Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Jame's out for a couple days, so here is today's Daily Tolkien. Enjoy.
1 posted on 12/31/2002 5:59:12 AM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: ecurbh; HairOfTheDog; maquiladora; Mudboy Slim; JameRetief
Daily Tolkien Ping!
2 posted on 12/31/2002 6:00:26 AM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ksen
"Edmund Wilson, at the time America's pre-eminent man of letters, dismissed The Lord of the Rings as "balderdash" in a review for The Nation titled "Ooh, Those Awful Orcs."

From what I've read, Mr. Wilson was an IGNORANT RAT DOLT!!

FReegards...MUD

7 posted on 12/31/2002 6:31:08 AM PST by Mudboy Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ksen
Thanks K! Am I correct in believing that you've yet to see TTT? If so, please ping me when you post your initial thoughts. I'd love to hear your perspective. Servants of the Secret Fire! WS
12 posted on 12/31/2002 7:05:05 AM PST by Wordsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: All
How'd they get James Carville to play Gollum in the new movie?
22 posted on 12/31/2002 4:13:05 PM PST by Tony in Hawaii
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ksen
Just saw TTT yesterday, so I would like to take liberty to tack a mini-blurb here.

Spouse and I thought it too long, especially around the area of the ent substory.

I went back and read the other reviews in the last month.

I think the problem is that Jackson presented it as primarily an adventure drama. I think it is more of a epic. What's the difference? I am not sure, but I think an epic blends lyric and pastoral with adrenalin. LOTR is an epic. Jackson tried to convert it to a medieval-flavored Star Wars... and failed.

A successful epic portrayed on the big screen (perhaps the most recent to be successful) is IMHO Lawrence of Arabia. I would note that Lawrence has parts that are slow as well as parts that are fast. (Note: there are probably a few other movies that come close to Lawrence from which a comparison might successfully be drawn. I have just chosen one that happens to be handy, since I happen to have the video on hand and it is fresh in my mind.)

I think the difference is in preparing the viewership. David Lean (director of Lawrence), I think, let the story play itself out, indicated so early, and thereafter gave equal weight to both adventure and emotion. Jackson played his hand very early (ie the battle between the dragon monster and Gandalf) and so set peoples' expectations that the pace would not slacken from there. When it inevitably did (to maintain a vestige of honesty towards the original Tolkien novels) viewers got confused.

At least we did.

Lastly I like to ask myself "What would Tolkien Say" (WWTS :-)?

Well, it may sound immodest, but... I think he would agree with me. Too much emphasis on gore and battle, disturbing what at least I think is one of the most admirable artistic qualities of the novel, the balance between the lyrical and the heroic.

Hopefully Jackson will do Tolkien right on the third installment. I would cringe to envision that future generations of readers, most notably children, will have their expectations irreversibly set by the irregular and flawed course of the cinematic version set by these first installments.

I still think that the effects and the war scenes were good enough to rate TTT at least two stars out of four.

[Mithril underwear donned.]

25 posted on 12/31/2002 10:39:18 PM PST by SteveH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson