Roman Britain can be and are thrown in. The
            problem is that we don't know anywhere near enough about the historical
            general (records are of a military leader, not a magistrate) to say what
            you've just said, as anything other than wishful fictional speculation.
            The Anglo-Saxons did take some time to conquer Britain, the Celts did fight
            them, but it's not at all clear that a coherent, concerted major effort by
            the Celts held the Anglo-Saxons off, let alone that Arthur was the
            principal figure. He might have been, but it's all guesswork, clearly
            inspired by a desire to make the historical Arthur sound as much like the
            legendary one as possible. Our historical info on Arthur consists of about
            two paragraphs, and very vague and cryptic ones, too. This period isn't
            called the Dark Ages for nothing.


            >At least in the extended DVD it will be possible to skip that intro and
            >watch the other intro, with Bilbo telling Concerning Hobbits.

            You can skip the Rings of Power/Last Alliance intro in the non-extended DVD
            too, though you don't get Bilbo.

            But what good is that? If you're mentioned in a book and the author
            misspells your name, you can correct it in your copy, but that doesn't
            address any others. If you don't like the film, you can, as Susan likes to
            remind us, not watch it at all; but whatever problems it has are still there.


            - DB
          • Stolzi@aol.com
            In a message dated 1/3/2003 4:56:40 PM Central Standard Time, ... Don t know about Pleistocene, but the mumak /oliphaunt is a mammoth or something similar,
            Message 5 of 7 , Jan 3, 2003
              In a message dated 1/3/2003 4:56:40 PM Central Standard Time,
              sschaper@... writes:


              > Tolkien doesn't seem to have been up on his Pleistocene fauna. One
              > doesn't encounter wisents or Irish elk in Eriador, though one should.
              > The closest he gets are the 'wild kine of Araw' I presume meaning
              > Auroxen. But I'm fairly sure that Tolkien meant demon-possessed wolves -
              > canis lupus.
              >

              Don't know about Pleistocene, but the "mumak"/oliphaunt is a mammoth or
              something similar, isn't it?

              Diamond Proudbrook



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • David J Finnamore
              ... Ah. Well, whatever it was that happened with the making of the LotR trilogy, the actors seemed to think it unusual. Perhaps as to degree? At any rate,
              Message 6 of 7 , Jan 4, 2003
                Sparkdog wrote:


                > [David Finnamore] writes:
                >
                > > A few actors said the script changes were coming so
                > > fast at times that they have many scripts they never even got a chance to
                > > look at.
                > > Jackson described the process as laying down the tracks just in front of a
                > > train as
                > > it's rushing headlong toward you. You can't stop the train, so you just
                > > have to
                > > keep laying down the tracks as fast as you can. Some quality is bound to
                > > get lost
                > > here and there.
                > >
                >
                > This is all par for the course in filmmaking; actors get blue sheets, pink
                > sheets, etc. every day of production; Jackson's metaphor is the oldest one in
                > Hollywood (I think it's been around since the 30's).

                Ah. Well, whatever it was that happened with the making of the LotR trilogy, the actors seemed to think it unusual. Perhaps as to degree? At any rate, some of them who had years of experience with film making told the tale with wry,
                incredulous looks on their faces.

                --
                David J. Finnamore
                Nashville, TN, USA
                http://www.elvenminstrel.com
                --
                "We never remember what is important, only what matters to us." - Suzanne Finnamore, /Otherwise Engaged/
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.