An Open Letter to Peter Jackson (Part 1)
Michael Kohrs
In just a few days the first of three movies based on J.R.R.
Tolkien's novel "The Lord of the Rings" will be released. Fans around
the world await this event - some with anticipation, others with fear
and loathing. No fan is unaffected, no one is neutral (although there
are many, of course who are content to settle for a flawed version
rather than no movie at all.) Such is the power of Tolkien's most
beloved work.
I am writing this because I want my friends and fellow fans to
understand my occasionally virulent opposition to this movie. I
readily acknowledge that I have not seen the Lord of the Rings. I
have no intention of ever seeing it. I have advised my family and
friends not to see it. I have lectured strangers around the world
regarding their sin of desiring to watch this movie. I will oppose it
until the end of my days.
I wish to begin by acknowledging that I am not familiar with your
work. I have never met you (and sincerely hope that I never do) and I
have never seen any of your movies. I readily concede that you may be
a talented director and that this movie may indeed be the "cinematic
triumph" that many critics have labeled it. I do not doubt that most
people will find it enjoyable.
My opposition is not based on the cinematic merits of the film -
I am not interested in whether the characters have been cast correctly
or the quality of the musical score or the special-effects. Such
details are subjective and merely divert attention from the true
issue: The exploitation of J.R.R. Tolkien and his creations.
I cannot help but wonder why you chose to make this movie. The
interviews and reports that I have read imply that you had some idea
of how difficult it would be to make such a movie. I do not think
that you truly understood the magnitude of this challenge, however.
It is not merely a problem of adapting the novel to the screen - I
have yet to meet a fan who has not conceded that it is impossible to
capture the true complexity and spirit of the Lord of the Rings on
film - but also of fulfilling the expectations of countless fans
around the world.
Before I continue, I must concede that my standards are
extraordinarily (some might say excessively) rigorous. I expect any
movie based on the works of J.R.R. Tolkien to be nothing less than a
masterpiece. I want people, even those who disliked this book, to
passionately declare that this is the greatest movie of all time.
Perhaps it is a consequence of a childhood in Illinois, where shoddy
and mediocre work is the norm, but I am adverse to inferiority of any
type. My philosophy is perfectly expressed by an advertisement which
I once saw that contained a photo of the gorgeous Taj Mahal and the
caption: "When Shah Jehan saw the contractor's bid, did he say 'Make
the pool a little smaller?'" When you are creating a masterpiece of
any type - and that should always be your goal - you should not fret
over such trivial details as budget and time. In other words, I
expect the film to duplicate the magnificence and poignancy of the
book.
I therefore object to your movie because you are simply not
qualified to produce such a masterpiece. You do not possess the
necessary resources. (I would not attempt such a movie unless I had
the combined resources of Spielberg & Lucas and even then I would
still hesitate.) You lack the credentials to acquire such resources.
You have no experience with epic films and your resume is limited and,
in my opinion, unimpressive. You lack the necessary influence to hire
the best writers and actors. The fact that you were forced to film
this movie in a backwater country like New Zealand speaks volumes
about your inability to maneuver within the labyrinth of studio
politics and obtain the results that you desire. These are obstacles
which could all be overcome given time and effort, but even if you had
all of these requisites available you still lack the necessary
insanity.
Lest that seem an absurd statement, I will elaborate. It should
be obvious that any attempt to turn the Lord of the Rings into a movie
is an ambition on a par with, say, the building of the Pyramids or the
Golden Gate Bridge or Versailles or the Taj Mahal. Such
accomplishments are not the achievements of ordinary men. Any one who
would attempt such a challenge must possess a vision tinged with what
can be best described as madness. There can be no compromises, no
half-measures, no acceptable flaws; Every detail must be as close to
perfection as possible. Any one who would attempt such a challenge
must be not only capable of inspiring similar passion in his
subordinates, but also willing to crush anyone who interferes or
challenges his vision. I do not think that you fit this description
at all, Mr. Jackson.
Let us overlook your arrogance and folly, however, and, for the
sake of discussion, assume that you were justified in your decision to
attempt an impossible feat. I have not forgotten that you are human.
It was foolish to even attempt to produce this movie, but you
compounded that error many times over by choosing to limit the number
of movies to three. This choice (and I do not claim to know your
motivation) condemned the movie to mediocrity before you ever shot a
reel of film or hired an actor. This choice dictated that some
material would have to be eliminated if the entire trilogy was fit in
just three movies and that naturally doomed any chance of successfully
capturing the spirit of the book. I firmly believe that a minimum of
four or even five movies is necessary to capture the essence of the
Lord of the Rings. I dismiss any claims that audiences would never
tolerate such a substantial project. The public has proven time and
again that we prefer quality to quantity and are quite willing to
endure any inconvenience if a producer can deliver it. (Who could
ever have anticipated that a movie revolving around an uninspiring
love story aboard a ship called the Titanic would become the biggest
moneymaker of all time?) Television has also repeatedly revealed that
fans will quite eagerly watch epics. ("James Clavell's "Shogun," John
Jakes' "North & South" and Frank Herbert's "Dune" are a few examples
which spring to mind.)
I cannot adequately stress that it is IMPOSSIBLE to streamline or
alter the Lord of the Rings. The Lord of the Rings is not a mere
collection of characters and scenes from which you can pick and choose
without affecting the overall story. It is rather more like a
beautifully woven tapestry. Cut any part of it and you ruin the
tapestry! Every scene (even those which many fans find less than
riveting), every passage, indeed every word contributes to the
development and persona of one or more characters. Eliminate that and
you weaken the character and ultimately the story itself.
I object to the movie because you have committed precisely that
sin. I object to this not only because it inevitably affects the
quality of the movie, but also because it is an insidious exploitation
of Tolkien and his fans.
Anyone familiar with the Lord of the Rings will tell you that it
was a labor of love for Tolkien. He poured his heart and soul into it
to an extent that few authors have equaled. (In the lament of
Theodon, for example, we hear the echo of Tolkien's grief as he
watched the natural beauty of his beloved Britain succumb to urban
sprawl and industrialization: 'Yet I should also be sad,' said
Theodon. 'For however the fortune of war shall go, may it not so end
that much that was fair and wonderful shall pass for ever out of
Middle?earth?') He was unable to abandon it even during some of the
darkest hours of his country's history. The powerful sense of loss
that permeates the novel, the sense of evil menace that the enemy
projects, the courage displayed by the most unlikely characters not
only reflect Tolkien's own experiences, but also a poignant attempt to
pass such wisdom as he had acquired to his children. The Lord of the
Rings is thus a subtle love story between J.R.R. Tolkien and his
children and, indeed, all of humanity. I and countless others are
profoundly grateful that Tolkien chose to share this story with us.
(continued in Part 2)
James
>You lack the necessary influence to hire
>the best writers and actors.
PJ has hired the best actors. Sean Bean, the two Sir Ians, Christopher
Lee, Sean Astin - all are brilliant, absolutely first-rate. This
objection can be - and has been - easily disproven. Howard Shore,
WETA, the costume and set designers - all first-rate (WETA's CGI work
has always been superior to that of ILM, who are considered the
industry leaders anyway).
>The fact that you were forced to film
>this movie in a backwater country like New Zealand speaks volumes
>about your inability to maneuver within the labyrinth of studio
>politics and obtain the results that you desire.
1. PJ wanted to film it in New Zealand from the start. He wasn't
"forced to" - it *was* the result he desired.
2. New Zealand isn't "backwater" in terms of filmmaking. Australia and
NZ have been increasingly popular destinations for filmmakers in
recent years (especially those working on SFX-heavy epics like the
Matrix and Star Wars) because of both the availability of cheap,
high-quality filmmaking materials (to stretch the already-staggering
budget even further) and the stunning landscapes. Where else would you
film a movie like LOTR? In England? Where would be your Caradhras,
your Mordor? George Lucas wasn't forced to film Star Wars Episode IV
in a backwater country like Tunisia - he chose to, because the
physical location was absolutely perfect. Same applies here.
The fact that you were forced to back up your anti-movie claims with
ludicrous, factually incorrect arguments speaks volumes about your
inability to come up with any legitimate argument against PJ's
qualities as a filmmaker and choices as director.
James
Robert Bielby
case apologies to the rest of the ng for replying) or you are the most
arrogant person I've ever met. The tone of your "letter" seems to set you up
as the final arbiter of what millions of Tolkien fans find acceptable. Who
are you to speak for all of us? Have you read the views of people on this
newsgroup? We're dying to see the film. Obviously you hold us all in
contempt like Peter Jackson for daring to welcome this movie as a bold
attempt to put the magic of Tolkien's work on the screen. Also, you have
never met PJ and read only what is written about him by the press - yet you
rain criticism down upon him with little justification (and criticising him
without actually seeing any of his movies is just laughable - that would be
like saying LotR is brilliant without reading it!)
If you don't want to see the movie because it will spoil _your_ imagined
view of Middle-earth then fine don't see it. But is there any reason to
spout all this nonsense at all of us? I would just point out that Tolkien
was prepared to sell out the film rights and control over his own work
provided the cheque was big enough. I'm paraphrasing, but a letter to his
publishers goes something like "Either very favourable financial terms or an
absolute veto by the author on the content." What he would actually tried to
do if a movie had been filmed during his lifetime is another matter, but I
for one am glad that PJ is making this movie and not a "Hollywood name" with
lots of "stars" in it. Perhaps you would prefer Haley Joel Osment (or even
worse Macauly Culkin ) as Frodo, and maybe Bruce Willis as Aragorn - then he
can say "yipikayee Motherf****r" at the Balrog when he falls into the abyss.
Rob
Michael Kohrs <mnk...@att.net> wrote in message
news:qemg1uos88jm3t5en...@4ax.com...
Michael Kohrs
<robert...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>This is either the longest and most boring Troll I've ever seen (in which
>case apologies to the rest of the ng for replying) or you are the most
>arrogant person I've ever met.
[snip stupid and unnecessary lecture]
My post speaks for itself and only time will tell whether or not I am
a true prophet. I merely wanted to clarify one point regarding my
status for the new members who are arriving daily. Ask Steuard,
Conrad, Tiffany Case, Ojevind or any of the other long-time regulars
here and they will readily confirm that I am somewhat notorious as the
most arrogant and elitist member of these newsgroups. It is a
distinction that I am quite proud to claim, of course.
Mnkohrz
Sandy Santra
Michael Kohrs wrote:
> (I would not attempt such a movie unless I had
> the combined resources of Spielberg & Lucas and even then I would
> still hesitate.)
Are you kidding? They would RUIN it. They'd put in a Jar-Jar character
or something.
> The fact that you were forced to film
> this movie in a backwater country like New Zealand speaks volumes
> about your inability to maneuver within the labyrinth of studio
> politics and obtain the results that you desire.
What?!? It's the only country left on the planet that's unsullied and
mostly unpopulated. Where else are you going to get the visitas, depth
perspective, and variety of landscapes? U.S.? No, too populated.
China? No, they'd never give up the rights.
While I support you in principle, the examples you give for your
argument(s) are pathetic.
Bill Silvey
> I cannot help but wonder why you chose to make this movie.
I will not respond to the troll...I will not respond to the troll...I will
not respond to the troll...I will not respo...ah, fuck it.
Peter Jackson is making the movie because he's a bigger, better, more
openminded and more knowledgeable Tolkien fan than you can, could or ever
will be, period, you tiny minded piece of cloth-eared parrot droppings.
There. I feel better.
--
Heretic #2 of 3e D&D. - ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!!!
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
> I don't think anything short of no-boot would put Macists off Mac.
> The last stable OS was System 6.0.8. So long as system messages
> are phrased as if a patronising aunt were addressing a retarded
> 4-year-old, they will continue to love it. - Patrick Ford
NOTE: xganon Anon posts are *filtered out*. I will not see your posts if
they originate from xganon.com!
Bill Silvey
"Michael Kohrs" <mnk...@att.net> wrote in message
news:2r2h1ugjdfl3u6sce...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 09:38:53 -0000, "Robert Bielby"
> <robert...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >This is either the longest and most boring Troll I've ever seen (in which
> >case apologies to the rest of the ng for replying) or you are the most
> >arrogant person I've ever met.
>
> [snip stupid and unnecessary lecture]
<snip stupid and unnecessary reply>
Time has told whether or not you were a "true prophet". News flash: you're
not.
TWS
"Bill Silvey" <bxsxixl...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in > "Michael Kohrs"
<mnk...@att.net> wrote in , "Robert Bielby"
> > >This is either the longest and most boring Troll I've ever seen (in
which
> > >case apologies to the rest of the ng for replying) or you are the most
> > >arrogant person I've ever met.
> >
> > [snip stupid and unnecessary lecture]
> <snip stupid and unnecessary reply>
>
> Time has told whether or not you were a "true prophet". News flash:
you're
> not.
I have a lot of admiration for the guys who'll stand
against the crowd not backing down from what they
think. I don't think MK is a huge troll- he's not coming
from some viewpoint that we can't relate to. We can
understand exactly where he's at- it's just that we're
not as inflexible on those points.
Michael O'Neill
[An excellent rant]
However masterpieces are often adjudged to be so in hindsight and many a
prophet has gone unknown in his own land. *You* may be the one seen to
be out of step here, not Jacksonfuckwit.
M.
James
>I have a lot of admiration for the guys who'll stand
>against the crowd not backing down from what they
>think. I don't think MK is a huge troll- he's not coming
>from some viewpoint that we can't relate to. We can
>understand exactly where he's at- it's just that we're
>not as inflexible on those points.
I agree. Good for him for posting a lengthy and calm discussion of why
he's against the upcoming movies, rather than resorting (as some
others have, on both sides of the fence) to sniping and insulting
those who disagree with him. I think he's wrong (the whole lot -
premises, arguments, conclusions :), but he's not a troll.
James
Larry, son of Larry
Michael Kohrs <mnk...@att.net> wrote in message
news:qemg1uos88jm3t5en...@4ax.com...
>The exploitation of J.R.R. Tolkien and his creations.
I did not find a mention of your profound disgust of
Christopher Tolkien. He, more than any person alive, has
exploited JRRT and his creations.
>I therefore object to your movie because you are simply not
>qualified to produce such a masterpiece. You do not possess the
>necessary resources.
Considering your criteria for qualifications, JRRT would not have
been able to write TH...much less LotR.
Sheesh.
-L,soL
Michael Kohrs
wrote:
>
>
>Michael Kohrs wrote:
>> (I would not attempt such a movie unless I had
>> the combined resources of Spielberg & Lucas and even then I would
>> still hesitate.)
>
>Are you kidding? They would RUIN it. They'd put in a Jar-Jar character
>or something.
Reread the post, please. I did not say that I wanted either Spielberg
or Lucas to direct or produce it. I said I would need their resources
in order to produce an accurate movie of the LoTR - i.e. Lucasfilms'
technical wizardry, Spielberg's financial resources and enormous clout
and, preferably, Disney's corporate muscle to crush any opposition.
>> The fact that you were forced to film
>> this movie in a backwater country like New Zealand speaks volumes
>> about your inability to maneuver within the labyrinth of studio
>> politics and obtain the results that you desire.
>
>What?!? It's the only country left on the planet that's unsullied and
>mostly unpopulated. Where else are you going to get the visitas, depth
>perspective, and variety of landscapes? U.S.? No, too populated.
>China? No, they'd never give up the rights.
Jackson is a native Kiwi. He is bound to be popular on that island.
Where is the challenge in filming a movie there? In any case, I can
think of a few other locations that would be crucial to include in the
movie. No other tree could capture the true splendor of the Caras
Galadhon in Lorien better than the mighty sequoias of California. Who
could argue that the Swiss or French Alps capture the true essence of
the Misty Mountains? I can think of other examples, but given that I
have not seen the movie (and do not plan to) and hence do not know
whether or not Jackson included them, I did not bother to list them in
the post.
Mnkohrz
Tiffany Case
> Ask Steuard,
> Conrad, Tiffany Case, Ojevind or any of the other long-time regulars
> here and they will readily confirm that I am somewhat notorious as the
> most arrogant and elitist member of these newsgroups.
Yep. He shore is. ;)
-TC
Steuard Jensen
comments. First of all...
Quoth Michael Kohrs <mnk...@att.net> in article
<qemg1uos88jm3t5en...@4ax.com>:
> Lest that seem an absurd statement, I will elaborate. It
> should be obvious that any attempt to turn the Lord of the Rings
> into a movie is an ambition on a par with, say, the building of the
> Pyramids or the Golden Gate Bridge or Versailles or the Taj Mahal.
_The Lord of the Rings_ is a great book, yes, and my favorite even
after a great deal of reading. But to compare even Tolkien's own work
to somethihng like the pyramids strikes me as praise beyond any book.
Yes, Tolkien had vision and genius and created something wonderful,
but the pyramids were the product of an entire civilization working in
concert (let's not get into the whole forced labor issue just now).
_The Lord of the Rings_ might be as great as a book can get, but it
is, in the end, a book.
Second, I would point out that Tolkien's vision has survived Ace
books, the Rankin-Bass animated versions of _The Hobbit_ and _Te
Return of the King_, and Bakshi's _Lord of the Rings_ movie. It has
survived audio dramatizations. It has survived countless artists'
interpretations. It has survived utter critical distain. It has
survived complete dissection in the _History of Middle-earth_ books.
Why in the world do you think that these movies will so suddenly and
easily topple it into the mud? If the movies are bad, they'll be
forgotten. If they're great, they'll bring people to the books
(that's already happening in droves). Either way, Tolkien's work will
still be there, unaltered, as great as it ever was. I really don't
see where the doom and gloom is in any of this.
And hey, you know what? We get to see a really cool movie (from the
sound of the reviews). I'm looking forward to that. :)
Steuard Jensen
Ronald O. Christian
I wish I had that much time on my hands. If you're going to be this
passionate about something, couldn't it be something of monument?
Save the whales, or the disappearing rainforest?
Ron
www.europa.com/~ronc
"If UN peacekeeping had been involved during the US civil war,
it'd still be going on today."
BaldiePete
Steuard Jensen <sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:Er3S7.51$w4....@news.uchicago.edu...
At last someone with a sense of perspective and something sensible to say.
Thanks for that :-))
BaldiePete
Rick Rollins
Time has already told you are not a true prophet, and are just spouting
gibberish. Your own statements indicate you really know close to absolutely
nothing about film. Of course no one needs to deny you are arrogant and
elitist -- only they you have any reason to be so.
wrob
>
> An Assault on Tolkien: An Open Letter to Peter Jackson
>
> In just a few days the first of three movies based on J.R.R.
> Tolkien's novel "The Lord of the Rings" will be released. Fans around
> the world await this event - some with anticipation, others with fear
> and loathing. No fan is unaffected, no one is neutral (although there
> are many, of course who are content to settle for a flawed version
> rather than no movie at all.) Such is the power of Tolkien's most
> beloved work.
> I am writing this because I want my friends and fellow fans to
> understand my occasionally virulent opposition to this movie. I
> readily acknowledge that I have not seen the Lord of the Rings. I
> have no intention of ever seeing it. I have advised my family and
> friends not to see it. I have lectured strangers around the world
> regarding their sin of desiring to watch this movie. I will oppose it
> until the end of my days.
Hmmm, I smell HOAX!!
Mnkohrz, you are one sly guy either way.
-King Ber-uthiel
wrob
>
> Michael Kohrs <mnk...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:qemg1uos88jm3t5en...@4ax.com...
>
> >The exploitation of J.R.R. Tolkien and his creations.
> I did not find a mention of your profound disgust of
> Christopher Tolkien. He, more than any person alive, has
> exploited JRRT and his creations.
Good point. Why don't we write an open letter to CJRT
denouncing him for exploiting and ruining his father's
works with misplaced textual analysis done for money?
:-p
-Ber
Mark Reichert
news:Er3S7.51$w4....@news.uchicago.edu...
Out of date. The laborers it appears were very well rewarded for their very
hard work.
http://www.guardians.net/hawass/buildtomb.htm
Michael Kohrs
(John Savard) wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 07:33:43 GMT, Michael Kohrs <mnk...@att.net>
>wrote, in part:
>
>> I cannot adequately stress that it is IMPOSSIBLE to streamline or
>>alter the Lord of the Rings.
>
>In that case, there's no problem.
>
>Except to the movie theatres which will be faced with the problem of
>putting blank film in their projectors and then facing a disappointed
>audience.
You have no idea how hard it was for me to suppress the impulse to say
that it would be an improvement over Jackson's film :)
>
>>The Lord of the Rings is not a mere
>>collection of characters and scenes from which you can pick and choose
>>without affecting the overall story. It is rather more like a
>>beautifully woven tapestry. Cut any part of it and you ruin the
>>tapestry! Every scene (even those which many fans find less than
>>riveting), every passage, indeed every word contributes to the
>>development and persona of one or more characters. Eliminate that and
>>you weaken the character and ultimately the story itself.
>
>Even if LotR is such a masterpiece of perfection, (and Peter Jackson's
>comments about "going back to the books" should indicate that this
>perfection can sometimes serve to defend a work, rather than making it
>impossibly vulnerable) that is not an argument against a more
>accessible less-than-perfect version.
>
>What we don't need are super-duper-extreme Tolkien fans:
>
>who find The Lord of the Rings so perfect...
>
>that not only do they reject the idea that Tolkien just wrote it as a
>human author,
>
>but they also reject the idea that he wrote it, even under divine
>inspiration,
>
>and even the idea that God wrote it, and had an angel dictate it word
>for word to Tolkien,
>
>and finally settle on the only possible non-heretical theory: that The
>Lord of the Rings existed in Heaven for all eternity, as long as God
>did.
>
>We've seen what Level IV fandom can do, thank you very much.
>
>(Of course, the real number line existed eternally, and it contained
>Godel numberings of both LotR and the Quran - but also of all the
>various editions and drafts of LotR, and every other work of
>literature, down to and including the trivial and offensive...)
>
>John Savard
>http://plaza.powersurfr.com/jsavard/index.html
You know, John, I have given serious consideration to your arguments
and decided that...
Damn! You are right! You are absolutely right! In fact...
< deep breath >
I, Michael Kohrs, hereby announce that I have decided to retire from
the Usenet and dedicate my life to rewriting the Lord of the Rings!
Yes, I will include as many new characters as I feel will improve the
story. (You can look forward to an entire army of Balrogs and a
graphic description of a passionate, yet tender love affair between
Queen Arwen and one of her maids. You will also enjoy the gruesome
description of Gimli wielding his axe with mighty strokes as he hacks
off King Eomer's head. You will recoil in horror when Legolas
discovers that Celeborn is his true father!) I will eliminate any
chapters that I feel are unnecessary. (You can say goodbye to "The
Field of Cormallen.") I will even generously include illustrations
that I stole from the Internet and altered using Photoshop. I will
then publish it with the title "The Lord of the Rings" so that future
generations can enjoy and cherish my mad genius.
Supplies are limited, so reserve your copy now!
But not to worry, folks. It will only be one possible interpretation
of Tolkien's work.
Mnkohrz
lazarus
(Steuard Jensen) wrote:
>Well, now that I've read your whole opus here, I really just have two
>comments. First of all...
>
Wonderful, Steuard, simply wonderful. Very reasoned, and very good.
--
lazarus
War is God's way of teaching Americans geography. -- Ambrose Bierce
John Savard
wrote, in part:
> I cannot adequately stress that it is IMPOSSIBLE to streamline or
>alter the Lord of the Rings.
In that case, there's no problem.
Except to the movie theatres which will be faced with the problem of
putting blank film in their projectors and then facing a disappointed
audience.
>The Lord of the Rings is not a mere
>collection of characters and scenes from which you can pick and choose
>without affecting the overall story. It is rather more like a
>beautifully woven tapestry. Cut any part of it and you ruin the
>tapestry! Every scene (even those which many fans find less than
>riveting), every passage, indeed every word contributes to the
>development and persona of one or more characters. Eliminate that and
>you weaken the character and ultimately the story itself.
Even if LotR is such a masterpiece of perfection, (and Peter Jackson's
Eric San Juan
news:189h1ukhpc5lmea09...@4ax.com...
Michael K. is most certainly not a troll. Whereas I think most of his
arguments are astoundingly shortsighted, unrealistic and at times rather
dense, he genuinely feels the way his posts reflects and believes his
arguments. I think it's all a bit nutty, sure, (which detracts from his
good points), but it's all the real deal and in no way a troll. And hey,
God bless the man for having strong convictions that he is willing to
defend.
Cam
--
"Do not try to interject logic into my rambling."
-Ethan Hammond from the PS NG
"Michael Kohrs" <mnk...@att.net> wrote in message
news:2r2h1ugjdfl3u6sce...@4ax.com...
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
I hate to say this, but you force me to do it. I fully expect to enjoy the
film enormously and probably go back to see it again - and again. Please,
man, cool down.
Öjevind
Bill Silvey
"Cam" <cam@.nospam.core.com> wrote in message
news:3c19348a$0$65158$1dc6...@news.corecomm.net...
> Werent you NOT going to reply to any of this?
>
To keep the young flame-war burning hotly, the troll must fan the flames,
often soon after he lights the fire, grasshopper.
What you'll witness in this thread is the obvious troll (yes, I replied to
it) stepping in to attack some of the weaker opposition to his argument to
*appear* to be engaging in more than common trollery (note to Kohrs: bulk !=
content). The reasoned, measured destruction of it's "arguments" will not
be addressed at all; even if they are, it will be through the selective
editing of the original poster's remarks, thereby distorting them out of all
proportion to seem as though they agree with the troll, or to change their
overall intent. Witness:
<snipped for brevity>
> Werent you...going to reply...to this?
See?
Let's sit back and watch.
Eric San Juan
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 20:42:04 GMT, jsa...@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid
> (John Savard) wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 07:33:43 GMT, Michael Kohrs <mnk...@att.net>
> >wrote, in part:
> >
> >> I cannot adequately stress that it is IMPOSSIBLE to streamline
or
> >>alter the Lord of the Rings.
> >
> >In that case, there's no problem.
> >
> >Except to the movie theatres which will be faced with the problem of
> >putting blank film in their projectors and then facing a disappointed
> >audience.
>
> You have no idea how hard it was for me to suppress the impulse to say
> that it would be an improvement over Jackson's film :)
Oh, thank goodness you were able to resi-
Hey ........
<snip>
> You know, John, I have given serious consideration to your arguments
> and decided that...
>
> Damn! You are right! You are absolutely right! In fact...
>
> < deep breath >
>
> I, Michael Kohrs, hereby announce that I have decided to retire from
> the Usenet and dedicate my life to rewriting the Lord of the Rings!
>
> Yes, I will include as many new characters as I feel will improve the
> story. (You can look forward to an entire army of Balrogs and a
> graphic description of a passionate, yet tender love affair between
> Queen Arwen and one of her maids. You will also enjoy the gruesome
> description of Gimli wielding his axe with mighty strokes as he hacks
> off King Eomer's head. You will recoil in horror when Legolas
> discovers that Celeborn is his true father!) I will eliminate any
> chapters that I feel are unnecessary. (You can say goodbye to "The
> Field of Cormallen.") I will even generously include illustrations
> that I stole from the Internet and altered using Photoshop. I will
> then publish it with the title "The Lord of the Rings" so that future
> generations can enjoy and cherish my mad genius.
>
> Supplies are limited, so reserve your copy now!
>
> But not to worry, folks. It will only be one possible interpretation
> of Tolkien's work.
Michael, obscenely absurd statements intending to mock Peter Jackson
through parody are not nearly as crazed and grating as your usual
obscenely absurd statements intending to insult Peter Jackson through
... well, through whatever it is you channel. Stick to your usual
formula, I say.
Edward J. Kloczko
And I bet you won't !
Frankly the movie is not as bad as I fought, but I will not see it once again.
No need to.
EJK
who...@wherever.com
: I, Michael Kohrs, hereby announce that I have decided to retire from
: the Usenet and dedicate my life to rewriting the Lord of the Rings!
: Yes, I will include as many new characters as I feel will improve the
: story. (You can look forward to an entire army of Balrogs and a
: graphic description of a passionate, yet tender love affair between
: Queen Arwen and one of her maids. You will also enjoy the gruesome
: description of Gimli wielding his axe with mighty strokes as he hacks
: off King Eomer's head. You will recoil in horror when Legolas
: discovers that Celeborn is his true father!) I will eliminate any
: chapters that I feel are unnecessary. (You can say goodbye to "The
: Field of Cormallen.") I will even generously include illustrations
: that I stole from the Internet and altered using Photoshop. I will
: then publish it with the title "The Lord of the Rings" so that future
: generations can enjoy and cherish my mad genius.
: Supplies are limited, so reserve your copy now!
: But not to worry, folks. It will only be one possible interpretation
: of Tolkien's work.
... and?
There are hundreds, if not thousands of pieces of fanfiction on the net
that have all the above, and hot gay sex as an added bonus.
- Ever considered getting a life?
Eric San Juan
> Michael Kohrs :
<snip>
> The fact that you were forced to back up your anti-movie claims with
> ludicrous, factually incorrect arguments speaks volumes about your
> inability to come up with any legitimate argument against PJ's
> qualities as a filmmaker and choices as director.
Eh, that's been his gig since the start of his rantings and ravings. The
good points he occasionally makes, and even the genuinely debatable
ones, are washed away by his inane rambling and demands grounded in no
reality that currently exists. (not unlike when Al Sharpton makes
*legitimate* claims of racism) Often, he stamps his feet and hollers
about things he does not know about or that are not at all true, likely
just because he enjoys the act of complaining. I have very little doubt
that had this project been up to his "specs" - a $950 million budget to
be spread out over seven films (appendixes included, of course) and
taken on by the whole of Hollywood, who would shut down to finish the
films - he would complain still if only because fighting instinct is
horribly difficult.
See, Khors does not rant and rave about, say, the BBC adaptation or the
work of artists who paint based on Tolkien's work, though much of what
lies as the base of his complaints is inherent in those works too. Why?
Because those things are not wildly popular. There is very little doubt
at this juncture that these films are going to be a phenomenal success.
We're talking Star Wars, Cabbage Patch Kids and beer. That grates him in
the most horrible of ways, because what was once his little thing, his
little world that just he and a few (if 100 million people are a few)
others shared, will soon belong to *everybody*. One's refined taste for
the semi-obscure (as if LotR ever was) ceases to be elite when all your
neighbors enjoy it too.
Frankly, I've wanted those around me to step into Middle Earth along
with me, but they have always resisted. That's changed. This film has
prompted at least five of my friends and family members to finally take
the plunge and read the book. Even if the film stinks - and is that a
realistic "hope" at this point? - the films will have been worth it for
that alone.
But back to the point at hand. MK does not need facts and it matters
very little if a great deal of his arguments are at their very core weak
and shoddy. The idea that some of his arguments are just plain dumb -
"Why didn't they hire a real Balrog?" - matter very little. His mind has
been made up in the most stubborn of ways, and even were the films a
"perfect" telling of The Lord of the Rings, he would find *something* to
whine about. The grass is too long around Bag End, whatever. The masses
have invaded his Middle Earth, you see. And that hurts.
TWS
"Eric San Juan" <shoeg...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> See, Khors does not rant and rave about, say, the BBC adaptation or the
> work of artists who paint based on Tolkien's work,
(SNIP)
what was once his little thing, his
> little world that just he and a few (if 100 million people are a few)
> others shared, will soon belong to *everybody*. One's refined taste for
> the semi-obscure (as if LotR ever was) ceases to be elite when all your
> neighbors enjoy it too.
That is a well made point.
Ex_Ottoyuhr
> An Assault on Tolkien: An Open Letter to Peter Jackson
With all due respect, and taking into account the fact that I agree
with many of the points which you raised in the past, this letter is
excessive.
<snip introduction, fear and loathing>
> I am writing this because I want my friends and fellow fans to
> understand my occasionally virulent opposition to this movie. I
> readily acknowledge that I have not seen the Lord of the Rings. I
> have no intention of ever seeing it. I have advised my family and
> friends not to see it. I have lectured strangers around the world
> regarding their sin of desiring to watch this movie. I will oppose it
> until the end of my days.
Then how will you know if it really turns out to be good? I doubt it
too, but I'll see the movie anyways, just to be able to evaluate it
and see if I was right or wrong about the low quality which you, I,
and others fear.
<snip cinematic stuff>
> Such
> details are subjective and merely divert attention from the true
> issue: The exploitation of J.R.R. Tolkien and his creations.
This is a relevant concern even for Jackson, but I think that the real
exploitation is the 'Sauronism of Burger King.' Bill Watterson was
completely right in his argument that merchandising destroys the
artistic integrity of _anything_, even a movie like this one.
> I cannot help but wonder why you chose to make this movie. The
> interviews and reports that I have read imply that you had some idea
> of how difficult it would be to make such a movie. I do not think
> that you truly understood the magnitude of this challenge, however.
> It is not merely a problem of adapting the novel to the screen - I
> have yet to meet a fan who has not conceded that it is impossible to
> capture the true complexity and spirit of the Lord of the Rings on
> film - but also of fulfilling the expectations of countless fans
> around the world.
And that's the paradox: he's not filming a movie to attract fans, he's
filming a movie to satisfy fans of something different from the movie.
Makes me suspicious too, but if all movies were made this way, cinema
would be impossible.
<snip the Taj Mahal and 'make the pool a bit smaller'>
> I therefore object to your movie because you are simply not
> qualified to produce such a masterpiece.
PLEASE tell me that you didn't send this to Jackson himself.
> You do not possess the
> necessary resources. (I would not attempt such a movie unless I had
> the combined resources of Spielberg & Lucas and even then I would
> still hesitate.)
Because resources aren't all -- one needs the resources of Spielberg
and Lucas together (about equal to the U.S. military's annual budget?)
and simultaneously needs to either have a massive staff of geniuses or
to himself be someone on a par with Goethe.
And, of course, the necessary resources alone are rather absurd, to
say nothing of the talent it would take... I'm not being
tongue-in-cheek, just saying that this is _not_ going to be a really
good adaption of _LotR_. A good movie? Probably. But it shouldn't be
called "J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings;" a truer name, and I
suggest this in all sincerity, would be "Peter Jackson's Lord of the
Rings." Not vanity, but reality: this will be Jackson's 'take' on
Tolkien's epic. As to whether or not a 'rookie' director with a few
horror films under his belt has any business trying to adapt Tolkien,
well...
That's a question for the philosophers.
> You lack the credentials to acquire such resources.
But isn't this a moot point? $300 million is almost preposterous
anyways. Any more would be downright unattainable -- would you want a
$1 billion (one thousand million, for you Englishmen out there)
trilogy? It wouldn't happen.
> You have no experience with epic films and your resume is limited and,
> in my opinion, unimpressive. You lack the necessary influence to hire
> the best writers and actors. The fact that you were forced to film
> this movie in a backwater country like New Zealand speaks volumes
> about your inability to maneuver within the labyrinth of studio
> politics and obtain the results that you desire. These are obstacles
> which could all be overcome given time and effort, but even if you had
> all of these requisites available you still lack the necessary
> insanity.
Other posters have already observed that NZ is not a backwater in
quite that sense... And I agree about insanity. Somehow, the more I
learn about Bakshi, the more convinced I become that someone crazy
enough to create Bakshi's variety of films (everything from children's
cartoons to "Felix the Cat") would have been able to adapt LotR, if he
hadn't run out of money midway through production (which, BTW, is why
the film is so amateurish and incoherent, although I fear that he
would have kept the glowing Elves).
Straight horror credintials and a propensity for filming evil (even,
if some reviews are accurate, LotR, which he's making look like
something out of Lovecraft, IIRC) are hardly recommendations in my
book. I'd like to see _LotR_ filmed by a folklorist, with Nobuo
Uematsu and his collaborator for _Chrono Trigger_ doing the
soundtrack... Bizzare, but see 'necessary insanity.'
> Lest that seem an absurd statement, I will elaborate. It should
> be obvious that any attempt to turn the Lord of the Rings into a movie
> is an ambition on a par with, say, the building of the Pyramids or the
> Golden Gate Bridge or Versailles or the Taj Mahal. Such
> accomplishments are not the achievements of ordinary men. Any one who
> would attempt such a challenge must possess a vision tinged with what
> can be best described as madness. There can be no compromises, no
> half-measures, no acceptable flaws; Every detail must be as close to
> perfection as possible. Any one who would attempt such a challenge
> must be not only capable of inspiring similar passion in his
> subordinates, but also willing to crush anyone who interferes or
> challenges his vision. I do not think that you fit this description
> at all, Mr. Jackson.
I don't either, but I think that it passes tactlessness and becomes
arrogance to tell him that _this_ directly. And, of course, such a
film would be either animated (preferably straight CG of a quality
equal to _Chrono Cross_ or the FF8 CG sequences) once it gets _much_
cheaper, or else it would have the potential to bankrupt entire
continents. And either way, it would probably take longer to produce
than the novel did.
> Let us overlook your arrogance and folly, however, and, for the
> sake of discussion, assume that you were justified in your decision to
> attempt an impossible feat. I have not forgotten that you are human.
This is trolling. What mood were you in when you wrote this letter?
> It was foolish to even attempt to produce this movie, but you
> compounded that error many times over by choosing to limit the number
> of movies to three. This choice (and I do not claim to know your
> motivation) condemned the movie to mediocrity before you ever shot a
> reel of film or hired an actor. This choice dictated that some
> material would have to be eliminated if the entire trilogy was fit in
> just three movies and that naturally doomed any chance of successfully
> capturing the spirit of the book. I firmly believe that a minimum of
> four or even five movies is necessary to capture the essence of the
> Lord of the Rings.
I would prefer six movies, one for each book, as a minimum, with more
added if they get longer than 3 hours. Of course, when the whole thing
passes twenty-four hours of screen time, it's time to start scaling
back. (And see above; I don't expect this scale of movie to be even
possible for about 20 or 25 more years, but it would be worth the
wait, IMHO. And again, it would take a lunatic with a lot of money and
patience to even try to implement it all.) Preferably prefixed with
_The Hobbit_, which has some excellent visual shots (Lake Town, the
Lonely Mountain, Smaug), if for no better reason than to show what
straight computer graphics (CG) can do...
And while you're at it, license _The Silmarillion_ and produce films
for the next three centuries. :)
> I dismiss any claims that audiences would never
> tolerate such a substantial project. The public has proven time and
> again that we prefer quality to quantity and are quite willing to
> endure any inconvenience if a producer can deliver it. (Who could
> ever have anticipated that a movie revolving around an uninspiring
> love story aboard a ship called the Titanic would become the biggest
> moneymaker of all time?)
PLEASE, don't call 'Titanic' a major film; it sacrifices the whole of
your position quickly. 'Titanic' was only the biggest moneymaker on
paper, because of inflation; I would guess that _Star Wars_, _Gone
with the Wind_, _Wizard of Oz_, even _Snow White_ brought in much more
money in the sense of real purchasing power.
> Television has also repeatedly revealed that
> fans will quite eagerly watch epics. ("James Clavell's "Shogun," John
> Jakes' "North & South" and Frank Herbert's "Dune" are a few examples
> which spring to mind.)
'Shogun' and 'Dune' were better as books than miniserieses, IIRC.
> I cannot adequately stress that it is IMPOSSIBLE to streamline or
> alter the Lord of the Rings. The Lord of the Rings is not a mere
> collection of characters and scenes from which you can pick and choose
> without affecting the overall story. It is rather more like a
> beautifully woven tapestry. Cut any part of it and you ruin the
> tapestry! Every scene (even those which many fans find less than
> riveting), every passage, indeed every word contributes to the
> development and persona of one or more characters. Eliminate that and
> you weaken the character and ultimately the story itself.
I agree with this, and agree also that the film is virtually
unfilmable. It doesn't have the unities of Aristotle's _Poetics_; I
would have suggested that Jackson film three movies based on _parts_
of the LotR, not the Herculean task of taking on the whole thing.
Imagine filming the _Silmarillion_ -- realistically, the same
principle applies to both.
> I object to the movie because you have committed precisely that
> sin. I object to this not only because it inevitably affects the
> quality of the movie, but also because it is an insidious exploitation
> of Tolkien and his fans.
> Anyone familiar with the Lord of the Rings will tell you that it
> was a labor of love for Tolkien. He poured his heart and soul into it
> to an extent that few authors have equaled. (In the lament of
> Theod[e]n, for example, we hear the echo of Tolkien's grief as he
> watched the natural beauty of his beloved Britain succumb to urban
> sprawl and industrialization: 'Yet I should also be sad,' said
> Theod[e]n. 'For however the fortune of war shall go, may it not so end
> that much that was fair and wonderful shall pass for ever out of
> Middle[-]earth?') He was unable to abandon it even during some of the
> darkest hours of his country's history. The powerful sense of loss
> that permeates the novel, the sense of evil menace that the enemy
> projects, the courage displayed by the most unlikely characters not
> only reflect Tolkien's own experiences, but also a poignant attempt to
> pass such wisdom as he had acquired to his children. The Lord of the
> Rings is thus a subtle love story between J.R.R. Tolkien and his
> children and, indeed, all of humanity. I and countless others are
> profoundly grateful that Tolkien chose to share this story with us.
>
> (continued in Part 2)
... True. Quite true. I agree with your point about needing a maverick
to film the thing. But couldn't you have been more polite in saying
this?
the softrat
Dangies! And I thought that *I* was! Well, it's not easy being number
one.
the softrat "He who rubs owls"
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
"But why, my dear Crito, should we care about the opinion of the many?
Good men, and they are the only persons who are worth considering,
will think of these things truly as they happened."
-- Socrates to Crito, in "Crito"
John Savard
wrote, in part:
>I, Michael Kohrs, hereby announce that I have decided to retire from
>the Usenet and dedicate my life to rewriting the Lord of the Rings!
As long as you don't fly any airplanes into buildings, do what you
want. (Although copyright law may pose you some problems.)
The Lord of the Rings _is_ a very good book. It shouldn't be handled
carelessly or spoiled.
That Peter Jackson found that he had to change less than he expected
in bringing it to the screen is good news, not bad news.
But to say that it is so perfect that not the least syllable of it
could be altered is an exaggeration.
While no hands but Tolkien's own would really be adequate to the task,
there are "obvious" ways of improving LotR. The first few chapters
could use a going-over to make them more consistent with the rest of
the book.
The chapters of Book Three and the first half or so of Book Four could
be interleaved without harming the book, and with the benefit of
improving the enjoyment of it by impatient readers.
And the fact that every part of the book develops _some_ character is
not an argument against making the book shorter, and having fewer
characters in it, when making a movie out of it. People sitting in a
theatre can handle only so much.
Michael Kohrs
<shoeg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"James" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>news:m4pg1uo7gpndg80ah...@4ax.com...
>> Michael Kohrs :
><snip>
>> The fact that you were forced to back up your anti-movie claims with
>> ludicrous, factually incorrect arguments speaks volumes about your
>> inability to come up with any legitimate argument against PJ's
>> qualities as a filmmaker and choices as director.
>
>Eh, that's been his gig since the start of his rantings and ravings. The
>good points he occasionally makes, and even the genuinely debatable
>ones, are washed away by his inane rambling and demands grounded in no
>reality that currently exists. (not unlike when Al Sharpton makes
>*legitimate* claims of racism) Often, he stamps his feet and hollers
>about things he does not know about or that are not at all true, likely
>just because he enjoys the act of complaining. I have very little doubt
>that had this project been up to his "specs" - a $950 million budget to
>be spread out over seven films (appendixes included, of course) and
>taken on by the whole of Hollywood, who would shut down to finish the
>films - he would complain still if only because fighting instinct is
>horribly difficult.
Actually I would demand a minimum budget of 1.5 billion - and then I
would probably need more money before I was finished. :) (Hey, if we
can spend billions on missiles and weapons...) I openly acknowledged
in my letter that my standards are extraordinarily rigorous. Tolkien
has already met these standards, therefore the burden is on Jackson to
do likewise. My experiences with public education have taught me that
people's achievements are often matched by our expectations of them.
Hence, you and every other movie fan out there should be profoundly
grateful that I have set the bar so high. Nothing that I can do will
stop the movie from being produced, but my criticism (and that of
countless other genuine fan) may very well have ensured that the movie
you will watch on Dec. 19 will be better than it otherwise might have
been.
>
>See, Khors does not rant and rave about, say, the BBC adaptation or the
>work of artists who paint based on Tolkien's work, though much of what
>lies as the base of his complaints is inherent in those works too. Why?
>Because those things are not wildly popular. There is very little doubt
>at this juncture that these films are going to be a phenomenal success.
>We're talking Star Wars, Cabbage Patch Kids and beer. That grates him in
>the most horrible of ways, because what was once his little thing, his
>little world that just he and a few (if 100 million people are a few)
>others shared, will soon belong to *everybody*. One's refined taste for
>the semi-obscure (as if LotR ever was) ceases to be elite when all your
>neighbors enjoy it too.
Huh. I've been enjoying such television programs as "Buffy the
Vampire Slayer, "Angel" and "Farscape" for years and you are just now
telling me that other people enjoy them as well? Awww, damn! Now I
gotta throw away all my videotapes and get rid of my television! How
can I ever enjoy them again knowing that other people do?
>Frankly, I've wanted those around me to step into Middle Earth along
>with me, but they have always resisted. That's changed. This film has
>prompted at least five of my friends and family members to finally take
>the plunge and read the book. Even if the film stinks - and is that a
>realistic "hope" at this point? - the films will have been worth it for
>that alone.
Please don't interpret this as a personal attack, Eric, but it is
precisely because of people like you that we are razing the
rainforests and paving the world. Your argument is nothing more than
a rehash of "the end justifies the means." I too would be thrilled if
my family and friends loved LoTR as much as I do. I too wish to
introduce more people to the wonder of Middle-earth - but not at any
cost. I don't want the LoTR cheapened in the same fashion as such
books as "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" or "Moby Dick" or "The Jungle
Book." My "complaints" are as much a call for a risk-analysis as
anything else. I cannot be the only fan who is wondering whether the
short-term benefits of the movie - that thrill which so many will
derive from it or the legions of new fans who will enjoy Tolkien's
works - will outweigh the long-term consequences of dumbing down
and/or commercializing Middle-earth.
>But back to the point at hand. MK does not need facts and it matters
>very little if a great deal of his arguments are at their very core weak
>and shoddy. The idea that some of his arguments are just plain dumb -
>"Why didn't they hire a real Balrog?" - matter very little. His mind has
>been made up in the most stubborn of ways, and even were the films a
>"perfect" telling of The Lord of the Rings, he would find *something* to
>whine about. The grass is too long around Bag End, whatever. The masses
>have invaded his Middle Earth, you see. And that hurts.
>
Ah, you noticed! (As a matter of fact, people were commenting on my
stubbornness when I was as young as three years old!) I do have one
bit of good news for you, Eric. I will be on a business trip on the
19th and thus won't be able to sit behind you in the theater and
complain about how Jackson ruined this or that scene as I had so hoped
to do. However, I am looking into hiring some other fans to do it for
me. Vexation by proxy is not nearly so satisfying, of course, but
there is a principle at stake here: I MUST ruin your enjoyment of the
film! :P
Mnkohrz
Michael Kohrs
wrote:
>Werent you NOT going to reply to any of this?
I am not responding to any posts - I am merely clarifying my original
post! :)
That's one of the benefits of being an arrogant, pompous ass: The
rules are whatever I say they are. 8^P
Mnkohrz
Michael Kohrs
wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 08:48:16 -0600, Tiffany Case
><perso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Michael Kohrs wrote:
>>
>>> Ask Steuard,
>>> Conrad, Tiffany Case, Ojevind or any of the other long-time regulars
>>> here and they will readily confirm that I am somewhat notorious as the
>>> most arrogant and elitist member of these newsgroups.
>>
>>Yep. He shore is. ;)
>>
>Dangies! And I thought that *I* was! Well, it's not easy being number
>one.
>
>the softrat "He who rubs owls"
>mailto:sof...@pobox.com
Ah you know how it is, Softie. One day you are smug, happy and on top
of the newsgroups and then, before you can enjoy it, you find all
these newbies swarming in trying to claim YOUR title. I have no doubt
that when I return from my sabbatical in a couple of weeks, somebody
will have dethroned me as the official AFT/RABT Grouch.
Mnkohrz
James
>Actually I would demand a minimum budget of 1.5 billion - and then I
>would probably need more money before I was finished. :)
Actually, can you think of anything you'd do with that extra billion
dollars that PJ hasn't been able to achieve with his budget?
James
(Excluding "make a decent movie" or similar responses.)
Michael Kohrs
Hey, how selfish would I be if I deprived y'all of the pleasure of
enjoying my clever quips, my brilliant insights regarding all things
Tolkien and my thoughtful reviews of Mr. Jackson's movie? (Not to
mention the public service that I render by serving as a convenient
target for trolls.) :]}
Mnkohrz
Bruce Hoult
wrote:
> Michael Kohrs :
> >Actually I would demand a minimum budget of 1.5 billion - and then I
> >would probably need more money before I was finished. :)
>
> Actually, can you think of anything you'd do with that extra billion
> dollars that PJ hasn't been able to achieve with his budget?
Well, I know people who could put a man on the moon (and return him
safely to Earth) for the difference.
And, no, I don't mean NASA.
-- Bruce
Laurie Forbes
[snip]
> >Dangies! And I thought that *I* was! Well, it's not easy being number
> >one.
> Ah you know how it is, Softie.
<SIGH> (I waited all day.) And so it is left to me to try to think up some
crude #2 joke.
Jeff Connelly
> Before I continue, I must concede that my standards are
> extraordinarily (some might say excessively) rigorous. I expect any
> movie based on the works of J.R.R. Tolkien to be nothing less than a
> masterpiece.
Actually, you'd like it to be far less than a masterpiece. Nothing at all,
in fact.
> I therefore object to your movie because you are simply not
> qualified to produce such a masterpiece.
Don't worry, that's how we felt about your "letter".
Gary E. Masters
> An Assault on Tolkien: An Open Letter to Peter Jackson
>
necessary resources.
Now I know who has been getting all of my job applications.
This is just simple foolishness. A work is known by its effects, not
its parts. The proof of the pudding is the taste.
What nonsense. Although a nice example of a trolling letter, if that
is what it is.
Qualified is as qualified does.
Bill Silvey
> Hey, how selfish would I be if I deprived y'all of the pleasure of
> enjoying my clever quips,
Here, let me help you.
<plonk>
Tiffany Case
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 08:48:16 -0600, Tiffany Case
> <perso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Michael Kohrs wrote:
> >
> >> Ask Steuard,
> >> Conrad, Tiffany Case, Ojevind or any of the other long-time regulars
> >> here and they will readily confirm that I am somewhat notorious as the
> >> most arrogant and elitist member of these newsgroups.
> >
> >Yep. He shore is. ;)
> >
> Dangies! And I thought that *I* was! Well, it's not easy being number
> one.
There, there softrat. Hold your furry head up high. I'm sure everyone
would agree that you're the most cantankerous and cuttingly sarcastic member
of rabt. (And that's saying something.)
-TC
the softrat
Awww, Tiffy. You're so sweet!
the softrat "He who rubs owls"
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
"Hear the pulse, and vibration, and the rumblin' force;
someone is out there, beating on a dead horse."
--bob
J. Makela
mnk...@att.net wrote on 12/13/01 3:32 PM:
[snip unimportant stuff]
> given that I have not seen the movie (and do not plan to)
[snip]
If you're not even going to SEE the movies, why in the HELL are you wasting
our time & bandwidth posting about them? Just feel like hearing yourself
talk, huh?
The word for today, kids, is "pedantic".
For the rest of the group, rest assured that not everybody in Illinois is
this crusty. Most Tolkien fans from the Land O' Lincoln are friendly,
good-natured folk who can't wait to see the movies, regardless of whether
Bombadil is in em or not!
later group,
Jason
MrHobbit9
>> given that I have not seen the movie (and do not plan to)
>[snip]
>
>If you're not even going to SEE the movies, why in the HELL are you wasting
>our time & bandwidth posting about them?
Can we say 'giving an opinion'?
Miska
a go and we'll wait with baited breath for your rant on that.
"Michael Kohrs" <mnk...@att.net> wrote in message
news:qemg1uos88jm3t5en...@4ax.com...
> An Assault on Tolkien: An Open Letter to Peter Jackson
>
> In just a few days the first of three movies based on J.R.R.
> Tolkien's novel "The Lord of the Rings" will be released. Fans around
> the world await this event - some with anticipation, others with fear
> and loathing. No fan is unaffected, no one is neutral (although there
> are many, of course who are content to settle for a flawed version
> rather than no movie at all.) Such is the power of Tolkien's most
> beloved work.
> I am writing this because I want my friends and fellow fans to
> understand my occasionally virulent opposition to this movie. I
> readily acknowledge that I have not seen the Lord of the Rings. I
> have no intention of ever seeing it. I have advised my family and
> friends not to see it. I have lectured strangers around the world
> regarding their sin of desiring to watch this movie. I will oppose it
> until the end of my days.
> I wish to begin by acknowledging that I am not familiar with your
> work. I have never met you (and sincerely hope that I never do) and I
> have never seen any of your movies. I readily concede that you may be
> a talented director and that this movie may indeed be the "cinematic
> triumph" that many critics have labeled it. I do not doubt that most
> people will find it enjoyable.
> My opposition is not based on the cinematic merits of the film -
> I am not interested in whether the characters have been cast correctly
> or the quality of the musical score or the special-effects. Such
> details are subjective and merely divert attention from the true
> issue: The exploitation of J.R.R. Tolkien and his creations.
> I cannot help but wonder why you chose to make this movie. The
> interviews and reports that I have read imply that you had some idea
> of how difficult it would be to make such a movie. I do not think
> that you truly understood the magnitude of this challenge, however.
> It is not merely a problem of adapting the novel to the screen - I
> have yet to meet a fan who has not conceded that it is impossible to
> capture the true complexity and spirit of the Lord of the Rings on
> film - but also of fulfilling the expectations of countless fans
> around the world.
> Before I continue, I must concede that my standards are
> extraordinarily (some might say excessively) rigorous. I expect any
> movie based on the works of J.R.R. Tolkien to be nothing less than a
> masterpiece. I want people, even those who disliked this book, to
> passionately declare that this is the greatest movie of all time.
> Perhaps it is a consequence of a childhood in Illinois, where shoddy
> and mediocre work is the norm, but I am adverse to inferiority of any
> type. My philosophy is perfectly expressed by an advertisement which
> I once saw that contained a photo of the gorgeous Taj Mahal and the
> caption: "When Shah Jehan saw the contractor's bid, did he say 'Make
> the pool a little smaller?'" When you are creating a masterpiece of
> any type - and that should always be your goal - you should not fret
> over such trivial details as budget and time. In other words, I
> expect the film to duplicate the magnificence and poignancy of the
> book.
> I therefore object to your movie because you are simply not
> qualified to produce such a masterpiece. You do not possess the
> necessary resources. (I would not attempt such a movie unless I had
> the combined resources of Spielberg & Lucas and even then I would
> still hesitate.) You lack the credentials to acquire such resources.
> You have no experience with epic films and your resume is limited and,
> in my opinion, unimpressive. You lack the necessary influence to hire
> the best writers and actors. The fact that you were forced to film
> this movie in a backwater country like New Zealand speaks volumes
> about your inability to maneuver within the labyrinth of studio
> politics and obtain the results that you desire. These are obstacles
> which could all be overcome given time and effort, but even if you had
> all of these requisites available you still lack the necessary
> insanity.
> Lest that seem an absurd statement, I will elaborate. It should
> be obvious that any attempt to turn the Lord of the Rings into a movie
> is an ambition on a par with, say, the building of the Pyramids or the
> Golden Gate Bridge or Versailles or the Taj Mahal. Such
> accomplishments are not the achievements of ordinary men. Any one who
> would attempt such a challenge must possess a vision tinged with what
> can be best described as madness. There can be no compromises, no
> half-measures, no acceptable flaws; Every detail must be as close to
> perfection as possible. Any one who would attempt such a challenge
> must be not only capable of inspiring similar passion in his
> subordinates, but also willing to crush anyone who interferes or
> challenges his vision. I do not think that you fit this description
> at all, Mr. Jackson.
> Let us overlook your arrogance and folly, however, and, for the
> sake of discussion, assume that you were justified in your decision to
> attempt an impossible feat. I have not forgotten that you are human.
> It was foolish to even attempt to produce this movie, but you
> compounded that error many times over by choosing to limit the number
> of movies to three. This choice (and I do not claim to know your
> motivation) condemned the movie to mediocrity before you ever shot a
> reel of film or hired an actor. This choice dictated that some
> material would have to be eliminated if the entire trilogy was fit in
> just three movies and that naturally doomed any chance of successfully
> capturing the spirit of the book. I firmly believe that a minimum of
> four or even five movies is necessary to capture the essence of the
> Lord of the Rings. I dismiss any claims that audiences would never
> tolerate such a substantial project. The public has proven time and
> again that we prefer quality to quantity and are quite willing to
> endure any inconvenience if a producer can deliver it. (Who could
> ever have anticipated that a movie revolving around an uninspiring
> love story aboard a ship called the Titanic would become the biggest
> moneymaker of all time?) Television has also repeatedly revealed that
> fans will quite eagerly watch epics. ("James Clavell's "Shogun," John
> Jakes' "North & South" and Frank Herbert's "Dune" are a few examples
> which spring to mind.)
> I cannot adequately stress that it is IMPOSSIBLE to streamline or
> alter the Lord of the Rings. The Lord of the Rings is not a mere
> collection of characters and scenes from which you can pick and choose
> without affecting the overall story. It is rather more like a
> beautifully woven tapestry. Cut any part of it and you ruin the
> tapestry! Every scene (even those which many fans find less than
> riveting), every passage, indeed every word contributes to the
> development and persona of one or more characters. Eliminate that and
> you weaken the character and ultimately the story itself.
> I object to the movie because you have committed precisely that
> sin. I object to this not only because it inevitably affects the
> quality of the movie, but also because it is an insidious exploitation
> of Tolkien and his fans.
> Anyone familiar with the Lord of the Rings will tell you that it
> was a labor of love for Tolkien. He poured his heart and soul into it
> to an extent that few authors have equaled. (In the lament of
> Theodon, for example, we hear the echo of Tolkien's grief as he
> watched the natural beauty of his beloved Britain succumb to urban
> sprawl and industrialization: 'Yet I should also be sad,' said
> Theodon. 'For however the fortune of war shall go, may it not so end
> that much that was fair and wonderful shall pass for ever out of
> Middle?earth?') He was unable to abandon it even during some of the
Miska
"Robert Bielby" <robert...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:PL_R7.11082$5P.11...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>What he would actually tried to
> do if a movie had been filmed during his lifetime is another matter, but I
> for one am glad that PJ is making this movie and not a "Hollywood name"
with
> lots of "stars" in it. Perhaps you would prefer Haley Joel Osment (or even
> worse Macauly Culkin ) as Frodo, and maybe Bruce Willis as Aragorn - then
he
> can say "yipikayee Motherf****r" at the Balrog when he falls into the
abyss.
>
> Rob
WELL SAID!
i am so glad that a few of the more obscure names are starring in this film.
ok so they may have done great things individually but a lot of names i have
not seen in movies before so it's a nice change. and also i feel (from the
trailers etc) that PJ made excellent choices in his cast. i seriously could
not see Catherine Zeta Jones as Cate Blanchett's character aye
:-P
Miska
the world need to be subjected to it?
"TWS" <not_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9va7gd$1v4$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
> "Bill Silvey" <bxsxixl...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in > "Michael Kohrs"
> <mnk...@att.net> wrote in , "Robert Bielby"
> > > >This is either the longest and most boring Troll I've ever seen (in
> which
> > > >case apologies to the rest of the ng for replying) or you are the
most
> > > >arrogant person I've ever met.
> > >
> > > [snip stupid and unnecessary lecture]
> > <snip stupid and unnecessary reply>
> >
> > Time has told whether or not you were a "true prophet". News flash:
> you're
> > not.
>
> I have a lot of admiration for the guys who'll stand
> against the crowd not backing down from what they
> think. I don't think MK is a huge troll- he's not coming
> from some viewpoint that we can't relate to. We can
> understand exactly where he's at- it's just that we're
> not as inflexible on those points.
>
>
Miska
have you ever been here?
have you seen any of our scenery up close rather than "just in movies"?
have you met peter jackson?
do you know how creative he his?
do you know what resources he has compared to speilberg and lucas?
do you know his every reason for a) wanting to make this movie and b)
choosing to make it the way he did?
funny but i don't think you can answer every single question and if you can
don't think for a second i'm going to be forgiving - as you have made it
quite clear you'd rather be blunt and ignorant rather than gain full truth
facts.
> Reread the post, please. I did not say that I wanted either Spielberg
> or Lucas to direct or produce it. I said I would need their resources
> in order to produce an accurate movie of the LoTR - i.e. Lucasfilms'
> technical wizardry, Spielberg's financial resources and enormous clout
> and, preferably, Disney's corporate muscle to crush any opposition.
>
> Jackson is a native Kiwi. He is bound to be popular on that island.
> Where is the challenge in filming a movie there? In any case, I can
> think of a few other locations that would be crucial to include in the
> movie. No other tree could capture the true splendor of the Caras
> Galadhon in Lorien better than the mighty sequoias of California. Who
> could argue that the Swiss or French Alps capture the true essence of
> the Misty Mountains? I can think of other examples, but given that I
> have not seen the movie (and do not plan to) and hence do not know
> whether or not Jackson included them, I did not bother to list them in
> the post.
Miska
> You have no idea how hard it was for me to suppress the impulse to say
> that it would be an improvement over Jackson's film :)
are you demented?
have you SEEN the actual movie yet - silly question as you seem so totally
opposed to that idea.
stop critisising a man's work for god's sake! there are people alive that,
OH MY GOD, don't like TLOTR! why don't you spend some time chasing them up
and see how far you get.
TWS
"Miska" <N_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> i agree that each is allowed an opinion, but to what extent does the rest
of
> the world need to be subjected to it?
I count 5 responses in this thread from you- each as
passionate in the view you hold, as M.K is in his.
However I must say that MK is more courteous in
his speech than you have been.
John Brock
Michael Kohrs <mnk...@att.net> wrote:
>>This is either the longest and most boring Troll I've ever seen (in which
>>case apologies to the rest of the ng for replying) or you are the most
>>arrogant person I've ever met.
>[snip stupid and unnecessary lecture]
>
>My post speaks for itself and only time will tell whether or not I am
>a true prophet. I merely wanted to clarify one point regarding my
>status for the new members who are arriving daily. Ask Steuard,
>Conrad, Tiffany Case, Ojevind or any of the other long-time regulars
>here and they will readily confirm that I am somewhat notorious as the
>most arrogant and elitist member of these newsgroups. It is a
>distinction that I am quite proud to claim, of course.
I've got a question for you Mike. You have made it very clear that
you think the LOTR movies are a bad thing. But such a statement
always has to be followed up by the question: bad for whom? I can
see why they might be a bad thing from your point of view; you have
explained that well enough. But you are posting in a public forum,
and in your statement above you seem to be acknowledging that you
are a very atypical Tolkien fan (a fact which I must say seemed
clear enough from your posts themselves). I have posted an occasional
rant myself (though elsewhere), but I have always tried to be sure
that whoever I was ranting to had some reason to care about what
I had to say. Otherwise what is the point?
So, given that your devotion to Tolkien far exceeds even that of
most of the people reading these newsgroups (let alone that of the
general reading public), why do you believe that your readers here
should care about what you have to say? Or to put it in more
concrete terms, can you explain to my why *I* should think that
the LOTR movies are a bad thing?
I believe I am a much more typical Tolkien fan than you are. I
read The Hobbit, LOTR, and Tolkien's short works two or three times
as a teenager and enjoyed them all immensely, but I haven't had
time to read them since, and very likely never will. I also read
The Silmarillion when it came out (I found it dry, but appreciated
learning more of the back story), but I never got around to the
History or Lost Tales. For me Tolkien was just an author whose
works I enjoyed but who I hadn't been thinking about much recently.
Now all of the sudden I find there are going to be several movies.
And not only that, they are getting great reviews! Can you see
why I am *delighted* to hear this, and why I am looking forward to
seeing the movies? And more important, can you explain why *I*
should feel otherwise? I'm not expecting absolute fidelity to the
book, and I probably wouldn't recognize it if I saw it. My highest
hope is simply to get to see a couple of great movies that don't
do serious violence to my memories of the book. But you seem to
be hoping that I will walk out of these movies disappointed, as I
did with the Bakshi movie, and this seems a bit mean spirited. Of
course if I am disappointed I will just put it out of my mind and
move on, as I've done in the past. No big deal. But can you
explain why, from *my* point of view, it would be a good thing if
I ended up thinking of Jackson in the same terms as Bakshi?
If I rack my brains and try to think of the worst thing I can say
about the movies it would be this: perhaps some people who would
have read the books anyway will see the movie first, and their
vision of the books will be colored by the movie. OK, maybe that's
a bad thing (although the same argument could be used against
turning *any* book into a movie). But on the other hand the books
will now be read by large numbers of people who never would have
read them, and that strikes me as a counterbalancing good thing.
In any case, in the end all we are talking about is some books and
some movies. I know it's more than that to *you*, but what puzzles
me is why you think this is of interest to the rest of us, given
you awareness of the difference between yourself and the typical
Tolkien enthusiast. Any thoughts?
--
John Brock
jbr...@panix.com
Hacky
news:2r2h1ugjdfl3u6sce...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 09:38:53 -0000, "Robert Bielby"
> <robert...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >This is either the longest and most boring Troll I've ever seen (in which
> >case apologies to the rest of the ng for replying) or you are the most
> >arrogant person I've ever met.
>
> [snip stupid and unnecessary lecture]
>
> My post speaks for itself and only time will tell whether or not I am
> a true prophet. I merely wanted to clarify one point regarding my
> status for the new members who are arriving daily. Ask Steuard,
> Conrad, Tiffany Case, Ojevind or any of the other long-time regulars
> here and they will readily confirm that I am somewhat notorious as the
> most arrogant and elitist member of these newsgroups. It is a
> distinction that I am quite proud to claim, of course.
>
So, you are an asshole and proud to be one. Nice that you admit it.
--
Hacky
<º))))><
a.k.a. Jason C. Hackwith
hacky...@cableone.net [Remove numbers to reply]
http://www.intotheflame.com/
--
"Life, misfortunes, isolation, abandonment, poverty, are battlefields which
have their heroes; obscure heroes, sometimes greater than the illustrious
heroes." ~ Victor Hugo (1802-1885), Les Miserables [1862], "Marius"
Hacky
news:9vg29u$g38$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> I've got a question for you Mike. You have made it very clear that
> you think the LOTR movies are a bad thing. But such a statement
> always has to be followed up by the question: bad for whom?
WELL SAID.
Hacky
news:NF0S7.72190$oj3.12...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> > An Assault on Tolkien: An Open Letter to Peter Jackson
>
>
> not respond to the troll...I will not respo...ah, fuck it.
>
> Peter Jackson is making the movie because he's a bigger, better, more
> openminded and more knowledgeable Tolkien fan than you can, could or ever
> will be, period, you tiny minded piece of cloth-eared parrot droppings.
>
> There. I feel better.
So do I. Somebody said it. :^D
Hacky
news:Er3S7.51$w4....@news.uchicago.edu...
> Well, now that I've read your whole opus here, I really just have two
> comments. First of all...
>
> Quoth Michael Kohrs <mnk...@att.net> in article
> <qemg1uos88jm3t5en...@4ax.com>:
> > Lest that seem an absurd statement, I will elaborate. It
> > should be obvious that any attempt to turn the Lord of the Rings
> > into a movie is an ambition on a par with, say, the building of the
> > Pyramids or the Golden Gate Bridge or Versailles or the Taj Mahal.
>
> after a great deal of reading. But to compare even Tolkien's own work
> to somethihng like the pyramids strikes me as praise beyond any book.
> Yes, Tolkien had vision and genius and created something wonderful,
> but the pyramids were the product of an entire civilization working in
> concert (let's not get into the whole forced labor issue just now).
> _The Lord of the Rings_ might be as great as a book can get, but it
> is, in the end, a book.
>
> Second, I would point out that Tolkien's vision has survived Ace
> books, the Rankin-Bass animated versions of _The Hobbit_ and _Te
> Return of the King_, and Bakshi's _Lord of the Rings_ movie. It has
> survived audio dramatizations. It has survived countless artists'
> interpretations. It has survived utter critical distain. It has
> survived complete dissection in the _History of Middle-earth_ books.
> Why in the world do you think that these movies will so suddenly and
> easily topple it into the mud? If the movies are bad, they'll be
> forgotten. If they're great, they'll bring people to the books
> (that's already happening in droves). Either way, Tolkien's work will
> still be there, unaltered, as great as it ever was. I really don't
> see where the doom and gloom is in any of this.
>
> And hey, you know what? We get to see a really cool movie (from the
> sound of the reviews). I'm looking forward to that. :)
>
> Steuard Jensen
(couldn't bear snipping any of it)
HEAR, HEAR!!!!!
Michael Kohrs
Make the necessary four or five movies instead of just three?
Mnkohrz
James
>>Actually, can you think of anything you'd do with that extra billion
>>dollars that PJ hasn't been able to achieve with his budget?
>Make the necessary four or five movies instead of just three?
Interesting idea. How would you split them up? I think LOTR is more
suited to one fifteen-hour movie than five three-hour ones - how weird
and anticlimactic would it be to end the first film at the flooding of
the Bruinen?
James
Michael Kohrs
Are you truly a native and/or resident of Illinois, Jason? If not,
then I offer my apologies in advance. If you are, however, then I
will answer your post as one resident of Illinois must necessarily
answer another:
READ THE POST AGAIN, YOU FRIGGING DUMBASS!
I said:
"I am writing this because I want my friends and fellow fans to
understand my occasionally virulent opposition to this movie."
That was all you needed to read to answer your own question. As
inconceivable as it may seem, there are people within these groups
whom I consider my friends. I wanted them to understand the reasoning
behind my frequently tiresome complaints about Peter Jackson and his
movies. I only regret that I was not as successful as I could have
been. I obviously should have taken more time and care with it.
Again, I apologize if you are not a native of Illinois and do not
speak my native tongue.
Now go away and come back when you can think and not just type.
Mnkohrz
Michael Kohrs
>are you from new zealand?
No.
>have you ever been here?
Not yet.
>have you seen any of our scenery up close rather than "just in movies"?
Do six seasons of "XENA: Warrior Princess" count? :)
>have you met peter jackson?
Did you read my post?
>do you know how creative he his?
I have some idea given the number of changes that he merely WANTED to
make.
>do you know what resources he has compared to speilberg and lucas?
I believe the most commonly cited figure was $300 million dollars.
That's the equivalent of pocket change in Hollywood.
>do you know his every reason for a) wanting to make this movie and b)
>choosing to make it the way he did?
Yes. Most people call it money.
>funny but i don't think you can answer every single question and if you can
>don't think for a second i'm going to be forgiving - as you have made it
>quite clear you'd rather be blunt and ignorant rather than gain full truth
>facts.
Do I necessarily need to shoot myself in the forehead to know that it
would be fatal? I should have thought it obvious that not all
knowledge must be acquired through direct experimentation. For the
record, I based my rant on information that Jackson himself released
to the public in press releases, interviews, trailers, et cetera. Most
of it came from the 'Net (which I acknowledge is a notoriously
unreliable source) but some of it was derived from print sources
(including websites which cited or linked print sources.).
Mnkohrz
James
>>do you know what resources he has compared to speilberg and lucas?
>
>I believe the most commonly cited figure was $300 million dollars.
>That's the equivalent of pocket change in Hollywood.
What planet are you from?
James
Michael Kohrs
wrote:
[snip Steuard's eloquently errornous post]
>(couldn't bear snipping any of it)
>
>
>HEAR, HEAR!!!!!
>
>--
>Hacky
><º))))><
>
>a.k.a. Jason C. Hackwith
>hacky...@cableone.net [Remove numbers to reply]
>http://www.intotheflame.com/
That's the fourth post in which you have done nothing but echo someone
else's dispute with my post. Do you have enough functional brain
cells to attack me directly?
Mnkohrz
TWS
"Hacky" <hacky...@cableone.net> wrote in
> So, you are an asshole and proud to be one. Nice that you admit it.
tacky Hacky and in triplicate..
Miska
> record, I based my rant on information that Jackson himself released
> to the public in press releases, interviews, trailers, et cetera. Most
> of it came from the 'Net (which I acknowledge is a notoriously
> unreliable source) but some of it was derived from print sources
> (including websites which cited or linked print sources.).
>
> Mnkohrz
no you didn't
As far as everyone is aware you based your rant on not wanting to see the
LOTR movie because you held the book far too close to your heart and didn't
want anyone else to see it because you felt it disrespectful to JRR
Tolkien's memory. fine.
You have continually put peter jackson and new zealand down based on your
silly misunderstanting that as new zealanders, we can't quite cut it with
the rest of the world. you think we don't have the "talent" or the
"resources" or the "money" yet you have never been to new zealand. you've
probably never met an actual new zealander. and you base your lack of
knowledge on this country on Xena the warrior bloody princess?!! can anyone
say pathetic?
And you mention that 300 million dollars is "pocket change" in hollywood?
why then is termintaor 3 being made with only 350 million dollars? seems to
me you haven't read the latest movie gossip. and the fact that US300 million
is about 790 million new zealand dollars says something about your lack of
mathematical knowledge too!
Peter jackson was not "forced" to work in new zealand. has it has been
stated by other NG users, the fact that things are cheaper to do here does
not mean we skimp on QUALITY, it just means we don't have to pay the
enormous fees that hollywood demands for things such as sets, camera
equipment hire etc etc. why ship huge amounts of equipment and talent over
the the states when everything is already here in new zealand at a fraction
of the cost? and you said something about new zealand having very little
talent to draw from? two friends of mine were in the actual film. half a
city was in another part of the film. the MAIN actors were from overseas.
that's not to say we couldn't have provided an excellent support cast from
new zealand. casting directors and PJ simply cast people RIGHT FOR THE ROLE.
there were auditions. there we recasts. "talent" was actually sought out.
The fact that so many reviews based on the scenery alone has put to test
your theory about californian trees being better for certain scenes. and the
fact that reviews based solely on the special effects used have claimed them
to be outstanding says to me that something "done on the cheap" wouldn't
have been as good.
Until you are ready to see the film and put some weight behind your
arguments of it being crap then i will refuse to believe you have any basis
on which to stake your claim. peter jackson is not god, he's just extremely
good at what he does. new zealand is not all about xena, it's just a country
with extraordinary scenery and some amazing people. perhaps maybe you should
go and see the film before you continue to slag off the very people and the
country you don't know.
Smaug69
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2001 18:58:51 +1300, "Miska" <N_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >are you from new zealand?
>
> No.
>
> >have you ever been here?
>
> Not yet.
>
> >have you seen any of our scenery up close rather than "just in movies"?
>
> Do six seasons of "XENA: Warrior Princess" count? :)
I suppose by that logic Orson Welles should never have been allowed to
make Citizen Kane.
> >have you met peter jackson?
>
> Did you read my post?
That collection of rantings by a pathetic individual based on
everything but reality? I got a good laugh out of it.
> >do you know how creative he his?
>
> I have some idea given the number of changes that he merely WANTED to
> make.
No film based on a book has ever been completely faithful. It's
impossible. Kubrick's The Shining ended up being far superior to
King's original novel because Kubrick understood what it took to take
to make an excellent FILM.
As for your statement, "I must concede that my standards are
extraordinarily (some might say excessively) rigorous," I find this to
be a joke. I doubt you have done anything in your life that would meet
your so-called high standards. So you would hold others to something
you couldn't yourself achieve? What a loser.
> >do you know what resources he has compared to speilberg and lucas?
>
> I believe the most commonly cited figure was $300 million dollars.
> That's the equivalent of pocket change in Hollywood.
But he spent it in New Zealand where the exchange rate was very
favorable.(something like $300 million US = $500 million NZ) Of
course, this still doesn't approach the outrageous budget you set
forth in your ranting.
> >do you know his every reason for a) wanting to make this movie and b)
> >choosing to make it the way he did?
>
> Yes. Most people call it money.
And you said you based your rant on information Jackson released? LOL!
> >funny but i don't think you can answer every single question and if you can
> >don't think for a second i'm going to be forgiving - as you have made it
> >quite clear you'd rather be blunt and ignorant rather than gain full truth
> >facts.
>
> Do I necessarily need to shoot myself in the forehead to know that it
> would be fatal?
Go ahead. I'm sure you wouldn't be missed.
> I should have thought it obvious that not all
> knowledge must be acquired through direct experimentation.
Say, does this experimentation include actually going to see the film?
I thought not.
> For the
> record, I based my rant on information that Jackson himself released
> to the public in press releases, interviews, trailers, et cetera. Most
> of it came from the 'Net (which I acknowledge is a notoriously
> unreliable source) but some of it was derived from print sources
> (including websites which cited or linked print sources.).
The point is you based your rant on everything but the movies. And
since you have no intention of seeing the films that completely
invalidates your rant. Go back to reading the book(I'm sure you know
the proper edition we should all be reading) and maybe you can forget
about the stuff happening in the real world. It should be rather easy
for you since you seem to have already detached yourself from it a
long time ago.
BTW, with all due respect to Mr. Tolkien(LotR is my all-time favorite
novel), it's still only a book. It's not a sacred cow. It's a work of
fiction.
Smaug69
Smaug69
Why would he want to waste time and effort on a loser?
Smaug69
Scooby
> An Assault on Tolkien: An Open Letter to Peter Jackson
>
> Tolkien's novel "The Lord of the Rings" will be released. Fans around
> the world await this event - some with anticipation, others with fear
> and loathing. No fan is unaffected, no one is neutral (although there
> are many, of course who are content to settle for a flawed version
> rather than no movie at all.) Such is the power of Tolkien's most
> beloved work.
<snip most of it...>
Hey!!! I'm as neutral as they come!
Seriously though, good work. Can't wait for Part 2.
Tom Bombadil.
gladstone.28
Where else would you
> film a movie like LOTR? In England? Where would be your Caradhras,
> your Mordor?
Birmingham is indistinguishable from Mordor.
Robert
contradictory to yours...
Sequoias are not the right shape for Lothlorian trees nor are the Alps what
comes to mind when I think of the Misty Mountains. All the scenes I have
seen have excited me; visually they have nailed down Middle Earth. Perhaps
not 100% my Middle Earth, but I can deal with that. I am not going to
nitpick over chain mail vs. plate mail (some folks wore armor) nor will I
scream with the expanded Arwen role (the backstory of Arwen and Aragorn is
brought to the fore and that's okay) I won't cry over Tom Bombadil (I found
the entire passage unnecessary myself.
And I'm not a merely causal reader. Every January something drew me to pull
the book of the shelf and read it again. I started noting the date. For
thirteen consequtive years it was within a week of each other. I also took a
course on Tolkien in college.
I even paid money to see Bakshi's film.
So if you don't want to see it, don't.
But leave my parade unmoistened.
Robert S.
"Miska" <N_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9veoj3$2sp$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
Peter F James
gladstone.28 <gladst...@ntlworld.com> writes
--
Peter F James
Eric San Juan
the Tolkien groups very badly. I lose posts often a mere 24 hours
later>
Michael Kohrs <mnk...@att.net> wrote in message news:<jpui1u0gloadgmdv9...@4ax.com>...
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 00:11:00 GMT, "Eric San Juan"
> <shoeg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"James" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> >news:m4pg1uo7gpndg80ah...@4ax.com...
> >> Michael Kohrs :
> <snip>
> >> The fact that you were forced to back up your anti-movie claims with
> >> ludicrous, factually incorrect arguments speaks volumes about your
> >> inability to come up with any legitimate argument against PJ's
> >> qualities as a filmmaker and choices as director.
> >
<snip>
> >I have very little doubt
> >that had this project been up to his "specs" - a $950 million budget to
> >be spread out over seven films (appendixes included, of course) and
> >taken on by the whole of Hollywood, who would shut down to finish the
> >films - he would complain still if only because fighting instinct is
> >horribly difficult.
>
> Actually I would demand a minimum budget of 1.5 billion - and then I
> would probably need more money before I was finished. :) (Hey, if we
> can spend billions on missiles and weapons...) I openly acknowledged
> in my letter that my standards are extraordinarily rigorous.
Indeed. I share your desire for a lavishly and lovingly produced film,
and fully expect Tolkien's work to be treated with respect. Within
reason. The difference in our wants, I think, are that mine are rooted
with some degree of realism while yours are rooted in the kind of
daydreams we have likely both had. And they aren't realistic, however
wonderful they sound.
> Nothing that I can do will
> stop the movie from being produced, but my criticism (and that of
> countless other genuine fan) may very well have ensured that the movie
> you will watch on Dec. 19 will be better than it otherwise might have
> been.
Well, don't take too much credit! I agree, however, that the Tolkien
community has probably played at least some part in steering the films
back towards a more faithful take on Tolkien's work (changes or no
changes).
<snip>
> >That grates him in
> >the most horrible of ways, because what was once his little thing, his
> >little world that just he and a few (if 100 million people are a few)
> >others shared, will soon belong to *everybody*. One's refined taste for
> >the semi-obscure (as if LotR ever was) ceases to be elite when all your
> >neighbors enjoy it too.
>
> Huh. I've been enjoying such television programs as "Buffy the
> Vampire Slayer, "Angel" and "Farscape" for years and you are just now
> telling me that other people enjoy them as well? Awww, damn! Now I
> gotta throw away all my videotapes and get rid of my television! How
> can I ever enjoy them again knowing that other people do?
Michael, are you comparing the impact of The Lord of the Rings on your
life to that of Buffy, The Vampire Slayer? ;-)
> >Frankly, I've wanted those around me to step into Middle Earth along
> >with me, but they have always resisted. That's changed. This film has
> >prompted at least five of my friends and family members to finally take
> >the plunge and read the book. Even if the film stinks - and is that a
> >realistic "hope" at this point? - the films will have been worth it for
> >that alone.
>
> Please don't interpret this as a personal attack, Eric, but it is
> precisely because of people like you that we are razing the
> rainforests and paving the world. Your argument is nothing more than
> a rehash of "the end justifies the means."
No, it's not. My argument is, "there is nothing that could have been
done to stop this film from being made, so at the very least we can
hope for some good to come out of it." I don't at all argue that a bad
film should be made so that people get into the books, or that it's
okay to go ahead and make a bad film if it would prompt people to read
them. Not at all. I say, "this film is here ... let's hope even the
worst case scenario has some good to go along with it."
Why is that the case? Because the end was never, "let's get people to
read the books." It's a result, certainly, but not the end. The end
for the filmmakers was to make a good (and profitable) film. Any good
for the books that comes of it is gravy.
> I don't want the LoTR cheapened in the same fashion as such
> books as "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" or "Moby Dick" or "The Jungle
> Book."
As I have said in the past, I agree.
> I cannot be the only fan who is wondering whether the
> short-term benefits of the movie - that thrill which so many will
> derive from it or the legions of new fans who will enjoy Tolkien's
> works - will outweigh the long-term consequences of dumbing down
> and/or commercializing Middle-earth.
And I wonder (and dread) the same. However, I feel the book has seeped
into our culture to a deep enough degree and creeped close enough to
"literary classic" status that the forthcoming marketing blitz
(hopefully) should not damage its long-term life. I could be wrong,
certainly. And only time will tell.
<snip>
> >His mind has
> >been made up in the most stubborn of ways, and even were the films a
> >"perfect" telling of The Lord of the Rings, he would find *something* to
> >whine about. The grass is too long around Bag End, whatever. The masses
> >have invaded his Middle Earth, you see. And that hurts.
> >
> Ah, you noticed! (As a matter of fact, people were commenting on my
> stubbornness when I was as young as three years old!) I do have one
> bit of good news for you, Eric. I will be on a business trip on the
> 19th and thus won't be able to sit behind you in the theater and
> complain about how Jackson ruined this or that scene as I had so hoped
> to do. However, I am looking into hiring some other fans to do it for
> me.
I have little doubt that were the resources at your disposal, you
would do exactly that!
Let's face it, Michael, at some point or another, you will see this
film, stubborn or no.
> Vexation by proxy is not nearly so satisfying, of course, but
> there is a principle at stake here: I MUST ruin your enjoyment of the
> film! :P
Hey, let Peter Jackson have a go at it first.
William H. Hsu
> [...]
>Perhaps it is a consequence of a childhood in Illinois, where shoddy
>and mediocre work is the norm, but I am adverse to inferiority of any
>type.
> [...]
Hey, where'd THAT come from?!
(Of curse, he goes on to bash NZ, too. Why am I not surprised?)
> Let us overlook your arrogance and folly, however, and, for the
>sake of discussion, assume that you were justified in your decision to
>attempt an impossible feat. I have not forgotten that you are human.
"Men are weak!"
- El Rond
--
Banazir
(i trust in man)
William H. Hsu
>Steuard Jensen <sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>news:Er3S7.51$w4....@news.uchicago.edu...
>> Well, now that I've read your whole opus here, I really just have two
>> comments. First of all...
>> [snip Steuard's excellent rebuttal]
>At last someone with a sense of perspective and something sensible to say.
>Thanks for that :-))
>BaldiePete
I was just going to say the same thing. Thanks, Steuard.
(I've seen the droves Steuard mentioned. Go down to your Waldenboonks
or Barnes and Noble or B. Dalton Boonkseller and check them out.)
--
Banazir
(nobuddy tosses a gnubie)
William H. Hsu
>On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 08:48:16 -0600, Tiffany Case
><perso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Michael Kohrs wrote:
>>
>>> Ask Steuard,
>>> Conrad, Tiffany Case, Ojevind or any of the other long-time regulars
>>> here and they will readily confirm that I am somewhat notorious as the
>>> most arrogant and elitist member of these newsgroups.
>>
>>Yep. He shore is. ;)
>>
>Dangies! And I thought that *I* was! Well, it's not easy being number
>one.
It's not the overlordship of Arda, m'lord rat. :-)
You can both share the title!
--
Banazir
(easy, nesupasu!)
Thomas J. Sherlock
I myself would probably break them up into 6 movies about 2-3 hours
each.
After all, each volume of the trilogy is really 2 books. This novel
would be perfect for a mini-series, similar to Shogun, Roots or Thorn
Birds.
Tom (who decided to delurk since my last post of about a year ago)
Ermanna
As he described the back of his hand, Smaug69 said:
<shnip>
> BTW, with all due respect to Mr. Tolkien(LotR is my all-time favorite
> novel), it's still only a book. It's not a sacred cow. It's a work of
> fiction.
Regulars, we must sacrifice Smaug69 on the alter to the Valar
before he spreads his heresy.
> Smaug69
Ermanna the Elven Jedi Knight, Lady of Rivendell,
Headmistress of the AFT/RABT Charm School, Hug-Therapist
"Hey, HEY! LIGHT THE LAMP, NOT THE RAT!
LIGHT THE LAMP NOT THE RAT!" Rizzo the Rat
"Oops! My apologies!" Gonzo
"HELP! HELP! PUT ME OUT! PUT ME OUT!" Rizzo the Rat
The Muppet Christmas Carol