quote:

---

Originally posted by phool2056:
If you've only seen Sleepy Hollow once, I recommend seeing it again to be sure you actually liked it. See, the first time I saw it, I thought it was the coolest thing since I fell in the waterfall. Then the second time I saw it, I had no idea what I had been thinking the first time. I was just laughing the whole way through. I guess before I had been blinded by the beautiful visuals and hadn't been paying attention to anything else, because mostly that movie is just lame. Total victory of style over content, and, while style can save an otherwise mediocre film, it can't save one as bad as that one. Now awaiting thrown vegetables.

---

No vegetables I have seen it more than once (I own a copy actually). As you say, the visuals and style are beautiful and while the story may seem lame to you, I think it's not (even though at some point the movie does show several failed attempts at comedy). Clearly we aren't talking about one of the best movies of the last 10 years, but if you read the tale (I think Washington Irving wrote it, although I'm not 100% sure) I think that you'll like the movie a WHOLE lot more.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Dead:
I wouldn't say necessarily better than the books, but I find The Lord of the Rings movies much easier to follow than the books.

---

You could probably also argue that while the books aren't particularly 'literary', the movies are very 'cinematic'. The movies basically use EVERY trick available to the modern filmmaker, and use them rather well. THe books already seemed fairly dated when they were published in the 50's, compared to what had been going on in modernism the last few decades.

- Michael

But Tolkien was not a "modern" writer and that is precisely why he is not much studied by "reputable" "academia".
They prefer their Joyce where they have to decode things.
Because Tolkien stated that there was no allegory and by extension little metaphor (of the kind the academics like) they dismiss him as simple and escapist.

----------------------------
"That's cold Obi-wan" Charles Barkley

Oh, and somebody said something about TLOTR movies having great sound...
The effects were good but the sound mix was one of the worst that I've heard in a long time.

----------------------------
"That's cold Obi-wan" Charles Barkley

quote:

---

Originally posted by Croaker:
But Tolkien was not a "modern" writer and that is precisely why he is not much studied by "reputable" "academia".
They prefer their Joyce where they have to decode things.
Because Tolkien stated that there was no allegory and by extension little metaphor (of the kind the academics like) they dismiss him as simple and escapist.

---

That's not quite fair, I think. Sure, LitCrit can be extremely elitist - but you tell me, what sort of literary research into LotR can there be done? Apart from Tolkien's influences, there simply isn't that much. Yep, you don't have to decode much in the book, so why write about things that are clear to begin with?

--
Mairsydoats and dosydoats and lidellamsydivy, a kidilee divy too, wouldn't you?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thirith:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Croaker:
But Tolkien was not a "modern" writer and that is precisely why he is not much studied by "reputable" "academia".
They prefer their Joyce where they have to decode things.
Because Tolkien stated that there was no allegory and by extension little metaphor (of the kind the academics like) they dismiss him as simple and escapist.

---

That's not quite fair, I think. Sure, LitCrit can be extremely elitist - but you tell me, what sort of literary research into LotR can there be done? Apart from Tolkien's influences, there simply isn't that much. Yep, you don't have to decode much in the book, so why write about things that are clear to begin with?

--
Mairsydoats and dosydoats and lidellamsydivy, a kidilee divy too, wouldn't you?

---

Croaker, that's a little bit unfair. As Tirith mentioned, LitCrit can have a tendency to the elitist snobbery of "the more obscure and indecipherable the better"-attitude. But this is by no means always so. And something isn't dismissed just because it's popular literature or culture. In fact, there is a similar snobbish movement that almost deifies everything that is popular culture. Anyways, I'm rambling on.

What kind of research can be done into Tolkien? A lot! LitCrit isn't only about metaphor and analogy (as I'm sure you know). In Tolkiens case, of the top of my head, the following areas would be interesting to look at:

• The deployment of the historico-religious and mythical and how that assumes the role of a "grammar" for reading the story.
• The canonisation of the plot structure as central and defining for a whole genre (fantasy) ... and the (also stock) influences on his own style and plot, thus exploring a possible continuity and similarity to other genres.
• The linguistic mode/voice, and how that lends an air of antiquity to the plot.
• Its status as perhaps THE primary work of fantastic literature, and it's subsequent placement at a nexus of inter- and metatekstual relations to "the fantastic".

... and then of course you can do all the silly and "easy" things with it, such as describing the characters from a perspective of Jungian Archetypes. This is great, though, for an almost instant under-grad paper or something (I know I have done similar things to other pieces of literature in my day.)

And on a final note, while I don't really like Tolkien very much, I see many interesting things in it, even (and perhaps especially) from a Lit Crit point of view.

- Oliver (Concierge of the KaTe KarTel)
----------------------
"You like pain? Well, try wearing a corset!"

My friends, I agree with you.

I think that he is worth studying, my post was mostly a precis of Orson Scott Card's essay in a recent Tolkien book about why the 'literati' have (almost) always tended to discout him.

I've got a few papers topics kicking around my head about the LOTR. I intend to get around to writing some of them one day.
Maybe even get them published somewhere.

Tolkien wrote an epic story. It has heroes, goblins, elves, dwarves, dragons and (my favorites) fighting Uruk-Hai. He was trying to write a story, and he wrote a story. Why do you need metaphors and stuff in something like that? He created an entire world! A world that was believable and seemed real enough that thousands, if not millions of people find it to be a wondrous place to escape to. That last sentence was redundant. You'll find that, if you take your own life and try to look for powerful metaphors and analogies, that they are lacking in a similar manner. (except for me. My life is perfectly analogous to the Franco-Prussian war.) Now, I love the movies. I couldn't say whether they are better than the books. But everything that makes them great comes from their being true to the books. And you won't find any powerful metaphors or analogies in them either, but you do find an epic landscape and a world that is almost as detailed and believable as the one we live in. Or most people live in. I live in Spira.

quote:

---

Originally posted by phool2056:
That last sentence was redundant. You'll find that, if you take your own life and try to look for powerful metaphors and analogies, that they are lacking in a similar manner.

---

Okay ... not once do I talk of metaphors and analogies, other than to say that that's not why I find LoTR academically viable. And yes, I know that he wrote an epic story, and that many people consider him agreat storyteller, but I don't see why that means academia should ignore him? Lit Crit isn't about what the author "means" with his piece of work, it's about what it means to the reader and more importantly how it creates that meaning.

And sure, it was redundant to say that I don't like it very much ... I just wanted to point to the fact that I can find a book very academically interesting but not like it.

- Oliver (Concierge of the KaTe KarTel)
----------------------
"You like pain? Well, try wearing a corset!"

The Player by Michael Tolkin was a better movie than a book.

The book and film versions of The Princess Bride--both written by William Goldman--were equally good, but in different ways.

I haven't read Hannibal, but I had the ending "spoiled" for me. I saw the movie before I knew the original ending. I felt that the movie ending didn't work, and made the story feel unresolved and also dramatically unsatisfying.

My theory about the book is that Thomas Harris hates sequels, and hated the predictable plot twists that the audience would expect from a Silence of the Lambs sequel. So when his publisher kept pressuring him, he said, "You want a sequel? I'll give you a sequel!"

--Daniel

Conversely, the only novelisation (if that's actually a word!) of a film I've read that has been any good at all was The Piano, which (to my recollection anyway) was well written and actually added to the story of the film, unlike most other novelisations.

------

I will eat you alive
I will eat you alive
And there'll be no more lies - Radiohead "Where I End and You Begin"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Metonomy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by phool2056:
That last sentence was redundant. You'll find that, if you take your own life and try to look for powerful metaphors and analogies, that they are lacking in a similar manner.

---

Okay ... not once do I talk of metaphors and analogies, other than to say that that's not why I find LoTR academically viable. And yes, I know that he wrote an epic story, and that many people consider him agreat storyteller, but I don't see why that means academia should ignore him? Lit Crit isn't about what the author "means" with his piece of work, it's about what it means to the reader and more importantly _how_ it creates that meaning.

And sure, it was redundant to say that I don't like it very much ... I just wanted to point to the fact that I can find a book very academically interesting but not like it.

- Oliver (Concierge of the KaTe KarTel)
----------------------
"You like pain? Well, try wearing a corset!"

---

I meant MY last sentence. The one before that. Should have made that clearer. And I don't think Tolkien should be ignored by Academia. In fact, he isn't: there are various universities where one professor is devoted almost entirely to Tolkien. Exactly what that professor does (and what his dinner-table conversations are like) I have no idea. In any case, I sort of felt that I was pleading your side. One (or both) of us must have misinterpreted the other. I was saying that there is a lot to enjoy and analyze about the books despite their lack of metaphor and analogy. And, to my mind, character development. But the truth is, and I'm not being in any way vindictive or sarcastic when I say this, that I know very little about this "Litcrit." The epic scale is my favorite thing about the books. The movies captured it pretty well, and as such, I love them both. I had something else I was going to say, but my dog just came in and broke my train of thought.

Oh ... we do agree ... classic case of talking past each other then

- Oliver (Concierge of the KaTe KarTel)
----------------------
"You like pain? Well, try wearing a corset!"

You know, I just now noticed my typo in the heading of this topic. Whoops!

Shawshank Redemption is the only movie i have ever come across that has been better that the book - this is probably purely due to the way that it managed to expand on the original story (which was after all only a short story)

That I feel is the major flaw with any movie adaptations of books or comics, purely what gets cut out, rewritten, distorted and comprimised to bring you the movie.

As for lord of the rings, the books are infinately better than the movies (not that i believe anyone could possibly have done a better job than Peter Jackson, I do have some patriotism after all) yes they may be sexist but you are looking at a period peice (ditto goes to the P & P comparison too) and i never had any trouble identifing myself with tolkens rich characters (they don't get very well developed in the movies, time limits again) sorry I should probably point out that I'm a chick in relation to the sexism thing.

Anyway in fantasy more than other books the story and characters take on a life of their own in your imagination and personally I feel that there is no way that these can be protrayed visually to any better effect.

Films lose to books regardless. Books are a stimulant - inside books there are no boundaries and no limitations except your imagination. Films pin down ideas which ruin your ideas of who is what from your imagination.
However, the LoTR films do come pretty close to the books.

All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds

quote:

---

Originally posted by Voltaire:
Films lose to books regardless. Books are a stimulant - inside books there are no boundaries and no limitations except your imagination.

---

THat's the theory anyway. In the real world sometimes films win out because of the special kind of magic that happens when hundreds of very interesting and talented people get together to do something really big. One writer sitting alone in his room jerking off in front of his typewriter cant always compare to that.

The Beatles were special because of the special chemistry between Lennon & McCartney. That kind of chemistry rarely happens in novels because it's not that common that they're written by several people. "Good Omens" being a notable (and very delightful) exception.

Even writers sometimes admit this. I remember Salman Rushdie saying in an interview how more memorable movies than memorable novels are made every year.

- Michael

Sure there are lots of movies which are brilliant, and probably more good movies produced each year than books,

the point I'm making is more related to those who try to take material from a book and use it in a film it invariably comes off second best

Debating which of two media is better in general is futile. Both work well for different things. Sandman couldn't have been a novel, because there's too much that would have to be described that wouldn't make any sense(as she said these, Eve was an old woman. She said the nextphrase as a beautiful maiden.). It also couldn't be a movie, because of that same reason, as well as it's length and depth. Some stories are just better suited to a moving visual portrayal, and when these are written as books, and those books are made into movies, the movies are often better, provided that they are made with skill and art.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mtxx:

The Beatles were special because of the special chemistry between Lennon & McCartney. That kind of chemistry rarely happens in novels because it's not that common that they're written by several people. "Good Omens" being a notable (and very delightful) exception.

- Michael http://members.tripod.co.jp/hydeless/3d-nekobasu.gif

---

Actually, the Lennon/McCartney chemistry wasn't such. Before The Beatles made the big jump, they both agreed to label each song they composed individually as a "Lennon-McCartney" song. If you pay attention, the songs that are really 50-50 are minory in the Beatles repertoire.