Re: [mythsoc] Movie Interloper
- At 06:50 PM 1/1/2003 -0600, Joan wrote:
>It's the same with the Peter Jackson films. I know Tolkien's Lord of theI have the same "bumps". For years, I felt a "bump" in reading Chapter 8
>Rings text so well, there's always a "bump" whenever Jackson deviates
>from it. The first time I watched PJFR, it was a very bumpy ride. Since
>then, I've grown used to the bumps, and the experience is much less
>wrenching for it.
>In other words, for me, there will never be any danger in the movie
>intruding on the books. My mind simply doesn't work that way. It
>separates them definitively whether I want it to or not.
of _The Hobbit_, because I first encountered the book read aloud to my
school class, and I was sick the day that chapter was read. Naturally, by
this measure watching a Jackson film is like tearing down a washboard road
at 80 mph. And it doesn't get smoother.
But that's how I react watching the film. It says nothing about whether
the movie intrudes on the books. And it does. I don't mind the images of
the Jackson film as much as those of the Bakshi film, fortunately.
>I also wish to add that I thought that Sauron's depiction at the startIt doesn't make Sauron any less evil: it diminishes his threat to be, as
>of the film worked well for me. It didn't spoil or diminish my notion of
>Sauron as evil in the least. After all, he WAS there: he killed Elendil
>and Gil-galad. And he had to be SEEN in order for Isildur to cut the
>ring from his finger.
Sparkplug put it, a tubby guy in a Sauron suit.
>Another matter of perspective: Different people haveThey believe it, but they're wrong. This is not a matter that can be laid
>different ideas as to what constitutes being "true" to the books. Many
>people who worked on the films say that they believe that they were true
>to the books, in form and in spirit. We may disagree, but they believe
down to opinion: they're wrong.
- On Wed, 01 Jan 2003 23:31:12 -0800 David S Bratman
<dbratman@s...> wrote in part:
>They believe it, but they're wrong. This is not a matterSo, Dave, you disagree with Tom Shippey, then, in his review of a
>that can be laid down to opinion: they're wrong.
(Already referenced here, but see
If LOTR is that specific--that is specific enough to be able to make
these judgments without question--I wonder how it can succeed in
being such evocative myth?
- At 03:29 PM 1/2/2003 , jtg wrote:
>On Wed, 01 Jan 2003 23:31:12 -0800 David S BratmanNot really, no. Shippey spends most of his article discussing differences,
><dbratman@s...> wrote in part:
>>They believe it, but they're wrong. This is not a matter
>>that can be laid down to opinion: they're wrong.
>So, Dave, you disagree with Tom Shippey, then, in his review of a
and concludes that "the message survives the change of medium." By message
he means the necessity of courage; and "survive" does suggest that it gets
through against all odds.
What I said was wrong was the statement that the films are "true to the
books, in form and in spirit." That's a mighty broad statement, and I've
read what the filmmakers have actually said, in detail. They believe they
accomplished something a lot truer to Tolkien than letting a basic broad
message survive the transition. That's what they're wrong about.
>If LOTR is that specific--that is specific enough to be able to makeI don't see how the evocative quality of LOTR - that is, its ability to
>these judgments without question--I wonder how it can succeed in
>being such evocative myth?
make you think of other things - is at all limited by the simple question
of whether a film translation is true to the book.
- David Bratman