Keep Disney Honest!
William
This is an open request for volunteers.
It is now official: Worldwide Mouse (Rickey Rat, The Rodent, The Small
World Order) is filming THE LORD OF THE RINGS. In one 2-hour movie. To
go from preproduction to release in a skimpy 14 months.
"GOD HELP US ALL!!!!," I hear you say.
If you did indeed say something like that, then PLEASE HELP. A campaign
which commences NOW can (a) pressure Disney to treat the book with
respect (fat chance) or (b) give them a massive PR (and financial) black
eye for having f****ed with an author who still has defenders
(unfortunately there's no alt.fan.victor.hugo).
This CAN be done.
I will have a web site up in a couple of days. In the meantime, e-mail
me at soli...@gamewood.net, if you want to help, even by sending a
couple of targeted e-mails. We can use, especially, however:
STUDIO RESEARCH: anyone with connections in or knowledge of Disney
studios or the film industry generally. Especially anyone who thinks he
knows how to get a bootleg script from this project.
PRESS/PR: Anyone with connections in or knowledge of mass media.
HACKERS: Anyone who can bend the Net to his/her will
ASSOCIATIONS: Anyone who is or knows an officer or influential member of
The Tolkien Society, The Myopoeic Society, the staffs of
Mythprint/Vinyar Tengwar/ etc;, AS WELL AS The Science Fiction and
Fantasy Writers' Association (SFFWA), fantasy/sci-fi magazines, etc.
ESTATE/LEGAL Lawyers etc, and anyone with particularized knowledge of
JRRT's assignment of film rights and/or its sublicences.
TOLKIEN PAPERS: Anyone who can come up with Tolkien comments not
included in LETTERS regarding Disney and films. (The complete text of
his excoriation of the Zimmerman storyline would be golden).
ANY OTHER ASSETS that you think can be useful.
"I'm not going to let that vile Walt Disney ruin my book" - J. R. R.
Tolkien
--
_________________________________________________
William Cloud Hicklin "And he named him craven,
solicitr-at-gamewood.net and lord of slaves"
_________________________________________________
Dan Goodman
Keeping Disney honest is, in my opinion, like keeping the Mafia
nonviolent.
And it's _way_ too late to start worrying about what _any_ moviemaker will
do to _any_ book.
In article <3443AA60...@gamewood.net>,
--
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
P. Schmitz
Hi William,
William wrote:
> If you did indeed say something like that, then PLEASE HELP. A campaign
> which commences NOW can (a) pressure Disney to treat the book with
> respect (fat chance) or (b) give them a massive PR (and financial) black
> eye for having f****ed with an author who still has defenders
> (unfortunately there's no alt.fan.victor.hugo).
I'll tell you what will happen if you go through with this: Disney will
totally ignore all of us, even those of us who actually have constructive
comments to make.
Instead, we should try our best to work _with_ Disney. Accept the fact that
they are going to make this film, and try to maximize our influence by being
persistent, but _polite_. Only make constructive, intelligent comments,
backed up by good arguments and literary references, and make them over and
over again. Do _not_ give into the tempation to be sarcastic, abusive or
otherwise unpleasant! Please!
Pepijn Schmitz
Ross TenEyck
William <solic...@gamewood.net> writes:
>If you think that disney gives a rat's ass what we think, or will allow
>us to influence their market-survey-driven decisions, you've been
>smoking Flubber. OF COURSE we will approach Disney in a controlled,
>polite, constructive fashion (Absurdly difficult, +80 to percentile
>roll). After this fails (OK, we WILL try our best), well, after this
>fails, then we can start the punishment campaign.
So? Polite suggestions: chance of having an impact, slim. "Punishment
campaign:" chance of having an impact, none whatsoever. Do what you like,
but all you'll do is give the 'net community a bad name.
--
================== http://weber.u.washington.edu/~teneyck/ =================
Ross TenEyck Seattle WA | I saw a dragon in the shape of a kite, riding
ten...@u.washington.edu | the wind ribbon-wise to amuse the children;
Tsuki ni kawatte oshioki yo! | he winked at me from one golden eye.
William
P. Schmitz wrote:
If you think that disney gives a rat's ass what we think, or will allow
us to influence their market-survey-driven decisions, you've been
smoking Flubber. OF COURSE we will approach Disney in a controlled,
polite, constructive fashion (Absurdly difficult, +80 to percentile
roll). After this fails (OK, we WILL try our best), well, after this
fails, then we can start the punishment campaign.
What if Disney made a movie and nobody came?
James Charles Rau
"N Johnson" <n...@jaka.ece.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>William <solic...@gamewood.net> wrote in article
><3443E2B6...@gamewood.net>...
>> What if Disney made a movie and nobody came?
>Umm, they'd call it TRON?
They might also call it The Black Hole or The Black Cauldron.
Terry Austin
William <solic...@gamewood.net> wrote:
>If you think that disney gives a rat's ass what we think, or will allow
>us to influence their market-survey-driven decisions, you've been
>smoking Flubber.
What they do care about is making money. And they have a pretty good
track record on that score, vile Demons of the Pit they may be (and I
live next door to DismalLand, so I know whereof I speak).
>What if Disney made a movie and nobody came?
Then they wouldn't make any more movies with that formula. Wouldn't
alter the present project in any way, though.
No amount of crappiness in the movie will in any way alter the quality
of the original. After all, Bakshi didn't destroy LotR.
---------------------------------
-- Terry Austin, Grand Inquisitor, Loyal Order of Chivalry & Sorcery
Hyperbooks Online http://www.hyperbooks.com/ Order by toll free phone call!
Hanosz Prime Goes to Old Earth, by Robert Silverberg
- October Cosmic Visions
Memories are Like Clouds, by Diana Dell
N Johnson
William <solic...@gamewood.net> wrote in article
<3443E2B6...@gamewood.net>...
>
>
> What if Disney made a movie and nobody came?
>
Andrew Plotkin
Ross TenEyck (ten...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
> William <solic...@gamewood.net> writes:
> >If you think that disney gives a rat's ass what we think, or will allow
> >us to influence their market-survey-driven decisions, you've been
> >smoking Flubber. OF COURSE we will approach Disney in a controlled,
> >polite, constructive fashion (Absurdly difficult, +80 to percentile
> >roll). After this fails (OK, we WILL try our best), well, after this
> >fails, then we can start the punishment campaign.
> So? Polite suggestions: chance of having an impact, slim. "Punishment
> campaign:" chance of having an impact, none whatsoever.
That's your guess. I would guess that rants and threats of boycotts would
have *more* influence over Disney's actions than polite suggestions.
I would also guess that these newsgroups can't reach enough people to have
any noticeable effect, either way. Disney has decades of practice at
reaching vast numbers of people; they don't have to care about
rec.arts.books.tolkien.
> Do what you like,
> but all you'll do is give the 'net community a bad name.
I don't think this is possible. They don't see *communities* at all.
Vote with your wallet; at least you know it's something they've got their
eyes on.
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
Rasmus Rimestad
N Johnson wrote:
What does TRON mean?
John Scott
>
> No amount of crappiness in the movie will in any way alter the quality
> of the original. After all, Bakshi didn't destroy LotR.
>
Unless Alan Dean Foster writes the novelisation of the Movie ...
John
The University and I agree on a lot, but not necessarily this ...
Andrew C. Lannen
On Tue, 14 Oct 1997 13:22:44 -0400, William <solic...@gamewood.net>
wrote:
>This is an open request for volunteers.
>
>It is now official: Worldwide Mouse (Rickey Rat, The Rodent, The Small
>World Order) is filming THE LORD OF THE RINGS. In one 2-hour movie. To
>go from preproduction to release in a skimpy 14 months.
>
>"GOD HELP US ALL!!!!," I hear you say.
>
>If you did indeed say something like that, then PLEASE HELP. A campaign
>which commences NOW can (a) pressure Disney to treat the book with
>respect (fat chance) or (b) give them a massive PR (and financial) black
>eye for having f****ed with an author who still has defenders
>(unfortunately there's no alt.fan.victor.hugo).
What I object to is that you are going to try and mount a massive
campaign when you know -nothing- about the project as of yet. You
don't know wheter or not it will be "faithful" to the books or not
(whatever the hell that means, anyway).
Going from pre-production in 14 months is not necessarily an
indication of quality, but of efficiency. Most of the time spent on
movies is constructing massive technical sets and mounting dazzling
special effects and stunts. Much of LOTR can be done without these
time-consuming events.
Even if, in your opinion, the movie isn't "faithful" to the books,
so what? A movie is merely someone else's interpretation of a set of
material. It may be completely opposite yours but still be just as
valid. Making a movie will not cause the books to blink out of
existence, so what is your real beef Disney? I thought they did the
best they could with The Hunchback of Notre Dame, given what they had
to work with in the original.
>This CAN be done.
Yes, but should it?
--Andrew
--
Andrew C. Lannen and...@ix.netcom.com
"God cannot alter the past, that is why he is obliged to
connive at the existence of historians"--Samuel Butler
Andy
Rasmus Rimestad <ras...@online.no> writes:
>What does TRON mean?
TRace ON....
a throw back in the computing world to instigating a 'debug' type procedure..
and it wasn't that bad a film.. I enjoyed it (admittedly in my youth...)
Jason Hatter
Elisabeth Carey (lis....@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: It was a Disney film that was very, very unsuccessful. About ten years ago,
: I think.
More like 14/15. Starred Bruce Boxleitner and, uhm, Jeff Bridges?
Anyhow, despite the fact it's a cheesy movie, its still one of my
favorites. Maybe because its' cheesy.
--
Jason
http://www.cris.com/~towonder/
Sailor Moon V at http://www.cris.com/~towonder/fanfic.shtml
Andy Mulhearn
On Wed, 15 Oct 1997 12:15:15 +0100, Rasmus Rimestad
<ras...@online.no> rendered unto us these pearls of wisdom:
Your having a laugh aren't you! You can't really not have heard of
Tron :-) It was a Disney Sci Fi file staring Bruce Boxleitner, David
Warner and Jeff Bridges.
For the time it wasn't bad. The mix of graphics and live action wasn't
bad. Now, no one would watch it if it went on general cinema release.
Actually, no, I'd rather pay money to watch Tron than Event Horizon.
Andy
Hint, my mail address has no X's in it.
Uninteresting e-mail will be ignored and summarily deleted.
William
Andrew Plotkin wrote:
Andrew, I appreciate your sentiments. I should point out that the
strategy only incorporates Usenet as a recruiting and informational
tool. Nor do I contemplate some such stunt as mailbombing Disney, which
would be most ineffective (not to say juvenile).
The spearhead of the attack is the press. The PRESS, ladies and
gentlemen, which loves nothing more than reporting a good scrap.
Especially if Goliath is Eisner's empire, which all news organizations
detest (save ABC).
And yes, do vote with your wallet. And encourage others to do the same.
AND SIGN UP!
P. Schmitz
William wrote:
> If you think that disney gives a rat's ass what we think, or will allow
> us to influence their market-survey-driven decisions, you've been
> smoking Flubber. OF COURSE we will approach Disney in a controlled,
Boy, you are negative! Why are you so sure that they wouldn't listen to us?
Disney is not a bunch of incompetent morons or something, no matter what
some people in this newsgroup seem to think. Alt.fan.tolkien and
rec.arts.books.tolkien are probably the largest organized gathering of
Tolkien fans, making it _the_ place for Disney to look if they want some
input from Tolkien fans. And please don't say that they don't, because you
don't know that.
Pepijn Schmitz
Elisabeth Carey
Rasmus Rimestad <ras...@online.no> wrote in article
<3444A5C3...@online.no>...
> N Johnson wrote:
>
> > William <solic...@gamewood.net> wrote in article
> > <3443E2B6...@gamewood.net>...
> > >
> > >
> > > What if Disney made a movie and nobody came?
> > >
> >
> > Umm, they'd call it TRON?
>
> What does TRON mean?
It was a Disney film that was very, very unsuccessful. About ten years ago,
I think.
Lis Carey
Antonio Marques
William wrote:
> What if Disney made a movie and nobody came?
Impossible lest I should die before.
-- =
Ant=F3nio Marques
Coimbra - Portugal
Dearmad
don't you think w/the Ralph Bakshi debacle as an example,
they'll at least make the story entertaining...
hell, you simply cannot put those three books into a 2 hour
film. it's impossible, so just hope for something
entertaining and with substance that leads more people to
take up the books.
this, though I don't much care for the trilogy. i liked the
hobbit, though.
--
"And Lo, I created life one... frame... at... a... time...
And on the seventh frame... I REALIZED I HAD 8,633 more to
go!"
La Musique Petite Challenge and the DORK page
(Dearmad's Official Raytracing Krud) are at:
http://www.europa.com/~dearmad
Terry Austin
j.f....@bton.ac.uk (John Scott) wrote:
>In article <344704bb...@news.artnet.net>, tau...@hyperbooks.com wrote:
>
>>
>> No amount of crappiness in the movie will in any way alter the quality
>> of the original. After all, Bakshi didn't destroy LotR.
>>
>Unless Alan Dean Foster writes the novelisation of the Movie ...
>
Amusing thought, but the original will still be there.
Joshua Jasper
In article <erkyrathE...@netcom.com>,
Andrew Plotkin <erky...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Ross TenEyck (ten...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
>> William <solic...@gamewood.net> writes:
>
>> >us to influence their market-survey-driven decisions, you've been
>> >smoking Flubber. OF COURSE we will approach Disney in a controlled,
>> >roll). After this fails (OK, we WILL try our best), well, after this
>> >fails, then we can start the punishment campaign.
>
>> So? Polite suggestions: chance of having an impact, slim. "Punishment
>> campaign:" chance of having an impact, none whatsoever.
>
>That's your guess. I would guess that rants and threats of boycotts would
>have *more* influence over Disney's actions than polite suggestions.
Yeah, look at how well it worked for the southern babtists. It's
obvious that Disney's changed thier ways on account of _that_ boycott!
>
Graydon
In article <34457148...@europa.com>, Dearmad <dea...@europa.com> wrote:
>don't you think w/the Ralph Bakshi debacle as an example,
>they'll at least make the story entertaining...
>
>hell, you simply cannot put those three books into a 2 hour
>film. it's impossible, so just hope for something
Sure you could.
If you assumed that the audience knew the story, removed almost all the
dialog and explanation, and did it as a series of mostly mute images, it
would work fine. Someone only needs to actually outright _talk_ in :Lord
of the Rings: maybe five times; the taming of Smeagol, Bilbo's surrender
of the Ring, Theoden's words just before he charges, Aragorn at the Stone
of Erech, and Frodo taking up the quest. Could do the whole rest of it as
pantomime, leaving out Bree and the complicated circumstances of
departure.
Disney isn't going to _do_ this, but it could be done. It would probably
work much better than any attempt to get half a million words into two
hours. (30 kword novellas go into two hours. Keep the ratio constant and
:Lord of the Rings: would require about the same 21 hour weekend the Ring
Cycle does.)
--
goo...@interlog.com -> mail to Graydon | http://piglet.org/momentum
gra...@gooroos.com --> mail acquires the | submissions guidelines for
superball nature metrical poetry (lengthy ok)
Arthur Lyon
William (solic...@gamewood.net) wrote:
: This is an open request for volunteers.
: It is now official: Worldwide Mouse (Rickey Rat, The Rodent, The Small
: World Order) is filming THE LORD OF THE RINGS. In one 2-hour movie. To
: go from preproduction to release in a skimpy 14 months.
Official? Where can a reliable source of this information be found? There
seems to be a lot of hollering going on about this. I'd like to know if it
is, in fact, true.
ART!
Samuel S. Paik
Rasmus Rimestad <ras...@online.no> wrote:
> What does TRON mean?
TRON = TRace ON
"Elisabeth Carey" <lis....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>It was a Disney film that was very, very unsuccessful. About ten years ago,
>I think.
Hmm, there are several movies that Disney has never released on laserdisc,
even a few which have never been released on videotape. TRON is not
one of them.
According to the IMDB, TRON was released in 1982, and grossed
$33 million. I am not certain this constitutes a profit since it
had a substantial amount of computer generated imagery, but for
that era that is a pretty large amount of money for a film.
TRON was one of the earliest movies with a substantial amount
of computer generated imagery. Other important movies for
CGI specialists of this era include STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE
(1979), STAR TREK: THE WRATH OF KHAN (1982, "The Genesis Demo"),
and THE LAST STARFIGHTER (1982, space fighter scenes rendered on
a Cray).
TRON has had multiple laserdisc releases, both domestic and foreign,
including a special Disney archive edition. It has several home
computer, console, and arcade videogame spinoffs (light cycles anyone?)
Jeff Bridges, Bruce Boxleitner and David Warner starred. Peter
Jurassik will also be familiar to B5 fans.
Sam
--
Necessity is the Mother of Improvisation. | Samuel S. Paik
Laziness and Greed are the Parents of Innovation| pa...@webnexus.com
Speak only for self
JMason
No Disney animation is more than a toy ad anyway. I can see it now: cute
Frodo action figures, plastic orc armies, miniature Barad-Dur and Orthanc
towers. The possibilities are endless.
John Mason
S.V. Wanderstar - Fast Passage 39
"Freedom, Reason, and Tolerance"
Andrew Plotkin
> TRace ON....
> a throw back in the computing world to instigating a 'debug' type procedure..
>
> and it wasn't that bad a film.. I enjoyed it (admittedly in my youth...)
Well, it *was* a pretty bad film, but I still enjoyed it.
These days, I think I would enjoy it most with the sound off. Heh.
If you position your brain firmly in context, it looks *terrific*.
Joel no-XYZZY Polowin
JMason wrote:
>
> No Disney animation is more than a toy ad anyway. I can see it
> now: cute Frodo action figures, plastic orc armies, miniature
> Barad-Dur and Orthanc towers. The possibilities are endless.
An old posting on the Fidonet SF echo...
Date: Thu 31 Dec 92 15:24:30
From: Brenda Holloway
To: Carolyn Boselli
Subj: Lord of the Rings, Disney Style
CB> two books of the trilogy were done by what'shisname
CB> who did Fritz the Cat, and the movie was AWFUL!
Ralph Bakshi... who also did "Cool World". So if you thought Bakshi's
"The Lord of the Rings" was bad...
CB> Now if Disney were to do it....
If Disney were to do "The Lord of the Rings"... the mind boggles. Disney
likes to combine related stories into one, as in "Alice in Wonderland"
including stuff from "Through the Looking Glass", so they'd have to
include stuff from "The Hobbit". There is no svelte young thing for
Frodo's love interest, so you'd have to add one -- my vote: change
Samwise to Samantha... yeah... of course, then Frodo would have to carry
HER bags... and award-winning songs by the Grammy-award winning
songwriters of such mega-hits as "The Little Mermaid" and "Newsies".
Disney only allows one bad guy, and since Saruman (I know I've got that
name wrong) isn't quite evil enough, let's get Sauron into the picture
as an on-camera villain, with lots of teeth-a'gnashin' and
scenery-a'chewin'. Cut out completely the war in "The Return of the
King", since Disney never uses subplots in their animated films. So we
no longer need most of the people from the "Fellowship".
*** DISNEY-IZED VERSION OF "THE LORD OF THE RINGS" ***
1. Frodo and his girlfriend, Samantha, sneak away from Bilbo's birthday
feast so that they can sing a song about being young, short, and in
love. They
wander into some forbidden caverns, which they decide to explore.
2. Gollum is ordered by Sauron through a magic crystal to capture the
two
Hobbits for nefarious porpoises. Gollum surprises them, but Frodo falls
into a bottomless well and is knocked out. Samantha is kidnapped.
3. Frodo awakens to find the dread Balrog standing over him, with its
whip of flame. Suddenly, the wizard Gandalf comes by, and with sword,
spell and staff, drives the Balrog away. He tells Frodo that Samantha
has been
kidnapped, and to save her, he must journey to the Last Homely House
and seek
aid and companions, and here's this Ring that might help; in his
eagerness to
bring Samantha to his master, Gollum left it behind. With a
warning about resisting the dread allure of evil, Gandalf disappears in
a cloud of Technicolor.
4. Frodo battles Trolls and Spiders on his way to The Last Homely House,
and gains Sting. Sings the Grammy-nominated songs "Attercop" and "The
Long Road".
5. At the Last Homely House, Frodo learns that Sauron had foreseen that
Frodo would come to Mordor bearing the Ring, and kidnapped Samantha to
force this turn of events. Meets several interesting people, but he's
never been very good with names. Sings the Grammy-nominated song "What
to do, what to do".
6. In the middle of the computer-generated feast scene, Nazgul crash
through the giant windows on their winged black steeds. Frodo narrowly
escapes, meeting up with fellow survivors Gimli and Legolas in the
Forest.
7. Legolas leads them to Lothlorien, where they are given supplies and
information by Galadriel. Gimli falls in love, and being that cute sort
of bumbling fool (think Dopey) pesters her to no end. Sings the
Grammy-nominated song, "Golly, Galadriel!".
8. Pursued by hints of Nazgul in the sky, and from Orcs on either side,
the company take the river down to Mordor.
9. Crossing Cirith Ungol, they meet Shelob, and Gimli and Legolas are
captured by Orcs, who sing "Where There's a Whip, There's a Way".*
10. Frodo rescues them, but they are soon captured by Nazgul, who carry
them to the brink of the Cracks of Doom, where Sauron awaits them.
Throughout the film, Sauron, with Princess Samantha caged nearby, and
Gollum chuckling evilly throughout, is watching Frodo's progress towards
Mordor through his crystal ball, muttering how everything is working
according to plan, perhaps singing the Grammy-nominated song "Fate is
Going My Way Today!"
11. As Sauron removes the ring from Frodo's finger, Legolas escapes from
the Nazgul and uses Elf Power to open Samantha's cage. Princess
Samantha,
inspired to bravery by the sight of Sauron bending over her boyfriend,
pushes Sauron into the Cracks of Doom, still clutching the ring in his
hand. There is a long, piercing scream, and the Cracks of Doom close
over Sauron, while the Nazgul dissolve into nothingness.
12. A wave of magic passes through the chamber, leaving it the throne
room of a magnificent castle. Frodo and Samantha leave the castle to
find that
Mordor has become a land of sunshine and joy, and that the grateful
people of Mordor, who have been freed of the enchantment that made them
evil Orcs, hail Prince Frodo and Princess Samantha as their saviors, and
beg them to stay in Mordor as their sovereigns. Frodo and Samantha give
each other a long, lingering kiss on the steps of the castle while Gimli
sings "A Little Goes a Long Way", which is immediately nominated as
"Song of the Year".
Be careful what you wish for...
--
Joel Polowin
jpolow...@cyberus.ca but delete "XYZZY" from address
Just a little magic to beat the spambots...
Antonio Marques
William wrote:
> =
> This is an open request for volunteers.
> =
> It is now official: Worldwide Mouse (Rickey Rat, The Rodent, The Small
> World Order) is filming THE LORD OF THE RINGS. In one 2-hour movie.
> To
> go from preproduction to release in a skimpy 14 months.
> =
> "GOD HELP US ALL!!!!," I hear you say.
> =
> If you did indeed say something like that, then PLEASE HELP. A
> campaign
> which commences NOW can (a) pressure Disney to treat the book with
> respect (fat chance) or (b) give them a massive PR (and financial)
> black
> eye for having f****ed with an author who still has defenders
> (unfortunately there's no alt.fan.victor.hugo).
> =
> This CAN be done.
> =
> I will have a web site up in a couple of days. In the meantime,
> e-mail
> me at soli...@gamewood.net, if you want to help, even by sending a
> couple of targeted e-mails. We can use, especially, however:
> =
> STUDIO RESEARCH: anyone with connections in or knowledge of Disney
> studios or the film industry generally. Especially anyone who thinks
> he
> knows how to get a bootleg script from this project.
> PRESS/PR: Anyone with connections in or knowledge of mass media.
> HACKERS: Anyone who can bend the Net to his/her will
> ASSOCIATIONS: Anyone who is or knows an officer or influential member
> of
> The Tolkien Society, The Myopoeic Society, the staffs of
> Mythprint/Vinyar Tengwar/ etc;, AS WELL AS The Science Fiction and
> Fantasy Writers' Association (SFFWA), fantasy/sci-fi magazines, etc.
> ESTATE/LEGAL Lawyers etc, and anyone with particularized knowledge of
> JRRT's assignment of film rights and/or its sublicences.
> TOLKIEN PAPERS: Anyone who can come up with Tolkien comments not
> included in LETTERS regarding Disney and films. (The complete text of
> his excoriation of the Zimmerman storyline would be golden).
> ANY OTHER ASSETS that you think can be useful.
> =
> "I'm not going to let that vile Walt Disney ruin my book" - J. R. R.
> Tolkien
> --
> _________________________________________________
> William Cloud Hicklin "And he named him craven,
> solicitr-at-gamewood.net and lord of slaves"
> _________________________________________________
If Tolkien was so stupid as despising Disney, and even great men can be
stupid on a matter or two, I think he would nevertheless regret that any
of his fans followed his stupid opinion on an issue he hadn't given much
thought to.
-- =
Ant=F3nio Marques
Coimbra - Portugal
<encoded_portion_removed>
Dearmad
Joel no-XYZZY Polowin wrote:
Yeah, and be careful what you post. My GOD that was a good treatment of the
books, and could sell in hollywood. jesus! You work there, right? I mean
you're an agent or something, right? "where there's a whip, there's a way"
is great, just great, faaaannnntastic! you're hired, and a little does
indeed go a looooong way!
>
>
> --
> Joel Polowin
> jpolow...@cyberus.ca but delete "XYZZY" from address
> Just a little magic to beat the spambots...
--
Terry Austin
jma...@aol.com (JMason) wrote:
>No Disney animation is more than a toy ad anyway. I can see it now: cute
> Frodo action figures, plastic orc armies, miniature Barad-Dur and Orthanc
> towers. The possibilities are endless.
>
Especially if they're all anatomically correct.
Dearmad
oh also, your best bet, AFAIK would be to try to get in touch with the
animators, as lately at dismal world, they've had a fair share of input into
the films they create. your idea of what "scripting" is all about in an
animated feature (I assume it WILL be animated, am I wrong egads! if it's
live action they are DOOMED!) may be flawed- it doesn't merely involve
words, more likely it involves more renderings and pictures than words, as
animation is not about words, as you know.
the other reason I bring this up, is that i have found animators from pixar
to rhythm & hues, to warner bros, to yes, even dismal world, to be of an
exceptionally high calibre in character, generally, which is saying very
much in this world today. they care, and care deeply about their artform,
and want it to be the best they can be; it is a cherished form of artistic
expression to them which they very much wish to thrive and not die as it did
for a time a few decades back.
hunt around on cgi websites and newsgroups regarding animatiuon both
computer AND handdrawn (as today both are used in every disney feature) to
make contacts, and politely, do NOT announce like you did in this newsgroup,
or you'll be flamed to hell and back getting nowhere. start out quiet and
polite, show your earnestness.
anyway, that's my 02 cents.
William wrote:
> P. Schmitz wrote:
>
> > Hi William,
> >
> > William wrote:
> >
> > > If you did indeed say something like that, then PLEASE HELP. A
> > campaign
> > > which commences NOW can (a) pressure Disney to treat the book with
> > > respect (fat chance) or (b) give them a massive PR (and financial)
> > black
> > > eye for having f****ed with an author who still has defenders
> > > (unfortunately there's no alt.fan.victor.hugo).
> >
> > I'll tell you what will happen if you go through with this: Disney
> > will
> > totally ignore all of us, even those of us who actually have
> > constructive
> > comments to make.
> >
> > Instead, we should try our best to work _with_ Disney. Accept the fact
> > that
> > they are going to make this film, and try to maximize our influence by
> > being
> > persistent, but _polite_. Only make constructive, intelligent
> > comments,
> > backed up by good arguments and literary references, and make them
> > over and
> > over again. Do _not_ give into the tempation to be sarcastic, abusive
> > or
> > otherwise unpleasant! Please!
>
> If you think that disney gives a rat's ass what we think, or will allow
> us to influence their market-survey-driven decisions, you've been
> smoking Flubber. OF COURSE we will approach Disney in a controlled,
> polite, constructive fashion (Absurdly difficult, +80 to percentile
> roll). After this fails (OK, we WILL try our best), well, after this
> fails, then we can start the punishment campaign.
>
> What if Disney made a movie and nobody came?
>
> --
> _________________________________________________
> William Cloud Hicklin "And he named him craven,
> solicitr-at-gamewood.net and lord of slaves"
> _________________________________________________
--
Steve Brinich
William wrote:
>
> This is an open request for volunteers.
>
> World Order) is filming THE LORD OF THE RINGS.
I thought they'd be too busy doing the animated version of
_Animal Farm_....
--
Steve Brinich ste...@access.digex.net If the government wants us
PGP:89B992BBE67F7B2F64FDF2EA14374C3E to respect the law
http://www.access.digex.net/~steve-b it should set a better example
Elisabeth Carey
Samuel S. Paik <pa...@webnexus.com> wrote in article
<paik-15109...@3.paik.webnexus.com>...
>
> "Elisabeth Carey" <lis....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >It was a Disney film that was very, very unsuccessful. About ten years
ago,
> >I think.
>
> Hmm, there are several movies that Disney has never released on
laserdisc,
> even a few which have never been released on videotape. TRON is not
> one of them.
>
> According to the IMDB, TRON was released in 1982, and grossed
> $33 million. I am not certain this constitutes a profit since it
> had a substantial amount of computer generated imagery, but for
> that era that is a pretty large amount of money for a film.
>
<snip>
> TRON has had multiple laserdisc releases, both domestic and foreign,
> including a special Disney archive edition. It has several home
> computer, console, and arcade videogame spinoffs (light cycles anyone?)
>
> Jeff Bridges, Bruce Boxleitner and David Warner starred. Peter
> Jurassik will also be familiar to B5 fans.
Interesting. I remember it as something that was practically ridiculed off
the screen, which shows you how reliable memory can be. That's solidly
successful by any reasonable standard.
Lis Carey
David Joseph Greenbaum
In a fit of divine composition, James Charles Rau (jcr...@primenet.com) inscribed in fleeting electrons:
: They might also call it The Black Hole or The Black Cauldron.
Hey man! Don't be ragging on the Black Hole! 'Twas the first SF movie I
ever saw (at the tender age of three) and I still have fond memories of it.
Dave G.
--
Such fragrance -
from where,
which tree?
Doug Tricarico
I've been hearing quite a lot about Disney making The Lord of the Rings
recently, but have been unable to confirm it. The last thing I heard
(and was able to verify today) was that Saul Zaentz was interested in
making a live action/CGI film based on LOTR, it will be directed by
Peter Jackson and that Dreamworks, Miramax and Universal were
contenders.
Is this a serious story or just another 'net rumor? References,
please.
Doug
Brenda and Larry Clough
IMO, unless solid verification can be supplied, we should all just cool
out and relax. It's too soon to go into hysteria.
Brenda
--
Brenda W. Clough, author of HOW LIKE A GOD from Tor Books
<clo...@erols.com> http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda
Progbear
:: They might also call it The Black Hole or The Black Cauldron.
:
:Hey man! Don't be ragging on the Black Hole! 'Twas the first SF :movie I
:ever saw (at the tender age of three) and I still have fond :memories of it.
Well, I do have a couple of friends who consider it to be the worst film
ever made (seriously!) I certainly wouldn't go as far as that; it does have
it's entertainment value, shallow though it may be. But it does have one of
the most infuriating endings this side of the much-reviled (for good reason)
"Explorers". Though it was never made into a film, Tanith Lee's "Electric
Forest" also comes to mind...
MIKE
"What fools we are to fall so far from the truth." --Annette Peacock
"Los pianos no estallan por casualidad. Es la obra del diablo." --Gabriel
Garcia Marquez
"I just think it would be a much better world if the scientists could keep
their slide-rules in their pants!" --Scott Thompson
N.P.:"Sunny Sunday's Sunset"- G r o b s c h n i t t / J u m b o (German version)
Graydon
In article <EI5Go...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
Michael S. Schiffer <ms...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>In article <623vfs$7...@excalibur.gooroos.com>,
>Graydon <goo...@interlog.com> wrote:
>>In article <34457148...@europa.com>, Dearmad <dea...@europa.com> wrote:
>>>hell, you simply cannot put those three books into a 2 hour
>>>film. it's impossible, so just hope for something
>
>>Sure you could.
>
>>If you assumed that the audience knew the story, removed almost all the
>>dialog and explanation, and did it as a series of mostly mute images, it
>>would work fine.
>
> But it wouldn't be near so much like a movie. Or at least not
It would be like a kind of movie; not a Hollywood movie, but stuff that's
just images has played to great sucess in repetory theatres.
Thing of :Lord of the Rings: done with a careful partially original
orchestral score as a music video two hours long.
>like a mass appeal Hollywood film. I suspect I'm enough of a "mass"
>that I wouldn't like it much, though I could be won over by attention
>to detail. It would have to be done on a shoestring budget (or
>financed by a billionaire who didn't mind losing a lot of money).
It would take _really good_ animation; significant facial expression, and
_subtle and consistent_ facial expression.
>It's as if Disney can't turn off its equation of beauty with good and
>ugliness with evil *even when it's the whole point of the story they
>made up in the first place*. I'll stop ranting now.)
Disney animation (although not, so far as I can tell, the animators) are
stuck in a particular creationist worldview, because it sells and is
considered wholesome for children.
Why lying to children is considered good I'll never know.
Steve Sloan
Steve Brinich wrote:
>
> William wrote:
> >
> > This is an open request for volunteers.
> >
> > It is now official: Worldwide Mouse (Rickey Rat, The Rodent,
> > The Small World Order) is filming THE LORD OF THE RINGS.
I also heard a vague rumor that Disney was going to make an
animated movie out of Asimov's "The Bicentennial Man", but that
was a while back.
_____________________________________________________________________
Steve Sloan E-mail: sl...@geosim.msfc.nasa.gov
Computer Science graduate at the University of Alabama in Huntsville
Science fiction and raytracing pictures and links:
http://mars.cs.uah.edu/cs/students/ssloan/
C++: a language that allows your friends to access your private parts
"In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" Homer J. Simpson
Joshua Jasper
In article <344673...@geosim.msfc.nasa.gov>,
Steve Sloan <sl...@geosim.msfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>JMason wrote:
>
>> No Disney animation is more than a toy ad anyway. I can see
>> it now: cute Frodo action figures, plastic orc armies, miniature
>> Barad-Dur and Orthanc towers. The possibilities are endless.
>
Or the "My parents went to Mordor and all I got was this lousy
t-shirt" t-shirts.
Sinboy
Tangents
--
TANGENTS
Your US Source for:
Sci-Fi & Fantasy Models Magazine
Science Fiction Modeller
http://www.ktb.net/~jayadan/tangent.htmBrenda and Larry
Clough wrote:
>
> Doug Tricarico wrote:
> >
> > I've been hearing quite a lot about Disney making The Lord of the Rings
> > recently, but have been unable to confirm it. The last thing I heard
> > (and was able to verify today) was that Saul Zaentz was interested in
> > making a live action/CGI film based on LOTR, it will be directed by
> > Peter Jackson and that Dreamworks, Miramax and Universal were
> > contenders.
> >
> > Is this a serious story or just another 'net rumor? References,
> > please.
> >
> > Doug
>
> IMO, unless solid verification can be supplied, we should all just cool
> out and relax. It's too soon to go into hysteria.
>
> Brenda
There is a New Zeland FX company currently interviewing native
Californian effects people to work on a new LOTR movie. This is not a
rumor as people I know have interviewed for a slot.
- Jay
Graydon
In article <EI5x9...@midway.uchicago.edu>,>In article <625j83$m...@excalibur.gooroos.com>,
>Graydon <goo...@interlog.com> wrote:
>>>It's as if Disney can't turn off its equation of beauty with good and
>>>ugliness with evil *even when it's the whole point of the story they
>>>made up in the first place*. I'll stop ranting now.)
>
>>Disney animation (although not, so far as I can tell, the animators) are
>>stuck in a particular creationist worldview, because it sells and is
>>considered wholesome for children.
>
>Disney's than yours is, though probably not all that close overall) it
>takes a huge blind spot to scuttle your story's major point. And
It is a huge blind spot; it's Virtue is Rewarded - not effort, not
striving, just plain virtue is its own reward - and it's ubiquitous in
NorAm Anglo culture.
>ultimately unrequited love is unusual for Disney in itself. (_How_
>could anyone read _Notre Dame de Paris_-- or even the Cliff's Notes--
>and think this would make a fun Disney cartoon?)
They read it?
>>Why lying to children is considered good I'll never know.
>
> Lying? I'd call it escape-- to a world in which right and
>wrong are straightforward, it's easy to sort between the heroes,
>villains, and fools, and Good triumphs in the end. Children, I
That's lying.
Compare :Lord of the Rings: or :Riddle of Stars: or :The Hidden Land:
books to :The Chronicles of Narnia:.
Helya, compare :Space Viking: to :On Basilisk Station:.
>suspect, mostly know the difference between this and the world that
>they inhabit. (They may continue to expect this in _fiction_, but
>that's a much smaller problem if it's one at all.)
There is no built in bullshit filter on human expectations, and things
that present models of conduct really and truly do get built into
expectations.
Andy
>From: Dearmad <dea...@europa.com>
>don't you think w/the Ralph Bakshi debacle as an example,
>they'll at least make the story entertaining...
The Bakshi episode was MOST entertaining - enjoyable and good - even though
some malign it from lofted towers... it wasn't a debacle though!
>hell, you simply cannot put those three books into a 2 hour>
Agreed - and if this was a reference to the Bakshi film then it wasn't an
attempt to squeeze three books into 2hours
Michael S. Schiffer
In article <344597...@access.digex.net>,
>> This is an open request for volunteers.
>> It is now official: Worldwide Mouse (Rickey Rat, The Rodent, The Small
>> World Order) is filming THE LORD OF THE RINGS.
> I thought they'd be too busy doing the animated version of
>_Animal Farm_....
Um... you know that's already been done, don't you? (Though
not by Disney.) Pretty well, too, IIRC, though I was much younger
when I saw it.
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS "I decline utterly to be impartial
ms...@tezcat.com as between the fire brigade and
ms...@midway.uchicago.edu the fire."
-- Winston Churchill, July 7, 1926
Michael S. Schiffer
In article <623vfs$7...@excalibur.gooroos.com>,
Graydon <goo...@interlog.com> wrote:
>In article <34457148...@europa.com>, Dearmad <dea...@europa.com> wrote:
>>hell, you simply cannot put those three books into a 2 hour
>>film. it's impossible, so just hope for something
>Sure you could.
>If you assumed that the audience knew the story, removed almost all the
>dialog and explanation, and did it as a series of mostly mute images, it
>would work fine.
>...
But it wouldn't be near so much like a movie. Or at least not
like a mass appeal Hollywood film. I suspect I'm enough of a "mass"
that I wouldn't like it much, though I could be won over by attention
to detail. It would have to be done on a shoestring budget (or
financed by a billionaire who didn't mind losing a lot of money).
>Disney isn't going to _do_ this, but it could be done. It would probably
>work much better than any attempt to get half a million words into two
>hours. (30 kword novellas go into two hours. Keep the ratio constant and
>:Lord of the Rings: would require about the same 21 hour weekend the Ring
>Cycle does.)
For comparison, the excellent BBC radio production took 13
hours. It was _almost_ complete, but cut out the Old Forest and Tom
Bombadil and compressed events in the Shire on both ends. A movie
would probably need more action scenes and establishing shots, and so
would probably be longer.
There was, meanwhile, an animated version of "The Return of
the King" done by Rankin-Bass. By coincidence, this came out when I
was finishing LotR for the first time, at the Golden Age. As a
result, I still have some affection for it, and I will never forget
the song "Where There's a Whip, There's a Way" even if it is a
misquote of Tolkien. By any objective standards it wasn't very good.
But it did manage to tell a two hour story-- by summarizing everything
before Cirith Ungol in fifty words or less and concentrating almost
entirely on the quest for Mount Doom (with enough scenes from Minas
Tirith to give an idea of how the war went and include highlights).
Done with more respect for the source material and higher
production values, this could have worked-- but I have to wonder how
many people would have cared about a story two-thirds over when the
opening credits played. (Arguably, though, this is a better approach
than Bakshi's "don't tell them this is Part One till they've already
watched for two hours".)
Unlike many people on this thread, I'm an enthusiastic fan of
Disney. Disney's "The Little Mermaid" isn't Hans Christian
Andersen's, but it's an entertaining, visually attractive light
musical in its own right. Tolkien, meanwhile, is probably on my top
five list at any point, and spends a fair amount of time at number
one. But just because someone likes both filet mignon and strawberry
ice cream doesn't mean that he looks forward to the combination.
Maybe they'll surprise me. But the last complex and long work
they attempted was "The Hunchback of Notre Dame". In that, not only
did they make Hugo's book into something unrecognizable (which I could
have forgiven) but they undercut their _own_ theme, something they had
deliberately made the story into. ("Just because you're ugly,
Quasimodo, doesn't mean that you can't be loved. Of course, that
won't stop us from turning the most unpleasant character in the book
into a handsome hero for the sole purpose of making sure that the
beautiful girl doesn't, you know, wind up with the ugly hunchback."
It's as if Disney can't turn off its equation of beauty with good and
ugliness with evil *even when it's the whole point of the story they
made up in the first place*. I'll stop ranting now.)
Mike
Steve Sloan
JMason wrote:
> No Disney animation is more than a toy ad anyway. I can see
> it now: cute Frodo action figures, plastic orc armies, miniature
> Barad-Dur and Orthanc towers. The possibilities are endless.
And that's just what comes with the Happy Meal...
Michael S. Schiffer
In article <625j83$m...@excalibur.gooroos.com>,
Graydon <goo...@interlog.com> wrote:
>In article <EI5Go...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
>>Graydon <goo...@interlog.com> wrote:
>>>In article <34457148...@europa.com>, Dearmad <dea...@europa.com> wrote:
>>>>hell, you simply cannot put those three books into a 2 hour
>>>>film. it's impossible, so just hope for something
>>>Sure you could.
>>>If you assumed that the audience knew the story, removed almost all the
>>>dialog and explanation, and did it as a series of mostly mute images, it
>>>would work fine.
>>>...
>> But it wouldn't be near so much like a movie. Or at least not
>It would be like a kind of movie; not a Hollywood movie, but stuff that's
>just images has played to great sucess in repetory theatres.
I don't say that something like that can't be done on film.
Film is a very versatile medium. I just doubt that it would appeal to
a large audience-- and even a small art film has to appeal to more
people than a small theater company does.
>Thing of :Lord of the Rings: done with a careful partially original
>orchestral score as a music video two hours long.
>>like a mass appeal Hollywood film. I suspect I'm enough of a "mass"
>>that I wouldn't like it much, though I could be won over by attention
>>to detail. It would have to be done on a shoestring budget (or
>>financed by a billionaire who didn't mind losing a lot of money).
>It would take _really good_ animation; significant facial expression, and
>_subtle and consistent_ facial expression.
Which is to say, at current tech levels it would require
hiring good (=expensive) animators and paying for good animation.
(Aside-- my understanding is that Disney's current plan involves a
live-action film, not animation, but we're not talking about anything
Disney would touch other than-- maybe-- as a distributor.) This could
produce good art, in the sense of something I could respect even if I
didn't enjoy it. It _might_ be able to produce art that I would
enjoy, though it's not the sort of thing I would normally go for. I
would be astonished, barring a major change in the financing of films
or mind-control lasers used on the populace, if whoever paid for it
ever saw any of his money back.
>...
>>It's as if Disney can't turn off its equation of beauty with good and
>>ugliness with evil *even when it's the whole point of the story they
>>made up in the first place*. I'll stop ranting now.)
>Disney animation (although not, so far as I can tell, the animators) are
>stuck in a particular creationist worldview, because it sells and is
>considered wholesome for children.
Even stipulating that (and I suspect my worldview is closer to
Disney's than yours is, though probably not all that close overall) it
takes a huge blind spot to scuttle your story's major point. And
ultimately unrequited love is unusual for Disney in itself. (_How_
could anyone read _Notre Dame de Paris_-- or even the Cliff's Notes--
and think this would make a fun Disney cartoon?)
>Why lying to children is considered good I'll never know.
Lying? I'd call it escape-- to a world in which right and
wrong are straightforward, it's easy to sort between the heroes,
villains, and fools, and Good triumphs in the end. Children, I
suspect, mostly know the difference between this and the world that
they inhabit. (They may continue to expect this in _fiction_, but
that's a much smaller problem if it's one at all.)
Mike
Thomas Womack
Michael S. Schiffer wrote in message ...
>In article <344597...@access.digex.net>,
>Steve Brinich <ste...@access.digex.net> wrote:
>>William wrote:
>
>>> This is an open request for volunteers.
>
>>> It is now official: Worldwide Mouse (Rickey Rat, The Rodent, The Small
>>> World Order) is filming THE LORD OF THE RINGS.
>
>> I thought they'd be too busy doing the animated version of
>>_Animal Farm_....
>
> Um... you know that's already been done, don't you? (Though
>not by Disney.) Pretty well, too, IIRC, though I was much younger
>when I saw it.
Except for the ending ... the pigs look at the men, the men look at the
pigs, and you couldn't determine which was which. Then hordes of howling
animals break down the doors, kill the evil dictators and establish a
pleasant republic. Really. YUCH!
Tom
Marks Robert B
Steve Sloan (sl...@geosim.msfc.nasa.gov) wrote:
: Steve Brinich wrote:
: >
: > William wrote:
: > >
: > > This is an open request for volunteers.
: > >
: > > It is now official: Worldwide Mouse (Rickey Rat, The Rodent,
: > > The Small World Order) is filming THE LORD OF THE RINGS.
Okay...it seems that the rumour is still flying around. I have telephoned
not only Disney but also Miramax. The Disney movie of LotR is a hoax.
Here is the proof:
1. Julie Sanders, who sent the original email to the Tolkien web sites
(claiming to be the executive assistant to Michael Eisner), does not work
at Disney at all. I confirmed this over the phone.
2. Nobody at Disney has heard anything about a LotR movie being made in
house; considering this with #1, the rumour that a Disney LotR movie is
being made is proven false.
3. There is no paper trail for contracts at Miramax for a LotR movie.
Miramax is the most likely candidate of any Disney company for a LotR
release, and yet they have no contracts for directors, special FX, actors
or screenwriters or even copyrights. The paper trail that would exist if
Miramax was producing a LotR movie does not exist.
Now, there does seem to be a live-action LotR movie being filmed in New
Zealand, with Peter Jackson as the director, but so far as it is known,
they are only just casting, and I cannot as yet discover what company is
producing it.
So there is the truth of the matter.
Robert Marks (who ran up his long-distance bill to find all of this out)
--
The future has not been written, / The past is set in stone,
And I am but a lonely wanderer, / With time as my only home.
-- from _Demon's Vengeance_
Nancy Lebovitz
In article <626ife$s...@excalibur.gooroos.com>,
Graydon <goo...@interlog.com> wrote:
>In article <EI5x9...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
>Michael S. Schiffer <ms...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Even stipulating that (and I suspect my worldview is closer to
>>Disney's than yours is, though probably not all that close overall) it
>>takes a huge blind spot to scuttle your story's major point. And
>
>striving, just plain virtue is its own reward - and it's ubiquitous in
>NorAm Anglo culture.
>
It's the scene where the hero has the villain dangling off a great
height and keeps trying to save the villain until the villain finally
attacks the hero yet again. At that point the hero either isn't
able to save the villain, or lets the villain fall.
There's no hint that being so merciful carries some serious risks.
I don't know if I'm arguing with something that you're actually
implying, but I don't think that striving is or should be the
only thing that's rewarded.
--
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
October '96 calligraphic button catalogue available by email!
Doug Tricarico
In <3446B3...@bellatlantic.net> Aaron Pound
<ajp...@bellatlantic.net> writes:
>
>Rasmus Rimestad wrote:
>>
>> N Johnson wrote:
>>
>> > William <solic...@gamewood.net> wrote in article
>> > <3443E2B6...@gamewood.net>...
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > What if Disney made a movie and nobody came?
>> > >
>> >
>>
>> What does TRON mean?
>
>Tron was a very mediocre movie in the early 1980s that was supposed to
>take place mostly "inside" a computer. It was released just when
>personal computers and video games were really hitting their stride as
>mainstream products and was hyped up as an innovative film that
explored
>a new technology. In reality the movie pretty much sucked, although I
>thought it was kinda cool when I was in my early teens.
>
>Aaron J. Pound, esq.
I rewatched TRON not too long ago, and it's still pretty cool. Limited
in tone and theme because it's Disney, it was fairly innovative. As
tepid it may be, it's still light years ahead of most of the sci-fi
crap shovelled at us nowadays. At least they were taking some chances.
And I _want_ a lightcycle.
Doug
Doug Tricarico
In <34465A...@erols.com> Brenda and Larry Clough <clo...@erols.com>
writes:
>Doug Tricarico wrote:
>>
>> I've been hearing quite a lot about Disney making The Lord of
>> the Rings recently, but have been unable to confirm it. The
>> last thing I heard (and was able to verify today) was that Saul
>> Zaentz was interested in
>> making a live action/CGI film based on LOTR, it will be directed
>> by Peter Jackson and that Dreamworks, Miramax and Universal were
>> contenders.
>>
>> Is this a serious story or just another 'net rumor? References,
>> please.
>>
>> Doug
>
>
>
>IMO, unless solid verification can be supplied, we should all
>just cool out and relax. It's too soon to go into hysteria.
>
>Brenda
I agree, which is why all those posts asking for letter-writing
campaigns and threatening boycotts struck me as odd since I hadn't
heard anything about this plan.
Since I couldn't find anything, I daresay the LOTR movie is a pipe
dream of Tolkienisti.
Doug
Doug Tricarico
In <3446BB...@ktb.net> Tangents <jay...@ktb.net> writes:
>
>--
> TANGENTS
> Your US Source for:
> Sci-Fi & Fantasy Models Magazine
> Science Fiction Modeller
> http://www.ktb.net/~jayadan/tangent.htmBrenda and Larry
>Clough wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > I've been hearing quite a lot about Disney making The Lord of the
Rings
>> > recently, but have been unable to confirm it. The last thing I
heard
>> > (and was able to verify today) was that Saul Zaentz was interested
in
>> > making a live action/CGI film based on LOTR, it will be directed
by
>> > Peter Jackson and that Dreamworks, Miramax and Universal were
>> > contenders.
>> >
>> > Is this a serious story or just another 'net rumor? References,
>> > please.
>> >
>> > Doug
>>
>> IMO, unless solid verification can be supplied, we should all just
cool
>> out and relax. It's too soon to go into hysteria.
>>
>> Brenda
>
>
>Californian effects people to work on a new LOTR movie. This is not a
>rumor as people I know have interviewed for a slot.
>
>- Jay
Did I tell you about the time my second cousin's brother-in-law's
stepsister's real mother met Lionel Ritchie (or was it Eddie Murphy?)
in a hotel elevator in Las Vagas...?
Joshua Jasper
In article <626ife$s...@excalibur.gooroos.com>,
Graydon <goo...@interlog.com> wrote:
>In article <EI5x9...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
>Michael S. Schiffer <ms...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>>Graydon <goo...@interlog.com> wrote:
>>>>It's as if Disney can't turn off its equation of beauty with good and
>>>>ugliness with evil *even when it's the whole point of the story they
>>>>made up in the first place*. I'll stop ranting now.)
>>
>>>Disney animation (although not, so far as I can tell, the animators) are
>>>stuck in a particular creationist worldview, because it sells and is
>>>considered wholesome for children.
>>
>>Disney's than yours is, though probably not all that close overall) it
>>takes a huge blind spot to scuttle your story's major point. And
>
>It is a huge blind spot; it's Virtue is Rewarded - not effort, not
>striving, just plain virtue is its own reward - and it's ubiquitous in
>NorAm Anglo culture.
>
>>could anyone read _Notre Dame de Paris_-- or even the Cliff's Notes--
>>and think this would make a fun Disney cartoon?)
>
>
>>>Why lying to children is considered good I'll never know.
>>
>> Lying? I'd call it escape-- to a world in which right and
>>wrong are straightforward, it's easy to sort between the heroes,
>>villains, and fools, and Good triumphs in the end. Children, I
>
>
>Compare :Lord of the Rings: or :Riddle of Stars: or :The Hidden Land:
>books to :The Chronicles of Narnia:.
>
>Helya, compare :Space Viking: to :On Basilisk Station:.
>
>>they inhabit. (They may continue to expect this in _fiction_, but
>>that's a much smaller problem if it's one at all.)
>
>that present models of conduct really and truly do get built into
>expectations.
Geeze you are cynical. Just because children watch cartoons or
shows that aren't representativ of real life dosn't mean that the
majority of them don't know the difference. I think you underestimate
how smart kids actualy are.
Sinboy
Doug Tricarico
In <344679...@geosim.msfc.nasa.gov> Steve Sloan
<sl...@geosim.msfc.nasa.gov> writes:
>
>Steve Brinich wrote:
>>
>> William wrote:
>> >
>> > This is an open request for volunteers.
>> >
>> > It is now official: Worldwide Mouse (Rickey Rat, The Rodent,
>> > The Small World Order) is filming THE LORD OF THE RINGS.
>
>animated movie out of Asimov's "The Bicentennial Man", but that
>was a while back.
>_____________________________________________________________________
>Steve Sloan
I hear that Disney has, in various stages of production, animated films
based on Atlas Shrugged, A Canticle for Leibowitz and American Psycho.
The mind boggles.
Doug
Graydon
In article <6284p1$k...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>,
Celia Malm <per...@ix.REMOVESPAMnetcom.com> wrote:
>gra...@gooroos.com (Graydon) penned the following:
>>Disney animation (although not, so far as I can tell, the animators) are
>>stuck in a particular creationist worldview, because it sells and is
>>considered wholesome for children.
>
>
>
>1) you have a different definition of "lying" than others do;
One cannot avoid lying by ommission; lying by commission is something else
again, and the view of love Disney presents is so woefully distinct from
anything actually _possible_ I have no trouble regarding at a lying.
>2) you don't have children?
I have none of my own; this does not mean that I have never dealt with
any. It is certainly effortful to put things into the appropriate
context, but such effort is no excuse to mislead.
yon lew
Graydon (gra...@gooroos.com) wrote:
: In article <EI5x9...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
: Michael S. Schiffer <ms...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
: >In article <625j83$m...@excalibur.gooroos.com>,
: >Graydon <goo...@interlog.com> wrote:
: >>>It's as if Disney can't turn off its equation of beauty with good and
: >>>ugliness with evil *even when it's the whole point of the story they
: >>>made up in the first place*. I'll stop ranting now.)
: >>Disney animation (although not, so far as I can tell, the animators) are
: >>stuck in a particular creationist worldview, because it sells and is
: >>considered wholesome for children.
: > Even stipulating that (and I suspect my worldview is closer to
: >Disney's than yours is, though probably not all that close overall) it
: >takes a huge blind spot to scuttle your story's major point. And
: It is a huge blind spot; it's Virtue is Rewarded - not effort, not
: striving, just plain virtue is its own reward - and it's ubiquitous in
: NorAm Anglo culture.
: >ultimately unrequited love is unusual for Disney in itself. (_How_
: >could anyone read _Notre Dame de Paris_-- or even the Cliff's Notes--
: >and think this would make a fun Disney cartoon?)
: They read it?
: >>Why lying to children is considered good I'll never know.
: >
: > Lying? I'd call it escape-- to a world in which right and
: >wrong are straightforward, it's easy to sort between the heroes,
: >villains, and fools, and Good triumphs in the end. Children, I
: That's lying.
: Compare :Lord of the Rings: or :Riddle of Stars: or :The Hidden Land:
: books to :The Chronicles of Narnia:.
: Helya, compare :Space Viking: to :On Basilisk Station:.
: >suspect, mostly know the difference between this and the world that
: >they inhabit. (They may continue to expect this in _fiction_, but
: >that's a much smaller problem if it's one at all.)
: There is no built in bullshit filter on human expectations, and things
: that present models of conduct really and truly do get built into
: expectations.
Not to mention that it contributes to the growth of what I call "The
Plastic Society". I remember seeing an interview with one of the Disney
guys who scripted or helped animate "The Little Mermaid". He said
something like, "In Anderson's version, the little mermaid dies at the
end, but of course we had to change that." Of course.
yon lew
Joshua Jasper (sin...@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <626ife$s...@excalibur.gooroos.com>,
: Graydon <goo...@interlog.com> wrote:
: >In article <EI5x9...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
: >Michael S. Schiffer <ms...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
: >>In article <625j83$m...@excalibur.gooroos.com>,
: >>Graydon <goo...@interlog.com> wrote:
: >>>Why lying to children is considered good I'll never know.
: >>
: >> Lying? I'd call it escape-- to a world in which right and
: >>wrong are straightforward, it's easy to sort between the heroes,
: >>villains, and fools, and Good triumphs in the end. Children, I
: >
: >That's lying.
: >
: >Compare :Lord of the Rings: or :Riddle of Stars: or :The Hidden Land:
: >books to :The Chronicles of Narnia:.
: >
: >Helya, compare :Space Viking: to :On Basilisk Station:.
: >
: >>suspect, mostly know the difference between this and the world that
: >>they inhabit. (They may continue to expect this in _fiction_, but
: >>that's a much smaller problem if it's one at all.)
: >
: >There is no built in bullshit filter on human expectations, and things
: >that present models of conduct really and truly do get built into
: >expectations.
: Geeze you are cynical. Just because children watch cartoons or
: shows that aren't representativ of real life dosn't mean that the
: majority of them don't know the difference. I think you underestimate
: how smart kids actualy are.
: Sinboy
If these kids are so bright, how is it they grow into adults who make films
like "Independance Day" smash hits? Most kids it seems to me are duller
than your average clod of earth. It's as they grow up that they gain
some intelligence.
Nancy Lebovitz
In article <6280v1$7...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>,
Doug Tricarico <tr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>I hear that Disney has, in various stages of production, animated films
>based on Atlas Shrugged, A Canticle for Leibowitz and American Psycho.
>
>The mind boggles.
>
Tim Dedeaux
Michael Straight (stra...@email.unc.edu) wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 15 Oct 1997, P. Schmitz wrote:
>
> I hate to break this to you, but Disney's target audience for this film is
> almost certainly not Tolkien fans. It's children of toy-buying age.
>
> Ask mythology buffs whether they were the target audience for Hercules.
Oh, come on! Didn't you ever want to see the Nazgul (however it's
spelled :) singing showtunes with Orcs singing backup and trolls doing the
"do do do do" stuff? Come on! They could dance, too: "The funky Carat
over the 'U'" (you know, in "Nazgul").
I can hear the song now "It's not easy being a blind, half-ghost
evil guy who has to ride a smelly vulture the size of a 737" . . . then
again, they may go for a a shorter title, but the 737 fits Disney's style
(anachrocisms and all, however that's spelled). I think Elton John or
Michael Bolton, or 311 or Marilyn Manson or some other "wholesome" group
could sing the radio single version of this . . . in Elvish Finnish of
course :)
Hey, we'd probably also get to hear the "One ring to bind them"
bit as a rap! Cool! I *love* Disney, those preservationists of
literature, history, and mythology!
--
There are only two types of people in the world,
those who can remember things and, uh . . . uh . . . never mind :)
- Tim
Graydon
In article <jadcox-ya02408000...@news.mindspring.com>,
John Adcox <jad...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <627ibv$k...@universe.digex.net>, nan...@universe.digex.net
>(Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:
>>One of my pet peeves with Disney is probably a sub-category of this.
>>It's the scene where the hero has the villain dangling off a great
>>height and keeps trying to save the villain until the villain finally
>>attacks the hero yet again. At that point the hero either isn't
>>able to save the villain, or lets the villain fall.
>>
>>There's no hint that being so merciful carries some serious risks.
>
>there were some risks?
Not properly, no, becuase the hero always _wins_, despite being so
boneheaded as to toss away good luck by reflex.
Praise a friend with their funeral ale, a ship come again to harbour, a
foe thrice burned...
John Adcox
And besides, the film presently in production is The Hobbit. Sigh.
JA
Who kinda wishes Peter Jackson had stuck with his idea of casting Morgan
Freeman as Gandalf... it would have been fascinating, except for the
unfortunate laugh when he introduced himself as Gandalf the White.
--
John Adcox
Visit My Web Site!
http://jadcox.home.mindspring.com
King Arthur, Mythology and Folklore,
Books and literature, resources for writers,
Entertainment, the Arts, Music,
Religion, Philosophy, fantasy and more!
Nancy Lebovitz
In article <jadcox-ya02408000...@news.mindspring.com>,
John Adcox <jad...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <627ibv$k...@universe.digex.net>, nan...@universe.digex.net
>(Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:
>>One of my pet peeves with Disney is probably a sub-category of this.
>>It's the scene where the hero has the villain dangling off a great
>>height and keeps trying to save the villain until the villain finally
>>attacks the hero yet again. At that point the hero either isn't
>>able to save the villain, or lets the villain fall.
>>
>>There's no hint that being so merciful carries some serious risks.
>
>Um... wait a minute. Being attacked again by the villian doesn't imply
>there were some risks?
>
Steve Brinich
Nancy Lebovitz wrote:
>John Adcox wrote:
>>Nancy Lebovitz wrote:
>> >One of my pet peeves with Disney is probably a sub-category of this.
>> >It's the scene where the hero has the villain dangling off a great
>> >height and keeps trying to save the villain until the villain finally
>> >attacks the hero yet again. At that point the hero either isn't
>> >able to save the villain, or lets the villain fall.
>> >
> >>There's no hint that being so merciful carries some serious risks.
How about the version (e.g. ST III) where the villian's final
attack provokes the hero to deliberately _push_ the villain
into the abyss?
>> Um... wait a minute. Being attacked again by the villian doesn't imply
>> there were some risks?
>
> Not if the villain never injures or kills the hero.
I think that's a special case of the a general problem. If the hero
keeps coming through all sorts of hazards unscathed, eventually _nothing_
seems to carry any risk to the hero.
--
Steve Brinich ste...@access.digex.net If the government wants us
PGP:89B992BBE67F7B2F64FDF2EA14374C3E to respect the law
http://www.access.digex.net/~steve-b it should set a better example
Craig J Neumeier
gra...@gooroos.com (Graydon) writes:
>Michael S. Schiffer <ms...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>>Graydon <goo...@interlog.com> wrote:
>>>Why lying to children is considered good I'll never know.
>>
>> Lying? I'd call it escape-- to a world in which right and
>>wrong are straightforward, it's easy to sort between the heroes,
>>villains, and fools, and Good triumphs in the end. Children, I
>That's lying.
>Compare :Lord of the Rings: or :Riddle of Stars: or :The Hidden Land:
>books to :The Chronicles of Narnia:.
Not a fair comparison at all. In the Chronicles, the _reader_ may be
able to sort out heroes, villains, and fools quite easily, but the
_characters_ cannot. And while Good triumphs in the end, this cannot be
considered lying because Lewis devoutly believed that this is *true*,
after you take the whole picture (the afterlife) into account.
>Helya, compare :Space Viking: to :On Basilisk Station:.
>>suspect, mostly know the difference between this and the world that
>>they inhabit. (They may continue to expect this in _fiction_, but
>>that's a much smaller problem if it's one at all.)
>There is no built in bullshit filter on human expectations, and things
>that present models of conduct really and truly do get built into
>expectations.
Maybe, maybe not. As I recall my mindset when I was a young child,
this particular reality failure wasn't a problem for me. After all, it
was transparently obvious in real life that sometimes virtue is not
rewarded.
Craig Neumeier, LHN
[yes, it means the same thing as after Mike's name.]
Celia Malm
gra...@gooroos.com (Graydon) penned the following:
>Disney animation (although not, so far as I can tell, the animators) are
>stuck in a particular creationist worldview, because it sells and is
>considered wholesome for children.
>Why lying to children is considered good I'll never know.
Perhaps because:
1) you have a different definition of "lying" than others do;
2) you don't have children?
Cee
------------------------------------------------
"If I must be this...this thing they have made of me,
I shall at least give it my voice and my heart."
Walker Boh
Joshua Jasper
In article <3446BB...@ktb.net>, Tangents <jay...@ktb.net> wrote:
>--
> TANGENTS
> Your US Source for:
> Sci-Fi & Fantasy Models Magazine
> Science Fiction Modeller
> http://www.ktb.net/~jayadan/tangent.htmBrenda and Larry
>Clough wrote:
>>
>> Doug Tricarico wrote:
>> >
>> > I've been hearing quite a lot about Disney making The Lord of the Rings
>> > recently, but have been unable to confirm it. The last thing I heard
>> > (and was able to verify today) was that Saul Zaentz was interested in
>> > making a live action/CGI film based on LOTR, it will be directed by
>> > Peter Jackson and that Dreamworks, Miramax and Universal were
>> > contenders.
>> >
>> > Is this a serious story or just another 'net rumor? References,
>> > please.
>> >
>> > Doug
>>
>> IMO, unless solid verification can be supplied, we should all just cool
>> out and relax. It's too soon to go into hysteria.
>>
>> Brenda
>
>
>There is a New Zeland FX company currently interviewing native
>Californian effects people to work on a new LOTR movie. This is not a
>rumor as people I know have interviewed for a slot.
Tell 'em to check Toronto. The CGI school there is top notch.
Competent CGI folk in LA get snapped up _real_ frigging fast. There's
an amazingly short supply of of 'em.
Sinboy
>
>- Jay
Nyrath the nearly wise
Thus spoke yon lew (le...@netcom.com):
> Not to mention that it contributes to the growth of what I call "The
> Plastic Society". I remember seeing an interview with one of the Disney
> guys who scripted or helped animate "The Little Mermaid". He said
> something like, "In Anderson's version, the little mermaid dies at the
> end, but of course we had to change that." Of course.
Absolutely. In reality, Pocahantas was taken from her
beloved forests to die of tuberculosis in England.
But that's not politically correct.
And the same moron who thought that the Hunchback
of Notre Dame would make a good kiddie movie also
had to change the ending slightly. Most kids would
be rather upset at watching Quasi starve to death
in a pit, holding the rotting body of his lady love.
I can't wait for the Disney version of "Caligula".
* A B S I T * I N V I D I A * V E R B O ** I D E M * S O N A N S *
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| WINCHELL CHUNG http://www.clark.net/pub/nyrath/home.html |
| Nyrath the nearly wise nyr...@clark.net |
+---_---+---------------------[ SURREAL SAGE SEZ: ]--------------------------+
| /_\ | Hel was a Pluto sized twerp of a straggler planet which, like an |
| <(*)> | orphaned puppy, had taken up with the first warm body it had come |
|/_/|\_\| across |
| //|\\ | |
+///|\\\+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Avram Grumer
In article <344810...@access.digex.net>, ste...@access.digex.net wrote:
>I've had people not realize I was joking about
>"the upcoming Disney version of 'Animal Farm'"....
I'd really like to see the Muppets give that a try. They've got the pigs
for it. Imagine Miss Piggy as Napoleon....
--
Avram Grumer Home: av...@interport.net
http://www.crossover.com/agrumer/ Work: agr...@crossover.com
Lies, damned lies, and web page hit counts.
Dan Lewerenz
Nyrath the nearly wise wrote:
> Absolutely. In reality, Pocahantas was taken from her
> beloved forests to die of tuberculosis in England.
> But that's not politically correct.
Not to mention the fact that John Smith was a dark-haired, swarthy man whose
descriptions hardly conjure up the image of a Disney cartoon hero.
Dan
Mark Harris
4r...@qlink.queensu.ca (Marks Robert B) wrote:
>Now, there does seem to be a live-action LotR movie being filmed in New
>Zealand, with Peter Jackson as the director, but so far as it is known,
>they are only just casting, and I cannot as yet discover what company is
>producing it.
FYI, Jackson's distributer/money people have been Miramax for the
last two pictures at least.
And did you consider the possibility that Disney may be lying to
you? People do, you know, especially when large amounts of money
are at stake.
Cheers
Mark Harris
email: ma...@tracs.co.nz
If it's the tourist season, why can't we shoot them?
Rasmus Rimestad
Tim Dedeaux wrote:
I simply can't wait!
Ian Galbraith
: > > I've been hearing quite a lot about Disney making The Lord of the
: > > Rings recently, but have been unable to confirm it. The last thing I
: > > heard (and was able to verify today) was that Saul Zaentz was
: > > interested in making a live action/CGI film based on LOTR, it will be
: > > directed by Peter Jackson and that Dreamworks, Miramax and
: > > Universal were contenders.
: > > Is this a serious story or just another 'net rumor? References,
: > > please.
: > IMO, unless solid verification can be supplied, we should all just cool
: > out and relax. It's too soon to go into hysteria.
: There is a New Zeland FX company currently interviewing native
: Californian effects people to work on a new LOTR movie. This is not a
: rumor as people I know have interviewed for a slot.
Considering Peter Jackson is a New Zealander, and does a lot of his film
production work including special effects from NZ, this would appear to confirm
the rumour. Peter Jackson is one of the few directors who I would actually
trust to do a great job on a movie of LOTR.
Be Seeing You
--
Ian Galbraith
i.gal...@latrobe.edu.audelete_this
(To email me remove delete_this from my address)
"We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could
produce the Complete Works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the
Internet, we know this is not true."
- Robert Wilensky
Nancy Lebovitz
In article <344854BC...@mcn.net>, Dan Lewerenz <bax...@mcn.net> wrote:
>Steve Brinich wrote:
>
>> Doug Tricarico wrote:
>>
>> > based on Atlas Shrugged, A Canticle for Leibowitz and American Psycho.
>
>worst thing I can imagine in film.
>
Do you think Cheryl and the Wet Nurse would end up getting married?
Nancy Lebovitz
In article <629153$5...@clarknet.clark.net>,
Nyrath the nearly wise <nyr...@clark.net> wrote:
>
>
> Absolutely. In reality, Pocahantas was taken from her
> beloved forests to die of tuberculosis in England.
> But that's not politically correct.
>
has spread to mean something like "anything deleted to spare
a soft-hearted/headed person's feelings". In the older sense
of the phrase, making it clear that Pocahantas lost severely
in her contact with the Europeans would be very PC.
Mark Hockley
On Fri, 17 Oct 1997 19:06:26 -0400, jad...@mindspring.com (John Adcox)
wrote:
>And besides, the film presently in production is The Hobbit. Sigh.
>
>JA
>Who kinda wishes Peter Jackson had stuck with his idea of casting Morgan
>Freeman as Gandalf... it would have been fascinating, except for the
>unfortunate laugh when he introduced himself as Gandalf the White.
>
>--
>John Adcox
>
Where did you hear that Peter Jackson wanted to cast Morgan Freeman as
Gandalf?
Mark.
Graydon
In article <3447AE...@research.bell-labs.com>,
Graham Wills <gwi...@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
>Craig J Neumeier wrote:
> Graydon wrote:
>> >Compare :Lord of the Rings: or :Riddle of Stars: or :The Hidden Land:
>> >books to :The Chronicles of Narnia:.
>
>> Not a fair comparison at all. In the Chronicles, the _reader_ may be
>> able to sort out heroes, villains, and fools quite easily, but the
>> _characters_ cannot.
>
>bad things. Apart from Edmund in the original book, there's also Eustace
>Scrubbs (is that the right name) who also changes thorugh the book.
>
>In the opposite direction is Susan - a heroine in one story who turns
>her back and spurns her brothers and sister.
>
>There are ambiguous heros - The horse of 'the horse and his boy' who are
>ambiguous throughout the story. There is a good person of the 'evil'
>race. There is the set of dwarves who *actively kill* good Narnias - and
>yet still go to heaven.
Yup.
But the good/bad criteria, and how you go from bad to good, are
_mechanistic_. Outright high church Anglican, in fact.
>Compared with Tolkien's Saruman (who is never really shown as good in
>LOTR), Boromir (*the* example) and Smeagol/Gollum, I'd have to conclude
>that your example works in reverse. In LoTR, it takes a paragraph to
>work out who'll end the trilogy as good or evil (Gollum might be your
>only mistake, adn that's debatable). In Narnia, you'd not be so sure...
:Lord of the Rings: works almost as mechanisticly as :Narnia: in this
regard, with the exception that the results of fortunate errors are in
there much more strongly, and with the exception that being heroic counts
for something - it can be a duty but not a virtue in Narnia. This starts
to unravel the question of the mechanistic morals - Glorfindel, Turin,
Bilbo, etc. redeem themselves by striving, rather than repentance.
In The Hidden Land stuff, though - no mechanism. Is Edward Carroll an
usurper?
In :Riddle:, urgh, there isn't a morality at all, there's a lot of very
sensible expediency and five or six competing sets of ethics.
To put the SF examples back in, is Lucas Trask a good guy?
Richard A. Randall
tded...@ox.mc.edu (Tim Dedeaux) writes:
> Hey, we'd probably also get to hear the "One ring to bind them"
> bit as a rap! Cool! I *love* Disney, those preservationists of
> literature, history, and mythology!
You ought to read "Bored of the Rings." It will probably be
used as the screenplay, knowing the Evil Mouse. After all, it
IS a lot shorter. :)
Graydon
In article <slrn64j027...@arneb.atnf.CSIRO.AU>,
Euan Troup <etr...@atnf.csiro.au> wrote:
>On 18 Oct 1997 12:42:28 -0400, Graydon <gra...@gooroos.com> ascii'd:
>>In :Riddle:, urgh, there isn't a morality at all, there's a lot of very
>>sensible expediency and five or six competing sets of ethics.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>I guess I'm not sure of the distinction you're using between morals and
>ethics. Doesn't Morgon decide that people are more important than power
Morals are rules; ethics are principles.
('no man is so rich that he really minds being repaid' versus 'being in
someone's debt has these sorts of consequences'.)
>for it's own sake, as in "... not compassion, but passion..."
Morgon decided that power for its own sake was a trap; Raederle got told
'not compassion, but passion' by Edolen as a justification of shape
shifter conduct, it's a statement about their aesthetics more than
anything.
>"Ignorance is deadly" struck me as a moral of the story, as well.
Well, somewhat, but a third of the farmers from Hed didn't make it home.
What I took from it is 'inadequate represenations of the world won't do'.
Jo Walton
In article <62aotk$1...@excalibur.gooroos.com>
goo...@interlog.com "Graydon" writes:
> In The Hidden Land stuff, though - no mechanism. Is Edward Carroll an
> usurper?
By no deed of his.
> In :Riddle:, urgh, there isn't a morality at all, there's a lot of very
> sensible expediency and five or six competing sets of ethics.
McKillip isn't much for morals as rules.
Virtue isn't rewarded.
> To put the SF examples back in, is Lucas Trask a good guy?
No. A good person? Maybe. A good Prince of Tanith? Oh yes.
How about Pyanfar Chanur? A good guy?
How about Therem Harth rem i'r Estraven?
I think Lewis, and to the extent that he does what you're talking about,
Tolkien, get away with it is because their people act like people, whatever
the mechanism that's working in the worldview that makes the world come
out like that. Disney OTOH can be considered to be producing Morality
Plays with very odd black-and-white morality. Those aren't like people.
--
Jo - - I kissed a kif at Kefk - - J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Blue Jo Web Page - Blood of Kings Poetry, Reviews, Interstichia
20 poems by me, 11 poems by Graydon, Momentum Guidelines,
storytelling card games... all at http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk
Graydon
In article <877274...@bluejo.demon.co.uk>,
Jo Walton <J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <62aotk$1...@excalibur.gooroos.com>
> goo...@interlog.com "Graydon" writes:
>> In The Hidden Land stuff, though - no mechanism. Is Edward Carroll an
>> usurper?
>By no deed of his.
Oh no, there _is_ a deed of his - he took the coronation oath _knowing_ he
did so under false pretenses. Pretty much exactly like the younger twin
brother taking the oath without bothering to tell anyone that they don't
have the older twin.
Do I think he had good reasons to do that? Sure.
Did the Hidden Land probably get a better potential king out of it? Also,
yes, he would see to be. But it's really hard to argue that in law, he
didn't usurp Edward Fairchild.
>> In :Riddle:, urgh, there isn't a morality at all, there's a lot of very
>> sensible expediency and five or six competing sets of ethics.
>
>McKillip isn't much for morals as rules.
>
>Virtue isn't rewarded.
Nope; virtue is its own reward.
>> To put the SF examples back in, is Lucas Trask a good guy?
>No. A good person? Maybe. A good Prince of Tanith? Oh yes.
Excellent Prince, no question. I would not tend to regard him as really
being in the running as a good human being, though, despite rather liking
him.
>How about Pyanfar Chanur? A good guy?
Nope. Closer, in that her motivations start of species-wide and get
compact-wide, but no detectable limit of means nor constraint of consent
in there.
>How about Therem Harth rem i'r Estraven?
Yes. Very carefully so.
>I think Lewis, and to the extent that he does what you're talking about,
>Tolkien, get away with it is because their people act like people, whatever
>the mechanism that's working in the worldview that makes the world come
>out like that. Disney OTOH can be considered to be producing Morality
>Plays with very odd black-and-white morality. Those aren't like people.
And it's a morality I find particularly objectionable, too, so I complain
about it rather more. Narnia... Narnia has the virtue that Lewis very
sincerely beleive he was presenting the true world.
Dan Goodman
Keep Disney honest.
Keep the Mafia nonviolent.
--
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Bill Stebbins
In article <344e4455...@news.wco.com>, tre...@wco.com wrote:
>William <solic...@gamewood.net> wrote:
>
>>It is now official: Worldwide Mouse (Rickey Rat, The Rodent, The Small
>>World Order) is filming THE LORD OF THE RINGS. In one 2-hour movie. To
>>go from preproduction to release in a skimpy 14 months.
>
>Even my wife (who usually defends Disney to me) was aghast ... as am I.
>However:
>
>>HACKERS: Anyone who can bend the Net to his/her will
>
>What, precisely, would you ask those hackers to do? The question is
>rhetorical, of course.
>
>Anyone who loves books should also care very much about freedom of
>expression, and should understand that this includes the freedom to
>express things we don't like. Applying coercion (whether by shuffling
>electrons or by throwing stones) in order to prevent Disney making their
>stinking film seems to me to be far worse than letting them make it.
>After all, by the time they've finished with it, it won't be a film of a
>great book, in any meaningful sense; it'll just be a film with the same
>title as a great book and some coincidentally named characters.
>
>So cancel your reservations for Disneyland (easy for me to say: we don't
>have kids) and otherwise use methods that don't give Disney the tiniest
>opportunity to paint themselves as victims.
>
>- Richard
>------
>A sufficiently incompetent ScF author is indistinguishable from magic.
> see also:
>What is (and isn't) ScF? ==> http://www.wco.com/~treitel/sf.html
A little judgemental aren't we? Disney's treatment of The Hunchback and
Hercules notwithstanding, until they actually produce something to critique,
any such comments are premature, if nothing else. I've always felt that if
anyone could do justice to these great books, it would be Disney. If it's
true that they intend to 1) make the movie, and 2) try to tell the entire
story in 2 hours, then I may have to change that opinion. However, I will
wait to do so if and when they make the movie, and only after I see it.
Bill Stebbins
Live well, Laugh often, Love much...
Zar
IMHO LOFTR should be made into a trilogy, more or less following the books.
I have always regarded the end of TT as the ultimate cliffhanger
(especially, because ROTK was unavailable at our local library when I first
time read it as child).
If that guy Lucas could get away with a trilogy...
Zar
--
"'What ineffable twaddle!' I cried, slapping the
magazine down on the table; 'I never read
such rubbish in my life.'"
A.Conan Doyle: A Study in Scarlet
Andrew Plotkin
Graydon (gra...@gooroos.com) wrote:
> >How about Pyanfar Chanur? A good guy?
> Nope. Closer, in that her motivations start of species-wide and get
> compact-wide, but no detectable limit of means nor constraint of consent
> in there.
Certainly agree with that. Pretty much the point of the fifth book was
this fact, and what it looks like to anyone not on the _Pride_'s bridge.
But...
> [...]
> Narnia... Narnia has the virtue that Lewis very
> sincerely beleive he was presenting the true world.
...doesn't Cherryh sincerely believe that self-limitation of means is
ultimately a mistake?
Well, I shouldn't phrase it like that, since I have no idea what Cherryh
believes. But she seems to tell a lot of stories about people who will do
anything. If there is a victory, this is how someone pulls it off. People
wind up arguing about whether it was good or not, but it is presented as
necessary.
(When it's a disaster or utterly unthinkable, it was necessary, too. I'm
not saying this *defines* good. :-) You can tell Ari Emory fron Pyanfar
in a dark room, by, let's see, one of them is furrier...)
(I'd go on to explain that "a dark room" is an abbreviation for "knowing
anything less than the full situation", but I'm sure you're going to
topple my tower of tentative ideas fast enough as it is. Heh.)
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
Jo Walton
SPOILERS FOR PAMELA DEAN'S EXCELLENT AND WONDERFUL SECRET COUNTRY
TRILOGY.
In article <62dg78$p...@excalibur.gooroos.com>
goo...@interlog.com "Graydon" writes:
> In article <877274...@bluejo.demon.co.uk>,
> Jo Walton <J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >In article <62aotk$1...@excalibur.gooroos.com>
> > goo...@interlog.com "Graydon" writes:
> >> In The Hidden Land stuff, though - no mechanism. Is Edward Carroll an
> >> usurper?
> >By no deed of his.
>
> Oh no, there _is_ a deed of his - he took the coronation oath _knowing_ he
> did so under false pretenses. Pretty much exactly like the younger twin
> brother taking the oath without bothering to tell anyone that they don't
> have the older twin.
>
> Do I think he had good reasons to do that? Sure.
>
> Did the Hidden Land probably get a better potential king out of it? Also,
> yes, he would see to be. But it's really hard to argue that in law, he
> didn't usurp Edward Fairchild.
He didn't know that he wasn't Edward. He found out later that he wasn't,
but right then he did not know and had no way of knowing that there was
an Edward Fairchild separate from himself. Therefore it was no usurpation,
though one could make a case that he maybe should have said something
anyway.
Mr J M Persaud
On 20 Oct 1997, Zar wrote:
>If that guy lucas could get away with a trilogy.
Great idea. But if the first one is good, I'll go totally insane waiting
for the next two to come
---==== JaMeS M. PeRsAuD (Es...@csv.warwick.ac.uk)====---
1st year CSE student, programming fanatic and internet spod
Room 210, CH1(Knightlow) Cryfield halls, university of Warwick, Coventry
WWW: members.aol.com/GothmogLOB/Gothshome/GOTH.HTML
OR: members.aol.com/GothmogLOB/Gothshome/ANGBAND.HTML
Doug Crowson
In article <629153$5...@clarknet.clark.net>, nyr...@clark.net (Nyrath the nearly wise) writes:
> And the same moron who thought that the Hunchback
> of Notre Dame would make a good kiddie movie also
> had to change the ending slightly. Most kids would
> be rather upset at watching Quasi starve to death
> in a pit, holding the rotting body of his lady love.
Disney's not the first to make the ending of Hunchback more palatable.
There was a made-for-TV movie about 10 years ago starring (I think)
Jane Seymore as Esmeralda and Anthony Hopkins as Quasimodo.
Quasimodo did plunge to his death from Notre Dame in the end,
but Esmeralda escaped with her beloved (can't recall who it was, though).
Doug
Charles Buckley
In article <344854BC...@mcn.net>, Dan Lewerenz <bax...@mcn.net> wrote:
>Steve Brinich wrote:
>
>> Doug Tricarico wrote:
>>
>> > I hear that Disney has, in various stages of production, animated films
>> > based on Atlas Shrugged, A Canticle for Leibowitz and American Psycho.
>
>
>
>I'm not familiar with the latter two, but an animated Atlas Shrugged is the
>worst thing I can imagine in film.
>
>
When it comes to Atlas Shrugged, I think I can dispense with the
terms "an animated" and "in film".
My favorite Disney joke was the rec.humor.funny discussion between
a Disney marketting rep and Herman Melville about his book Moby Dick.
You can read it at: http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~ej22/text/English/MobyDick.html
It has them add a girl (a "princess named Cellina from Greenpeace), a couple
sidekick dolphins, and Ahab's evil parrot sidekick...
Seems that the story just won't sell otherwise...
Heh.. Disney blew it with Hercules. To bad there is no indication that
they got a clue from it. Their earlier stories added to a fairly minimalistic
fairy tales which had many variations. Their original works, like the Lion
King, also has some substance, but they blow it with these flat out commercial
garbage shows.
Louis Epstein
Dan Lewerenz (bax...@mcn.net) wrote:
: Nyrath the nearly wise wrote:
:
: > Absolutely. In reality, Pocahantas was taken from her
: > beloved forests to die of tuberculosis in England.
: > But that's not politically correct.
: Not to mention the fact that John Smith was a dark-haired, swarthy man whose
: descriptions hardly conjure up the image of a Disney cartoon hero.
Don't forget that Pocahontas wore no clothes,had a "Mohawk" haircut,and
met Smith when twelve years old...she married John Rolfe,who she met
years later.
Graydon
In article <erkyrathE...@netcom.com>,
Andrew Plotkin <erky...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Graydon (gra...@gooroos.com) wrote:
>> >How about Pyanfar Chanur? A good guy?
>
>> Nope. Closer, in that her motivations start of species-wide and get
>> compact-wide, but no detectable limit of means nor constraint of consent
>> in there.
>
>Certainly agree with that. Pretty much the point of the fifth book was
>this fact, and what it looks like to anyone not on the _Pride_'s bridge.
>
>But...
>
>> [...]
>> Narnia... Narnia has the virtue that Lewis very
>> sincerely beleive he was presenting the true world.
>
>...doesn't Cherryh sincerely believe that self-limitation of means is
>ultimately a mistake?
Well, as for Ms. Caroline Cherryh herself, I have no idea in this world.
>Well, I shouldn't phrase it like that, since I have no idea what Cherryh
>believes. But she seems to tell a lot of stories about people who will do
>anything. If there is a victory, this is how someone pulls it off. People
>wind up arguing about whether it was good or not, but it is presented as
>necessary.
I don't think this is quite the case.
I think it could be said that her stories are about people finding the
courage to embrace the least awful option, after finding the courage to
make a realistic evaluation of the available options.
>(When it's a disaster or utterly unthinkable, it was necessary, too. I'm
>not saying this *defines* good. :-) You can tell Ari Emory fron Pyanfar
>in a dark room, by, let's see, one of them is furrier...)
Ari wants to shape her species; Ari, the twit, _does_ shape her species.
Pyanfar wishes to increase the material security of her species, and try a
few social experiements.
>(I'd go on to explain that "a dark room" is an abbreviation for "knowing
>anything less than the full situation", but I'm sure you're going to
>topple my tower of tentative ideas fast enough as it is. Heh.)
I did rather expect that you weren't literally intended an attempted
sudden fondling in the dark.
(whupsie, that's _Florian_. Oh dear, page the next researcher, please.)
Mr. Fett
Stef Walker
That may be true, but unless Disney are completely synapse dead, they should
realise they are handling what can only be described as the most ambitious
film project ever. (Unless you count a possible film based on the complete
text of the new testament!)
If Disney screw this up, and every nerve and fibre is telling me they will.
It won't be because they didn't listen to the many fans of Tolkiens
work...It will be down to the fact that they have bitten off more than they
can chew, and will realise the implications of that before the films
completion...The implications being that people will still watch it, and
they will make a profit, no matter how bad the film is.
2 hours to bring LOTR to the silver screen...utter tripe...!!!
It will be full of flash ILM effects and a jingoistic script...look out for
Willow or Dragonheart 2.
Shudders.
Stef.
Dan Goodman wrote in article <620aq2$chm$1...@darla.visi.com>...
>Keeping Disney honest is, in my opinion, like keeping the Mafia
>nonviolent.
>
>And it's _way_ too late to start worrying about what _any_ moviemaker will
>do to _any_ book.
>
Lawrence Watt-Evans
On 20 Oct 1997 23:41:28 -0400, gra...@gooroos.com (Graydon) wrote:
>Well, as for Ms. Caroline Cherryh herself, I have no idea in this world.
<nitpick>What about Carolyn J. Cherry?</nitpick>
--
TOUCHED BY THE GODS: Hardcover, Tor Books, November 1997, $24.95
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Updated 8/5/97
Bob Goudreau
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net) wrote:
: In article <jadcox-ya02408000...@news.mindspring.com>,
: John Adcox <jad...@mindspring.com> wrote:
:
: >>There's no hint that being so merciful carries some serious risks.
: >
: >Um... wait a minute. Being attacked again by the villian doesn't imply
: >there were some risks?
: >
: Not if the villain never injures or kills the hero.
Never say "never". Remember that in "Beauty and the Beast", the
villain (Gaston) in fact *did* attack and injure the Beast after
the Beast had taken mercy on him. From all indications, Gaston's
backstabbing attack was going to cause a mortal wound to the Beast,
until rendered moot by Belle's breaking of the enchantment (which
gave us the inevitable Disney happy ending).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation
goud...@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive
+1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
Matt Austern
"Stef Walker" <st...@snsys.com> writes:
> That may be true, but unless Disney are completely synapse dead, they should
> realise they are handling what can only be described as the most ambitious
> film project ever. (Unless you count a possible film based on the complete
> text of the new testament!)
Assuming, of course, that they have any plans to make this film at
all. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that this is for real.
And when you stop to think about it, it's really unlikely. There
already was a Lord of the Rings Film; it didn't do very well at the
box office. What reason is there---artistic or bottom line or any
other sort of reason---for Disney to spend a lot of money on a remake
of a flop?
Lawrence Watt-Evans
On 21 Oct 1997 10:18:11 -0400, gra...@gooroos.com (Graydon) wrote:
>In article <345098e2...@news.clark.net>,
>Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>>On 20 Oct 1997 23:41:28 -0400, gra...@gooroos.com (Graydon) wrote:
>>
>>>Well, as for Ms. Caroline Cherryh herself, I have no idea in this world.
>>
>><nitpick>What about Carolyn J. Cherry?</nitpick>
>
>No idea about her, either. (didn't she have her surname changed to match
>what's on the books?)
Not last I heard, but that was admittedly quite some time ago.
I wouldn't have corrected "Carolyn Cherryh," but for some reason the
"Caroline" rankled.
Nancy Lebovitz
In article <fxtn2k3...@isolde.mti.sgi.com>,
Matt Austern <aus...@isolde.mti.sgi.com> wrote:
>
>And when you stop to think about it, it's really unlikely. There
>already was a Lord of the Rings Film; it didn't do very well at the
>box office. What reason is there---artistic or bottom line or any
>other sort of reason---for Disney to spend a lot of money on a remake
>of a flop?
>
strong visual images. It isn't that unusual for a book to be
movie-ized more than once.
Beth and Richard Treitel
To my surprise and delight, bs...@cornell.edu (Bill Stebbins) wrote:
>A little judgemental aren't we? Disney's treatment of The Hunchback and
>Hercules notwithstanding, until they actually produce something to critique,
>any such comments are premature, if nothing else.
Well, there are a good many other books whose Disnification has to be
notwithstood; I'd listen more closely if you could name any that Disney
hadn't butchered when they made the film. (I'll skip the obvious gibe
about how the only person likely to defend Disney would be someone so
young that the two films you mention are the only ones they can
remember.) Still, in the end this whole thing is nothing more than an
aesthetic issue, and doesn't seem to me to demand as much anger as some
people are coming up with.