Wives and Mothers
Turin T
The posts about the whereabouts of the Entwives have reminded me of something
I've always considered odd about LotR.
Don't an amazing amount of the main characters seem to be missing wives and/or
mothers?
Denethor / Boromir / Faramir
Theoden
Eomer / Eowyn
Elrond / Elrohir / Elladin / Arwen
Frodo
Sam
and, of course, all of the Ents
I wonder if this has anything to do with a yearning on Tolkien's behalf for a
'clubby', male orientated lifestyle?
Or could it be a subconcious reaction to the early loss of his mother and
father?
BTW - I'm aware that some of the above characters' spouses and/or parents
absences are fully explained by Tolkien. I just think that the percentage is
quite high.
Turin
nineX...@ibm.net
-----------------------------------
remove XXX to email
-----------------------------------
William
Turin T wrote:
Add in:
Feanor
Turgon
Finrod
Aragorn
Turin
Tuor
Beren
I suspect that Tolkien's being an orphan did have an effect.
--
_________________________________________________
William Cloud Hicklin "And he named him craven,
soli...@gamewood.net and lord of slaves"
_________________________________________________
isw...@kozlowski.rz.uni-frankfurt.de
On 28 Apr 1998, Turin T wrote:>
> The posts about the whereabouts of the Entwives have reminded me of something
> I've always considered odd about LotR.
>
> Don't an amazing amount of the main characters seem to be missing wives and/or
> mothers?
>
> Denethor / Boromir / Faramir
> Theoden
> Eomer / Eowyn
> Elrond / Elrohir / Elladin / Arwen
> Frodo
> Sam
> and, of course, all of the Ents
>
>
> I wonder if this has anything to do with a yearning on Tolkien's behalf for a
> 'clubby', male orientated lifestyle?
>
> Or could it be a subconcious reaction to the early loss of his mother and
> father?
>
> BTW - I'm aware that some of the above characters' spouses and/or parents
> absences are fully explained by Tolkien. I just think that the percentage is
> quite high.
>
> Turin-
>
Actually, I find most fantasy novels are lacking in wives and mothers
(or women in general)
I'd say many male fantasy authors, who are writing for a mainly male
audience aren't interested in developping female characters, and
just drop in some stereotypes.
Naturally, you can't compare Tolkien to ordinary fantasy writers.
But I think, although he wasn't thinking of writing for a male audience,
since he wasn't writing especially for a female audience he was writing
for a male audience nevertheless.
I'd say he wasn't thinking much about the women of his setting (or better:
those in the background), introducing the women were the plot made it
necessary, but not mentioning them otherwise.
I think there are more women characters in the Silmarillion, but I'm
not sure, it's been a long time that I read it.
(In the celtic or northern mythologies that influenced Middle Earth
there would have been quite some women I think, and I remember,
at least Grendel had a mother! :-))
isw
Wendy Zinger
William wrote:
> Turin T wrote:
>
> > The posts about the whereabouts of the Entwives have reminded me of
> > something
> > I've always considered odd about LotR.
> >
> > Don't an amazing amount of the main characters seem to be missing
> > wives and/or
> > mothers?
<snip list of characters>
> I suspect that Tolkien's being an orphan did have an effect.
I think that *was* a contributing factor; however, it is something of a
convention within heroic tales to make the hero come from a background
of adversity, and to have family ties which have been broken.
Most fairy tales feature an orphan or at least a motherless child as the
hero. There is more room for plot and also more sympathy for the main
character.
Wendy
Bruce Hietbrink
In article <01bd7287$f9532890$494887ca@tc007010>, "Turin T"
<nineX...@ibm.net> wrote:
> The posts about the whereabouts of the Entwives have reminded me of something
> I've always considered odd about LotR.
>
> Don't an amazing amount of the main characters seem to be missing wives and/or
> mothers?
>
You think that's bad, look at Disney movies:
Little Mermaid - no mom in sight
Beauty and the Beast - Belle lives with her nutty inventor dad
Lion King - dad murdered early on (good kids' movie material, huh?)
Pocohontas - about the only mother she had was a tree
Aladin - he's an orphan from the streets, she has no mom
Hunchback - I didn't see, but if they were faithful to the book,
Quasimodo was a foundling raised in the cathedral
Hercules - I actually fell asleep during this, but I think that
he didn't know his folks until the end BTW, as long as I'm on
this, it really bugged me that all the gods had Greek names
(Zeus, Hera etc) but Hercules is the Roman version. Either
he should have been Heracles or they should have been Jupiter etc.
Bruce Hietbrink
Diane Hancock
Bruce Hietbrink wrote:
>
> In article <01bd7287$f9532890$494887ca@tc007010>, "Turin T"
> <nineX...@ibm.net> wrote:
>
> > The posts about the whereabouts of the Entwives have reminded me of something
> > I've always considered odd about LotR.
> >
> > Don't an amazing amount of the main characters seem to be missing wives and/or
> > mothers?
> >
>
> You think that's bad, look at Disney movies:
>
> Little Mermaid - no mom in sight
> Beauty and the Beast - Belle lives with her nutty inventor dad
> Lion King - dad murdered early on (good kids' movie material, huh?)
> Pocohontas - about the only mother she had was a tree
> Aladin - he's an orphan from the streets, she has no mom
>
>
Cinderella - no mom, only evil step-mom
Snow White - same
Bambi - we all know what happened to his mom
Jungle Book - No mom, only a wolf
Peter Pan - Well, I guess Wendy was sort of a mom to him
Hunchback - I didn't see, but if they were faithful to the book,
> Quasimodo was a foundling raised in the cathedral
> Hercules - I actually fell asleep during this, but I think that
> he didn't know his folks until the end BTW, as long as I'm on
> this, it really bugged me that all the gods had Greek names
> (Zeus, Hera etc) but Hercules is the Roman version. Either
> he should have been Heracles or they should have been Jupiter etc.
>
Don't they use the Greek god's names in the TV Herc series, also?
Diane H.
Bruce Hietbrink
In article <35466574...@private.dk>, Jesper Broesby-Olsen
<j...@private.dk> wrote:
> I'm not trying to show off here, but just for your information: None of
> the titles you mention are created by Disney originally (except perhaps
> the Lion King???)
I never claimed that Disney invented the tales themselves. Even
The Lion King is arguably just Hamlet with fur. There are no new
tales, after all. "Nothing new under the sun" as the author of
Ecclesiastics says. My only point was that the recent Disney movies
tend to be missing at least one parent.
BTW, how could I be upset that Disney didn't use the correct
Greek spelling "Heracles" and simultaneously be under the impression
that they created the character themselves?
Bruce Hietbrink
Turin T
isw...@kozlowski.rz.uni-frankfurt.de wrote:
> On 28 Apr 1998, Turin T wrote:>
> > The posts about the whereabouts of the Entwives have reminded me of
something
> > I've always considered odd about LotR.
> >
> > Don't an amazing amount of the main characters seem to be missing wives
and/or
> > mothers?
> >
> > I wonder if this has anything to do with a yearning on Tolkien's behalf for
a
> > 'clubby', male orientated lifestyle?
> >
> > Or could it be a subconcious reaction to the early loss of his mother and
> > father?
> > Turin-
> >
>
> Actually, I find most fantasy novels are lacking in wives and mothers
> (or women in general)
> I'd say many male fantasy authors, who are writing for a mainly male
> audience aren't interested in developping female characters, and
> just drop in some stereotypes.
> Naturally, you can't compare Tolkien to ordinary fantasy writers.
> But I think, although he wasn't thinking of writing for a male audience,
> since he wasn't writing especially for a female audience he was writing
> for a male audience nevertheless.
I've just remembered that Tolkien used to read his stories to the 'Inklings',
an all-male group, and his sons. This may be a contributing factor, he could
have been skewing his characters towards their interests.
BTW, I also find it interesting that in Humphrey Carpenter's biography that no
mention is made (that I can remember) of Tolkien reading his stories to his
daughter. And his wife seems to have played less of a role as their marriage
progressed.
Interesting.
Jesper Broesby-Olsen
I'm not trying to show off here, but just for your information: None of
the titles you mention are created by Disney originally (except perhaps
them into some sweet dollar-soup with a lot of silly singin' animals...
One reason (among many) that I would hate to see them try anything with
LoTR or the Hobbit.
________________________
Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo.
Jesper Broesby-Olsen
j...@private.dk
B-Rok
My only point was that the recent Disney movies
>tend to be missing at least one parent.
The only reason Diseny uses this phenomena of one parent missing is to make
people identify with characters. With so many children of divorced parents,
many times one parent is never around, and the child, or adult single parent
for that matter can identify with the character...simple trick to make people
like the move...without them realizing why they like it...
Michael Martinez
In article <01bd7287$f9532890$494887ca@tc007010>, "Turin T" <nineX...@ibm.net> wrote:
>The posts about the whereabouts of the Entwives have reminded me of something
>I've always considered odd about LotR.
>
>Don't an amazing amount of the main characters seem to be missing wives and/or
>mothers?
>
Denethor married Finduilas, daughter of Prince Adrahil of Dol Amroth. She
died only twelve years after marrying Denethor.
>Theoden
Theoden's mother was Morwen of Lossarnoch, a relative of the princely house of
Dol Amroth. She probably was dead of old age by the time of the War of the
Ring.
>Eomer / Eowyn
Their mother was Theodwyn, sister of Theoden. She "took sick and died, to the
great grief of the king". Illness was in fact a common cause of death for
"young" women prior to the industrial age (as was childbirth).
>Elrond / Elrohir / Elladin / Arwen
Elrond's mom was Elwing, alive and well in Aman at the time of LOTR. The
mother of Elrohir, Elladan, and Arwen was Celebrian and she was also alive and
well in Aman.
>Frodo
Mom died in a boating accident (drownded, according to the Gaffer).
>Sam and, of course, all of the Ents
Sam's mom Bell Goodchild should still have been alive at the time of the War
of the Ring, although Tolkien doesn't indicate whether she was. If you look
closely enough perhaps you can see her in one of the crowd scenes.
>I wonder if this has anything to do with a yearning on Tolkien's behalf for a
>'clubby', male orientated lifestyle?
>
>Or could it be a subconcious reaction to the early loss of his mother and
>father?
It might have just been his way of continuing the traditon of telling stories
about male heroes. Political Correctness had not reared its ugly head in his
day.
>BTW - I'm aware that some of the above characters' spouses and/or parents
>absences are fully explained by Tolkien. I just think that the percentage is
>quite high.
Percentage of what? Dead characters? Or just missing characters (i.e., not
involved in the storyline)?
How many mothers actually appear in the story at all (as speaking parts)? I
can think of three, two hobbits and an Elf (unless you count the fact that
Arwen and Eowyn both went on to have babies, as did Rose Cotton).
This is really just a subset of the Missing Female Characters, about which
people sometimes express greater regret.
Tolkien's most interesting female characters (in my humble opinion) are set
back in the First Age: Luthien, Idril, Elwing, Nienior, Melian, etc.
All of them, btw, were wives and mothers (for what it's worth).
\\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web
\\// Mic...@xenite.org
//\\ Martinez <http://www.xenite.org/index.htm>
// \\ENITE.org...............................................
Michael Martinez
>the titles you mention are created by Disney originally (except perhaps
>the Lion King???)... They always steal plots from old tales and turn
>them into some sweet dollar-soup with a lot of silly singin' animals...
Quick! Call the Plot Police!
>One reason (among many) that I would hate to see them try anything with
>LoTR or the Hobbit.
This is perhaps the best reason for why I would like to see them do it: they
have a great deal of experience at turning out winners in this fine tradition
of retelling favorite stories, a tradition Tolkien engaged in as well.
William
Bruce Hietbrink wrote:
>
> Hercules - I actually fell asleep during this, but I think that
> he didn't know his folks until the end BTW, as long as I'm on
> this, it really bugged me that all the gods had Greek names
> (Zeus, Hera etc) but Hercules is the Roman version. Either
> he should have been Heracles or they should have been Jupiter etc.
That bothered me less than their making Big H Hera's kid rather than one
of Zeus' bastards.
Bruce Hietbrink
> Bruce Hietbrink wrote:
>
> >
>
>
>
> > Hercules - I actually fell asleep during this, but I think that
> > he didn't know his folks until the end BTW, as long as I'm on
> > this, it really bugged me that all the gods had Greek names
> > (Zeus, Hera etc) but Hercules is the Roman version. Either
> > he should have been Heracles or they should have been Jupiter etc.
>
> That bothered me less than their making Big H Hera's kid rather than one
> of Zeus' bastards.
> --
> _____________________
Good point. That bothered me as well.
Bruce Hietbrink
Jesper Broesby-Olsen
And my only point was, that it is not Disney who > uses this phenomenon.
It is the original authors who did. Perhaps the stories became classics
because of this phenomenon (among other reasons). And Disney stole them
and diverted them because they became classics, IMHO anyway.
CFoster885
>This is perhaps the best reason for why I would like to see them do it: they
>have a great deal of experience at turning out winners in this fine tradition
>
>of retelling favorite stories, a tradition Tolkien engaged in as well.
I would have to agree, I could live with a Lion King quality LOTR.
Casey Foster
***
Casey's quote of the Week
"The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit."
-- Somerset Maugham
Michael Martinez
In article <3547D26C...@private.dk>, Jesper Broesby-Olsen <j...@private.dk> wrote:
>And my only point was, that it is not Disney who > uses this phenomenon.
>It is the original authors who did. Perhaps the stories became classics
>because of this phenomenon (among other reasons). And Disney stole them
>and diverted them because they became classics, IMHO anyway.
If Disney stole these stories, then Herodotus and his successors must have
been the Mafia of myth and legend.
SketchAier
<< Even
The Lion King is arguably just Hamlet with fur>>
Ok, please forgive me, but I have to do this. And please don't take this
seriously! :-)
"The Lion King" is actually based on LOTR! It's true. Can't you just hear
Aragorn singing "I just can't wait to be king"? And Timon and Pumbaa acted a
lot like Pippin & Merry...
Ok, I'd done. Please don't stone me! :)
Jennufer
Err...endil the Web-Mariner
>> Hercules - I actually fell asleep during this, but I think that
>> he didn't know his folks until the end BTW, as long as I'm on
>> this, it really bugged me that all the gods had Greek names
>> (Zeus, Hera etc) but Hercules is the Roman version. Either
>> he should have been Heracles or they should have been Jupiter etc.
>>
> Don't they use the Greek god's names in the TV Herc series, also?
Actually they use the Greek names everywhere. I'm yet to see a
"Heracles son of Zues" or "Hercules son of Jupiter". Everybody says
Hercules son of Zues. Which frankly (think Mrs Doubtfire here :-)
ps-ps-ps-psissesme off. So I irritate my younger brother by always
saying "Are you going to watch Herakles?" "How is Herakles and Zena
going on together?" I havn't seen the Disney movie, but if they made
Herakles (Hercules or whatever :-) Hera's son I'm gonna revolt.
Err..endil is readying his posters and protest-chants
PS As far as I know, Herakles is the original Greek spelling. also
makes more sense : as far as I know the Greek c doesn't have a k
sound.
***********Quote of the Week********* Marinus Ferreira
* Many that live deserve deserve *
* death. And some that die deserve *
*life. Can you give it to them? Then* Err..endil the Web-Mariner
* do not be too eager to deal out *
* death as judgement. For even the *
* very wise cannot see all ends *
*JRR Tolkien (The Lord of the Rings)* mar...@lantic.co.za
Mike Kew
On Sat, 2 May 1998, Err...endil the Web-Mariner wrote
>I havn't seen the Disney movie, but if they made
>Herakles (Hercules or whatever :-) Hera's son I'm gonna revolt.
Let me know when, & I'll join you. There have got to be limits.
>PS As far as I know, Herakles is the original Greek spelling. also
>makes more sense : as far as I know the Greek c doesn't have a k
>sound.
Greek doesn't have a letter 'c' at all, but a 'kappa' is usually
transliterated as 'c'. Examples in English include: cycle,
encyclopedia, science, pharmacy.
--
Mike Kew
Martin T. Kutschker
Err...endil the Web-Mariner wrote:
>
> >> Hercules - I actually fell asleep during this, but I think that
> >> he didn't know his folks until the end BTW, as long as I'm on
> >> this, it really bugged me that all the gods had Greek names
> >> (Zeus, Hera etc) but Hercules is the Roman version. Either
> >> he should have been Heracles or they should have been Jupiter etc.
> >>
> > Don't they use the Greek god's names in the TV Herc series, also?
>
> Actually they use the Greek names everywhere. I'm yet to see a
> "Heracles son of Zues" or "Hercules son of Jupiter". Everybody says
> Hercules son of Zues.
Shouldn't that be _Zeus_? At least in German he is spelled that way.
Masi
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Martin Thomas Kutschker /\ "Nonetheless I shall grant thy prayer, |
| _____||_ and thou shall go to Eilinel, |
| _________/ | and be set free from my service." |
------------ \________________________________________+
Alan L Chase
In article <bnh-290498...@ppc-cam.chem.ucla.edu>,
Bruce Hietbrink <b...@chem.ucla.edu> wrote:
>>
>> That bothered me less than their making Big H Hera's kid rather than one
>> of Zeus' bastards.
>
Can you blame Disney for not dumping that on the laps of 4 year olds?
--
Ti Alan Chase
First Age Productions
ti.c...@unh.edu
Michael Martinez
In article <6ig9m8$9...@mozz.unh.edu>, alc...@hopper.unh.edu (Alan L Chase) wrote:
>In article <bnh-290498...@ppc-cam.chem.ucla.edu>,
>Bruce Hietbrink <b...@chem.ucla.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> That bothered me less than their making Big H Hera's kid rather than one
>>> of Zeus' bastards.
>>
>>Good point. That bothered me as well.
>
>Can you blame Disney for not dumping that on the laps of 4 year olds?
4-year-olds wouldn't understand the movie. It was a bit above the heads of
8-year-olds as well.
Michael Martinez
In article <199805030350...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, are...@aol.com (Areff D) wrote:
>But they did have Frollo tempted by Esmeralda in Hunchback, and THAT was
>certainly over the heads of two of the kids I saw it with. Although it would
>have been nice to have seen that movie without the "kid" touches (like the
>singing gargoyles) -- it could have been a really strong animated musical for
>adults, but Disney doesn't want to have no toys to sell.
Disney's animated features are FAMILY films, not made for adults, not made for
kids, but made for everyone.
I'm sure many kids sighed and squiggled when Nala and Simba were rolling in
the grass as the word "SEX" floated up the right side of the screen. And how
many 8-year-olds understood the Nazi references in the song sequence "Be
Prepared"? How many 12-year-olds recognized the subtext about male/female
relationships in "Beauty and the Beast"? Are women just hanging around
waiting to have men's "strapping boys"?
Areff D
>>In article <bnh-290498...@ppc-cam.chem.ucla.edu>,
>>Bruce Hietbrink <b...@chem.ucla.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That bothered me less than their making Big H Hera's kid rather than one
>>>> of Zeus' bastards.
>>>
>>>Good point. That bothered me as well.
>>
>>Can you blame Disney for not dumping that on the laps of 4 year olds?
>
>4-year-olds wouldn't understand the movie. It was a bit above the heads of
>8-year-olds as well.
>
>
But they did have Frollo tempted by Esmeralda in Hunchback, and THAT was
certainly over the heads of two of the kids I saw it with. Although it would
have been nice to have seen that movie without the "kid" touches (like the
singing gargoyles) -- it could have been a really strong animated musical for
adults, but Disney doesn't want to have no toys to sell.
Richard F. Dickson
"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so."
Cuteboy UK
Diane Hancock wrote in message <35490C...@hp.com>...
>William wrote:
>>
>> Bruce Hietbrink wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Hercules - I actually fell asleep during this, but I think that
>> > he didn't know his folks until the end BTW, as long as I'm on
>> > this, it really bugged me that all the gods had Greek names
>> > (Zeus, Hera etc) but Hercules is the Roman version. Either
>> > he should have been Heracles or they should have been Jupiter etc.
>>
>> That bothered me less than their making Big H Hera's kid rather than one
>> of Zeus' bastards.
What next? An all singing version of Oedipus complete with eyes that dance
and sing?
'Oedipus, schmoedipus, who cares as long as he loves his mother?'
Sirkku Piispanen
>Add in:
>Aragorn
Hey, hey! This can't be true if you haven't
read the pages in LOTR in the back after
the story.
Sirkku Pispanen
Sirkku.P...@sci.fi
'' Well Obi-Wan. We meet again at last.''
-Star Wars ( Return Of The Jedi )
Sirkku Piispanen
At the kids movies Disney's really good, but when it starts to make
adults movies............................it's losing it REALLY badly..
Michael Martinez
In article <354f4e6f...@news.sci.fi>, Sirkku.P...@sci.fi (Sirkku Piispanen) wrote:
>At the kids movies Disney's really good, but when it starts to make
>adults movies............................it's losing it REALLY badly..
Do they even show the Disney kids movies in Finland? That's a serious
question. You have to get the Disney Channel or buy the video tapes to see
them in the US. I can't remember any kids movies that Disney has sent to the
theaters in the last few years.
Wendy Zinger
Michael Martinez wrote:
> Do they even show the Disney kids movies in Finland? That's a serious
> question. You have to get the Disney Channel or buy the video tapes to see
> them in the US. I can't remember any kids movies that Disney has sent to the
> theaters in the last few years.
Disney is ubiquitous. If there is money to be made in Finland, you can bet they are in Finland.
BTW, Hercules and Hunchback were supposed to appeal to kids, even if they were not as successful
as the Katzenberg-era movies. There also have been reissues in the theaters, Snow White,
Dalmations, Little Mermaid, etc. in recent years.
*Again* I'm posting in OT threads! I should make a vow to not get involved...
Wendy
Claudia
Alan L Chase wrote:
>
> In article <bnh-290498...@ppc-cam.chem.ucla.edu>,
> Bruce Hietbrink <b...@chem.ucla.edu> wrote:
> >>
> than one
> >> of Zeus' bastards.
> >
>
> Can you blame Disney for not dumping that on the laps of 4 year olds?
Then don't make the film. Hera's hate is essential to the
myth, explaining Heracles' deeds. Ancient myths are the
dramatic equivalent to nuclear power. If you don't know
what you're doing, don't tap into them.
As for four year olds: greek kids are told these myths in
elementary school, and they don't seem to have any collective
psychological problems. Compare Heracles' myth to the horror
of "Haensel and Gretel"- now *that* is something four year
olds shouldn't have to listen to.
cheers
Claudia
Alan L Chase
In article <3550BA7E...@mail.otenet.gr>,
Claudia <nospamp...@mail.otenet.gr> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> That bothered me less than their making Big H Hera's kid rather
>> than one
>> >> of Zeus' bastards.
>>
>Then don't make the film. Hera's hate is essential to the
>myth, explaining Heracles' deeds. Ancient myths are the
>dramatic equivalent to nuclear power. If you don't know
>what you're doing, don't tap into them.
I have to disagree with you there. Those myths that we know are all based
on an oral tradition which was fluid; things changed. That is why there
are many different versions of some of the stories. Taking parts of the
story and repackaging it for a different audience is EXACTLY what the
original story tellers did. Why then can we blam Disney for doing the
same thing?
The Hunchback of Notre Dame was unforgivable, however. They took a novel
which had characters and plot set in stone by one author and they
BUTCHERED it.
>As for four year olds: greek kids are told these myths in
>elementary school, and they don't seem to have any collective
>psychological problems. Compare Heracles' myth to the horror
>of "Haensel and Gretel"- now *that* is something four year
>olds shouldn't have to listen to.
Actualy what Disney avoided was sex. If Herc had not been Hera's child
then they would have had to explain that Zeus had been screwing mortals,
not something which responsible parents are going to line up to bring
young children to.
Michael Martinez
In article <35508973...@flash.net>, Wendy Zinger <bii...@flash.net> wrote:
>Michael Martinez wrote:
>
>> Do they even show the Disney kids movies in Finland? That's a serious
>> question. You have to get the Disney Channel or buy the video tapes to see
>> them in the US. I can't remember any kids movies that Disney has sent to the
>> theaters in the last few years.
>
>Disney is ubiquitous. If there is money to be made in Finland, you can bet they
> are in Finland.
>
>BTW, Hercules and Hunchback were supposed to appeal to kids, even if they were
>not as successful as the Katzenberg-era movies. There also have been reissues
>in the theaters, Snow White, Dalmations, Little Mermaid, etc. in recent
>years.
These are all family films, not kids films. I've had to watch the kiddie fare
and it by no means measures up to the adult standards of these movies.
Michael Martinez
In article <6iqrjs$k...@mozz.unh.edu>, alc...@hopper.unh.edu (Alan L Chase) wrote:
>Actualy what Disney avoided was sex. If Herc had not been Hera's child
>then they would have had to explain that Zeus had been screwing mortals,
>not something which responsible parents are going to line up to bring
>young children to.
Thye throw enough innuendo in to keep the older audience interested. The
"adult" themes in "Hercules" mostly concerned Megara.
Bruce N. Hietbrink
>
> Actualy what Disney avoided was sex. If Herc had not been Hera's child
> then they would have had to explain that Zeus had been screwing mortals,
> not something which responsible parents are going to line up to bring
> young children to.
>
I don't know that this is so necessary. I loved Greek myths as a
kid. I probably read every mythology book in our library. I, for
some reason, never really noticed the sex angle. I knew that Heracles
was Zeus' kid and not Hera's, but never really got into the biology.
Maybe I was just a particularly dumb kid, but I had lots of friends
in grade school with "nontraditional" families. I never really
sat down and said "Oh, that means that your dad used to have sex
with your mom, but since the divorce (and maybe before) he has sex
with your step-mom." Sometimes I think that we adults are so
focused on sex that we assume that kids are as well. At 5 years old,
the kid is usually thinking more in terms of mommies and daddies than
sexual partners.
Bruce Hietbrink
Claudia
Alan L Chase wrote:
> Claudia <nospamp...@mail.otenet.gr> wrote:
> >> Can you blame Disney for not dumping that on the laps of 4 year
> olds?
>
> >Then don't make the film. Hera's hate is essential to the
> >myth, explaining Heracles' deeds. Ancient myths are the
> >dramatic equivalent to nuclear power. If you don't know
> >what you're doing, don't tap into them.
>
> I have to disagree with you there. Those myths that we know are all
> based
> on an oral tradition which was fluid; things changed. That is why
> there
> are many different versions of some of the stories. Taking parts of
> the
> story and repackaging it for a different audience is EXACTLY what the
> original story tellers did.
I wrote "if you don't know what you're doing". Many authors have
taken characters and plots from various ancient myths and did
great. They remained true to the psychological background of the
stories, however. I'm not one to mind taking inspiration from or
downright copying any myths, greek/roman/norse anything. It's just
demeaning them that bothers me. Kids have a right to be told great
stories, not some politically correct person's idea of a cutesy
harmless adaptation.
As for the things changing:
The difference is, that, though the myths themselves slowly
changed in the course of time and had slight differences from
one region to the other, due to oral tradition, the basic
ideas remained nearly always the same- that is, until with
Alexander the Great royalty myths and reality were mingled to
serve as propaganda for the ruling. Don't forget that most
people in ancient Greece held these myths as true ancient stories
and not as fairytales.
Why then can we blam Disney for doing the
> same thing?
> The Hunchback of Notre Dame was unforgivable, however. They took a
> novel
> which had characters and plot set in stone by one author and they
> BUTCHERED it.
The Hercules myth has some essential characters and circumstances,
that are common in most variations. Hera's wrath as the cause for
Heracles' troubles is one.
Why should Disney respect a french authors work, if it doesn't
respect an ancient religion? And why should I be more outraged
at one and not the other? (Btw, i agree about the butchering)
>
> >As for four year olds: greek kids are told these myths in
> >elementary school, and they don't seem to have any collective
> >psychological problems. Compare Heracles' myth to the horror
> >of "Haensel and Gretel"- now *that* is something four year
> >olds shouldn't have to listen to.
>
> Actualy what Disney avoided was sex. If Herc had not been Hera's
> child
> then they would have had to explain that Zeus had been screwing
> mortals,
> not something which responsible parents are going to line up to bring
> young children to.
Wait a moment- they didn't avoid sex in the "Hunchback" film.
There was one scene where the bad guy sees Esmeralda dancing in
the fire- phew!
As for Zeus- well the guy was notorious for makin' out with
mortal gals. It was a part of his divine persona ;-).
If they were afraid parents wouldn't take their kids to see an
adulterer, weeeeell, like I said before, don't make the film!
cheers
Claudia
the Piper
Claudia <nospamp...@mail.otenet.gr> writes:
> I wrote "if you don't know what you're doing". Many authors have
> taken characters and plots from various ancient myths and did
> great. They remained true to the psychological background of the
> stories, however. I'm not one to mind taking inspiration from or
> downright copying any myths, greek/roman/norse anything. It's just
> demeaning them that bothers me. Kids have a right to be told great
> stories, not some politically correct person's idea of a cutesy
> harmless adaptation.
I must say I agree wholeheartedly.
P
Margaret R. Dean
In article <3554AF63...@mail.otenet.gr>,
Claudia <nospamp...@mail.otenet.gr> wrote:
>Alan L Chase wrote:
>> Actualy what Disney avoided was sex. If Herc had not been Hera's
>> child
>> then they would have had to explain that Zeus had been screwing
>> mortals,
>> not something which responsible parents are going to line up to bring
>> young children to.
>
>Wait a moment- they didn't avoid sex in the "Hunchback" film.
>There was one scene where the bad guy sees Esmeralda dancing in
>the fire- phew!
>As for Zeus- well the guy was notorious for makin' out with
>mortal gals. It was a part of his divine persona ;-).
>If they were afraid parents wouldn't take their kids to see an
>adulterer, weeeeell, like I said before, don't make the film!
The D'Aulaires, in their splendid book of Greek mythology for children,
explain it as "Zeus, being a god, naturally had many wives...." and all
his =amours= are thus accounted for -- while keeping the "jealous Hera"
trope. :)
--Margaret Dean
<marg...@access.digex.net>
Michael Martinez
In article <3554AF63...@mail.otenet.gr>, Claudia <nospamp...@mail.otenet.gr> wrote:
>Alan L Chase wrote:
>> based on an oral tradition which was fluid; things changed. That is
>> why there are many different versions of some of the stories. Taking
>> parts of the story and repackaging it for a different audience is
>> EXACTLY what the original story tellers did.
>
>taken characters and plots from various ancient myths and did
>great. They remained true to the psychological background of the
Even Tolkien didn't remain true to his sources. His changes are quite radical
and anyone who appreciates the ancient myths should be highly offended by his
work.
>As for the things changing:
>The difference is, that, though the myths themselves slowly
>changed in the course of time and had slight differences from
>one region to the other, due to oral tradition, the basic
>ideas remained nearly always the same- that is, until with
>Alexander the Great royalty myths and reality were mingled to
>serve as propaganda for the ruling. Don't forget that most
>people in ancient Greece held these myths as true ancient stories
>and not as fairytales.
The Greek playwrites often took extensive liberties with their predecessors'
works, retelling the stories in radically different ways. The convergence of
local legends into common mythologies is thought to have worked somewhat
differently from the way you describe. As the various cultures etsablished
contact with each there was a process of reconciling the various deities with
one another (the Romans especially tried to identify their gods with local
deities). This process included retelling the myths so as to be more
consistent with the dominant culture's ideas.
Nonetheless, there was considerable doubt about many of the stories in ancient
Greece and Rome. Men recognized then Humanity's propensity for telling
falsehoods and embellishing tales.
>> Why then can we blam Disney for doing the same thing? The Hunchback
>> of Notre Dame was unforgivable, however. They took a novel which had
>> characters and plot set in stone by one author and they BUTCHERED it.
>
>The Hercules myth has some essential characters and circumstances,
>that are common in most variations. Hera's wrath as the cause for
>Heracles' troubles is one.
Hera's wrath had less to do with Herc's problems than his own drinking. One
of the most widely voiced criticisms of HERCULES: THE LEGENDARY JOURNEYS, for
instance, is that it makes Hera out to be a bad god. She didn't spend all
that much time harassing Hercules according to the oldest myths.
>Why should Disney respect a french authors work, if it doesn't
>respect an ancient religion? And why should I be more outraged
>at one and not the other? (Btw, i agree about the butchering)
Disney respects story-telling, and they do a very good job of modernizing
stories for their audiences, which all that is to be expected of
story-tellers.
Mike Kew
On Sat, 9 May 1998, Michael Martinez wrote
>Even Tolkien didn't remain true to his sources. His changes are quite radical
>and anyone who appreciates the ancient myths should be highly offended by his
>work.
But Tolkien didn't pretend to be retelling myths: he was making up a
whole *new* story borrowing elements from mythology. Unlike Disney in
Hercules, the Hunchback, Anastasia, Jungle Book, etc.
(Though I have to agree that Disney are far from alone in this. The
very worst Bowdlerisation I think I've seen of a beautiful story is
'Roxanne', which takes a classic of Romantic literature and turns it
into something worthy of an episode of 'Beverly Hills 90210'.)
[snip rest]
--
Mike Kew
Michael Martinez
In article <FV5TaBA2...@kew1.demon.co.uk>, Mike Kew <mi...@kew1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sat, 9 May 1998, Michael Martinez wrote
>
>>Even Tolkien didn't remain true to his sources. His changes are quite radical
>
>>and anyone who appreciates the ancient myths should be highly offended by his
>>work.
>
>But Tolkien didn't pretend to be retelling myths: he was making up a
>whole *new* story borrowing elements from mythology. Unlike Disney in
>Hercules, the Hunchback, Anastasia, Jungle Book, etc.
How many such admissions would you like from Tolkien? He DID make them, you
know. We can start with the Numenor-Atlantis admissions if you like, or move
on to the Creation-Ainulindale myth, or go on to other such admissions.
>(Though I have to agree that Disney are far from alone in this. The
>very worst Bowdlerisation I think I've seen of a beautiful story is
>'Roxanne', which takes a classic of Romantic literature and turns it
>into something worthy of an episode of 'Beverly Hills 90210'.)
According to BREWER: Dictionary of Phrase and Fable,
"Bowdlerise (To). To expurgate a book in editing it. Thomas Bowdler,
in 1818, gave to the world an expurgated edition of Shakespeare's
works. We have also Bowdlerite, Bowdlerist, Bowdleriser, Bowdlerism,
Bowdlerisation, etc. (See Grangerise)."
The entry can be found at:
http://www.bibliomania.com/Reference/PhraseAndFable/data/167.html
"expurgate", according to my Webster's Interactive, means to purify, to remove
objectionable material.
Somehow I don't see how "Roxanne" Bowdlerized anything. It simply retold an
old story in a modern form. Some of the most classic moments were retained
(such as the twenty nose jokes). Some quite new points were introduced to the
story as well.
Disney doesn't pretend to retell the old stories. They quite openly admit
they are ADAPTING the stories to a modern framework, and such adaptation is
the rule in movie-making, not the exception. (And I don't believe Disney did
"Anastasia" -- wasn't that done by Don Bluth?)
In any event, Disney isn't doing anything the ancients didn't do, so I don't
see why people are so upset with Disney. In my opinion, they often do as good
as if not better than the ancients because they have a much longer and richer
story-telling tradition upon which to draw.
the Piper
Mic...@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) writes:
<evil snip>
> In any event, Disney isn't doing anything the ancients didn't do, so I don't
> see why people are so upset with Disney. In my opinion, they often do as good
> as if not better than the ancients because they have a much longer and richer
> story-telling tradition upon which to draw.
>
<sigh> For the last time people, we know that both Disney and Tolkien went and
changed old stories and fully admitted it. The difference is in the tone and
attitude of the results. Disney creates silly, parody-like versions of old
stories. That is my problem with them. I find their efforts rather inferior to
the original versions.
P
PS. On a lighter note, happy Mother's Day to any and all mothers on this NG.
Michael Martinez
In article <6j4no9$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, the Piper <tr-ol...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Mic...@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) writes:
>
><evil snip>
>
>> In any event, Disney isn't doing anything the ancients didn't do, so I don't
>> see why people are so upset with Disney. In my opinion, they often do as
>> good as if not better than the ancients because they have a much longer and richer
>> story-telling tradition upon which to draw.
>>
>
><sigh> For the last time people, we know that both Disney and Tolkien went and
>changed old stories and fully admitted it. The difference is in the tone and
>attitude of the results. Disney creates silly, parody-like versions of old
>stories. That is my problem with them. I find their efforts rather inferior to
>the original versions.
If Disney's efforts were in fact "silly, parody-like versions of old stories"
they wouldn't be so immensely popular and successful.
Margaret R. Dean
In article <6j4lli$dq4$2...@camel29.mindspring.com>,
Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>In any event, Disney isn't doing anything the ancients didn't do, so I don't
>see why people are so upset with Disney. In my opinion, they often do as good
>as if not better than the ancients because they have a much longer and richer
>story-telling tradition upon which to draw.
I have no philosophical objection to Disney's doing this with traditional
material -- fairy or folktales like Cinderella, or Sleeping Beauty, or the
Aladdin story from the Arabian Nights. After all, these stories exist in
a multitude of different versions already (this is called the "folk
process") and may fairly be considered the common property of humankind.
I'm not sure why I feel differently about Disney doing something similar
with the works of known authors, but I do. Possibly because I feel the
intent of the author was different than in the bygone ages when fairy
tales had their origins. Today we have the concept of intellectual
property, which I'm sure the ancients would have found incomprehensible.
But this shift in thought =has= taken place, and therefore it seems to me
that later, known authors are under a different dispensation and deserve
to have their personal vision respected.
All this is IMHO, of course . . . and naturally I reserve the right to
like or dislike any particular Disney movie (or anybody else's movie,
for that matter!) on other grounds.
--Margaret Dean
<marg...@access.digex.net>
the Piper
Mic...@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) writes:
> In article <6j4no9$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, the Piper <tr-ol...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >Mic...@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) writes:
> >
> ><evil snip>
> >
> >> In any event, Disney isn't doing anything the ancients didn't do, so I don't
> >> see why people are so upset with Disney. In my opinion, they often do as
> >> good as if not better than the ancients because they have a much longer and richer
> >> story-telling tradition upon which to draw.
> >>
> >
> ><sigh> For the last time people, we know that both Disney and Tolkien went and
> >changed old stories and fully admitted it. The difference is in the tone and
> >attitude of the results. Disney creates silly, parody-like versions of old
> >stories. That is my problem with them. I find their efforts rather inferior to
> >the original versions.
>
> If Disney's efforts were in fact "silly, parody-like versions of old stories"
> they wouldn't be so immensely popular and successful.
>
Not true. Many people enjoy parodies and silliness.
P
Michael Martinez
What's the last silly parody to win an Oscar, or to generate in excess of
$100,000,000.00 US in box office revenues? Disney's feature animation
efforts are anything but silly parodies. There is certainly parody in the
movies, and some silly moments, but nowhere near enough to warrant calling the
movies themselves "silly, parody-like versions of old stories".
the Piper
Mic...@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) writes:
> What's the last silly parody to win an Oscar, or to generate in excess of
> $100,000,000.00 US in box office revenues? Disney's feature animation
> efforts are anything but silly parodies. There is certainly parody in the
> movies, and some silly moments, but nowhere near enough to warrant calling the
> movies themselves "silly, parody-like versions of old stories".
Well, okay, they are very polished and expertly-produced films. Nevertheless,
they contain enough goofy stuff to make me think of them as parody-like.
Just, really slick and often clever parodies.
P
Bruce N. Hietbrink
In article <6j50fc$s11$2...@camel20.mindspring.com>, Mic...@xenite.org
(Michael Martinez) wrote:
>
> What's the last silly parody to win an Oscar, or to generate in excess of
> $100,000,000.00 US in box office revenues? Disney's feature animation
> efforts are anything but silly parodies. There is certainly parody in the
> movies, and some silly moments, but nowhere near enough to warrant
calling the
> movies themselves "silly, parody-like versions of old stories".
>
>
Oh c'mon Michael. Are we really going to equate box-office with
quality? Two words--"Independance Day". Lots of fairly mediocre
movies make tons of money because of massive marketing. I've not
seen it, but "Deep Impact" made $41,000,000 this weekend(!), and
I've heard some scathing reviews (plus some mildly positive ones,
certainly no raves). I'm not saying that there is an inverse
relationship between quality and box office, or that I dislike
Disney movies, simply that sales are not the best indicator.
Bruce Hietbrink
Michael Martinez
In article <bnh-110598...@ppc-cam.chem.ucla.edu>, b...@chem.ucla.edu (Bruce N. Hietbrink) wrote:
>Oh c'mon Michael. Are we really going to equate box-office with
I happened to LIKE that movie. And will probably go see "Godzilla" when it
opens, or soon thereafter. I don't think the new employer would appreciate my
taking off to see a movie. A remake of an old Japanese monster flick at that.
>...Lots of fairly mediocre movies make tons of money because of massive
>marketing. I've not seen it, but "Deep Impact" made $41,000,000 this
>weekend(!), and I've heard some scathing reviews (plus some mildly
>positive ones, certainly no raves).
"Deep Impact" is one of the most incredible movies I've ever seen. Only an
idiot would pan it. It's extremely moving and the science behind the concept
is pretty solid, with the possible exception of blowing up the comet. I saw
an interview with an astronomer who suggested that blowing up something
hurtling toward Earth might complicate the situation (which, in fact, is what
the movie portrays).
>...I'm not saying that there is an inverse relationship between quality and
>box office, or that I dislike Disney movies, simply that sales are not the
>best indicator.
If the masses don't determine quality in performance and production through
huge revenues, then there is no such thing as quality in the entertainment
industry. The more people who are entertained by a movie, or rather, the more
people to whom the movie appeals, the greater its quality.
However flawed you may feel that it is, there is no better measurement of the
quality of a movie we can refer to. The sheer numbers outweigh all personal
prejudices.
Claudia
Margaret R. Dean wrote:
>
> The D'Aulaires, in their splendid book of Greek mythology for
> children,
> explain it as "Zeus, being a god, naturally had many wives...." and
> all
> his =amours= are thus accounted for -- while keeping the "jealous
> Hera"
> trope. :)
LOL! I especially enjoyed the "naturally" part.
cheers
Claudia
the Piper
Mic...@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) writes:
<stuff>
> If the masses don't determine quality in performance and production through
> huge revenues, then there is no such thing as quality in the entertainment
> industry. The more people who are entertained by a movie, or rather, the more
> people to whom the movie appeals, the greater its quality.
>
> However flawed you may feel that it is, there is no better measurement of the
> quality of a movie we can refer to. The sheer numbers outweigh all personal
> prejudices.
At the risk of inciting vengeance, I must admit, I think anyone who denies the
influence of advertising, etc., on a movie's popularity is being very naive.
But then I have always felt that the movie-going public, in general, is rather
dull. Throw them some computer-animated dinosaurs and they're happy.
P
William
Michael Martinez wrote:
If the masses don't determine quality in performance and production
through
> huge revenues, then there is no such thing as quality in the
> entertainment
> industry. The more people who are entertained by a movie, or rather,
> the more
> people to whom the movie appeals, the greater its quality.
>
> However flawed you may feel that it is, there is no better measurement
> of the
> quality of a movie we can refer to. The sheer numbers outweigh all
> personal
> prejudices.
This is an ultra-capitalist view! Milton Friedman would love it, though
it revolutionizes traditional aethetic analysis.
On this theory, artistic or aesthetic goodness or badness is determined
by economic democracy, with each partcipant "voting" with his or her
dollars. And, just as in political democracy, the majority is always,
always right. This is why Congress comprises the noblest, wisest, most
dedicated citizens in America.
The theory has the advantage of simplifying the task of criticism.
Rather than falling into suspect subjectivity, one can rely on hard
numbers. Accordingly, the finest meal in America is the Big Mac.
Chevrolet builds a far better automobile than Mercedes-Benz. "Titanic"
is the greatest motion picture in all history.
The hassles of Oscar voting (and the need for the interminable award
show) would be eliminated if Academy Awards were based strictly on
box-office. The Grammys in fact adopted this convenience years ago.
After all, there's no point in seeing crappy films like "Mrs Brown", "Dr
Strangelove", or "Citizen Kane." The box-office electorate has already
informed us that these movies are junk, of far less artistic value than
"Independence Day", "Deep Impact", or "Hercules."
--
_________________________________________________
William Cloud Hicklin "And he named him craven,
soli...@gamewood.net and lord of slaves"
_________________________________________________
Claudia
Michael Martinez wrote:
Claudia wrote:
> >I wrote "if you don't know what you're doing". Many authors have
> >taken characters and plots from various ancient myths and did
> >great. They remained true to the psychological background of the
> >stories, however....
>
> Even Tolkien didn't remain true to his sources. His changes are quite
> radical and anyone who appreciates the ancient myths should be highly
> offended by his work.
Tolkien certainly qualifies as one who knew what
they're doing.
I can recognize elements of various myths in his
work, but as far as I can tell, the story he told
isn't just a variation of a certain myth, but a new
creation that uses the common archetypical figures and
elements of mythology.
> >As for the things changing:
> >The difference is, that, though the myths themselves slowly
> >changed in the course of time and had slight differences from
> >one region to the other, due to oral tradition, the basic
> >ideas remained nearly always the same- that is, until with
> >Alexander the Great royalty myths and reality were mingled to
> >serve as propaganda for the ruling. Don't forget that most
> >people in ancient Greece held these myths as true ancient stories
> >and not as fairytales.
>
> The Greek playwrites often took extensive liberties with their
> predecessors'
> works, retelling the stories in radically different ways. The
> convergence of
> local legends into common mythologies is thought to have worked
> somewhat
> differently from the way you describe. As the various cultures
> etsablished
> contact with each there was a process of reconciling the various
> deities with
> one another (the Romans especially tried to identify their gods with
> local
> deities). This process included retelling the myths so as to be more
> consistent with the dominant culture's ideas.
The process of mingling cultures and myths
is indeed a very old one in the Mediterranean.
But I'm sure you are not comparing Sophokles
or Euripides to Disney?
And it really can't be said that greek playwrights
took liberties with myths, since their plays
are one of our most important sources for these
myths, so there really isn't enough original
ancient greek material to make such a judgement.
I'm strictly speaking of the classical age before
Alexander and the hellenistic age though. As I'm
sure you're aware, there aren't that many ancient
texts that survived the middle ages.
There is another profound difference between a
greek playwright retelling a myth that belongs
to his religion and culture, for which he
has a better understanding, and a Disney screenplay.
To us today, these myths are (or should be)
of historical value.
We should have some kind of a respect for past
and ancient things, and not alter a myth beyond
recognition, keeping in the now hollow names just
to make another blockbuster Disney film propagating
today's "dominant ideas". Why not write a whole new
story in the firstplace, using Heracles' archetype
of a young strong hero on a quest, but not pretending
to retell the greek/roman version?
The reason that I was especially infuriated with
Disney for doing this, is, that children are
watching their films and believing every minute
of the new version, without ever getting to know
the original(or originals). I don't have a thing
against Disney (xept the old man was a bit of a tyrant).
But I think they *can* influence a moviegoing kid,
for better or worse. I'd prefer better.
> Nonetheless, there was considerable doubt about many of the stories in
> ancient
> Greece and Rome. Men recognized then Humanity's propensity for
> telling
> falsehoods and embellishing tales.
> >
> >The Hercules myth has some essential characters and circumstances,
> >that are common in most variations. Hera's wrath as the cause for
> >Heracles' troubles is one.
>
> Hera's wrath had less to do with Herc's problems than his own
> drinking.
*What* have you been reading??? A Marion Zimmer Bradley
adaptation?
One of the most widely voiced criticisms of HERCULES:
> THE LEGENDARY JOURNEYS, for instance, is that it makes Hera out
> to be a bad god. She didn't spend all that much time harassing
> Hercules according to the oldest myths.
She was *supposed* to act like this, since
Hera also was the protectress (is there
such a word?) of matrimony.
Besides, there is no such thing as an all "good"
god in greek mythology, like real life people
but very unlike the movies.
>
> >Why should Disney respect a french authors work, if it doesn't
> >respect an ancient religion? And why should I be more outraged
> >at one and not the other? (Btw, i agree about the butchering)
>
> Disney respects story-telling, and they do a very good job of
> modernizing
> stories for their audiences, which all that is to be expected of
> story-tellers.
The difference is, I think of them as
storytellers with an immense audience,
and thus, greater responsibility to
entertain and educate.
cheers
Claudia
Ilweran
In article <355873E9...@mail.otenet.gr>, Claudia
<nospamp...@mail.otenet.gr> writes:
>The reason that I was especially infuriated with
>Disney for doing this, is, that children are
>watching their films and believing every minute
>of the new version, without ever getting to know
>the original(or originals). I don't have a thing
>against Disney (xept the old man was a bit of a tyrant).
>But I think they *can* influence a moviegoing kid,
>for better or worse. I'd prefer better.
I don't think you can say that of all children. I always enjoyed Disney films,
and still do, but I never assumed that the stories in the films hadn't been
changed. I was aware from quite a young age that their could be many versions
of the same story. eg. I had a Cinderella book where the sisters cut parts of
their feet off to make the shoe fit, and at the end had their eyes pecked out
by birds. It was completely different to the Disney version, but I enjoyed the
fact that there was more than one version.
Maybe that explains why I enjoyed the HoMe so much!!!!!
Ilweran
*******************
It was no surface, but all feeling
Maybe at the time it felt like dreaming
Bruce N. Hietbrink
In article <6j8i7k$328$7...@camel18.mindspring.com>, Mic...@xenite.org
(Michael Martinez) wrote:
> However flawed you may feel that it is, there is no better measurement of the
> quality of a movie we can refer to. The sheer numbers outweigh all personal
> prejudices.
>
Michael,
Then why do we have things like critics' 10 best movies lists and
academy awards? If box office is the only measure worth talking about,
then all we would have to do is list the profits for all the movies at
the end of the year. Taking this to a different area of art (so as not
to step on any of your favorite movies), who do you think is the better
musician, Yo-Yo Ma or any of the Spice Girls? While he is probably
one of the most successful classical musicians, Yo-Yo Ma probably made
a lot less money. Or take books. I enjoy a good Grisham tale, but
would never claim that he is the greatest author simply because he
tops the best-seller lists.
I would argue that the better measurement we want is "timelessness".
What books, movies, songs will we still want to see ten years from
now? Or a hundred?
Again the disclaimer--this is not meant to be a mere anti-populist
snobbishness. Shakespeare was very popular, as was Tolkien. However,
we still read (and perform) these decades and centuries later. I also
think that many of the Disney movies will stand the test of time.
Also, and finally, you still neglect the role that marketing has
in popularity. Independance Day made huge amounts of money in its
opening weekend. That is not a result of quality, but of marketing.
(And here I am not arguing that it is a bad movie.) Quality leads
to success over time--word of mouth spreads. The opening of any
"summer blockbuster" becomes an "event" today, with tie-ins to
Burger King and stuffed toys.
Perhaps, to connect the two thoughts above, a better measure of
a movie's quality would not be simple box-office, but instead consistent
box-office over time. A really bad movie can have a great first weekend
due to marketing, but drops quickly from the picture. A really good
movie may start quietly, but keeps drawing people in.
Bruce Hietbrink
Michael Martinez
In article <bnh-120598...@ppc-cam.chem.ucla.edu>, b...@chem.ucla.edu (Bruce N. Hietbrink) wrote:
>In article <6j8i7k$328$7...@camel18.mindspring.com>, Mic...@xenite.org
>(Michael Martinez) wrote:
>
>
>> However flawed you may feel that it is, there is no better measurement of the
>> quality of a movie we can refer to. The sheer numbers outweigh all personal
>> prejudices.
>>
>
>
>Michael,
> Then why do we have things like critics' 10 best movies lists and
Because people like those things. I've heard that many industry insiders
appreciate the Oscars because of their bargaining prestige, but they like the
People's Choice Awards and similar awards because they are decided by larger
audiences without all the politics that are said to go into the Academy
Awards. I have no way of confirming or contesting that -- it's only hearsay.
But basically, people just like to give and get awards and to assemble lists.
Most movie critics wouldn't know a good movie if it kicked them in the teeth,
but occasionally they peg one right.
I should note, however, that Disney has collected some awards and gotten on
some Top Ten lists, so it's not like I think my admittedly low opinion of
movie critics is an objective view.
>...If box office is the only measure worth talking about,
>then all we would have to do is list the profits for all the movies at
>the end of the year. Taking this to a different area of art (so as not
>to step on any of your favorite movies), who do you think is the better
>musician, Yo-Yo Ma or any of the Spice Girls?...
I don't think I've listened to either of them. I've seen the Spice Girls in
promos for their movie and that's about it. I'm a classic YES fan myself.
>...While he is probably one of the most successful classical musicians,
>Yo-Yo Ma probably made a lot less money. Or take books. I enjoy a good
>Grisham tale, but would never claim that he is the greatest author simply
>because he tops the best-seller lists.
I dunno. His books inspire some good movies. I don't know how closely they
are tied to the books, but I've enjoyed all the Grisham-derivations I've seen.
> I would argue that the better measurement we want is "timelessness".
>What books, movies, songs will we still want to see ten years from
>now? Or a hundred?
How does that differ from box office success? People are still watching "Gone
With the Wind" in theaters -- nearly 60 years after it first blew away the box
office. "Star Wars" movies still sell strongly in the videocassette market.
Disney feature animations still sell well, too, I should add.
> Also, and finally, you still neglect the role that marketing has
>in popularity. Independance Day made huge amounts of money in its
>opening weekend. That is not a result of quality, but of marketing.
>(And here I am not arguing that it is a bad movie.) Quality leads
>to success over time--word of mouth spreads. The opening of any
>"summer blockbuster" becomes an "event" today, with tie-ins to
>Burger King and stuffed toys.
I haven't heard that "Independence Day" was a bomb or a financial failure. It
was in the theaters for quite a while last year, and also got a lot of airplay
on television (cable and broadcast) -- all of which brought in revenues.
> Perhaps, to connect the two thoughts above, a better measure of
>a movie's quality would not be simple box-office, but instead consistent
>box-office over time. A really bad movie can have a great first weekend
>due to marketing, but drops quickly from the picture. A really good
>movie may start quietly, but keeps drawing people in.
Well, I guess that describes the movies I've brought up as examples. I'm not
sure if "Independence Day" will make the cut if re-released in 9 years. I
would go see it if it were re-released.
Cuteboy UK
William wrote in message <35586651...@gamewood.net>...
Michael Martinez wrote
>> quality of a movie we can refer to. The sheer numbers outweigh all
>> personal
>> prejudices.
>
<SNIP>>On this theory, artistic or aesthetic goodness or badness is
determined
>by economic democracy, with each partcipant "voting" with his or her
>dollars. And, just as in political democracy, the majority is always,
>always right. This is why Congress comprises the noblest, wisest, most
>dedicated citizens in America.
William, your comment reminded me of Doctor Stockmann in 'An Enemy of the
People':
"The most dangerous enemies of truth and freedom are the majority!...The
majority is never right! Never I tell you!...Who form the majority- in any
country? The wise, or the fools? I think we'd all have to agree that the
fools are in a terrifying, overwhelming majority all over the world!...if it
ever comes to a serious fight...public opinion will be for safety first, and
this sacred majority will run like a flock of sheep....It's the party
bosses - they're the ones who've got to be rooted out! A party boss is like
a hungry wolf - he needs a certain number of baby lambs to devour each year
if he is to survive....The fact is, you see, the strongest man in the world
is he who stands most alone."
It's rather appropriate in this context, don't you think?
Lee
the Piper
Bruce N. Hietbrink writes:
> Perhaps, to connect the two thoughts above, a better measure of
> a movie's quality would not be simple box-office, but instead consistent
> box-office over time. A really bad movie can have a great first weekend
> due to marketing, but drops quickly from the picture. A really good
> movie may start quietly, but keeps drawing people in.
Well said. I have thought about this before. Particularly with those
Spice Girls. They are so bad. Fortunately, no one will care in a few years.
Also, by Michael's logic, Titanic would be the best movie ever made. Ha!
I dare you to find any respectable critic who would say that.
P
Claudia
Ilweran wrote:
>
> I don't think you can say that of all children. I always enjoyed
> Disney films,
> and still do, but I never assumed that the stories in the films hadn't
> been
> changed. I was aware from quite a young age that their could be many
> versions
> of the same story. eg. I had a Cinderella book where the sisters cut
> parts of
> their feet off to make the shoe fit, and at the end had their eyes
> pecked out
> by birds. It was completely different to the Disney version, but I
> enjoyed the
> fact that there was more than one version.
(snip)
I saw the same film and read the same books,
complete with the hacking the heel off scene.
Brrrr...;-X
I grew up with Disney movies and magazines with
Disney characters, I saw Toy Story a gazillion
times (OK, I know it's really a Pixar feature),
I even loved Snowhite !
But what does that have to do with Hercules
being a bad adaptation?
cheers
Claudia
Mike Kew
On Tue, 12 May 1998, Bruce N. Hietbrink wrote
>In article <6j8i7k$328$7...@camel18.mindspring.com>, Mic...@xenite.org
>(Michael Martinez) wrote:
>
>> However flawed you may feel that it is, there is no better measurement of the
>> prejudices.
>
> Then why do we have things like critics' 10 best movies lists and
>academy awards?
You're saying that critics' guides and Oscars are a real guide to
quality?
> I would argue that the better measurement we want is "timelessness".
>What books, movies, songs will we still want to see ten years from
>now? Or a hundred?
How would we know?
This is a serious question. If your definition of quality is simply
"something that's remembered and appreciated X years later", then you
can't know what's good until X years later.
> Again the disclaimer--this is not meant to be a mere anti-populist
>snobbishness. Shakespeare was very popular, as was Tolkien. However,
>we still read (and perform) these decades and centuries later. I also
>think that many of the Disney movies will stand the test of time.
- indeed, they already have - many v. popular Disney films predate LotR.
(Gosh, siding with MM, this feels strange.)
--
Mike Kew
the Piper
Coming to alt.fan.tolkien as a tempest of fire, Mike Kew writes:
<stuff>
So, let me get this straight. If a bunch of ten-year-olds go to see "Ernest
Has a Nosebleed", and they think it's the funniest thing they've ever seen,
that makes it a great movie?
Gwa ha ha!
Oh, mercy.
In fact there are two aspects beings considered here. Appeal is not the same
as quality. And the quality of a work is not an entirely subjective thing.
There are standards by which it can be measured, and unless one has studied
these standards, it is rather impossible to make an accurate judgement. This
is why (most) ten-year-olds cannot judge a truly great movie. Professional
critics are supposed to be able to make informed and objective judgements,
though not all do.
It is entirely possible for a sloppy, unoriginal movie to have big box-office
numbers, if there's enough marketing.
P
Mike Kew
On Wed, 13 May 1998, the Piper wrote
>Coming to alt.fan.tolkien as a tempest of fire, Mike Kew writes:
anyone's definition...]
>
><stuff>
>
>So, let me get this straight. If a bunch of ten-year-olds go to see "Ernest
>Has a Nosebleed", and they think it's the funniest thing they've ever seen,
>that makes it a great movie?
I don't recall implying that...
FWIW, I think you can make valid judgments about quality that have
nothing to do with popularity. What I was arguing against was the idea
that 'lasting popularity' is somehow more valid than 'instant
popularity'.
>It is entirely possible for a sloppy, unoriginal movie to have big box-office
>numbers, if there's enough marketing.
Yep. (Cue endless quarrel about recent movies...)
--
Mike Kew
the Piper
Mike Kew <mi...@kew1.demon.co.uk> writes:
> On Wed, 13 May 1998, the Piper wrote
> >Coming to alt.fan.tolkien as a tempest of fire, Mike Kew writes:
> [hey, I resemble that remark - my post was *not* inflammatory by
> anyone's definition...]
Eh, just a joke. Were you here for the GWW (Great Wings War)?
> >
> ><stuff>
> >
> >So, let me get this straight. If a bunch of ten-year-olds go to see "Ernest
> >Has a Nosebleed", and they think it's the funniest thing they've ever seen,
> >that makes it a great movie?
>
> I don't recall implying that...
>
Okay then, I take it back.
Or perhaps it was Michael who implied that, with that popularity = quality
stuff.
> FWIW, I think you can make valid judgments about quality that have
> nothing to do with popularity. What I was arguing against was the idea
> that 'lasting popularity' is somehow more valid than 'instant
> popularity'.
>
> >It is entirely possible for a sloppy, unoriginal movie to have big box-office
> >numbers, if there's enough marketing.
>
> Yep. (Cue endless quarrel about recent movies...)
I shall refrain from mentioning any recent movie titles, for fear that this
will degenerate into a war of film criticism.
P
Alan L Chase
In article <6jb8s7$i8a$2...@camel21.mindspring.com>,
Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>>
>>> However flawed you may feel that it is, there is no better measurement of the
>>> quality of a movie we can refer to. The sheer numbers outweigh all personal
>>> prejudices.
I can't believe I'm hearing this in a literary newsgroup.
Public opinion is the last thing I would use to judge the worth of a piece
of art. I study film, it is a passion for me. I have learned the
difference between good film making and bad film making, something which
most people never do.
The vast majority goes to the movies to be entertained and that is GREAT.
That is what the industry is all about: entertaining.
Unfortunately it does not take a work of art to entertain most people.
compare how many people say The Saint or ID4 or Con Air to how many people
saw In the Company of Men, or Eve's Bayou or The Sweet Hereafter.
Obviously the first three far outsold the later. Are they better movies?
Not even close. The first three were produced to make money - a lot of
money - and they did. The last three were made to tell good, thought
provoking stories and they did, they also made money for the distributors,
just not blockbuster numbers.
>>Michael,
>> Then why do we have things like critics' 10 best movies lists and
>>academy awards?...
>
>Most movie critics wouldn't know a good movie if it kicked them in the teeth,
Would you? Some critics are clueless (Siskel and Ebert spring to mind)
but as a whole critics are people who have been trained to look beyond the
glam and glitter of pre-assembled hits to see what substance there is to
movies.
>>...While he is probably one of the most successful classical musicians,
>>Yo-Yo Ma probably made a lot less money. Or take books. I enjoy a good
>>Grisham tale, but would never claim that he is the greatest author simply
>>because he tops the best-seller lists.
>
>I dunno. His books inspire some good movies. I don't know how closely they
>are tied to the books, but I've enjoyed all the Grisham-derivations I've seen.
Are you still defining "good" in terms of box-office receipts? If so, you
are mostly right, otherwise . . .
And how can you rate Grishams talent as a writer based on what they look
like as movies. That says nothing about his writing style.
>> I would argue that the better measurement we want is "timelessness".
>>What books, movies, songs will we still want to see ten years from
>>now? Or a hundred?
>
>How does that differ from box office success? People are still watching "Gone
>With the Wind" in theaters -- nearly 60 years after it first blew away the box
>office. "Star Wars" movies still sell strongly in the videocassette market.
And Vanilla Ice was a best seller, remember him? Know why he isn't around
anymore? He sucked. and the public ate him up when he first appeared.
How many other blockbusters from the age of Gone With the Wind can you
remember? Because there were not any? No, because they were not as good.
GWtW is remembered and loved not for the amount of $ it made, but because
it is a good film.
Ever heard of Citizen Kane? It did not do great in the box office, but
everyone knows what it is nowadays because it was a great movie, even
though the consuming public of its time did not turn out in droves to see
it.
>> Also, and finally, you still neglect the role that marketing has
>>in popularity. Independance Day made huge amounts of money in its
>>opening weekend. That is not a result of quality, but of marketing.
>>(And here I am not arguing that it is a bad movie.) Quality leads
>>to success over time--word of mouth spreads. The opening of any
>>"summer blockbuster" becomes an "event" today, with tie-ins to
>>Burger King and stuffed toys.
>
>I haven't heard that "Independence Day" was a bomb or a financial failure. It
>was in the theaters for quite a while last year, and also got a lot of airplay
>on television (cable and broadcast) -- all of which brought in revenues.
That was his point! The reason it did so well was the fact that they
spent Millions of dollars promoting it and creating tie-ins. Same with
Godzilla. No one has any idea what the movie is going to be like, good or
bad, but it is going to be one of the biggest (highest grossing) movies of
the summer either way. That simple fact is proof positive that your
argument is bunk.
--
Ti Alan Chase
First Age Productions
ti.c...@unh.edu
Michael Martinez
In article <6jf1ak$5...@mozz.unh.edu>, alc...@unh.edu (Alan L Chase) wrote:
>In article <6jb8s7$i8a$2...@camel21.mindspring.com>,
>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> However flawed you may feel that it is, there is no better measurement of
>>>> the quality of a movie we can refer to. The sheer numbers outweigh all
>>>> personal prejudices.
>
>I can't believe I'm hearing this in a literary newsgroup.
>Public opinion is the last thing I would use to judge the worth of a piece
>of art. I study film, it is a passion for me. I have learned the
>difference between good film making and bad film making, something which
>most people never do.
Have you learned the difference between what many people appreciate and what
few people appreciate? Art, if intended only for the few, has no merit. You
can't reach the human level by excluding most of humanity.
>The vast majority goes to the movies to be entertained and that is GREAT.
>That is what the industry is all about: entertaining.
And the discussion was about the quality of entertainment, not the quality of
education. If the masses are entertained, the entertainment is of better
quality than if the masses are not entertained.
>Unfortunately it does not take a work of art to entertain most people.
>compare how many people say The Saint or ID4 or Con Air to how many people
>saw In the Company of Men, or Eve's Bayou or The Sweet Hereafter.
>Obviously the first three far outsold the later. Are they better movies?...
Absolutely. A movie which cannot be enjoyed is not a movie worth watching.
I'm not sure you can understand that.
>...Not even close. The first three were produced to make money - a lot of
>money - and they did. The last three were made to tell good, thought
>provoking stories and they did, they also made money for the distributors,
>just not blockbuster numbers.
Low quality movies just don't make a lot of money. The fact that a movie is
an Art film doesn't imply it's a high quality film. If it's purpose is other
than to entertain, the movie might still have some entertainment value, but
its quality by that measure is not likely to be very high.
>>>Michael,
>>> Then why do we have things like critics' 10 best movies lists and
>>>academy awards?...
>>
>>Most movie critics wouldn't know a good movie if it kicked them in the teeth,
>
>Would you? Some critics are clueless (Siskel and Ebert spring to mind)
>but as a whole critics are people who have been trained to look beyond the
>glam and glitter of pre-assembled hits to see what substance there is to
>movies.
That is probably why most critics fail miserably. Movies are best when they
entertain. Not too many people want to spend their money on a yawner.
>>>...While he is probably one of the most successful classical musicians,
>>>Yo-Yo Ma probably made a lot less money. Or take books. I enjoy a good
>>>Grisham tale, but would never claim that he is the greatest author simply
>>>because he tops the best-seller lists.
>>
>>I dunno. His books inspire some good movies. I don't know how closely they
>>are tied to the books, but I've enjoyed all the Grisham-derivations I've seen.
>
>Are you still defining "good" in terms of box-office receipts? If so, you
>are mostly right, otherwise . . .
>And how can you rate Grishams talent as a writer based on what they look
>like as movies. That says nothing about his writing style.
I don't rate his talent as a writer based on what the books look like as
movies. Where do you see something like that in what I wrote?
>>> I would argue that the better measurement we want is "timelessness".
>>>What books, movies, songs will we still want to see ten years from
>>>now? Or a hundred?
>>
>>How does that differ from box office success? People are still watching "Gone
>>With the Wind" in theaters -- nearly 60 years after it first blew away the box
>>office. "Star Wars" movies still sell strongly in the videocassette market.
>
>And Vanilla Ice was a best seller, remember him? Know why he isn't around
>anymore? He sucked. and the public ate him up when he first appeared.
I didn't. But Carole King still gets airplay. "Tapestry" was one of the
highest selling rock albums of all time (and held the number 1 slot for
years). What about Michael Jackson's "Thriller"? It still gets plenty of
airplay, and still sells well.
>How many other blockbusters from the age of Gone With the Wind can you
>remember?
How many would you like me to name? There were some good movies made back
then, and they still show on television and are doing well enough in the video
market. I even own some videos of old movies/serials.
>Because there were not any? No, because they were not as good.
>GWtW is remembered and loved not for the amount of $ it made, but because
>it is a good film.
It wouldn't have made the money if it weren't good, however. That's the
point, which you've missed entirely.
Look at "The Wizard of Oz". It was a box-office bomb when it first came out
since it didn't make a profit. But it was really a box-office success because
it pulled in a lot of people and was re-released and re-released. Of course,
the CBS contract that lasted for decades didn't hurt, either.
>Ever heard of Citizen Kane? It did not do great in the box office, but
>everyone knows what it is nowadays because it was a great movie, even
>though the consuming public of its time did not turn out in droves to see
>it.
It's not really a great movie, and I note most of the people who make a big
fuss about it are the critics. People appreciate great movies. Not everyone
appreciates every good movie (and "Citizen Kane" was a good movie).
>>> Also, and finally, you still neglect the role that marketing has
>>>in popularity. Independance Day made huge amounts of money in its
>>>opening weekend. That is not a result of quality, but of marketing.
>>>(And here I am not arguing that it is a bad movie.) Quality leads
>>>to success over time--word of mouth spreads. The opening of any
>>>"summer blockbuster" becomes an "event" today, with tie-ins to
>>>Burger King and stuffed toys.
>>
>>I haven't heard that "Independence Day" was a bomb or a financial failure. It
>>was in the theaters for quite a while last year, and also got a lot of airplay
>>on television (cable and broadcast) -- all of which brought in revenues.
>
>That was his point! The reason it did so well was the fact that they
>spent Millions of dollars promoting it and creating tie-ins. Same with
>Godzilla. No one has any idea what the movie is going to be like, good or
>bad, but it is going to be one of the biggest (highest grossing) movies of
>the summer either way. That simple fact is proof positive that your
>argument is bunk.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about. If "Independence Day" had
been the only movie with a large production budget you might have a point, but
considering the fierce competition which rages, all the promos that are tied
into various things ("Volcano" had a huge budget last year), it's clear that a
promotional budget doesn't make or break a movie.
Try looking at the movies realistically instead of from a snotty highbrow
perspective and you may begin to understand what I'm talking about. Quality
is not determined by snobbery, it's determined by the standard a work sets for
others.
Michael Martinez
In article <6jdrbq$7...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, the Piper <tr-ol...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Mike Kew <mi...@kew1.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> >So, let me get this straight. If a bunch of ten-year-olds go to see "Ernest
>> >Has a Nosebleed", and they think it's the funniest thing they've ever seen,
>> >that makes it a great movie?
>>
>> I don't recall implying that...
>>
>
>Okay then, I take it back.
>Or perhaps it was Michael who implied that, with that popularity = quality
>stuff.
I never implied the above example, which doesn't fit what I stated. An
"Ernest Has A Nosebleed" movie, even if it appealed to every ten-year-old in
the world, would not be any better than a movie that appealed to ten-year-old
in the world, unless it appealed to everyone else, too.
William
Michael Martinez wrote:
>
>
> Have you learned the difference between what many people appreciate
> and what
> few people appreciate? Art, if intended only for the few, has no
> merit. You
> can't reach the human level by excluding most of humanity.
Where on earth did this come from? Only "the few" attend orchestra
concerts. I will however maintain that, say, the Vienna Philharmonic
performing Mahler's Sixth has decided merit. More merit, in fact, than
a tractor pull or professional wrestling match.
Axiom 1: 50% of the population is of below-average intelligence.
Axiom 2: 90% of everything is crap.
>
>
> >The vast majority goes to the movies to be entertained and that is
> GREAT.
> >That is what the industry is all about: entertaining.
>
> And the discussion was about the quality of entertainment, not the
> quality of
> education. If the masses are entertained, the entertainment is of
> better
> quality than if the masses are not entertained.
There is a difference between entertainment and art. They can overlap
where the audience is of sufficient sophistication to be entertained by
the higher or more subtle responses evoked by art. The entertainment
value for the masses of Shoenberg's "Gurrelieder" is probably pretty
low. That notwithstanding, it is still a work of higher kwality than
"Get Up and Boogie."
>
>
> >Unfortunately it does not take a work of art to entertain most
> people.
> >compare how many people say The Saint or ID4 or Con Air to how many
> people
> >saw In the Company of Men, or Eve's Bayou or The Sweet Hereafter.
> >Obviously the first three far outsold the later. Are they better
> movies?...
>
> Absolutely. A movie which cannot be enjoyed is not a movie worth
> watching.
> I'm not sure you can understand that.
A movie which one individual cannot enjoy is not worth that person's
time. "Friday the 13th" was not worth my time. I should have sued the
producers for two hours at a hundred bucks an hour. If however some
individual does enjoy "Friday the 13th" but cannot enjoy "Aleksandr
Nevskii", that's not my problem. And if the great unwashed in all their
hordes happen to think the same way, it's still not my problem.
Aesthetics are not democratic.
>
>
> >...Not even close. The first three were produced to make money - a
> lot of
> >money - and they did. The last three were made to tell good, thought
>
> >provoking stories and they did, they also made money for the
> distributors,
> >just not blockbuster numbers.
>
> Low quality movies just don't make a lot of money. The fact that a
> movie is
> an Art film doesn't imply it's a high quality film. If it's purpose
> is other
> than to entertain, the movie might still have some entertainment
> value, but
> its quality by that measure is not likely to be very high.
Really? I would submit that any of a string of 80's slasher flicks made
a pile of money. I will also contend that they were of very low
kwality. Certainly there are bad "art" films. There are also many very,
very good ones, much better films in fact than mass-appeal blockbusters
usually are.
>
>
> >>>Michael,
> >>> Then why do we have things like critics' 10 best movies lists
> and
> >>>academy awards?...
> >>
> >>Most movie critics wouldn't know a good movie if it kicked them in
> the teeth,
> >
> >Would you? Some critics are clueless (Siskel and Ebert spring to
> mind)
> >but as a whole critics are people who have been trained to look
> beyond the
> >glam and glitter of pre-assembled hits to see what substance there is
> to
> >movies.
>
> That is probably why most critics fail miserably. Movies are best
> when they
> entertain. Not too many people want to spend their money on a yawner.
Yawner, perhaps, for the dimwitted, the uneducated, the coarse, the
vulgar, the ignorant, those to whom only the skwalid sounds strong. I
WILL NOT have my artistic judgment influenced by the same public that
made The Jerry Springer Show a hit.
> [snip]
Jeff Ware
In article <355C5424...@gamewood.net>, soli...@gamewood.net wrote:
> Michael Martinez wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Have you learned the difference between what many people appreciate
> > and what
> > few people appreciate? Art, if intended only for the few, has no
> > merit. You
> > can't reach the human level by excluding most of humanity.
>
Perhaps I am looking at this out of context, but this statement really
confuses me. If I make a gift intended for a specific person, does this
diminish it's merit? (One could argue that this was true of
LOTR--intended for JRRT's son) Many artists are not appreciated in their
day. Is their art really intended for me, the late 20th century american,
whose life is so profoundly different from their own?
--Jeff
jon.o...@eudoramail.com
In article <355C5424...@gamewood.net>, solicitr wrote:
>Michael Martinez wrote:
>>Have you learned the difference between what many people appreciate
>>and what few people appreciate? Art, if intended only for the few, has no
>>merit. You can't reach the human level by excluding most of humanity.
>Where on earth did this come from? Only "the few" attend orchestra
>concerts. I will however maintain that, say, the Vienna Philharmonic
>performing Mahler's Sixth has decided merit.
Agreed.
>More merit, in fact, than a tractor pull or professional wrestling match.
You know this to be true, do you? Is the relative merit of Mahler vs.
tractor pulls documented somewhere?
>>>The vast majority goes to the movies to be entertained and that is
>>>GREAT. That is what the industry is all about: entertaining.
>>And the discussion was about the quality of entertainment, not the
>>quality of education. If the masses are entertained, the entertainment is
>>of better quality than if the masses are not entertained.
>There is a difference between entertainment and art.
What would that be?
>They can overlap where the audience is of sufficient sophistication to be
>entertained by the higher or more subtle responses evoked by art.
At what level of decreased subtleness of response does a stimulus cease being
art and start being mere entertainment?
>The entertainment value for the masses of Shoenberg's "Gurrelieder" is
>probably pretty low.
Which only proves that Schoenberg was not an entertainer who appealed to the
masses.
>That notwithstanding, it is still a work of higher kwality than "Get Up and
>Boogie."
How do you know this?
>>Absolutely. A movie which cannot be enjoyed is not a movie worth watching.
>>I'm not sure you can understand that.
>A movie which one individual cannot enjoy is not worth that person's
>time. "Friday the 13th" was not worth my time. I should have sued the
>producers for two hours at a hundred bucks an hour.
Why did you go see it? You knew what "Friday the 13th" was going to be. The
best you should hope for is a refund from the cinema where you saw it. A
movie studio doesn't owe you entertainment. They owe you a decent product for
your money, which is why you would be perfectly justified in requesting a
refund of your money, but they don't owe you "entertainment". It's *your* job
to be entertained.
>If however some individual does enjoy "Friday the 13th" but cannot enjoy
>"Aleksandr Nevskii", that's not my problem.
And the reverse is no one else's problem, either.
>And if the great unwashed in all their hordes happen to think the same way,
>it's still not my problem. Aesthetics are not democratic.
But they are highly personal and subjective.
I agree with your artistic tastes (I wouild rather lsiten to Mahler than see
a tractor pull), but not your assessment of art vs. entertainment. I would
say an NFL football game is as much a work of art as any sculpture or
painting in any gallery. I don't particularly *like* NFL football games, but
those who do probably don't like Stravinsky.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Michael Martinez
>> and what few people appreciate? Art, if intended only for the few,
>> has no merit. You can't reach the human level by excluding most of
>> humanity.
>
>concerts. I will however maintain that, say, the Vienna Philharmonic
>a tractor pull or professional wrestling match.
>
Nope. "average intelligence" is defined as a range, not a point, in all the
bell curves I've seen.
>Axiom 2: 90% of everything is crap.
That says a great deal.
Of course, comparing the Vienna Philharmonic to a tractor pull doesn't fit
into my top ten percent of valid comparisons.
>> >The vast majority goes to the movies to be entertained and that is
>> >GREAT. That is what the industry is all about: entertaining.
>>
>> And the discussion was about the quality of entertainment, not the
>> quality of education. If the masses are entertained, the entertainment
>> is of better quality than if the masses are not entertained.
>
>There is a difference between entertainment and art. They can overlap
>where the audience is of sufficient sophistication to be entertained by
>the higher or more subtle responses evoked by art. The entertainment
>value for the masses of Shoenberg's "Gurrelieder" is probably pretty
>low. That notwithstanding, it is still a work of higher kwality than
>"Get Up and Boogie."
Apples and oranges. If a work is created to entertain, and it entertains, it
has some quality as entertainment. It may have greater or less quality as
art. And the reverse is equally true. Hijacking this discussion so as to
"prove" that movies enjoyed by large audiences have no "quality" is invalid.
Nor will I accept snobbery some valid measure of quality.
Mike Kew
On Fri, 15 May 1998, Jon Osborn wrote
>>>and what few people appreciate? Art, if intended only for the few, has no
>>>merit. You can't reach the human level by excluding most of humanity.
>
>>concerts. I will however maintain that, say, the Vienna Philharmonic
>>performing Mahler's Sixth has decided merit.
>
Not by me.
Personally I would pay good money to be allowed to go through life
without ever hearing any of the works of Mahler again... But this
is beside the point. Substitute, say, Rachmaninov and count me in.
>>More merit, in fact, than a tractor pull or professional wrestling match.
>
>You know this to be true, do you? Is the relative merit of Mahler vs.
>tractor pulls documented somewhere?
'Documented'? You're saying you need some sort of written, perhaps
inherited, authority for these things? You can't make the decision
yourself?
>>There is a difference between entertainment and art.
>
>What would that be?
Art is something that is created, intentionally, to communicate
something. You may, if you wish, add criteria about the content,
nature and level of that communication, but AFAICS these are all
optional. Entertainment, OTOH, is whatever gives the audience
pleasure. Peering through my neighbours' curtains into their living
rooms may be entertainment, if I'm so inclined, but it's not art.
>>They can overlap where the audience is of sufficient sophistication to be
>>entertained by the higher or more subtle responses evoked by art.
>
>At what level of decreased subtleness of response does a stimulus cease being
>art and start being mere entertainment?
Good question, and I can't imagine any coherent answer that is not
purely subjective.
>> Aesthetics are not democratic.
>
>But they are highly personal and subjective.
Are these two statements compatible?
As I understand it, William is claiming that his tastes are somehow
better, in absolute terms, than those of someone whose idea of a
good time is watching all-in wrestling. I'd very much like to see
the criteria on which he feels able to base such judgments.
Not that I don't believe that there *are* such criteria - I'd just
like to see them spelt out. Until that is done, the rest of us
can't decide whether or not we would accept them as valid, nor do we
know whether you are applying them fairly or arbitrarily.
--
Mike Kew
Mike Nancarrow
Michael Martinez wrote:
>
>
> If the masses don't determine quality in performance and production through
> huge revenues, then there is no such thing as quality in the entertainment
> industry. The more people who are entertained by a movie, or rather, the more
> people to whom the movie appeals, the greater its quality.
>
> However flawed you may feel that it is, there is no better measurement of the
> quality of a movie we can refer to. The sheer numbers outweigh all personal
> prejudices.
>
>
Stephen King has outsold Tolkien many times over...
--
Mike Nancarrow
"I am a Jedi, like my father before me."
Jon Osborn
On Sat, 16 May 1998, Mike Kew wrote:
>On Fri, 15 May 1998, Jon Osborn wrote
>>In article <355C5424...@gamewood.net>, solicitr wrote:
>>>Where on earth did this come from? Only "the few" attend orchestra
>>>concerts. I will however maintain that, say, the Vienna Philharmonic
>>>performing Mahler's Sixth has decided merit.
>>Agreed.
>Not by me.
>Personally I would pay good money to be allowed to go through life
>without ever hearing any of the works of Mahler again... But this
>is beside the point. Substitute, say, Rachmaninov and count me in.
That's your business. I like Mahler *and* Rachmaninoff.
>>>More merit, in fact, than a tractor pull or professional wrestling match.
>
>>You know this to be true, do you? Is the relative merit of Mahler vs.
>>tractor pulls documented somewhere?
>'Documented'? You're saying you need some sort of written, perhaps
>inherited, authority for these things? You can't make the decision
>yourself?
My point was how could someone make such a bold statement about the
merits of one form of art/entertainment versus another.
>>>There is a difference between entertainment and art.
>>What would that be?
>Art is something that is created, intentionally, to communicate
>something.
Like an NFL football game. It may not be something everyone wants to
see, as is the case with lots of "art", but I would argue that it is
art.
>You may, if you wish, add criteria about the content,
>nature and level of that communication, but AFAICS these are all
>optional. Entertainment, OTOH, is whatever gives the audience
>pleasure. Peering through my neighbours' curtains into their living
>rooms may be entertainment, if I'm so inclined, but it's not art.
I can get behind that assessment.
>>At what level of decreased subtleness of response does a stimulus cease being
>>art and start being mere entertainment?
>Good question, and I can't imagine any coherent answer that is not
>purely subjective.
>>> Aesthetics are not democratic.
>>But they are highly personal and subjective.
>Are these two statements compatible?
My point is that it's neither here nor ther if aesthetics are
democratic. The statement "Aesthetics are not democratic" is utterly
meaningless, IMO.
>As I understand it, William is claiming that his tastes are somehow
>better, in absolute terms, than those of someone whose idea of a
>good time is watching all-in wrestling. I'd very much like to see
>the criteria on which he feels able to base such judgments.
That's my point as well. I gather he said things he did just to start
a debate about it, since it would be a pity if someone were that
arrogant about "art" and "aesthetics".
Michael Martinez
In article <355D5D43...@mail.isoc.net>, nanc...@mail.isoc.net wrote:
>Michael Martinez wrote:
>> If the masses don't determine quality in performance and production through
>> huge revenues, then there is no such thing as quality in the entertainment
>> industry. The more people who are entertained by a movie, or rather, the
>> more people to whom the movie appeals, the greater its quality.
>>
>> However flawed you may feel that it is, there is no better measurement of the
>> quality of a movie we can refer to. The sheer numbers outweigh all personal
>> prejudices.
>
> Stephen King has outsold Tolkien many times over...
Which of Stephen King's books have outsold THE LORD OF THE RINGS?
What is the point of bringing Stephen King into this anyway?
‘
>
>
> Which of Stephen King's books have outsold THE LORD OF THE RINGS?
>
> What is the point of bringing Stephen King into this anyway?
>
Individually, I don't know if any have. Collectively, they have, though. And the
point,which I thought was fairly obvious, was that
1. Stephen King has sold more books so..
2. Stephen King has entertained more people so...
3. Steven King must be a better writer than Tolkien.
Clearly, I don't believe this, and doubt you do either. It's a counter-example to
your reasoning. Unless you do believe SK is better, which I don't know since we've
never discussed it, nor do I particularly care to.
Cuteboy UK
Michael Martinez wrote in message <6jgaqq$u08$6...@camel19.mindspring.com>...
>Have you learned the difference between what many people appreciate and
what
>few people appreciate? Art, if intended only for the few, has no merit.
You
>can't reach the human level by excluding most of humanity.
Come on Michael, that's exactly what most plays do - they exclude most of
humanity. Shakespeare's plays were (generally) written for single season
runs to a small audience (a few thousand at the most). If they were very
lucky, the company would have the chance to play before their patron at
court. Very few restoration plays ran for more than three nights, and none
were seen outside of the aristocracy for a long time. A lot of Art intended
for the few has merit. It seems to me (and I may have misinterpreted you)
that you are claiming that the merit of a piece of art can only be
determined in absolute values - i:e receipts, or numbers of people who enjoy
it. This is clearly nonsense. 'In Rememberance of Things Past' is surely one
of the greatest novels of this century, but I doubt whether one per cent of
the world's population has read it. This has nothing to do with snobbery, by
the way, since I enjoy a lot of 'mass entertainments' enormously.
>And the discussion was about the quality of entertainment, not the quality
of
>education. If the masses are entertained, the entertainment is of better
>quality than if the masses are not entertained.
You may be confusing Art and Entertainment and Amusement (or pleasure). The
best Art is almost always entertaining, particularly performance art. That
does not mean that it has to be amusing, but it entertains on a sensual
level. To return to topic, I wouldn't describe TLOTR as amusing, but it is
entertaining and is a masterful work of art.
>Absolutely. A movie which cannot be enjoyed is not a movie worth
watching.
>I'm not sure you can understand that.
I'm sure that we all can, but this takes us into a purely subjective realm.
>Low quality movies just don't make a lot of money.
That's nonsense, Michael. Look at the number of 'low-quality' films that
have made fortunes. I'm using the term 'low-quality' in both senses (of
poor, or 'bad' films, and those made on a low budget') There are many 'bad'
films (and I realise that we could all argue for ever about what a 'bad'
film is) that have made a lot of money. There are also a lot of 'low budget'
movies that have made a lot of money.
<SNIP>
>It wouldn't have made the money if it weren't good, however. That's the
>point, which you've missed entirely.
I think that the point is wrong, though. Many good films that are 'bad' make
money, and many films that are 'good' lose money. It's simply not possible
to argue the worth of a film on the basis of its receipts. It is this sort
of fincial thinking whch has crippled the arts in the western world! (Excuse
me while I get off my soap box, but as a poor (I mean penniless) actor, I
feel strongly about this!
<SNIP>
<re: Citizen Kane>
>It's not really a great movie,
GASP......Cuteboy reaches to dial for an ambulance....be still my beating
heart....NOT A GREAT FILM?
Michael, I'm going to stalk you! If I ever come to America, you owe me a
large drink for the shock you've just given me!
<SNIP>
That's my tuppence! By the way, can we leave out the mention of Independence
since we're talking about good films!
Forgive me if my answers are a little peculiar tonight, but I seem to have
caught Michael's fever, and I'm lying in bed!
Lee
Michael Martinez
In article <355F65C3...@mail.isoc.net>, nanc...@mail.isoc.net wrote:
>> Which of Stephen King's books have outsold THE LORD OF THE RINGS?
>>
>> What is the point of bringing Stephen King into this anyway?
>
>Individually, I don't know if any have. Collectively, they have, though. And
>the point,which I thought was fairly obvious, was that
>1. Stephen King has sold more books so..
>2. Stephen King has entertained more people so...
>3. Steven King must be a better writer than Tolkien.
>
>Clearly, I don't believe this, and doubt you do either. It's a counter-example
>to your reasoning.
It would only be a counter-example if you could identify one Stephen King book
that has outsold THE LORD OF THE RINGS. Put King's best shot up against
Tolkien's. The number of people who have read King (and enjoyed the
experience) probably is considerably smaller than the number of books he has
sold -- the man has, I understand, a large and loyal fan base. Tolkien does
too, but he wasn't as prolific as King.
Michael Martinez
In article <6jnl9k$al8$6...@apple.news.easynet.net>, "Cuteboy UK" <Lee.w...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
>Michael Martinez wrote in message <6jgaqq$u08$6...@camel19.mindspring.com>...
>>what few people appreciate? Art, if intended only for the few, has no
>>merit. You can't reach the human level by excluding most of humanity.
>
>humanity. Shakespeare's plays were (generally) written for single season
>runs to a small audience (a few thousand at the most). If they were very
>lucky, the company would have the chance to play before their patron at
>court. Very few restoration plays ran for more than three nights, and none
>were seen outside of the aristocracy for a long time. A lot of Art intended
>for the few has merit.
Here I interject a question. Was Shakespeare writing for a particular
audience, or was he writing for whomever could arrange to be in the theater
when the play was performed? I doubt Shakespeare had the Chinese in mind when
he was working on his characters, but was he intentionally excluding them?
That I also doubt.
>It seems to me (and I may have misinterpreted you) that you are claiming that
>the merit of a piece of art can only be determined in absolute values - i:e
>receipts, or numbers of people who enjoy it. This is clearly nonsense.
I'll be honest. I have no idea of what my point was that day. Someone was
going on about how he had studied film and how Art was great or something like
that. It appeared to me to be yet another roundabout way of bashing Disney.
Until I'm over this infection, I'm not likely to be at my prosaic best, and
doubtless will wonder what the hell I was trying to say two days after I write
just about anything. Sorry about that.
[a little more snippage]
>You may be confusing Art and Entertainment and Amusement (or pleasure).
No. Of this much I am sure: quality is not determined by whether one is
discussing Art or Entertainment (or pleasure). It is determined by whether
something is exceptionally (good or bad) when compared to similar things. We
speak of the quality of cars, the quality of bicycles, the quality of
entertainment and the quality of art. We do not compare bicycles to cars and
say that cars are of higher quality, nor do we compare art to nuclear bombs
and say that nuclear bombs are of greater quality.
[more snippage]
>That's nonsense, Michael. Look at the number of 'low-quality' films that
>have made fortunes. I'm using the term 'low-quality' in both senses (of
>poor, or 'bad' films, and those made on a low budget') There are many 'bad'
>films (and I realise that we could all argue for ever about what a 'bad'
>film is) that have made a lot of money. There are also a lot of 'low budget'
>movies that have made a lot of money.
Some high quality films have been made on low budgets. The quality of a movie
is best determined by its success at the box office. Whether a film is
financially successful is not enough. If it is more successful than most
films (or, if you prefer, than most films in its category) then it is a high
quality film.
>>It wouldn't have made the money if it weren't good, however. That's the
>>point, which you've missed entirely.
>
>I think that the point is wrong, though. Many good films that are 'bad' make
>money, and many films that are 'good' lose money.
No, that's not the way of it at all. A "good" film is not a film that person
A prefers over another film regardless of whether it makes money. It is not
possible to argue the worth of a film on anything OTHER than its receipts, for
only the receipts stand outside of subjectivity -- only receipts are not
doctored by the preferences of opinions.
><SNIP>
><re: Citizen Kane>
>>It's not really a great movie,
>
>GASP......Cuteboy reaches to dial for an ambulance....be still my beating
>heart....NOT A GREAT FILM?
>Michael, I'm going to stalk you! If I ever come to America, you owe me a
>large drink for the shock you've just given me!
It's still not a great movie.
><SNIP>
>
>That's my tuppence! By the way, can we leave out the mention of Independence
>since we're talking about good films!
"Indepence Day" was enjoyed by millions of people. It's at the very least a
"good" film.
William
Michael Martinez wrote:
> >
> >There is a difference between entertainment and art. They can
> overlap
> >where the audience is of sufficient sophistication to be entertained
> by
> >the higher or more subtle responses evoked by art. The entertainment
>
> >value for the masses of Shoenberg's "Gurrelieder" is probably pretty
> >low. That notwithstanding, it is still a work of higher kwality than
>
> >"Get Up and Boogie."
>
> Apples and oranges. If a work is created to entertain, and it
> entertains, it
> has some quality as entertainment. It may have greater or less
> quality as
> art. And the reverse is equally true. Hijacking this discussion so
> as to
> "prove" that movies enjoyed by large audiences have no "quality" is
> invalid.
I didn't hijack anything. >Michael Martinez wrote:
>> Have you learned the difference between what many people appreciate
>> and what few people appreciate? Art, if intended only for the few,
>> has no merit. You can't reach the human level by excluding most of
>> humanity.
This was your own statement. A test which, I would suggest, renders The
Silmarillion wholly meritless.
William
Jon Osborn wrote:
I was merely trying to point up the idiocy of ekwating "kwality" or
"artistic merit" with mass appeal or "entertainment value." There are
lots of things which entertain me (and most other Americans) immensely,
which I doubt have much in the way of artistic value. Melrose
Space-er-Starship Troopers- comes to mind. I think that the two realms
are very much apples and oranges, and it's silly to opine that a
particular work's artistic merit is measurable by some sort of economic
plebiscite.
jon.o...@eudoramail.com
In article <35605753...@gamewood.net>, solicitr wrote:
>I was merely trying to point up the idiocy of ekwating "kwality" or
>"artistic merit" with mass appeal or "entertainment value." There are
>lots of things which entertain me (and most other Americans) immensely,
>which I doubt have much in the way of artistic value. Melrose
>Space-er-Starship Troopers- comes to mind. I think that the two realms
>are very much apples and oranges, and it's silly to opine that a
>particular work's artistic merit is measurable by some sort of economic
>plebiscite.
I hate to be so trite, but one person's "art" is another's "mere
emtertainment". Art must be emotionally appealing in some fashion, i.e.
*entertaining*, or it's not art. It's nothing at all.
Michael Martinez
>>> and what few people appreciate? Art, if intended only for the few,
>>> has no merit. You can't reach the human level by excluding most of
>>> humanity.
>
>Silmarillion wholly meritless.
To which Silmarillion do you make reference? The one JRRT wanted to see
published and spent many years trying to get ready for publication or the one
Christopher Tolkien finally published for the sake of his father's fans?
William
Michael Martinez wrote:
> In article <35605603...@gamewood.net>, soli...@gamewood.net
> wrote:
> >Michael Martinez wrote:
> >>> Have you learned the difference between what many people
> appreciate
> >>> and what few people appreciate? Art, if intended only for the
> few,
> >>> has no merit. You can't reach the human level by excluding most
> of
> >>> humanity.
> >
> >This was your own statement. A test which, I would suggest, renders
> The
> >Silmarillion wholly meritless.
>
> To which Silmarillion do you make reference? The one JRRT wanted to
> see
> published and spent many years trying to get ready for publication or
> the one
> Christopher Tolkien finally published for the sake of his father's
> fans?
Either one. Do you contend that either is wholly meritless?
BTW, most people who start The Sil. and lose interest are defeated by
Ainulindale and Valakwenta- almost pure JRRT texts.
Cuteboy UK
Michael Martinez wrote in message <6jo1a1$hv8$3...@camel19.mindspring.com>...
>>>Art, if intended only for the few, has no
>>>merit. You can't reach the human level by excluding most of humanity.
>>
>>Come on Michael, that's exactly what most plays do - they exclude most of
>>humanity. Shakespeare's plays were (generally) written for single season
>>runs to a small audience (a few thousand at the most<SNIP
>
>Here I interject a question. Was Shakespeare writing for a particular
>audience, or was he writing for whomever could arrange to be in the theater
>when the play was performed? I doubt Shakespeare had the Chinese in mind
when
>he was working on his characters, but was he intentionally excluding them?
>That I also doubt.
That's surely irrelevant. You wrote that 'Art, if intended only for the few,
has no
merit.'. Shakespeare's art was intended only for the few.
>
>>It seems to me (and I may have misinterpreted you) that you are claiming
that
>>the merit of a piece of art can only be determined in absolute values -
i:e
>>receipts, or numbers of people who enjoy it. This is clearly nonsense.
<SNIP>
>Until I'm over this infection, I'm not likely to be at my prosaic best, and
>doubtless will wonder what the hell I was trying to say two days after I
write
>just about anything. Sorry about that.
No problem. I've been in bed with nothing but Organic fruit and homeopathic
gelsemium myself this week!
<SNIP>quality is not determined by whether one is
>discussing Art or Entertainment (or pleasure). It is determined by whether
>something is exceptionally (good or bad) when compared to similar things.
We
>speak of the quality of cars, the quality of bicycles, the quality of
>entertainment and the quality of art. We do not compare bicycles to cars
and
>say that cars are of higher quality, nor do we compare art to nuclear bombs
>and say that nuclear bombs are of greater quality.
That's true, but neither do we say that one bicycle is better in quality
simply because it sells more. It may be better 'value for money', but that
is a different issue.
>
>[more snippage]
There are also a lot of 'low budget'
>>movies that have made a lot of money.
>
>Some high quality films have been made on low budgets.
I agree, and that was the point of my last sentence.
The quality of a movie
>is best determined by its success at the box office.
I profoundly disagree! The APPEAL of a film, and it's financial worth, can
be determined by receipts, but nothing else, and certainly not its quality.
Whether a film is
>financially successful is not enough. If it is more successful than most
>films (or, if you prefer, than most films in its category) then it is a
high
>quality film.
How, though, do you determine 'category'? Surely any film that is a
'quality' film will break out of categories?
>>I think that the point is wrong, though. Many good films that are 'bad'
make
>>money, and many films that are 'good' lose money.
>
>No, that's not the way of it at all. A "good" film is not a film that
person
>A prefers over another film regardless of whether it makes money. It is
not
>possible to argue the worth of a film on anything OTHER than its receipts,
for
>only the receipts stand outside of subjectivity -- only receipts are not
>doctored by the preferences of opinions.
I think that you have inverted the argument. Any work of Art can only be
judged by subjective means. That is why all works are hotly debated. If it
was possible to eastablish such a criterion as you have mentioned, then
'Art' would in fact be 'Science'.
>"Indepence Day" was enjoyed by millions of people. It's at the very least
a
>"good" film.
'Independence day' was WATCHED by millions of people, including me. Whether
they enjoyed it, we shall never know. Its video sales have been disastrous
in the UK.
I think that we had better not get into a discussion about which films are
'good' and 'bad'.....we will never agree I think!
Best,
Lee
Rich Depro
>>BTW the original question was, is the Silmarillion of little value simply
>>because not too many people have read it (or been able to read it)?
>>
>>I would say it has great value as a creative work, regardless of
popularity.
I enjoyed it immensely! Regardless if Christopher helped write in it or not.
It was some tough reading at the start, but once through I really enjoyed
the book!
I think that it answered allot of my questions about the world, or better
yet fleshed out allot of the areas that were Grey. It let you know where
everything stood, before all the hoopla'
Rich
Err...endil the Web-Mariner
On 13 May 1998 02:52:09 GMT, the Piper <tr-ol...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
>Bruce N. Hietbrink writes:
>
>> Perhaps, to connect the two thoughts above, a better measure of
>> a movie's quality would not be simple box-office, but instead consistent
>> box-office over time. A really bad movie can have a great first weekend
>> due to marketing, but drops quickly from the picture. A really good
>> movie may start quietly, but keeps drawing people in.
>
>Well said. I have thought about this before. Particularly with those
>Spice Girls. They are so bad. Fortunately, no one will care in a few years.
>
>Also, by Michael's logic, Titanic would be the best movie ever made. Ha!
>I dare you to find any respectable critic who would say that.
>
>P
If you are going to bitch about movies and box-office hits, I'd better
jump in. Not to stop the fight, no, I'm too great fan of Independance
Day to do that. "I'M BAAACK!!!!!" I still chuckle evily when I think
of that scene.
On a serious note, the problem I have with today's movies and music :
there are no classics, only flavours of the month. Remember Wet Wet
Wet. But two years ago everybody could hum "I fell it in my
fingers..." backwards (even if they didn't want to listen to it, it
was stuffed down their throats) Today you'll have to dig deep into the
Bargain Bucket to find one of their CD's. But the movies people went
mad about 10-50 years ago we still watch today :Casablanca, Ben Hur,
10 Commandments, Lawrence of Arabia, Star Trek series, 2001, Dirty
Dancing, Alien series, The Godfather series and of course, Star Wars
(I for one own the complete set of movies) do you think people will
watch Titanic in 20 years? No, cause by then there will be better
special effects, prettier faces and bigger budgets, aka better
box-office hits. There is nothing classic about Titanic. The acting
was horrible, the story is too shallow to watch the 3 1/2 hours again
and even the music gets irritating after you've heard it 50 times.
Don't get me wrong, I don't regret watching it, but you would have to
pay me to watch it again.
Now let's take the other side of the coin. I can recite the words of
Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody" in my sleep, I could start quoting the
first lines of Star Wars: A New Hope and stop 2h 05 mins and 36 secs
later (the exact duration of the first movie :-) I still feel tears in
my eyes when I hear Simon & Garfunkel's Silent Night/7 o'clock News
(where they sing Silent Night as background for the Christmas Day 7:00
news of 1970 something and all the news of the Vietnam war and murders
and all) One of the greatest pieces of art ever written. I can't wait
till I can watch through all 5 or 6 hours of Ben Hur again. They were
classics. And deny it or not, Disney has the ability to make classics.
The original movies (made by Walt) like Snow White, Sleeping Beauty
and Fantasia are beautiful. But they also can bugger up anything that
comes within reach. The moment they tried making "serious" films like
Pocahontas, Hunchback and now Herakles (I refuse to use the Roman name
in a Greek myth) they killed it. The only exception to this rule I
know of is "Lion King" . The only reason I think they didn't mess up
Lion King was because it was an original script. We don't know how the
original looked like, so we can't see how they changed it. Disney
should do that more often.
To put all of this in a paragraph : when Disney doesn't try to take a
serious work and edit it with a butcher's knife, they make great
movies. When they do, they mess up. Which means they should stay
lightyears away from LotR. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the
subject header.
With regards
Err...endil the Web-Mariner
***********Quote of the Week********** Marinus Ferreira
* Great spirits have always faced *
* voilent protest from mediocre * Err...endil the Web-Mariner
* minds *
****** *****Albert Einstein*********** mar...@lantic.co.za
Mike Nancarrow
Speaking of Titanic, Err...endil the Web-Mariner wrote:
> There is nothing classic about Titanic. The acting
> was horrible, the story is too shallow to watch the 3 1/2 hours again
> and even the music gets irritating after you've heard it 50 times.
> Don't get me wrong, I don't regret watching it, but you would have to
> pay me to watch it again.
Interestingly (or perhaps not )one of the teenage girl magazines took a poll,
asking "How much money would it take for you to never watch Titanic again?" and
45% of their readers that responded it would take >$1,000,000, and another 20%
said "no amount of money is enough." Percentages are approximate, I don't
really read teenage girl mags. (My sister is 14)
> . The only reason I think they didn't mess up
> Lion King was because it was an original script. We don't know how the
> original looked like, so we can't see how they changed it. Disney
> should do that more often.
It was only semi-original. The original was called Hamlet, and featured people
instead of animals. You've probably heard of it. ;)
>
>
> To put all of this in a paragraph : when Disney doesn't try to take a
> serious work and edit it with a butcher's knife, they make great
> movies. When they do, they mess up. Which means they should stay
> lightyears away from LotR. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the
> subject header.
I agree, on all 4 counts.
Mordechai Housman
Mike Nancarrow wrote:
>
> > . The only reason I think they didn't mess up
> > Lion King was because it was an original script. We don't know how the
> > original looked like, so we can't see how they changed it. Disney
> > should do that more often.
>
> It was only semi-original. The original was called Hamlet, and featured people
> instead of animals. You've probably heard of it. ;)
of the British Royal family, among others.
Mordechai
SMGCFAM
> Which of Stephen King's books have outsold THE LORD OF THE RINGS?
>>>
>>> What is the point of bringing Stephen King into this anyway?
>>
>>Individually, I don't know if any have. Collectively, they have, though.
>And
>>the point,which I thought was fairly obvious, was that
>>1. Stephen King has sold more books so..
>>2. Stephen King has entertained more people so...
>>3. Steven King must be a better writer than Tolkien.
>>
>>Clearly, I don't believe this, and doubt you do either. It's a
>counter-example
>>to your reasoning.
>
>It would only be a counter-example if you could identify one Stephen King
>book
>that has outsold THE LORD OF THE RINGS. Put King's best shot up against
>Tolkien's. The number of people who have read King (and enjoyed the
>experience) probably is considerably smaller than the number of books he has
>sold -- the man has, I understand, a large and loyal fan base. Tolkien does
>too, but he wasn't as prolific as King.
>
>
>
Perhaps the better question to ask (and few living today will be able to
answer) will Tolkien be in print one hundred years from now and will Stephen
King. I don't know but I remember years ago in the early 60's there was a
letter debate in an old T.V. Guide type magazine in NYC about who was the
greatest entertainer of all time? Many people wrote in to give there reasons
why they thought it was Al Jolson. When I recently mentioned this to a friend
of mine she said "Who's Al Jolson?" Ironic isn't it? and only 30, not 100
years have passed.
SMGCFAM
>
>Come on Michael, that's exactly what most plays do - they exclude most of
>humanity. Shakespeare's plays were (generally) written for single season
>lucky, the company would have the chance to play before their patron at
>court.
I didn't realize this but would you say that most of humanity was purposely
excluded by the limitations of the Eliabethan stage (and by the limitations of
16th/17th century communication)? I know little about Elizabethan and Jacobean
drama but I seem to remember from my high school English that the audience of
Shakespeare (i.e. those who had the physical and temporal ability to attend a
Globe theater play) was anything but exclusive. Shakespeare, to paraphrase Mad
Magazine had both snob appeal and slob appeal.
Eirik Berg Hanssen
... and here I thought he based it on the medieval ballads of the
Danish prince Amlod, who acted as if he were crazy, so that he might
slay his father's murderer ...
Probably just the resemblence of this young prince's name to that of
Shakespear's play -- after all, there is no *real* similarity between
a ballad and a play :-)
In any case, I am truly grateful Disney chose to title it Lion King,
not Hamlet.
Now if only they could have found some titles of their own to go
with their mermaids, hunchbacks, and wooden boys ...
Eirik
Michael Martinez
In article <6kq9tq$j...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, the Piper <tr-ol...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Shakespeare adapted a lot of stories, both traditional tales and events
>from history. Unlike Disney, however, he did a good job.
Hah!
Disney by far does the better job!
Oh, that one was rich! :)
the Piper
Shakespeare adapted a lot of stories, both traditional tales and events
from history. Unlike Disney, however, he did a good job.
P
Mike Kew
On Sat, 30 May 1998, SMGCFAM wrote
[replying to Cuteboy - attrib snipped]
Shakespeare appealed to several social strata, but his contemporary
audience was severely limited by technology and geography. The only
common people who could attend his plays would be those who lived within
a few miles of where they were being staged - there would have been
almost no common folk from outside London (for those plays that were
produced at the Globe).
--
Mike Kew
Cuteboy UK
SMGCFAM wrote in message
<199805302130...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>>
>>Come on Michael, that's exactly what most plays do - they exclude most of
>>humanity. Shakespeare's plays were (generally) written for single season
>>runs to a small audience (a few thousand at the most). If they were very
>>lucky, the company would have the chance to play before their patron at
>>court.
>
>I didn't realize this but would you say that most of humanity was purposely
>excluded by the limitations of the Eliabethan stage (and by the limitations
of
>16th/17th century communication)? I know little about Elizabethan and
Jacobean
>drama but I seem to remember from my high school English that the audience
of
>Shakespeare (i.e. those who had the physical and temporal ability to attend
a
>Globe theater play) was anything but exclusive. Shakespeare, to paraphrase
Mad
>Magazine had both snob appeal and slob appeal.
No, I wouldn't say that most of humanity was 'PURPOSELY' excluded. However,
most of humanity was excluded by the very nature of the performances. I made
the point in relation to one of Michael's posts, but I can't remember which
now!
In fact, audience of the Globe was fairly exclusive. Shakespeare's writing
for the masses is another myth. Most of the 'groundlings' were
undergraduates and sons of wealthier artisans. The work of Andrew gurr is
very good on this. Shakespeare's company also toured extensively in the
winter months - largely to aristocracy.
Lee
>
Cuteboy UK
Mike Kew wrote in message ...
>Shakespeare appealed to several social strata, but his contemporary
>audience was severely limited by technology and geography. The only
>common people who could attend his plays would be those who lived within
>a few miles of where they were being staged - there would have been
>almost no common folk from outside London (for those plays that were
>produced at the Globe).
I don't agree. By far the most common entertainment with the 'common people'
was bear-baiting. Even in Shakespeare's time, The Theatre was seen as an
exclusive activity. Strolling companies were another matter, however. The
myth of Shakespeare's universiality has come about because of academics
wishing to explain why his works have endured so long.
Lee