the "Earthsea" series
Alma Hromic Deckert
thinks of the new SF channel miniseries:
http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2111107
i swear to god, if anyone EVER decides to do one of my books up in
hollywood tinsel i will not go and see it. i'd be too damned scared
about what sort of evil twin to my work might be about to be born...
A.
Brian M. Scott
<ang...@vaxer.net> wrote in
<news:qca6s05fuifvb853u...@4ax.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2111107
The only really honest film adaptation of a fantasy novel
that I've seen was the animated _The Last Unicorn_.
Brian
Dorothy J Heydt
The _Watership Down_ film was good. In fact, it was excellent.
In fact, it was not only faithful to the book (though of course
it had to leave a good bit out), but it was faithful in such a
way that
* although it is possible to appreciate the movie without having
read the book,
* one can appreciate it even more if one has read the book.
The tale of El-ahrairah and the Black Rabbit, for instance,
was snipped, but a line from it is quoted at a completely
relevant moment and it made my heart turn right over.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
Brian M. Scott
<djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in <news:I8vvp...@kithrup.com>
in rec.arts.sf.composition:
> In article <azqnj66dw94u$.1l78y5r0...@40tude.net>,
> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
[...]
>>The only really honest film adaptation of a fantasy novel
>>that I've seen was the animated _The Last Unicorn_.
> The _Watership Down_ film was good.
Now that you mention it, I think that I did see that, and to
the small extent that I remember anything about it, I'd have
to agree. But for some reason neither the book nor the film
made much of an impression on me.
[...]
Brian
Dorothy J Heydt
Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 20:32:09 GMT, Dorothy J Heydt
><djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in <news:I8vvp...@kithrup.com>
>in rec.arts.sf.composition:
>
>> In article <azqnj66dw94u$.1l78y5r0...@40tude.net>,
>> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>The only really honest film adaptation of a fantasy novel
>>>that I've seen was the animated _The Last Unicorn_.
>
>> The _Watership Down_ film was good.
>
>Now that you mention it, I think that I did see that, and to
>the small extent that I remember anything about it, I'd have
>to agree. But for some reason neither the book nor the film
>made much of an impression on me.
Well, YMMV. They did on me.
Maybe because I already knew a reasonable amount about rabbits
(Hal and I had raised them) and aside for a few trivia like being
able to talk, and Fiver's ESP, those rabbits really acted like
rabbits.
jere7my tho?rpe
> The only really honest film adaptation of a fantasy novel
> that I've seen was the animated _The Last Unicorn_.
"The Princess Bride" was very close to the book, probably because
Goldman wrote both book and script. They changed some things (some
elisions, some changes in tone, especially the ending), but it was quite
faithful overall.
Of course, it's also a very filmable story, and Goldman wrote it with
that in mind.
----j7y
--
jere7my tho?rpe | "The land knows whom it sent out;
(440) 775-1522 | In the place of human beings
jere...@oberlin.net | Their ashes in urns
http://jere7my.livejournal.com | Come back to each man's house."
--- Aeschylus, The Agamemnon
Elizabeth
wrote in <news:I8vvp...@kithrup.com>:
> In article <azqnj66dw94u$.1l78y5r0...@40tude.net>,
> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:48:29 -0800, Alma Hromic Deckert
>><ang...@vaxer.net> wrote in
>><news:qca6s05fuifvb853u...@4ax.com> in
>>rec.arts.sf.composition:
>>
>>> do the film-makers NEVER get it right?... here's what the author
>>> thinks of the new SF channel miniseries:
It makes me glad I don't have cable. Instead I'll re-read the books.
>>The only really honest film adaptation of a fantasy novel
>>that I've seen was the animated _The Last Unicorn_.
Yes.
> The _Watership Down_ film was good. In fact, it was excellent.
I haven't seen that since I was a kid, but I loved it then (once I had been
forced to watch it, and discovered that it wasn't another war movie after
all). I have the book but haven't gotten around to reading it yet.
--
Elizabeth
polly.callan at earthlink dot net
http://home.earthlink.net/~polly.callan
http://www.livejournal.com/users/pollyc/
Marilee J. Layman
Well, you don't *have* to sell it to them.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Marilee J. Layman
I'm looking forward to Howl's Moving Castle. (And tomorrow there will
be a letter to the WashPost editor from me about an article on anime,
which claims HMC to be "homegrown" compared to US cartoons like
Spongebob. No mention of DWJ.)
--
Marilee J. Layman
David Friedman
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
Does _The Princess Bride_ not count as a fantasy novel?
--
Remove NOSPAM to email
Also remove .invalid
www.daviddfriedman.com
Jacey Bedford
Deckert <ang...@vaxer.net> writes
:-)
Jacey
--
Jacey Bedford
jacey at artisan hyphen harmony dot com
David Langford
Ah, but Diana Wynne Jones tells me that she's delighted with Miyazaki's
animated version of =Howl's Moving Castle=. See:
http://www.infinitematrix.net/columns/langford/langford151.html
Dave
--
David Langford
http://ansible.co.uk/
Latest book: =Different Kinds of Darkness= (collection, Cosmos, 2004)
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
wrote:
>Ah, but Diana Wynne Jones tells me that she's delighted with Miyazaki's
>animated version of =Howl's Moving Castle=. See:
Ah, but that's Miyazaki.
vlatko
--
vlatko.ju...@zg.htnet.hr
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:48:29 -0800, Alma Hromic Deckert <ang...@vaxer.net>
> wrote:
>
> >do the film-makers NEVER get it right?... here's what the author
> >thinks of the new SF channel miniseries:
> >
> >http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2111107
> >
> >i swear to god, if anyone EVER decides to do one of my books up in
> >hollywood tinsel i will not go and see it. i'd be too damned scared
> >about what sort of evil twin to my work might be about to be born...
>
> Ah, but Diana Wynne Jones tells me that she's delighted with Miyazaki's
> animated version of =Howl's Moving Castle=. See:
Were Myazaki to ask for my plots, I would go down on my knees and cry
and say "You can do whatever you want with them, Master."
--
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan - ada...@spamcop.net - this is a valid address
homepage: http://www.fantascienza.net/sfpeople/elethiomel
English blog: http://annafdd.blogspot.com/
LJ: http://www.livejournal.com/users/annafdd/
Sea Wasp
> In message <qca6s05fuifvb853u...@4ax.com>, Alma Hromic
> Deckert <ang...@vaxer.net> writes
>
>> do the film-makers NEVER get it right?... here's what the author
>> thinks of the new SF channel miniseries:
>>
>> http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2111107
>>
>> i swear to god, if anyone EVER decides to do one of my books up in
>> hollywood tinsel i will not go and see it. i'd be too damned scared
>> about what sort of evil twin to my work might be about to be born...
>>
>> A.
>
> Just take the money and run!
I'll go see it. I will probably loudly mock it, unless someone like
Peter Jackson or Sam Raimi does the adaptation, but I'll go see it.
(Sam is actually the one I suspect would do Digital Knight best).
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
Sea Wasp
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:48:29 -0800, Alma Hromic Deckert <ang...@vaxer.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>do the film-makers NEVER get it right?... here's what the author
>>thinks of the new SF channel miniseries:
>>
>>http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2111107
>>
>>i swear to god, if anyone EVER decides to do one of my books up in
>>hollywood tinsel i will not go and see it. i'd be too damned scared
>>about what sort of evil twin to my work might be about to be born...
>
>
> Ah, but Diana Wynne Jones tells me that she's delighted with Miyazaki's
> animated version of =Howl's Moving Castle=.
Well, duh, that's Miyazaki. If Miyazaki came to me and said he wanted
to animate DK, I'd hand him the rights for a dollar. Okay, Jason and
Syl would look like his standard protagonists, probably, but I can
live with that. Though I think Miyazaki would be better to do Diamonds.
Julia Jones
<seaobvi...@sgeobviousinc.com> writes
and anyway, it would probably involve a choice between Amazon or a
sleazy shop to buy the straight-to-DVD...
--
Julia Jones
Brian M. Scott
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nospam.com> wrote in
<news:ddfr-E5326A.1...@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>
in rec.arts.sf.composition:
> In article <azqnj66dw94u$.1l78y5r0...@40tude.net>,
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
[...]
>> The only really honest film adaptation of a fantasy novel
>> that I've seen was the animated _The Last Unicorn_.
> Does _The Princess Bride_ not count as a fantasy novel?
Haven't seen the film.
I'm not really all that fond of the medium, though over the
years I have gone to a few on my own in addition to the ones
that I've seen in company. It's probably been ten years
since I actually went into a theatre, though a friend showed
me 'Chocolat' on DVD a couple of years ago. (Which
definitely qualifies as fantasy, but in this case I haven't
read the book.)
Brian
Kerry J. Renaissance-McAdams
wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:48:29 -0800, Alma Hromic Deckert <ang...@vaxer.net>
>wrote:
>
>>do the film-makers NEVER get it right?... here's what the author
>>thinks of the new SF channel miniseries:
>>
>>http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2111107
>>
>>i swear to god, if anyone EVER decides to do one of my books up in
>>hollywood tinsel i will not go and see it. i'd be too damned scared
>>about what sort of evil twin to my work might be about to be born...
>
>Ah, but Diana Wynne Jones tells me that she's delighted with Miyazaki's
>animated version of =Howl's Moving Castle=. See:
>
>http://www.infinitematrix.net/columns/langford/langford151.html
Miyazaki's animated work has been pretty wonderful so far. Though I
suppose he could butcher something, I know I'd be more likely to trust
him with my fantasy work than most if I had something to put into that
ring.
Peter Knutsen
I think Le Guin makes far too much of a fuss about the
colour issue. I can easily understand her frustration about
the script hack ignoring her plot (and I suspect he also
ignored the *important* aspects of her setting), but this
obsession with skin colour...? One might almost suspect that
Le Guin has some sort of fetisch for non-Caucasians.
More non-whites in big movies would be cool, yes (and I'm
sure most of us have gotten to the point where we can tell
two African actors apart, even though they're both male
(although I, personally, had problems with some of the
young, male Caucasians the first time I saw Twin Peaks!!),
but what's all the fuss. Why write an *entire* article about
skin colour? The *important* parts of a story are the world,
the characters and the plot, in that order, and if someone
has a message (as Larry Niven once said, or so I've been
told), she should write a letter, *not* a book.
(I happen to like the first novel *very* much, but the two
sequels were only reasonably good, and I have nothing good
to say about the fourth; it reminds me, badly, of the
message->letter thing)
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
Sea Wasp wrote:
[movies based on books in general, presumably]
> I'll go see it. I will probably loudly mock it, unless someone like
> Peter Jackson or Sam Raimi does the adaptation, but I'll go see it.
> (Sam is actually the one I suspect would do Digital Knight best).
Based on the way Peter Jackson butchered Lord of the Rings,
I might very well be willing to commit murder in order to
keep him *far* away from the stuff I write.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Sea Wasp
You're one of the wierdo fanatics. Compared to most adaptations,
Jackson practically filmed LOTR word for word.
Peter Knutsen
Sea Wasp wrote:
> Peter Knutsen wrote:
>>Sea Wasp wrote:
>>[movies based on books in general, presumably]
>>> I'll go see it. I will probably loudly mock it, unless someone
>>>like Peter Jackson or Sam Raimi does the adaptation, but I'll go see
>>>it. (Sam is actually the one I suspect would do Digital Knight best).
>>
>>Based on the way Peter Jackson butchered Lord of the Rings, I might very
>>well be willing to commit murder in order to keep him *far* away from
>>the stuff I write.
>
> You're one of the wierdo fanatics. Compared to most adaptations,
No, I'm not one of "them". I don't object to the leaving out
of Tom Bombadil, for instance.
My objection, which I am sure that "they" do not share, is
that Peter Jackson is suffering from a massive case of not
getting it, regarding Lord of the Rings. Not getting
Tolkien, not getting the important things which he put into
his novel.
> Jackson practically filmed LOTR word for word.
It's a butchery.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Eric Jarvis
No. She has an important point. She's specifically written something set
in a particular way with particular types of people, but the producers of
the movie have set it differently ENTIRELY due to either direct racism or
due to pandering to racism. Both the assumption that every character is
white unless the casting director is beaten about the head for several
weeks to persuade them otherwise, and the assumption that a mainstream
audience can only cope with identifying with white actors ARE racist.
It's the 21st century, and sometimes I get the feeling that a lot of
people are frantically scrabbling to take us back into the 18th century.
White people are the exception not the norm. I can accept the argument
that there are settings when it's appropriate to have largely white casts,
for instance something set in medieval Europe. I don't think it washes
when the setting is clearly one where that isn't the case.
The best that can be said is that it's just crass unthinking stupidity of
people who prioritise working with their friends over getting the movie
right. From what I've heard over the years from black and Asian actors I
tend to a far less charitable view.
That isn't a message. It's just asking for attempting to achieve a touch
of realism rather than constantly striving to present a Hollywood fantasy
as realistic. Refusing to take the opportunity to use a lot of underworked
and talented performers in order to present a "conventional" vision IS
sending a message. It may not be deliberate, but the message it sends is
very clear. Hollywood is still rife with racial prejudice.
It's an old and hard fought battle, and perhaps not easy to understand if
you've never been involved in casting for stage or screen. You can cast to
convention or you can cast to the script. The former consists of assuming
a default for all types of role, heroes are athletic and usually blue eyed
b;ondes, all beautiful women are blonde and slim, villains always have
strange accents, and so on. It's lazy, it's dumb, it's boring as hell, and
it means you are chasing after the same few actors as everyone else in
order to give them roles they are bored with. Alternatively you can
determine what the script requires for each character and then cast the
best available performer that fits the bill. Of course that requires
actually thinking about it, which it seems many see as a serious
disadvantage. However it gets you a better class of performer and somebody
who will often be excited about a rare chance to play something different.
I would assume the USA isn't wildly different from the UK in having a huge
number of black and Asian actors frustrated by the lack of opportunities
they are given, including many who are extremely well known.
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> I would assume the USA isn't wildly different from the UK in having a huge
> number of black and Asian actors frustrated by the lack of opportunities
> they are given, including many who are extremely well known.
(clapping)
Alma Hromic Deckert
<seaobvi...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
>Peter Knutsen wrote:
>>
>> Sea Wasp wrote:
>> [movies based on books in general, presumably]
>>
>>> I'll go see it. I will probably loudly mock it, unless someone
>>> like Peter Jackson or Sam Raimi does the adaptation, but I'll go see
>>> it. (Sam is actually the one I suspect would do Digital Knight best).
>>
>>
>> Based on the way Peter Jackson butchered Lord of the Rings, I might very
>> well be willing to commit murder in order to keep him *far* away from
>> the stuff I write.
>>
>
> You're one of the wierdo fanatics. Compared to most adaptations,
>Jackson practically filmed LOTR word for word.
<cough splutter> what was that again...?
A. ("arwen, give glorfindel back his horse immediately!")
Sea Wasp
This eliminates the possibility of having decent words to describe
real butchery, though.
David Friedman
And stop playing with swords as if you and Aragorn were idiot teenagers
instead of responsible adults.
Sea Wasp
Glorfy was ALREADY DEAD. He had no BUSINESS being there. One of
Tolkien's few Whoopsies.
And try looking at a few other adaptations. Aside from very recent
years, differences like THAT one ARE trivial -- virtually irrelevant.
David Friedman
Eric Jarvis <w...@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote:
> That isn't a message. It's just asking for attempting to achieve a touch
> of realism rather than constantly striving to present a Hollywood fantasy
> as realistic. Refusing to take the opportunity to use a lot of underworked
> and talented performers in order to present a "conventional" vision IS
> sending a message. It may not be deliberate, but the message it sends is
> very clear. Hollywood is still rife with racial prejudice.
>
Except that it has nothing to do with "a touch of realism." The books
are not set on our world, so there is no particular reason why the
characters should or shouldn't be white. You may well be correct that,
for reasons extrinsic to the book, using non-white actors is a good
idea--that it is more just, or you can get better actors cheaper, or
whatever. But it will be no more realistic either way, unless there are
actual plot points that depend on differing appearance of people from
different places.
I haven't seen the movie, but my memory of the books, which I liked (the
first three), is that that would become a serious issue only in the
sequels.
Alma Hromic Deckert
<seaobvi...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
>Alma Hromic Deckert wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 19:33:23 GMT, Sea Wasp
>> <seaobvi...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Peter Knutsen wrote:
>>>
>>>>Sea Wasp wrote:
>>>>[movies based on books in general, presumably]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I'll go see it. I will probably loudly mock it, unless someone
>>>>>like Peter Jackson or Sam Raimi does the adaptation, but I'll go see
>>>>>it. (Sam is actually the one I suspect would do Digital Knight best).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Based on the way Peter Jackson butchered Lord of the Rings, I might very
>>>>well be willing to commit murder in order to keep him *far* away from
>>>>the stuff I write.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're one of the wierdo fanatics. Compared to most adaptations,
>>>Jackson practically filmed LOTR word for word.
>>
>>
>> <cough splutter> what was that again...?
>>
>> A. ("arwen, give glorfindel back his horse immediately!")
>
> Glorfy was ALREADY DEAD. He had no BUSINESS being there. One of
>Tolkien's few Whoopsies.
possibly. or there was anotehr by that name. either way the book had
him in that part and there was absolutely no need to exchange him for
the elven valkyrie.
> And try looking at a few other adaptations. Aside from very recent
>years, differences like THAT one ARE trivial -- virtually irrelevant.
granted. but i was deliberately going for the trivial. the basic
aversions i have to the film adaptation go MUCH deeper than that, and
require far more than a flippant off the cuff comment. the movies were
photogenic, sure, but jackson couldn't really help that with new
zealand as a backdrop so that's no kudos for him - and as for the rest
all he managed to do for me is show how little understanding he has of
the book and all that makes it what it is.
ahhhh, don't get me started.
A.
Sea Wasp
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 23:00:51 GMT, Sea Wasp
> <seaobvi...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Alma Hromic Deckert wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 19:33:23 GMT, Sea Wasp
>>><seaobvi...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Peter Knutsen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Sea Wasp wrote:
>>>>>[movies based on books in general, presumably]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll go see it. I will probably loudly mock it, unless someone
>>>>>>like Peter Jackson or Sam Raimi does the adaptation, but I'll go see
>>>>>>it. (Sam is actually the one I suspect would do Digital Knight best).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Based on the way Peter Jackson butchered Lord of the Rings, I might very
>>>>>well be willing to commit murder in order to keep him *far* away from
>>>>>the stuff I write.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're one of the wierdo fanatics. Compared to most adaptations,
>>>>Jackson practically filmed LOTR word for word.
>>>
>>>
>>><cough splutter> what was that again...?
>>>
>>>A. ("arwen, give glorfindel back his horse immediately!")
>>
>> Glorfy was ALREADY DEAD. He had no BUSINESS being there. One of
>>Tolkien's few Whoopsies.
>
>
> possibly. or there was anotehr by that name.
Tolkien did not repeat Elven names. He was very clear about that;
that way when someone mentioned "Feanor", you knew for sure he was
talking about Mr. Ego, the guy whose high craftsmanship and even
higher nose caused most of the disasters thereafter, not some other
guy named after him. (as opposed to humans and dwarves who reused
names like no tomorrow).
Moreover, some "other" Glorfy would not have had the Light of the
West in his countenance. Unless you wanted to ALSO contend that there
had been two Glorfindels in the Uttermost West.
It was an oopsie. An admitted oopsie, even. He knew it was a mistake.
He tried to figure out ways around it -- theoretically, for instance,
Mandos COULD have let him back out, but that would have been cause for
comment. Unless Mandos ROUTINELY lets people out, which would change
things rather drastically (Sauron: "Hey! Didn't I just KILL you?" Elf:
"Yeah, yeah, but with Mandos' Revolving Door, I can be back in action
before the battle is over. Ready for round two?")
either way the book had
> him in that part and there was absolutely no need to exchange him for
> the elven valkyrie.
Certainly was. Arwen needed a part to justify good ol' Aragorn's
mooning around over her. As an epic book, yeah, you can get away with
Arwen As Plot Token, but it doesn't work so well with a modern
audience in a movie. You could suggest other scenes or sequences, I
suppose, but she certainly needed more than a couple of lukewarm
handwaving romance mentions.
The only part of that sequence I didn't like was that Frodo didn't
get his confrontational sequence with the Nazgul, but Jackson had made
the (understandable) decision to emphasize the Ring's power,
corruption, and so forth, so the effects of it, and the Nazgul dagger,
got more emphasis.
>
>
>> And try looking at a few other adaptations. Aside from very recent
>>years, differences like THAT one ARE trivial -- virtually irrelevant.
>
>
> granted. but i was deliberately going for the trivial. the basic
> aversions i have to the film adaptation go MUCH deeper than that, and
> require far more than a flippant off the cuff comment. the movies were
> photogenic, sure, but jackson couldn't really help that with new
> zealand as a backdrop so that's no kudos for him -
It is very possible to choose wonderful scenery and screw up the
cinematography. His choices not only in what scenery to use, but in
HOW to use it, are nothing short of brilliant.
jere7my tho?rpe
Alma Hromic Deckert <ang...@vaxer.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 23:00:51 GMT, Sea Wasp
> <seaobvi...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
> > Glorfy was ALREADY DEAD. He had no BUSINESS being there. One of
> >Tolkien's few Whoopsies.
>
> possibly. or there was anotehr by that name. either way the book had
> him in that part and there was absolutely no need to exchange him for
> the elven valkyrie.
Of course there was. Role compression is necessary if you're
translating a book of LotR's length to the screen. Jackson had already
surmounted great odds to convince the backers that all nine of the
Fellowship were important -- that, yes, they really did need four
hobbits; asking the moviegoing public to juggle yet another name and
face for a walk-on role that could be filled by another character just
as well would have been a hard sell. He did the same thing with
Erkenbrand. *shrug* It's part of what needs to happen when you're
writing a script for a movie that you want to actually get made.
Jackson chose Arwen because the first movie needed a female character,
of which there would otherwise have been no sign, and he needed to
establish the romance between Aragorn and Arwen in the first movie.
----j7y
--
jere7my tho?rpe | "The land knows whom it sent out;
(440) 775-1522 | In the place of human beings
jere...@oberlin.net | Their ashes in urns
http://jere7my.livejournal.com | Come back to each man's house."
--- Aeschylus, The Agamemnon
Alma Hromic Deckert
<jere...@oberlin.net> wrote:
>In article <svd9s05khhkj5ijvn...@4ax.com>,
> Alma Hromic Deckert <ang...@vaxer.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 23:00:51 GMT, Sea Wasp
>> <seaobvi...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
>
>> > Glorfy was ALREADY DEAD. He had no BUSINESS being there. One of
>> >Tolkien's few Whoopsies.
>>
>> possibly. or there was anotehr by that name. either way the book had
>> him in that part and there was absolutely no need to exchange him for
>> the elven valkyrie.
>
>Of course there was. <...>
Okay, by now i should know better.
Personally i believe that jackson totally misread and misrepresented
the elves, took key characters and completely changed them (aragorn
went from the man born to be king to a SNAG wringing his hands and
whining 'i am not worthy, i am not worthy'), shuffled key scenes
around arbitrarily and unneccesarily, spent too much time on
unimportant things and failed to spend the time necessary on essential
ones, and pretty much rewrote the script as he thought fit (elves at
Helm's Deep? that ludicrous battle at minas tirith that should, given
what was shown, have been over a week before the rohirrim showed up?
and what was that stupid intermezzo with faramir and frodo at
osgiliath?)
It is these things, and not the omission of bombadil that have me
upset. but every time i pipe up there's a chorus of "purist! there is
no other way it could have been done!" from the jacksonites who think
he walks on water.
yes, there WAS another way it could have been done, and should have
been done. possibly the script should have been entrusted to somebody
who had a deeper understanding of the books than peter jackson
apparently did, or somebody whose purpose was to film the book beloved
by so many and not simply create a simpering love story between mortal
and immortal against a backdrop of convenient adventure and war. *i*
could have omitted huge swathes of the thing and still managed to
write a script that was as close to the book as makes little
difference - and it WOULD have been filmable, especially with the kind
of money thrown at this project. i would have also known when to end
it - if he wasn't going to film the scouring of the shire, so much a
part of the whole LOTR story, then he should have simply ended it
there at the crowning of the king and the pretty elven princess riding
into town for a wedding - the entire departure of the last elven ship
from middle earth sequence was just self-indulgent. it could have been
dealt with - in the same manner that jackson dealt with so many other
things - with a voiceover telling the audience that that was the last
anyone saw of elves. period.
but i really should know better now. i'm in the minority. i'll just go
fetch my dunce's cap with "purist" engraved on it and go sit quietly
in the corner over there...
A.
jere7my tho?rpe
Alma Hromic Deckert <ang...@vaxer.net> wrote:
> It is these things, and not the omission of bombadil that have me
> upset. but every time i pipe up there's a chorus of "purist! there is
> no other way it could have been done!" from the jacksonites who think
> he walks on water.
I don't think he walks on water, and it does your argument a disservice
to put those words in my mouth. I think the wizard duel in the first
movie was silly, for instance.
But I also think this was about as close as it was possible to get to
the books and still justify the $300 million investment. Jackson made
some changes (the emphasis on the romance, for instance) to satisfy his
backers, and to ensure that New Line would not be bankrupt -- which was
a legitimate, real concern -- after the films were finished. On the
other hand, he fought long and hard to keep some things that would have
been lost otherwise -- things like, say, Merry and Pippin.
> yes, there WAS another way it could have been done, and should have
> been done. possibly the script should have been entrusted to somebody
> who had a deeper understanding of the books than peter jackson
> apparently did, or somebody whose purpose was to film the book beloved
> by so many and not simply create a simpering love story between mortal
> and immortal against a backdrop of convenient adventure and war. *i*
> could have omitted huge swathes of the thing and still managed to
> write a script that was as close to the book as makes little
> difference - and it WOULD have been filmable, especially with the kind
> of money thrown at this project.
But would it have made the money back?
It's easy to say "I would have written it better!" but unless you're
actively engaged in the project of writing it you don't know what
obstacles Jackson and crew overcame. They had to appease their backers;
they had to cut three huge books down to three insufficiently huge
movies; they had to worry about movie pacing and audiences not being
able to flip back and forth to check things; they had to deal with
certain actors being available on certain days, and certain locations
being available on others; they had to make choices based on shots that
did or did not come out properly.
(As an example of that last: the glowing aura Arwen had when she first
rode up in the first film was added in postproduction to cover the fact
that they didn't have a usable shot of Liv Tyler and had to re-shoot
with her stunt double. _Hundreds_ of decisions like that had to be
made.)
It's _hard_ to turn a book into a movie. It's frustrating as hell. And
you can't look at the final product and say, "Well, clearly, Peter
Jackson doesn't understand LotR!" without knowing exactly what the road
he traveled was. But in this case, we have this great record of the
process on the DVDs, and I find myself agreeing with (or at least
understanding) 90% of the changes he made. There is not another
director working today who would have gotten anywhere near as close as
he did. Jackson made films that were successful with critics and
audiences both, won a Best Picture Oscar, _and_ were faithful enough to
the original to satisfy the vast bulk of Tolkien fans. That's a
stunning juggling act.
If the end result didn't appeal to you, that's fine. You don't have to
watch it. But I don't think you can pick out each change and cry
"Foul!" without knowing why it was made. Very few were arbitrary; there
are non-obvious domino effects at work. Faramir was made a threat
because there was otherwise no climax for Sam and Frodo at the end of
TTT because Shelob was moved to RotK because Sam and Frodo needed to see
the Black Gate open, and that couldn't happen before everyone else got
to Minas Tirith....
A project like this is a study in compromise; if Jackson _hadn't_ loved
and respected the source material we would've gotten Arwen in a chain
mail bikini riding with the Fellowship and a one-on-one battle with a
CGI Sauron at the end. I'm astonished at how much of Tolkien ended up
on the screen.
Carl Dershem
news:onc9s0pa4g0q7mnlj...@4ax.com:
Stay in context, please, and then watch "Starship Troopers."
The word "compared" was used, after all.
cd
--
The difference between immorality and immortality is "T". I like Earl
Grey.
Erol K. Bayburt
And don't use the "thunder & terror" sfx appropriate for Gandalf quoting the
Ring Inscription in Rivendell when Galadrel makes her speech in Lorien.
(Actually, I thought that substituting Arwen for Glorfindel was a Good Idea -
or would have been, if Peter Jackson hadn't gone on to replace the characters
of Arwen, Aragorn, Merry, Pippin, etc. from the books with a set of bizarre
dopplegangers.)
--
Erol K. Bayburt
Ero...@aol.com
Erol K. Bayburt
>Okay, by now i should know better.
>
>Personally i believe that jackson totally misread and misrepresented
>the elves, took key characters and completely changed them (aragorn
>went from the man born to be king to a SNAG wringing his hands and
>whining 'i am not worthy, i am not worthy'), shuffled key scenes
>around arbitrarily and unneccesarily, spent too much time on
>unimportant things and failed to spend the time necessary on essential
>ones, and pretty much rewrote the script as he thought fit (elves at
>Helm's Deep? that ludicrous battle at minas tirith that should, given
>what was shown, have been over a week before the rohirrim showed up?
>and what was that stupid intermezzo with faramir and frodo at
>osgiliath?)
Amen sister!
>but i really should know better now. i'm in the minority. i'll just go
>fetch my dunce's cap with "purist" engraved on it and go sit quietly
>in the corner over there...
The one where I'm sitting?
James A. Donald
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 20:44:06 +0100, Peter Knutsen
> My objection, which I am sure that "they" do not share, is
> that Peter Jackson is suffering from a massive case of not
> getting it, regarding Lord of the Rings. Not getting Tolkien,
> not getting the important things which he put into his novel.
Perhaps each of us has a different interpretation of the
important things that Tolkien put into his novel.
The wizards duel irritated me no end, as did the *successful*
cavalry charge against orc pikemen, and the clumsy courtship of
Aragorn, but by and large, Peter Jackson was as true to the
book as a film can be.
It completely pissed me off that cavalry could charge highly
disciplined pikeorcs, and win. We needed to see some secret
magic ingredient that would explain the impossible. That was
improbable in the book, but seeing it on the screen, you saw
how impossible it was.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
Ccr0LrPKv8TWepjHJwqS1o4i5nMKg6njG+CPcuDD
4LCIxP0TWR5JQjJ4cDmzC23+3wOlAj7oji6M0wVBI
Lucy Kemnitzer
Dal Dan) seems to have said:
>David Langford <ans...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:48:29 -0800, Alma Hromic Deckert <ang...@vaxer.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >do the film-makers NEVER get it right?... here's what the author
>> >thinks of the new SF channel miniseries:
>> >
>> >http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2111107
>> >
>> >i swear to god, if anyone EVER decides to do one of my books up in
>> >hollywood tinsel i will not go and see it. i'd be too damned scared
>> >about what sort of evil twin to my work might be about to be born...
>>
>> Ah, but Diana Wynne Jones tells me that she's delighted with Miyazaki's
>> animated version of =Howl's Moving Castle=. See:
>
>Were Myazaki to ask for my plots, I would go down on my knees and cry
>and say "You can do whatever you want with them, Master."
You know who I want to adapt something I wrote to another media? Los
Bros Hernandez, the comic artists responsible for the "Love and
Rockets" and "Palomar" series.
In fact I've been thinking about sending them the ms of the most
recent thing, since it's all over Hispanic California all the time.
But I think I should wait until I understand how these things work.
Lucy Kemnitzer, still
http://www.baymoon.com/~ritaxis
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ritaxis
David Friedman
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> --
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 20:44:06 +0100, Peter Knutsen
> > My objection, which I am sure that "they" do not share, is
> > that Peter Jackson is suffering from a massive case of not
> > getting it, regarding Lord of the Rings. Not getting Tolkien,
> > not getting the important things which he put into his novel.
>
> Perhaps each of us has a different interpretation of the
> important things that Tolkien put into his novel.
>
> The wizards duel irritated me no end,
My reaction as well.
> as did the *successful*
> cavalry charge against orc pikemen, and the clumsy courtship of
> Aragorn, but by and large, Peter Jackson was as true to the
> book as a film can be.
>
> It completely pissed me off that cavalry could charge highly
> disciplined pikeorcs, and win. We needed to see some secret
> magic ingredient that would explain the impossible. That was
> improbable in the book, but seeing it on the screen, you saw
> how impossible it was.
I only saw the first movie. Where is there a cavalry charge against
pikes? I don't remember anything like that in the book.
Irina Rempt
> (Actually, I thought that substituting Arwen for Glorfindel was a Good
> Idea - or would have been, if Peter Jackson hadn't gone on to replace
> the characters of Arwen, Aragorn, Merry, Pippin, etc. from the books
> with a set of bizarre dopplegangers.)
And Faramir with his evil twin.
Irina
--
Vesta veran, terna puran, farenin. http://www.valdyas.org/irina/
Beghinnen can ick, volherden will' ick, volbringhen sal ick.
http://www.valdyas.org/foundobjects/index.cgi Latest: 17-Dec-2004
David Friedman
"jere7my tho?rpe" <jere...@oberlin.net> wrote:
> But I don't think you can pick out each change and cry
> "Foul!" without knowing why it was made. Very few were arbitrary; there
> are non-obvious domino effects at work. Faramir was made a threat
> because there was otherwise no climax for Sam and Frodo at the end of
> TTT because Shelob was moved to RotK because Sam and Frodo needed to see
> the Black Gate open, and that couldn't happen before everyone else got
> to Minas Tirith....
I only saw the first movie, and there were two things that seemed to me
wrong with no reason--perhaps you can explain them.
1. When Arwen first shows up, she sneaks up on Aragorn to prove how
stealthy she is. That scene doesn't fit either character.
2. The wizard duel, which other people have mentioned. Not only doesn't
it fit Tolkien's picture, it substitutes flashy irrelevance for an
opportunity to show real magic at work--Saruman's voice, which is a
large part of his power. He could have been made very, very, convincing
when arguing with Gandalf--with Gandalf finally pricking the bubble.
Do you have explanations for those two?
Eric Jarvis
Smashing guys. Many years ago, when I was staging adaptation s of comics I
was privileged to be able to begin discussions with Los Bros about putting
together a musical based on Love and Rockets. Sadly a film company started
sniffing round soon afterwards and the idea had to be abandoned. I've
still got most of it in my head though. Even some of the songs.
I have every intention of never worrying about transitions to other media
at all. I've been on the other side of the process, so in the unlikely
event that I might ever write anything that somebody wants to film, stage,
animate or whatever, I'm pretty much bound to simply hand the rights over,
pocket the money and stay the hell out of everyone's way.
J.Pascal
to either direct racism or due to pandering to racism."
Not possibly because of laziness? Can't we even imagine some other
possibility than racism?
Unless someone who knows has said that the producers believed viewers
would react negatively to an entirely brown-skinned cast, I don't think
that the assumption can be fairly asserted as fact.
But suppose that it's true? Suppose the producers knew (and cared)
that the characters were written as not-caucasian, and decided to take
the safe route and pander to percieved racism? I think they are
stupid and believe stupid things about their audience. I don't
believe that the general viewers of the sci-fi channel would have any
more reluctance to watch a fantasy with brown skinned actors than they
would green skinned actors.
It did seem totally bizarre that Le Guin went on and on about color,
until I thought about it some more. How long ago where these books
written? At that time her choice likely required a measure of
bravery. Probably the fact (and I do think it's a fact) that
speculative literature is so color blind is thanks to people like her
who were willing to push the issue and take chances. In fact, she
talks about the constant struggle with cover art, which often portrayed
(or at least attempted to portray) Ged as caucasian.
That was then, this is now. I can't imagine that science fiction and
fantasy authors even wonder to themselves if they say on page one that
the protagonist has rich brown skin that it's going to be more than the
industry can handle. In the article Le Guin said that she had to work
Ged's description in slowly. I don't *think* I live in a cave, and I
can't imagine this being a realistic issue today.
It doesn't seem reasonable to me that the change was purposeful. It
seems far more likely that the producers just didn't care, that they
never gave it a thought.
Which doesn't excuse the laziness in any way.
-Julie
jere7my tho?rpe
<ddfr-407348.2...@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>,
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nospam.com> wrote:
> In article <jere7my2-243E17...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "jere7my tho?rpe" <jere...@oberlin.net> wrote:
>
> > But I don't think you can pick out each change and cry
> > "Foul!" without knowing why it was made. Very few were arbitrary; there
> > are non-obvious domino effects at work. Faramir was made a threat
> > because there was otherwise no climax for Sam and Frodo at the end of
> > TTT because Shelob was moved to RotK because Sam and Frodo needed to see
> > the Black Gate open, and that couldn't happen before everyone else got
> > to Minas Tirith....
>
> I only saw the first movie, and there were two things that seemed to me
> wrong with no reason--perhaps you can explain them.
>
> 1. When Arwen first shows up, she sneaks up on Aragorn to prove how
> stealthy she is. That scene doesn't fit either character.
I didn't think this needed explanation; she was flirting, in a way that
added fake menace for the audience to up the tension a notch. In the
movies, their relationship is more flirtatious and playful than in the
books.
It also serves to demonstrate from the get-go that elves move silently
in the woods, which all of _us_ know but the audience might not've, and
establish her as a strong female character by granting her a small
victory over the strongest male character.
> 2. The wizard duel, which other people have mentioned. Not only doesn't
> it fit Tolkien's picture, it substitutes flashy irrelevance for an
> opportunity to show real magic at work--Saruman's voice, which is a
> large part of his power. He could have been made very, very, convincing
> when arguing with Gandalf--with Gandalf finally pricking the bubble.
As I mentioned in my original post, I thought this was silly; I'm not
sure why Jackson chose to do it that way. I think he chose an inelegant
solution.
jere7my tho?rpe
<ddfr-5D1A54.2...@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>,
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nospam.com> wrote:
When Gandalf saves the day at Helm's Deep, he leads the Rohirrim into
orcish pikemen.
Anyway, we did see a secret magical ingredient -- when Gandalf crested
the hill, he shone with the light of the sun. We see the orcs being
blinded, and their spears wavering, before the Rohirrim crash into them.
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
> It did seem totally bizarre that Le Guin went on and on about color,
> until I thought about it some more. How long ago where these books
> written? At that time her choice likely required a measure of
> bravery. Probably the fact (and I do think it's a fact) that
> speculative literature is so color blind is thanks to people like her
> who were willing to push the issue and take chances. In fact, she
> talks about the constant struggle with cover art, which often portrayed
> (or at least attempted to portray) Ged as caucasian.
It strikes me that some of it was likely written with some purpose in
the portrayals of ethnicities, as the barbarians were, if I'm
remembering right, explicitly pale-skinned. (I haven't read the books
for some years.) I would not be surprised if some of her purpose were
some form of stereotype role-reversal, and thus that casting the books
while ignoring that (and claiming that this was her vision) might be
particularly offensive and jarring to her.
--
Darkhawk - H. A. Nicoll - http://aelfhame.net/~darkhawk/
They are one person, they are two alone
They are three together, they are for each other
- "Helplessly Hoping", Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young
Sea Wasp
> It completely pissed me off that cavalry could charge highly
> disciplined pikeorcs, and win.
Pikeorcs who broke and ran? (movie 3) or Pikeorcs who got a dose of
Holy Light in a charge being led by a Maia?
Sea Wasp
The one I don't see the problem with so much. The other actually
FIXED a problem for me, as in the book it reads as "Sauruman, you've
flipped your lid. I'm out of here."
"Sorry, old chap, but you really can't go. I have plans, and you
leaving would rather mess them up, you know?"
"Oh, righto old bean. I'll just toddle upstairs and wait in your tower."
"Jolly good then!"
I do not see Gandalf as submitting gently to the suggestion he just
hang out while Sauruman goes about his business. Making Sauruman's
Voice the threat is fine, to a point, but still, the Voice isn't
stopping Gandalf from leaving. Nor would a great Wizard be convincing
if he's just dragged off by a few Orcs. No, the only part of that
which I didn't like entirely was that it was too one-noted; I would
have preferred more varied magics, or a single great contest of pure
Power.
Joel Polowin
> I do not see Gandalf as submitting gently to the suggestion he just
> hang out while Sauruman goes about his business. Making Sauruman's Voice
> the threat is fine, to a point, but still, the Voice isn't stopping
> Gandalf from leaving. Nor would a great Wizard be convincing if he's
> just dragged off by a few Orcs. No, the only part of that which I didn't
> like entirely was that it was too one-noted; I would have preferred more
> varied magics, or a single great contest of pure Power.
Since no actual description of the conflict is given apart from
"they took me and they set me alone on the pinnacle of Orthanc",
but it's implicit that Gandalf was not physically taken down
(else he'd have been relieved of such minor baggage as staff and
ring), I figured that it involved something like Saruman's
presence to counter any magic that Gandalf might use, plus a
bunch of big orcs with bows as persuaders.
--
Joel Polowin jpolow...@sympatico.ca but delete "XYZZy" from address
"If you show trophy fish in first act, then by third act you must
show that it is only red herring." -- Pavel Chekov
Erol K. Bayburt
>It completely pissed me off that cavalry could charge highly
>disciplined pikeorcs, and win. We needed to see some secret
>magic ingredient that would explain the impossible. That was
>improbable in the book, but seeing it on the screen, you saw
>how impossible it was.
What really annoyed me about that bit was how the scene could have been
salvaged with just a small change: If Gandalf's magical aura had held the
pikeorcs paralyzed with shock and awe for just a few critical seconds (possibly
with the orc-sergeants futilely screaming "left face! left face!" in the
background) then the charge would have taken them in the flank.
Sea Wasp
> Sea Wasp wrote:
>
>> I do not see Gandalf as submitting gently to the suggestion he
>> just hang out while Sauruman goes about his business. Making
>> Sauruman's Voice the threat is fine, to a point, but still, the Voice
>> isn't stopping Gandalf from leaving. Nor would a great Wizard be
>> convincing if he's just dragged off by a few Orcs. No, the only part
>> of that which I didn't like entirely was that it was too one-noted; I
>> would have preferred more varied magics, or a single great contest of
>> pure Power.
>
>
> Since no actual description of the conflict is given apart from
> "they took me and they set me alone on the pinnacle of Orthanc",
> but it's implicit that Gandalf was not physically taken down
> (else he'd have been relieved of such minor baggage as staff and
> ring), I figured that it involved something like Saruman's
> presence to counter any magic that Gandalf might use, plus a
> bunch of big orcs with bows as persuaders.
>
I would find that as a viewer, and for that matter as a reader,
exceedingly unsatisfactory, especially for a guy who's supposed to be
All That as a Wizard. And who *IS* allowed to open a can or two of
whupass when up against beings of similar nature, which both the
Balrog and Sauruman are.
Sea Wasp
> Since no actual description of the conflict is given apart from
> "they took me and they set me alone on the pinnacle of Orthanc",
> but it's implicit that Gandalf was not physically taken down
> (else he'd have been relieved of such minor baggage as staff and
> ring), I figured that it involved something like Saruman's
> presence to counter any magic that Gandalf might use, plus a
> bunch of big orcs with bows as persuaders.
>
I'll also note that your description doesn't explain why they don't
take the Staff and find the Ring anyway, as, if you assume that after
whipping Gandalf Sauruman is going to take his stuff, there's no
reason that he wouldn't have the orcs strip him of his stuff once he'd
surrendered.
(The whole "Gandalf gets captured and imprisoned but somehow keeps or
retrieves his Staff and Great Ring" business has been one of the
largest plot questions for years, anyway. Perhaps indicating that
there were other, more sinister maneuverings behind Gandalf's actions... )
Erol K. Bayburt
>On Sunday 19 December 2004 05:12 Erol K. Bayburt (ero...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>> (Actually, I thought that substituting Arwen for Glorfindel was a Good
>> Idea - or would have been, if Peter Jackson hadn't gone on to replace
>> the characters of Arwen, Aragorn, Merry, Pippin, etc. from the books
>> with a set of bizarre dopplegangers.)
>
>And Faramir with his evil twin.
Evil cousin, surely. Since movie-Denethor was obviously the evil brother of the
one in the book.
John W. Kennedy
> Faramir was made a threat
> because there was otherwise no climax for Sam and Frodo at the end of
> TTT because Shelob was moved to RotK because Sam and Frodo needed to see
> the Black Gate open, and that couldn't happen before everyone else got
> to Minas Tirith....
Moreover, in the book we first see Faramir through the lens of Frodo and
Sam's fear and suspicion of him. Too many of us, having read the book
many times /knowing/ that he's a Good Guy, forget that. Jackson didn't.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Never try to take over the international economy based on a radical
feminist agenda if you're not sure your leader isn't a transvestite."
-- David Misch: "She-Spies", "While You Were Out"
Brian D. Fernald
seaobvi...@sgeobviousinc.com says...
> > granted. but i was deliberately going for the trivial. the basic
> > aversions i have to the film adaptation go MUCH deeper than that, and
> > require far more than a flippant off the cuff comment. the movies were
> > photogenic, sure, but jackson couldn't really help that with new
> > zealand as a backdrop so that's no kudos for him -
>
> It is very possible to choose wonderful scenery and screw up the
> cinematography. His choices not only in what scenery to use, but in
> HOW to use it, are nothing short of brilliant.
Perhaps brilliant, in the way that making sure that the missile
launchers all lined up and ready to go in an old Soviet era May Day
Parade was brilliant.
--
BDF.
FSOBN.
"Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus"
Brian D. Fernald
ang...@vaxer.net says...
<snip>
> but i really should know better now. i'm in the minority. i'll just go
> fetch my dunce's cap with "purist" engraved on it and go sit quietly
> in the corner over there...
You may be in the minority, but I can't help but to think that I might
have enjoyed your vision of the films. And, I can't remotely be called
a purist since I didn't really care for the books in and of themselves.
Brian D. Fernald
says...
> Alma Hromic Deckert <ang...@vaxer.net> wrote in
> news:onc9s0pa4g0q7mnlj...@4ax.com:
>
> > On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 19:33:23 GMT, Sea Wasp
> > <seaobvi...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
>
> >> You're one of the wierdo fanatics. Compared to most adaptations,
> >>Jackson practically filmed LOTR word for word.
> >
> > <cough splutter> what was that again...?
>
> Stay in context, please, and then watch "Starship Troopers."
>
> The word "compared" was used, after all.
Compared to what? Starship Troopers as written was unfilmable. It's
structure is far too loose.
And, then there is the question of whether 'staying true' to the books
has any real meaning outside of fandom.
I should perhaps note, that I love Starship Troopers-the book and
Starship Troopers-the movie equally.
Brian D. Fernald
@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>, dd...@daviddfriedman.nospam.com
says...
> In article <MPG.1c2ea266d...@news.individual.net>,
> Eric Jarvis <w...@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > That isn't a message. It's just asking for attempting to achieve a touch
> > of realism rather than constantly striving to present a Hollywood fantasy
> > as realistic. Refusing to take the opportunity to use a lot of underworked
> > and talented performers in order to present a "conventional" vision IS
> > sending a message. It may not be deliberate, but the message it sends is
> > very clear. Hollywood is still rife with racial prejudice.
> >
>
> Except that it has nothing to do with "a touch of realism." The books
> are not set on our world, so there is no particular reason why the
> characters should or shouldn't be white. You may well be correct that,
> for reasons extrinsic to the book, using non-white actors is a good
> idea--that it is more just, or you can get better actors cheaper, or
> whatever. But it will be no more realistic either way, unless there are
> actual plot points that depend on differing appearance of people from
> different places.
You could also make the point that making it such a racial/ethnic issue,
only cheapens the actual experience of the historically oppressed.
> I haven't seen the movie, but my memory of the books, which I liked (the
> first three), is that that would become a serious issue only in the
> sequels.
I didn't watch the series either, but I found the books to be
forgettable.
John W. Kennedy
> In article
> <ddfr-407348.2...@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>,
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nospam.com> wrote:
>>2. The wizard duel, which other people have mentioned. Not only doesn't
>>it fit Tolkien's picture, it substitutes flashy irrelevance for an
>>opportunity to show real magic at work--Saruman's voice, which is a
>>large part of his power. He could have been made very, very, convincing
>>when arguing with Gandalf--with Gandalf finally pricking the bubble.
> As I mentioned in my original post, I thought this was silly; I'm not
> sure why Jackson chose to do it that way. I think he chose an inelegant
> solution.
Because what Tolkien has in the book is impossible for actors to act,
except, perhaps, by Gandalf indicating all over the place with a
stage-hypnosis shtick straight out of some "Three Stooges" short.
"Now Gandalf--you're a CHICKEN!!!!!"
"Awwwk! P'kawwk--p'kawwk!"
--
John W. Kennedy
"I want everybody to be smart. As smart as they can be. A world of
ignorant people is too dangerous to live in."
-- Garson Kanin. "Born Yesterday"
Carl Dershem
news:MPG.1c2f77116...@news.comcast.giganews.com:
> In article <Xns95C3CD52125...@68.6.19.6>, der...@cox.net
> says...
>> Alma Hromic Deckert <ang...@vaxer.net> wrote in
>> news:onc9s0pa4g0q7mnlj...@4ax.com:
>>
>> > On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 19:33:23 GMT, Sea Wasp
>> > <seaobvi...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> You're one of the wierdo fanatics. Compared to most adaptations,
>> >>Jackson practically filmed LOTR word for word.
>> >
>> > <cough splutter> what was that again...?
>>
>> Stay in context, please, and then watch "Starship Troopers."
>>
>> The word "compared" was used, after all.
>
> Compared to what? Starship Troopers as written was unfilmable. It's
> structure is far too loose.
Heh. A very linear book, with a clear character arc, a definite (if
arguable) ethical center, and clear delineation of what happens and why.
Would heve been very simple to film (compared to lots of what comes out on
film nowadays) without completely distorting every aspect as Verhoeven did.
> And, then there is the question of whether 'staying true' to the books
> has any real meaning outside of fandom.
If you're gonna call it "Robert Heinlein's 'Starship Troopers'" you should
be faithful to the book. If not, give it another title, and rtemove all
traces of Heinlein from it. Faithfulness to source material is just being
fair with the audience.
> I should perhaps note, that I love Starship Troopers-the book and
> Starship Troopers-the movie equally.
Your lack of taste in film is not my problem.
cd
--
The difference between immorality and immortality is "T". I like Earl
Grey.
David Friedman
Wildepad <wild...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> Imo, attributing a particular skin color to any character is racist
> unless it is necessary to show a social situation which affects a
> character's personal interaction with another character, and even then
> swapping the skin colors/racial heritages between the characters
> should be possible -- if the people are bound to their stereotyping,
> that's the basest form of racism.
On the other hand, in the Earthsea series, there are "racial"
distinctions, although my memory is that they become important in the
later books. There is a culture (Kargad?) which was raiding and
conquering at some point in the past, is (I think) hostile to magic, and
is populated by people who look different from the main population group.
Alma Hromic Deckert
>David Friedman dd...@daviddfriedman.nospam.com wrote:
>
>>In article <onc9s0pa4g0q7mnlj...@4ax.com>,
>> Alma Hromic Deckert <ang...@vaxer.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 19:33:23 GMT, Sea Wasp
>>> <seaobvi...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Peter Knutsen wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Sea Wasp wrote:
>>> > You're one of the wierdo fanatics. Compared to most adaptations,
>>> >Jackson practically filmed LOTR word for word.
>>>
>>> <cough splutter> what was that again...?
>>>
>>> A. ("arwen, give glorfindel back his horse immediately!")
>>
>>And stop playing with swords as if you and Aragorn were idiot teenagers
>>instead of responsible adults.
>
>And don't use the "thunder & terror" sfx appropriate for Gandalf quoting the
>Ring Inscription in Rivendell when Galadrel makes her speech in Lorien.
amen to that!
>(Actually, I thought that substituting Arwen for Glorfindel was a Good Idea -
>or would have been, if Peter Jackson hadn't gone on to replace the characters
>of Arwen, Aragorn, Merry, Pippin, etc. from the books with a set of bizarre
>dopplegangers.)
and double doozy amen to THAT!
A.
Alma Hromic Deckert
<jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>jere7my tho?rpe wrote:
>> Faramir was made a threat
>> because there was otherwise no climax for Sam and Frodo at the end of
>> TTT because Shelob was moved to RotK because Sam and Frodo needed to see
>> the Black Gate open, and that couldn't happen before everyone else got
>> to Minas Tirith....
>
>Moreover, in the book we first see Faramir through the lens of Frodo and
>Sam's fear and suspicion of him. Too many of us, having read the book
>many times /knowing/ that he's a Good Guy, forget that. Jackson didn't.
jackson didn't what? know that faramir was a good guy? what was he
doing, shooting each scene as it came without having read the whole
thing first?...
and if he HADN'T read the book many times in preparation for making
the movie, then why not?
A.
Alma Hromic Deckert
>Alma Hromic Deckert ang...@vaxer.net wrote:
>
>>Okay, by now i should know better.
>>
>>Personally i believe that jackson totally misread and misrepresented
>>the elves, took key characters and completely changed them (aragorn
>>went from the man born to be king to a SNAG wringing his hands and
>>whining 'i am not worthy, i am not worthy'), shuffled key scenes
>>around arbitrarily and unneccesarily, spent too much time on
>>unimportant things and failed to spend the time necessary on essential
>>ones, and pretty much rewrote the script as he thought fit (elves at
>>Helm's Deep? that ludicrous battle at minas tirith that should, given
>>what was shown, have been over a week before the rohirrim showed up?
>>and what was that stupid intermezzo with faramir and frodo at
>>osgiliath?)
>
>Amen sister!
>
>>but i really should know better now. i'm in the minority. i'll just go
>>fetch my dunce's cap with "purist" engraved on it and go sit quietly
>>in the corner over there...
>
>The one where I'm sitting?
i'll bring coffee, you bring donuts. (i'd offer pipeweed but i don't
know if you smoke <G>)
A.
David Friedman
"jere7my tho?rpe" <jere...@oberlin.net> wrote:
> In article
> <ddfr-5D1A54.2...@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>,
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <o82as09ec4i00ifop...@4ax.com>,
> > James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> >
> > > It completely pissed me off that cavalry could charge highly
> > > disciplined pikeorcs, and win. We needed to see some secret
> > > magic ingredient that would explain the impossible. That was
> > > improbable in the book, but seeing it on the screen, you saw
> > > how impossible it was.
> >
> > I only saw the first movie. Where is there a cavalry charge against
> > pikes? I don't remember anything like that in the book.
>
> When Gandalf saves the day at Helm's Deep, he leads the Rohirrim into
> orcish pikemen.
I can't speak to the movie, but in the book Gandalf is mounted and the
troops he is leading--Erkenbrand's forces--are on foot.
Theoden, who is leading a force coming out of Helm's deep, is
mounted--but the orcs are facing the other direction.
"On they rode, the king and his companions. Captains and champions fell
or fled before them. Neither orc nor man withstood them. Their backs
were to the swords and spears of the Riders, and their faces to the
valley. They cried and wailed, for fear and great wonder had come upon
them with the rising of the day."
(description of what they saw--the ents et al have converted the open
dale into a forest).
"There suddenly upon a ridge appeared a rider, clad in white, shining in
the rising sun. Over the low hills the horns were sounding. Behind him,
hastening down the long slopes, were a thousand men on foot; their
swords were in their hands. ..."
"The White Rider was upon them, and the terror of his coming filled the
enemy with madness. The wild men fell on their faces before him. The
Orcs reeled and screamed and cast aside both sword and spear. ..."
Or in other words, there is no cavalry charge against pikes in the
book's version of the battle.
David Friedman
Alma Hromic Deckert <ang...@vaxer.net> wrote:
The claim is that Jackson didn't forget that we first see Faramir
through the lens of Frdo and Sam's fear and suspicion of him.
Brian M. Scott
<seaobvi...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote in
<news:41C4B627...@sgeobviousinc.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> Peter Knutsen wrote:
>> Sea Wasp wrote:
>>> Jackson practically filmed LOTR word for word.
>> It's a butchery.
> This eliminates the possibility of having decent words to describe
> real butchery, though.
After butchery you can still identify the animal; some films
produce unidentifiable hash. (Besides, why would you want
to use *decent* words to describe hash-making?)
Brian
Alma Hromic Deckert
uh huh. but we didn't CONTINUTE to see faramir that way. a little fear
and suspicion goes a long way. and even frodo and sam didn't see him
that way for very long.
A.
Eric Jarvis
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 20:24:41 -0000, Eric Jarvis <w...@ericjarvis.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >She's specifically written something set
> >in a particular way with particular types of people, but the producers of
> >the movie have set it differently ENTIRELY due to either direct racism or
> >due to pandering to racism.
>
> What?
>
> To define a character by skin color is, in itself, racist.
>
That's utter bollocks. It's a typical attempt to defend prejudice by
claiming that anyone who objects to a consistent pattern of discrimination
is being racist by simply noting the discrimination. Sometimes skin
colour, religion, ethnicity, gender, eye colour or dental health are
relevant and sometimes they aren't.
> To believe that "particular types of people" can only be portrayed by
> people of a certain skin color is naive.
>
Oh yes. The usual reactionary insult in the absence of any logical
defence. How about you actually try and explain why it's wrong in this
case rather than simply dismissing anything that doesn't fit your
prejudices as being "naive". Skin colour is relevant in the books. It's
fairly explicitly so in places.
> To whine that you wrote a character as black and the role went to a
> blanc is shallow and bigoted. (If your scientist-protag was played by
> a blonde, would you rant about it because everyone knows how dumb
> blondes are?)
>
It isn't if there's a reason for defining a rave. Whether or not you agree
with her reasons Ursula Le Guin didn't simply describe them as a
particular colour at random.
> More years ago than I care to admit, I saw a production of _Othello_
> where the entire cast was of African descent, except for the lead,
> which was played by a gay wasp. It was perfect because it maintained
> what was necessary for the role (the contrast in the prevalent social
> order) and showed that the character rose above such mundane
> considerations as skin color.
>
It's been done with the races reversed several times. It's a good way to
look at Othello because it makes the situation a lot clearer. There's
nothing wrong with that at all. Partly because it's an intelligent and
conscious engagement with the text, partly because Othello has already
been done many times. That's a very different situation. I wouldn't argue
against Earthsea being filmed with a cast that includes some white
performers in make up if they bring something extra to the film. It's dumb
laziness or pandering to racism that I object to.
> Imo, attributing a particular skin color to any character is racist
> unless it is necessary to show a social situation which affects a
> character's personal interaction with another character, and even then
> swapping the skin colors/racial heritages between the characters
> should be possible -- if the people are bound to their stereotyping,
> that's the basest form of racism.
>
All of which I agree with 100%. However it isn't relevant here in a case
where the writer has reasons to specify a particular race and has explored
the issues that result from it.
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Eric Jarvis
If I remember correctly there is an implied allegorical depiction of
colonialism. That could be done without any specification of race, but I
can see why she thought it useful and I can see why ignoring that entire
aspect of the story might be upsetting. It's a fairly major theme.
Alma Hromic Deckert
wrote:
>>
>> More years ago than I care to admit, I saw a production of _Othello_
>> where the entire cast was of African descent, except for the lead,
>> which was played by a gay wasp. It was perfect because it maintained
>> what was necessary for the role (the contrast in the prevalent social
>> order) and showed that the character rose above such mundane
>> considerations as skin color.
>
>It's been done with the races reversed several times. It's a good way to
>look at Othello because it makes the situation a lot clearer. There's
>nothing wrong with that at all. Partly because it's an intelligent and
>conscious engagement with the text, partly because Othello has already
>been done many times. That's a very different situation.
just touchng on that one particular point, the key issue here is "with
the races reversed" and thus instead of othello being the only BLACK
man around he becomes the only WHITE man around - which changes
nothing of the fundamentals of the story itself, which concerns with
othello's difference from the rest of the cast. doing othello with an
all-black or an all-white cast would be much more problematic unless
you can come up with a highly identifiable way of differentiating
othello himself from the rest.
A.
Eric Jarvis
>
> After butchery you can still identify the animal; some films
> produce unidentifiable hash. (Besides, why would you want
> to use *decent* words to describe hash-making?)
>
An attempt to get a production budget? :)
Brian D. Fernald
ju...@pascal.org says...
> "...but the producers of the movie have set it differently ENTIRELY due
> to either direct racism or due to pandering to racism."
>
> possibility than racism?
Perhaps, it is just LeGuin who can't imagine some other possibility than
racism?
> Unless someone who knows has said that the producers believed viewers
> would react negatively to an entirely brown-skinned cast, I don't think
> that the assumption can be fairly asserted as fact.
Nor, do I think you can say that the producers would reasonably hold
that view.
> But suppose that it's true? Suppose the producers knew (and cared)
> that the characters were written as not-caucasian, and decided to take
> the safe route and pander to percieved racism? I think they are
> stupid and believe stupid things about their audience. I don't
> believe that the general viewers of the sci-fi channel would have any
> more reluctance to watch a fantasy with brown skinned actors than they
> would green skinned actors.
>
> It did seem totally bizarre that Le Guin went on and on about color,
> until I thought about it some more. How long ago where these books
> written? At that time her choice likely required a measure of
> bravery.
Bravery? I dunno about that. There has to be a certain amount of risk
and cost involved for something to be brave.
> Probably the fact (and I do think it's a fact) that
> speculative literature is so color blind is thanks to people like her
> who were willing to push the issue and take chances. In fact, she
> talks about the constant struggle with cover art, which often portrayed
> (or at least attempted to portray) Ged as caucasian.
But, there might be a much simpler explanation to that, than active
racism.
> That was then, this is now. I can't imagine that science fiction and
> fantasy authors even wonder to themselves if they say on page one that
> the protagonist has rich brown skin that it's going to be more than the
> industry can handle. In the article Le Guin said that she had to work
> Ged's description in slowly. I don't *think* I live in a cave, and I
> can't imagine this being a realistic issue today.
>
> It doesn't seem reasonable to me that the change was purposeful. It
> seems far more likely that the producers just didn't care, that they
> never gave it a thought.
Which is what I think happened with her historical struggle over the
cover art.
> Which doesn't excuse the laziness in any way.
On whose part?
Are the producers at fault for producing a mini-series that was sellable
to the Sci-Fi network? Or, is LeGuin at fault for just selling her
rights away, without script approval?
Catja Pafort
> It did seem totally bizarre that Le Guin went on and on about color,
> until I thought about it some more. How long ago where these books
> written? At that time her choice likely required a measure of
> bravery. Probably the fact (and I do think it's a fact) that
> speculative literature is so color blind is thanks to people like her
> who were willing to push the issue and take chances. In fact, she
> talks about the constant struggle with cover art, which often portrayed
> (or at least attempted to portray) Ged as caucasian.
>
> That was then, this is now. I can't imagine that science fiction and
> fantasy authors even wonder to themselves if they say on page one that
> the protagonist has rich brown skin that it's going to be more than the
> industry can handle. In the article Le Guin said that she had to work
> Ged's description in slowly. I don't *think* I live in a cave, and I
> can't imagine this being a realistic issue today.
Someone remind me: when, exactly was the first book written? And how
does it compare to the long list of non-human and otherwise weird
characters others wrote about (hobbits, anyone?)
I remember the black character as 'black' because he was pointed out. I
remember everyone else as 'normal' - not 'white', specifically, 'normal'
because I don't visualise much and it's not a defining characteristic to
me, what pigment their skin has when they don't get much sun. (Germany
has either more sun or more sunbeds or both. People with deep tans are,
on casual aquaintance, indistinguishable from those whose natural skin
tone happens to be brown. It took me a year of watching Trevor
McDonald[1] on TV before I _registered_ that he was black. Before, he
was merely a very very bright person on my mental map. Now he's filed as
exactly that, with added identifier. Just as I hadn't known that David
Blunkett was blind until it came up in a Radio interview.
Ged's skincolour would have been a background detail, but nothing
defining.
One of the best handlings of that issue was in one of Monica Dickens'
children's books. Apart from Follyfoot and the House at the End of the
World she wrote three or four about a girl who falls under the spell of
a powerful equine ghost; and has to ride it into the past/alternate
future to right wrongs and stop injustices.
One of the people into whose skin the girl slips is a schoolfriend who
happens to be black. The passage goes something like 'She'd always
wondered what it was _like_ to be black. It was no different from being
herself.' and then she goes on experiencing, in greater detail, what
it's like to be overweight, and that interests her much more, in an 'how
the other half live' kind of way.
'She's black, you're white, get over it, it doesn't matter.'
Catja
[1] Is that him? BBC newsreader/interviewer? I'm terrible with names
Zeborah
> just touchng on that one particular point, the key issue here is "with
> the races reversed" and thus instead of othello being the only BLACK
> man around he becomes the only WHITE man around - which changes
> nothing of the fundamentals of the story itself, which concerns with
> othello's difference from the rest of the cast. doing othello with an
> all-black or an all-white cast would be much more problematic unless
> you can come up with a highly identifiable way of differentiating
> othello himself from the rest.
Othello _herself_ might work.
Zeborah
--
Gravity is no joke.
http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz/
Catja Pafort
> But I also think this was about as close as it was possible to get to
> the books and still justify the $300 million investment. Jackson made
> some changes (the emphasis on the romance, for instance) to satisfy his
> backers, and to ensure that New Line would not be bankrupt -- which was
> a legitimate, real concern -- after the films were finished. On the
> other hand, he fought long and hard to keep some things that would have
> been lost otherwise -- things like, say, Merry and Pippin.]
From the viewpoint of people who have read LOTR more than once and who
know the genre, the films had flaws. Quite a lot of flaws. I agree with
a lot of what was said, and I didn't like the melodrama at the end of
the first book, and the missing scouring of the shire, and, and, and-
Fine. That's what fandom can argue about until the cows come home. (I
can follow some of the decisions, see the necessity for others, don't
mind further things - still hate Faramir, but like Boromir better etc
etc).
But,and I think it's necessary to keep that in mind, he produced
fantasy-on-film, with seamless integration of CGI, modelling and real
acting, bringing totally alien concepts to the screen, telling a heroic
tale - and the world, even people who'd otherwise turn their noses up at
the idea of 'fantasy' loved it.
Ok, the Harry Potter phenomenon has something to do with that - fantasy
has become acceptable, after all - but HP1 and LOTR I were pitched
against each other more or less head to head, and at the time, it wasn't
clear who'd win the popular vote. Jackson has created an epic that will
endure. The HP films, I should guess, will be largely forgotten by
posterity,.
*That's* the reality. And I think Jackson should be given credit for it.
By comparison, it sounds as if Earthsea has been _completely_ mangled.
Someone compared LOTR- the films with a different telling of the same
story - details differ, things get left out etc, but it's essentially
the same story. That might not be what we wished for, but it's a damn
sight more than LeGuin is going to get.
Catja
Eric Jarvis
> Alma Hromic Deckert <ang...@vaxer.net> wrote:
>
> > just touchng on that one particular point, the key issue here is "with
> > the races reversed" and thus instead of othello being the only BLACK
> > man around he becomes the only WHITE man around - which changes
> > nothing of the fundamentals of the story itself, which concerns with
> > othello's difference from the rest of the cast. doing othello with an
> > all-black or an all-white cast would be much more problematic unless
> > you can come up with a highly identifiable way of differentiating
> > othello himself from the rest.
>
> Othello _herself_ might work.
>
I've actually looked at gender reversal for Othello some years back.
Actually as a response to finding out that I'd been beaten several times
over to the "brilliantly original" idea of reversing the races. It would
be possible to do a production with a female Othello, but it would take
extremely careful direction. It immediately runs into the female warrior
issue, which would be difficult to make anything other than the central
theme of the production.
A male Desdemona is quite fun to imagine though. Some of the Othello/Iago
scenes would also work brilliantly with two women.
Zeborah
> From the viewpoint of people who have read LOTR more than once and who
> know the genre, the films had flaws. Quite a lot of flaws. I agree with
> a lot of what was said, and I didn't like the melodrama at the end of
> the first book, and the missing scouring of the shire, and, and, and-
I've read LotR only once, and was still annoyed by... well, not just the
missing scouring of the shire -- I could understand that there might be
time constraints -- but then to sit there watching minutes upon minutes
upon minutes of long lingering goodbyes... I was sitting there
muttering, "Can we just go now?" and thinking, "He could have spent this
time on the scouring instead!"
However:
> But,and I think it's necessary to keep that in mind, he produced
> fantasy-on-film, with seamless integration of CGI, modelling and real
> acting, bringing totally alien concepts to the screen, telling a heroic
> tale - and the world, even people who'd otherwise turn their noses up at
> the idea of 'fantasy' loved it.
Yes. Plus, LotR is big enough that everyone's got different views of
what it is, overlapping but not identical, so any translation of it to
another media is going to disappoint some people in some way. C'est la
vie.
Alma Hromic Deckert
>Alma Hromic Deckert <ang...@vaxer.net> wrote:
>
>> just touchng on that one particular point, the key issue here is "with
>> the races reversed" and thus instead of othello being the only BLACK
>> man around he becomes the only WHITE man around - which changes
>> nothing of the fundamentals of the story itself, which concerns with
>> othello's difference from the rest of the cast. doing othello with an
>> all-black or an all-white cast would be much more problematic unless
>> you can come up with a highly identifiable way of differentiating
>> othello himself from the rest.
>
>Othello _herself_ might work.
<g> might, at that,
A.
jere7my tho?rpe
That's true, but in the movie Frodo and Sam don't see him that way for
very long either. Movie-Faramir ends up in the same place as
book-Faramir; it just takes him longer. There's a moment in the book
when Faramir gets a worrisome gleam in his eye, but it passes; Jackson
stretched that moment out to a day or so. After that, movie-Faramir
becomes a lot more like book-Faramir: he is the only human in the movie
to willingly give up the Ring, surpassing both movie-Aragorn and
movie-Boromir. In fact, he is never tempted to claim the Ring for
himself; his whole desire is to please his father, as the EE makes
clearer.
No, he is not the knightly creature from the books who would not claim
the Ring if he saw it by the side of the road -- movie-Faramir has
internal conflict -- but he certainly ends up as one of the most noble
characters in the movie. The extended edition of "The Two Towers" does
a lot of good to Faramir's character, if you haven't seen it, and based
on the previews the EE of RotK looks to do the same. (Darn having to
wait for Christmas presents!)
----j7y
--
jere7my tho?rpe | "The land knows whom it sent out;
(440) 775-1522 | In the place of human beings
jere...@oberlin.net | Their ashes in urns
http://jere7my.livejournal.com | Come back to each man's house."
--- Aeschylus, The Agamemnon
jere7my tho?rpe
Sea Wasp <seaobvi...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
> I'll also note that your description doesn't explain why they don't
> take the Staff and find the Ring anyway, as, if you assume that after
> whipping Gandalf Sauruman is going to take his stuff, there's no
> reason that he wouldn't have the orcs strip him of his stuff once he'd
> surrendered.
In the movie, of course, they did take his staff; the staff we see him
with after his imprisonment is subtly different from the one he had
before. (There's no spot for holding his pipe, e.g.) And then he gets
the pretty white one after dying.
As to Narya, isn't it supposed to be invisible most of the time? That
was what I figured, anyway.
Torstenn
remember being slightly disappointed at times by some of the changes
made to the films in the theatrical releases (although the casting and
special effects are unquestionably superior). I understand the reasons
for them, but I don't agree with all of them.
Crucially, the fast "pacing" of the films (a conscious effort by the
editing team to keep the momentum going) is totally contrary to that of
the books, which accelerate and lull in beautiful alternating sequences
which are quite skilfully done by Tolkien. Perhaps it is unrealistic to
expect this to be the case in a film. However, the extended release
versions on DVD are much more graceful, have what I consider to be a
better pace (though less "pacey") and which do not skip from scene to
scene in a neverending headlong rush. These are the versions which I
think will eventually become the "definitive" versions as they are
unquestionably closer to the books.
One thing I do forget though - earlier in this thread, someone
mentioned Tolkien's slip when Glorfindel is in the Fellowship; because
apparently he is meant to be dead??!
My memory fails - when did he die and who killed him? The only other
mention of Glorfindel that I can dredge up from my memory is the famous
quote regarding the Witch-King of Angmar when Glorfindel stops one of
the Dunedain leaders from pursuing the defeated wraith, by saying words
to the effect of "not by the hand of man will he fall and his doom is
still far away". I can't remember him anywhere else in LOTR or the
Silmarillion.
Would someone enlighten me, please?
Alma Hromic Deckert
<jere...@oberlin.net> wrote:
>
>No, he is not the knightly creature from the books who would not claim
>the Ring if he saw it by the side of the road -- movie-Faramir has
>internal conflict -- but he certainly ends up as one of the most noble
>characters in the movie. The extended edition of "The Two Towers" does
>a lot of good to Faramir's character, if you haven't seen it, and based
>on the previews the EE of RotK looks to do the same. (Darn having to
>wait for Christmas presents!)
>
that's part of the bone i have to pick with the LOTR adaptations.
why is it that the movies only make whatever sense they can be said to
make when you see the EXTENDED EDITIONS??? if you could see the whole
picture in enough breadth to realise that extended editions are
necessary isn't the fact that you cut out huge chunks of the relevant
material a material weakness in the movies that were actually released
into the theaters? i mean, how many people actually see the extended
version..?
and yes, it could all have fitted in. as someone (catja, i think)
said, there were swathes of stuff on which jackson lovingly lingered
that could have been cut in favour of other more important things.
which would have made the movies better. which would, alas, have
probably cancelled the moneymarking opportunity of "extended edition"
DVDs.
A.
Mary K. Kuhner
Zeborah <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Othello _herself_ might work.
We saw a production of _The Tempest_ by the Oregon Shakespeare
Festival that made Prospero and Prospero's brother both female.
It shocked me because it seemed to work significantly *better*
than the original; lines that had seemed iffy suddenly made sense
to me. I suspect I'll be disappointed forever after to see
Prospero done as a male.
It's fun to take your own stories and randomly reassign the
genders--seeing what works for you and what does not can be
very revealing.
The GM of the game that gave me Markus and Chernoi once mentioned
that a logical followthrough of the then-current situation
would end up with Markus as a female. After careful thought, I
had to say "Don't do that. My head will explode."
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
Torstenn
jere7my tho?rpe
Alma Hromic Deckert <ang...@vaxer.net> wrote:
> why is it that the movies only make whatever sense they can be said to
> make when you see the EXTENDED EDITIONS???
That's not the case, and I'm quite sure I didn't say that. The
theatrical releases make perfect sense on their own, with a few small
inconsistencies. The EEs flesh out the characters and restore a lot of
the things that book-fans sorely missed. These are not mutually
incompatible.
The Faramir of the theatrical movie makes perfect sense in and of
himself, though he's not much like the Faramir of the book. If all you
ever saw were the theatrical movies, he would be a fine, consistent
character -- just not as fully explored as the primaries. You don't
have time, even in a three-hour movie, to make all of your dozens of
characters three-dimensional; that's not a flaw, that's basic
moviemaking. But if you watch the EEs, you'll see that he's more
textured and sympathetic, and if you're a fan of the books you'll see
he's rather more like the book-Faramir.
> if you could see the whole
> picture in enough breadth to realise that extended editions are
> necessary isn't the fact that you cut out huge chunks of the relevant
> material a material weakness in the movies that were actually released
> into the theaters? i mean, how many people actually see the extended
> version..?
Plenty of people watch the EEs; they're very popular. But your argument
is flawed; it's possible to release a perfectly fine expurgated version
of something, then make the full version available to people with the
patience to get through it. Both versions can make sense, and
intelligent people can prefer one or the other.
(One could bring up the Appendices and the History of Middle-Earth
series, of course. Is LotR "weak" because Tolkien had additional
background information that didn't fit in the main story?)
> and yes, it could all have fitted in. as someone (catja, i think)
> said, there were swathes of stuff on which jackson lovingly lingered
> that could have been cut in favour of other more important things.
> which would have made the movies better. which would, alas, have
> probably cancelled the moneymarking opportunity of "extended edition"
> DVDs.
"More important" in your eyes; not more important in the eyes of the
backers and the moviegoing public. Jackson _could not_ make the films
to please book-fans first and foremost; he had to produce films that
would be popular with movie audiences, which means he felt he had to
"linger" on exciting battles and mushy romance and so on. It's sad that
character moments are always the first to get cut, but that's the way it
is when you're making big-budget movies. 99% of the time, we never get
to see them; we're lucky in this case.
The EEs _are_ the movies for fans of the books; they're where you see
Gimli's teary-eyed exclamation over Galadriel's strands of hair, and
Merry and Pippin smoking pipe-weed in the ruins of Isengard. The fact
that Jackson went to the effort of putting them together for us, of
reinserting the character moments and the bits from Tolkien, speaks to
his love of the books, not of his wallet.
To be fully informed when speaking of Jackson's understanding of LotR, I
do think you need to watch the EEs and certain of the ancillary
materials, just as you need to read certain ancillary materials to fully
understand what Tolkien was doing.
Peter Knutsen
Sea Wasp wrote:
> The one I don't see the problem with so much. The other actually
> FIXED a problem for me, as in the book it reads as "Sauruman, you've
> flipped your lid. I'm out of here."
> "Sorry, old chap, but you really can't go. I have plans, and you
> leaving would rather mess them up, you know?"
> "Oh, righto old bean. I'll just toddle upstairs and wait in your tower."
> "Jolly good then!"
>
> I do not see Gandalf as submitting gently to the suggestion he just
[...]
I can't recall that the scene is actually narrated by the
narrator in the book. In fact I'm pretty certain that it
isn't. Instead, Gandalf tells *his* version of the story to
the other characters.
And Gandalf being who he is, he might leave out embarassing
details, such as his concentration failing for a second
which Saruman then exploits. Or, heck, Saruman might
actually have been the most powerful of the two at that time
(assuming that he had put some of his personal power into
the Ring he had forged, so as to achieve a synergistic
effect, similar to although obviously much weker than
Sauron's), which Gandalf might not be comfortable about
admitting.
Sauron might also have shackled Gandalf (presumably with
some kind of magic, or a horde of Orcs, or Man servants)
prior to their discussion, and then Gandalf neglects to
mention that aspect, again out of embarrassment.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Brian M. Scott
<jere...@oberlin.net> wrote in
<news:jere7my2-BC1203...@corp.supernews.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
[...]
> Jackson _could not_ make the films
> to please book-fans first and foremost; he had to produce films that
> would be popular with movie audiences, which means he felt he had to
> "linger" on exciting battles and mushy romance and so on.
There is another choice: they did not have to be made at
all.
[...]
Brian
Peter Knutsen
David Friedman wrote:
> The claim is that Jackson didn't forget that we first see Faramir
> through the lens of Frdo and Sam's fear and suspicion of him.
That's beside the point. Faramir is among the worst
screw-overs in the movie.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
Alma Hromic Deckert wrote:
> <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>Moreover, in the book we first see Faramir through the lens of Frodo and
>>Sam's fear and suspicion of him. Too many of us, having read the book
>>many times /knowing/ that he's a Good Guy, forget that. Jackson didn't.
>
> jackson didn't what? know that faramir was a good guy? what was he
Spon on. The problem with Jackson isn't that he modified the
plot, really. It's that he massively *changed* a large
number of characters, so that most of the interesting, or
valuable stuff that Tolkien put into them was completely
absent in the movie.
And he didn't do it because he was evil. He did it because
he was clueless, because he was unable to *understand* those
characters, to understand what was important about them.
Which is why he should not have made movies out of LOTR, and
why I might very well be willing to commit murder, if that'd
what was required to keep him away from ever touching any of
the stuff I make.
> doing, shooting each scene as it came without having read the whole
> thing first?...
>
> and if he HADN'T read the book many times in preparation for making
> the movie, then why not?
There's reading and then there's understanding. I don't for
a second doubt that Jackson is able to read. But as far as
understanding goes, I'd say that he screwed over *more* than
half of the important characters from the books.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
Alma Hromic Deckert wrote:
> uh huh. but we didn't CONTINUTE to see faramir that way. a little fear
> and suspicion goes a long way. and even frodo and sam didn't see him
> that way for very long.
A competent movie director - who had understood the novel,
including (this is the *important* part, David) the
princicapl characters that happened to be in the novel -
could have shown that, shown how Frodo and Sam feared that
he'd take the Ring from them, without having Faramir
actually acting and speaking as if he was going to do it.
Much of the point of Faramir (e.g. the real one, in the
novel) was that he was able to *resist* temptation.
*Completely* able. I'm sure he thought about it, but it took
him only a very few seconds to realize that it would be the
wrong thing to do.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
jere7my tho?rpe wrote:
> Alma Hromic Deckert <ang...@vaxer.net> wrote:
>>why is it that the movies only make whatever sense they can be said to
>>make when you see the EXTENDED EDITIONS???
>
> That's not the case, and I'm quite sure I didn't say that. The
> theatrical releases make perfect sense on their own, with a few small
> inconsistencies. The EEs flesh out the characters and restore a lot of
> the things that book-fans sorely missed. These are not mutually
> incompatible.
I do not miss any "things" from the books.
I miss the *characters* from the books.
Many of the characters in the movies are completely
different from the characters in the book, and that doesn't
have a flying fuck to do with how long the movies were or
were not, it has to do with Jackson not *understanding* Tolkien.
> The Faramir of the theatrical movie makes perfect sense in and of
> himself, though he's not much like the Faramir of the book. If all you
Yes. And it's not Faramir; as a rough guess (I haven't made
an actual list, not yet) Jackson massively screwed over more
than half of the principal characters from the novel,
portraying them in a way radically different from how they
are in the novel.
> ever saw were the theatrical movies, he would be a fine, consistent
> character -- just not as fully explored as the primaries. You don't
> have time, even in a three-hour movie, to make all of your dozens of
> characters three-dimensional; that's not a flaw, that's basic
As I explain above, length doesn't have anything to do with
it. Understanding has. You know, that exceedingly important
capability which Jackson has proven himself to *not* have.
> moviemaking. But if you watch the EEs, you'll see that he's more
> textured and sympathetic, and if you're a fan of the books you'll see
> he's rather more like the book-Faramir.
>
>>if you could see the whole
>>picture in enough breadth to realise that extended editions are
>>necessary isn't the fact that you cut out huge chunks of the relevant
>>material a material weakness in the movies that were actually released
>>into the theaters? i mean, how many people actually see the extended
>>version..?
>
> Plenty of people watch the EEs; they're very popular. But your argument
Uh, no. Plenty of people have not watched the EEs. Plenty of
people are exactly what is *not* going to watch them, *ever*.
Let us assume that 200 million people watch the regular
versions in cinemas across the world (yes, that is a high
number, but it's not ridiculously high. The USA has 280
million people, the EU something like 350 million now. And
we're talking extremely popular and hyped movies).
Now, how large a percentage of these people will actually
watch all three EEs? 1%? 2%?
Kindly stop saying "plenty"...
Also, the problem has nothing to do with cinema release vs
EE relase, but with characters being radically altered, in
most cases for no good reason at all (Aragorn is the
exception, I can see a reason, although I don't *accept* it
as *valid*, for why he was made more fashionable than the
real Aragorn in the novel was).
> is flawed; it's possible to release a perfectly fine expurgated version
> of something, then make the full version available to people with the
> patience to get through it. Both versions can make sense, and
> intelligent people can prefer one or the other.
>
> (One could bring up the Appendices and the History of Middle-Earth
> series, of course. Is LotR "weak" because Tolkien had additional
> background information that didn't fit in the main story?)
>
>>and yes, it could all have fitted in. as someone (catja, i think)
>>said, there were swathes of stuff on which jackson lovingly lingered
>>that could have been cut in favour of other more important things.
>>which would have made the movies better. which would, alas, have
>>probably cancelled the moneymarking opportunity of "extended edition"
>>DVDs.
>
> "More important" in your eyes; not more important in the eyes of the
> backers and the moviegoing public. Jackson _could not_ make the films
What's important is Tolkien's eyes. And I, unlike Jackson,
can understand Tolkien quite well. And from email exchange
with Alma, I get the impression that she is one of those few
other people who are likewise capable of understanding Tolkien.
The reason Jackson gets away with it is that he is not
unique in being unable to understand Tolkien, rather that is
the normal condition today. *Most* people, living today, do
not understand Tolkien.
> to please book-fans first and foremost; he had to produce films that
> would be popular with movie audiences, which means he felt he had to
> "linger" on exciting battles and mushy romance and so on. It's sad that
I don't have a problem with that.
> character moments are always the first to get cut, but that's the way it
I don't have a problem with lack of character moments. I
have a problem with the characters in the movie being
radically different from the characters in the movie, and
with (at most) one exception the only reason for such
radical changes being Jackson's inability to understand Tolkien.
> is when you're making big-budget movies. 99% of the time, we never get
> to see them; we're lucky in this case.
>
> The EEs _are_ the movies for fans of the books; they're where you see
> Gimli's teary-eyed exclamation over Galadriel's strands of hair, and
That's nice, but I'd rather have had Gimli behaving like
Gimli in the cinema relase, rather than like a clown.
It's *not* about the movies being too short. Was never about
that.
Sure, the *perfect* LOTR movie would be six movies each four
hours long, not three movies three (or four in the EE's)
hours long. But this is not about perfection. This is about
massively screwing up, because of incompetence.
It's not about making a choice. Jackson never *had* a
choice. Jackson could not chose to understand Tolkien,
because he is not equipped to do so.
> Merry and Pippin smoking pipe-weed in the ruins of Isengard. The fact
> that Jackson went to the effort of putting them together for us, of
> reinserting the character moments and the bits from Tolkien, speaks to
> his love of the books, not of his wallet.
It's possible that Jackson believes that he loves the book,
but he sure as hell do not love the *characters* in it.
I repeat my original assertion that I'd be completely
unwilling to let Jackson attempt to make anything cinematic
out of any of the stuff I write, because he would be
pathologically unable to understand it, and hence he would
inavoidably fuck it up.
> To be fully informed when speaking of Jackson's understanding of LotR, I
> do think you need to watch the EEs and certain of the ancillary
No she doesn't. She can see, as can I, that the characters
are radically different from the ones in the novel. That's
all there is to is.
I will watch the EE's, when I get the opportunity, but
there's no way they can repair the multiple character
assassinations which Jackson has committed.
> materials, just as you need to read certain ancillary materials to fully
> understand what Tolkien was doing.
Are *you* claiming to understand what Tolkien was doing?
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
jere7my tho?rpe
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
Er...yes. But making them hurts nothing; the books are still right
where they always were, and nobody who didn't want to see the movies had
to.
Peter Knutsen
Catja Pafort wrote:
> From the viewpoint of people who have read LOTR more than once and who
> know the genre, the films had flaws. Quite a lot of flaws. I agree with
> a lot of what was said, and I didn't like the melodrama at the end of
> the first book, and the missing scouring of the shire, and, and, and-
>
> Fine. That's what fandom can argue about until the cows come home. (I
> can follow some of the decisions, see the necessity for others, don't
> mind further things - still hate Faramir, but like Boromir better etc
> etc).
Boromir was cool, actually. I especially liked the inserted
scene where he was playing with the hobbits. It made his
fall all the more powerful (the scene where Aragorn is ready
to draw his sword and chop Boromir down was also excellent).
The only problem I had with Boromir was that he could have
been somewaht subtler, and more charismatic, and a better
orator/persuader (especially with Frodo at the river).
But Boromir is nothing compared to the (many!) real
character assassinations which Jackson committed.
> But,and I think it's necessary to keep that in mind, he produced
> fantasy-on-film, with seamless integration of CGI, modelling and real
> acting, bringing totally alien concepts to the screen, telling a heroic
> tale - and the world, even people who'd otherwise turn their noses up at
> the idea of 'fantasy' loved it.
But I don't just want them to see a movie version of a novel
I love. I also want them to meet all my friends from the
novel. But they didn't. They met only a subset of them. And
then they also met a bunch of *impostors*, dressed up like
Aragorn, Denethor, Faramir and Gimli.
> Ok, the Harry Potter phenomenon has something to do with that - fantasy
> has become acceptable, after all - but HP1 and LOTR I were pitched
> against each other more or less head to head, and at the time, it wasn't
> clear who'd win the popular vote. Jackson has created an epic that will
> endure. The HP films, I should guess, will be largely forgotten by
> posterity,.
>
> *That's* the reality. And I think Jackson should be given credit for it.
He had balls. He managed to do a lot of things that was
exceedingly difficult, and he did all of them well, except
for the characters (and then some minor details, but those
aren't important enough to waste any bytes on).
The problem is, I care about the characters. The characters
in the novel expresses a lot of the things that Tolkien
thought was important. But a lot of that got completely
lost, in the translation, because Jackson did not, on a very
basic level, understand where Tolkien was coming from, how
Tolkien thought.
> By comparison, it sounds as if Earthsea has been _completely_ mangled.
Yes, sure. On a scale from 0 to 10, the Earthsea mess-up of
the plot and world is obviously much wore than the LOTR
mess-up. We should not be distracted by the fact that Le
Guin has a severe skin colour fetisch.
> Someone compared LOTR- the films with a different telling of the same
> story - details differ, things get left out etc, but it's essentially
It's *not* details. It's *important* things. You know, those
things that walk on two legs and speak a lot. characters.
Fantasy and science fiction is mostly about world building,
but the second-most important thing (and that's still quite
important) is the characters.
Characters aren't details.
> the same story. That might not be what we wished for, but it's a damn
> sight more than LeGuin is going to get.
True.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
jere7my tho?rpe
Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
> And he didn't do it because he was evil. He did it because
> he was clueless, because he was unable to *understand* those
> characters, to understand what was important about them.
Do you have evidence for this?
jere7my tho?rpe
Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
> A competent movie director - who had understood the novel,
> including (this is the *important* part, David) the
> princicapl characters that happened to be in the novel -
> could have shown that, shown how Frodo and Sam feared that
> he'd take the Ring from them, without having Faramir
> actually acting and speaking as if he was going to do it.
But that is not why Faramir was turned into a threat in the film.
Faramir became a threat because Shelob was moved to RotK (which actually
fits Tolkien's timeline), and therefore Frodo's and Sam's plotline would
have not had any sort of climax at the end of TTT. They would have
ended with the tea party that is in the book, jolly good, on your way
then. You may quibble with this decision, but it makes sense to me that
Jackson would want each storyline to come to some sort of dramatic cusp
at the end of each movie.
> Much of the point of Faramir (e.g. the real one, in the
> novel) was that he was able to *resist* temptation.
> *Completely* able. I'm sure he thought about it, but it took
> him only a very few seconds to realize that it would be the
> wrong thing to do.
Movie-Faramir was not strongly tempted by the Ring either. He never
attempted to claim it for himself, unlike his brother; he only wanted it
for his father. He was torn between duty and honor; duty won out until
he saw the effect the Ring had on Frodo, at which point he realized that
it would do more harm than good in the hands of his father. Jackson
merely stretched those moments of indecision out; movie-Faramir
eventually made the same decision book-Faramir did, and for the same
reason.
Also, Jackson made the decision to emphasize the tempting power of the
Ring, and we saw Aragorn tempted by it; Faramir casting it aside would
have seemed unrealistic at the point, and would have left the audience
wondering why Mister Untemptable shouldn't be king.
Before you accuse Peter Jackson of misunderstanding a character, you
should be sure you are not misunderstanding the film, and the reasons
for the choices Jackson made. Much of this information is available to
us on the EE DVDs.
Peter Knutsen
David Friedman wrote:
> On the other hand, in the Earthsea series, there are "racial"
> distinctions, although my memory is that they become important in the
> later books. There is a culture (Kargad?) which was raiding and
Still is in the first book. May be in the second too, but
IIRC Khargad has quited down in the third book (maybe
because of what happened in the second?).
> conquering at some point in the past, is (I think) hostile to magic, and
Yup, hostile to magic. There's a Khargadian refugee who has
become a Master mage in book three, but the rest of the
culture is still magic-hostile.
> is populated by people who look different from the main population group.
It's my impression that there are several different racial
types on Earthsea. The Khargadians are Caucasian, or at
least white-skined. Then Ged has a red-brown skin colour,
which makes me think of Native Americans. And Vetch has a
dark-brown skin colour, as in African.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org