Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Tolkien film

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I'm not aiming this at anybody, just really thinking out loud; but I find it interesting that as soon as Black and White are mentioned with regards to good and evil, people think of skin colour.

    I always thought of it as light and darkness, a far more achient fear of darkness making people believe that someone who wears black is evil.

    As an aside I find it interesting in the Matrix the good guys wear Black but the twins wore white.

    I get the feeling with Tolkien it was more the Darkness factor than the black skins he was trying to imply with his imagery.

    Titmouser, I understand your thoughts on Gollum but I feel there are many books and films out there that have this form of redemption. Should there always be redemption for that sort of character? Maybe but sometimes a tragic charater meets a tragic end.

    I realise Tolkiens heros are whiter than white in the general, but I feel with Gollum he was trying to paint a picture of what Frodo would have become, eaten up with greed for the ring and power itself.

    Anyhow back to the LOTR film, I hope it will mean people who enjoyed it will explore fantasy books and move up from the fairy tale to greater things.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Calhoun
      Anyhow back to the LOTR film, I hope it will mean people who enjoyed it will explore fantasy books and move up from the fairy tale to greater things.
      My sentiments exactly! Silmarillion was a real drag.. Everybody says its a tough read. 'Its NOT that it's hard to read.. It's just that its so damn boring!'. Fans don't seem to understand that just because Tolkien wrote it. Doesn't mean it's a good book!

      I sometimes say: Want a fantastic story? That's harder to read but more enjoyable! Go pick up Parzival (Wolfram Von Eschenbach) or any other medieval litterature. You'll both get a fantastic story and learn something usefull at the same time!

      *Perhaps i'm being Chauvinistic?* :)

      Comment


      • #33
        Well Pards
        It's about 8:54 pm and the Oscars ceremony isn't done yet. It looks like LOTR is cleaning house. I'm guessing that it will win the Best Picture award.
        There is no doubt it is a good time window for fantasy. I'm sure the window will still be open when the first Elric film is unleashed upon the world. I think it will take the world by storm in a remarkable way, similar to how LOTR did, but of course in a different way too since it is a different kind of fantasy story, with different themes.
        No matter how much a lot of us may criticize LOTR, it has paved the way for Elric Saga on film to be a potentially huge success!

        The vision is more clear to me now. If Jude Law is Elric, can his eyes be made slanted with CGI? (it doesn't matter) We have great things to look forward to!

        all best for us all!
        :D
        \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
        Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Theocrat
          I sometimes say: Want a fantastic story? That's harder to read but more enjoyable! Go pick up Parzival (Wolfram Von Eschenbach) or any other medieval litterature. You'll both get a fantastic story and learn something usefull at the same time!
          Couldn't agree more. Not only is this reading very good, but its great for learning. I often refer to Plato as "mental gymnastics" and the medieval writing can be like this as well.

          I definitely recommend Parzival (I also have Perceval by de Troyes, luckily Von Eschenbach "finished" it ), also good are Tristan and Isolt, Havelok the Dane, Aucassin and Nicolete, The Book of Balin (Malory - also his Le Morte D'Arthur) and too many others to list.

          And don't get me started on Greek and Roman lit. ! :roll:
          When they had advanced together to meet on common
          ground, then there was the clash of shields, of spears
          and the fury of men cased in bronze; bossed shields met
          each other and the din rose loud. Then there were
          mingled the groaning and the crowing of men killed and
          killing, and the ground ran with blood.

          Homer, The Illiad

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Jerico
            No matter how much a lot of us may criticize LOTR, it has paved the way for Elric Saga on film to be a potentially huge success!

            The vision is more clear to me now. If Jude Law is Elric, can his eyes be made slanted with CGI? (it doesn't matter) We have great things to look forward to!
            :D
            Don't get your hopes up just yet. We have yet to see if it's gonna shot (at all) first. Sure.. I have the same feeling towards LOTR being made. If this is being made.. Maybe more fantasy films will be shot. It was probably out of that interest i watched the trilogi. Since i found LOTR to be very uninteresteng at times. But i wonder... Elric promotes a somewhat different harsh realism (that seems to appeal to us all in here) in it's story that Tolkien fans might find unbearable for a fantasy story. For those who found the Shire the epitome of rural escapism i mean. Especially girls i think will frown upon Elric, as many as i know at least.

            The whole Elric/Stormbringer duality 'might' be hard to convert to the screen? At least in the way it's told in the books. But i'm confident they will find a way.

            Well... Gotta go to work soon. I work in a harsh industrial enviroment churning out striped steel at fast speeds. A place where some people say promote people to turn to escapist culture.. :)

            Comment


            • #36
              I'm glad ROTK won Best Picture. That is a huge advancement for fantasy films and the best thing to happen to the Oscars since Silence of the Lambs. It was a pretty tepid year for movies anyway, so why not give it to Peter Jackson for his hard work?

              Comment


              • #37
                LOTR winning is a duality.
                Certainly the credibility for the genre is massive. Think in terms of the first rap record winning a Grammy.

                I remember the last time Hollyweird was looking at fantasy as a money maker.

                Aside from some minor awkward items, I thought the first Conan movie was well done. Even Excalibur with its polished chrome armor had some value to the story telling. Perhaps the soundtracks OD on Wagner and Carmina Buranna gave the movie more than its writing.

                But, I do recall, every studio had their own lame fantasy movie because all they could see is the dollar sign. Say, for instance, the Beastmaster. I had watched the movie many times but I do not think I would put the ideas, the story and the quality in the same category as anthing in the previous paragraph or any of Mike's stuff for that matter.

                Sometimes I like candy. That's all some of those movies were. Although the B movies kept the likes of Rutger Hauer employed through the 80's (loved him in Blade Runner) I hope the crop that comes in this wave is more nourishing.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Oh I fully expect a revival of "B" fantasy movies to come from this, but hopefully, we'll see more AAA titles as well...

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Ahhhhh, B movies. Its been a while since ive seen an theatrically released B Movie.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Repressed gay feelings

                      Just to address a point which only one person picked up on from my contribution in February - cant men be good buddies without there being repressed gay feeling? Well of course, and in my opinion its very damaging, particularly to the adolescent male psyche,to attribute such feelings (and imply that they are reprehensible) to what is obviously only friendship. I have no problem with gay feelings;Im sure its better if they are expressed rather than repressed. My point about the Tolkien film is that in my opinion, shared by people Ive discussed it with, is that the sequence glows with those feelings, as if Jackson were, consciously or not, questioning the nature of the four hobbits' relationship which reflects so closely that of Tolkien and his buddies. (I'm not,yawn, suggesting Tolkien was gay) Only Sam, the sturdy peasant, actually breeds (he has to supply more sturdy peasants to do the real work while pseudo aristocrats like Frodo Pippin and Merry spend their time on drinking and their other hobbies). Those three are conspicuously uninterested in the female of the species, theyre supposed to be adult but they come across as presexual; given the exclusively masculine framework they choose to inhabit, its not an enormous leap to suggest that if and when their sexuality manifested itself, theres a good chance it would be gay.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Elric promotes a somewhat different harsh realism (that seems to appeal to us all in here) in it's story that Tolkien fans might find unbearable for a fantasy story.
                        And I would venture a guess that that's exactly how Mr. Moorcock would have it. True, Elric isn't the sticky-sweet character Tolkien's Frodo is, but perhaps an Elric film will open Fantasy cinema up to those who, like MM, find Tolkien's idea of Fantasy too cliche.
                        "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
                        --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          I just read an article about hope in The Lord of the Rings. Here is the link http://hollywoodjesus.com/lord_of_the_rings_guest.htm

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            English blokes of a certain generation turned out a great deal of nursery literature which didn't have much about girlies in it -- or had girlies as mummies or pseudo-mummies (like Wendy for instance). Grahame,
                            Buchan and many others... I suspect that there's an association with homosexuality only where homosexuality is associated with fear of women (i.e. only one form of homosexuality). To suggest that all those pipe puffing old uvuncular types who turned the stuff out were secretly
                            keeping assignments at cottages in Leicester Square is daft. But to suggest that fear, suspicion or anxiety about women influenced this trend isn't, I think, daft. Lord knows it's a theme which runs through a lot of English fiction (T.H.White actually was gay, of course) and even old roues like K. Amis clearly were afraid and suspicious of women. It manifests itself everywhere. Even Peake is cruel to many of his women in his fiction, although you can't say he ignored them or wrote them out of the plot. I see no point in attacking Tolkien for his manifesting the phobias of his time, as I've said elsewhere. The fact that he manifested the phobias of his times, however, is why I don't personally find him palatable. I don't like Kingsley Amis, either, for much the same reasons.
                            I think few were combined readability and originality as thoroughly as Peake, which is one of the reasons I like him so much and it's what redeems him in my eyes and makes him palatable. Readability and originality are what I admire in Ballard, but his social attitudes are sometimes unacceptable to me. Repressed middle class lads like Martin Amis for me lack the originality and therefore are not as interesting to read as, say, Iain Sinclair. I especially liked Peter Ackroyd in his biographies of Dickens and Eliot because of his sympathy to the women involved (and Ackroyd is gay). Being gay has nothing to do with how you represent women. The most evidently heterosexual men I can think of represent women as monsters or madonnas, frequently. At least Tolkien is free of sadism towards women, which is why his films have to be considerably more wholesome than most of the horror films they might have supplanted (with luck).

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Two other things to chew on: True, Frodo and Sam could be looked at as an expression of homosexual attitudes, but there are two other options:

                              One, it is simply a way for a man to express NON-GAY feelings for another man in an age/era/culture where those feelings would be erroneously construed as homosexual. I know the art I create (to the extent it can be considered "art" 8O) is most often an expression of feelings/ideas that I am either not comfortable or not able to communicate in a more traditional way.

                              Two, the relationship isn't gay itself, but rather reflects the attitudes/fears/hopes/experiences/attitudes of the reader. I am NOT saying that anyone who sees Frodo/Sam as an erotic relationship means the reader is ethier gay themselves or afraid of gays/being gay, I am just saying it is human nature to see things through our own personal lenses, even if it is only a matter of degree or importance. We tend to interpret things (those that are open to interpretation) in ways that are either most comfortable or most relevant to our lenses.

                              By the way, "daft" is one of the best words in the language.

                              Just a thought.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                I'd have to agree with Bill on this one. I don't beleive the relationship between Frodo and Sam is a homosexual one or even suggestive of a homosexual relationship. I believe two men (or two women) can love eachother without it having anything to do with sexual preference. In some ways I think two men can connect on deeper level than a man and a woman. I think there is a more natural understanding between two people of the same gender than with two people of opposite gender; an intuitive understanding of the ways the other person communicates. With the same gender I think that it is like two waves moving in unison, as apposed to two waves complimenting eachother, as it is with cross-gender relations.
                                "In omnibus requiem quaesivi, et nusquam inveni nisi in angulo cum libro"
                                --Thomas a Kempis

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X