Discussion:
PJ and Shakespeare
(too old to reply)
s***@gmail.com
2017-07-20 07:30:54 UTC
Permalink
I have spilled lots of electrons over how badly PJ mangled Tolkien's Canon.
So imagine my dismay at finding something like it in Shakespeare.

Act 1 Scene 1 of _1 Henry the 6th_ starts off with the funeral of Henry V.
Therefore the year is 1422.

However the eulogies and speech-making are barely getting under way
when messengers burst in to announce that Joan of Arc has broken
the English siege of Orleans and that the Dauphin has been crowned Charles X
of France at Reims.

So all of a sudden it's now 1429! Meaning that 7 years have gone by
in less than 2 minutes on stage.

What's even worse: the Temple Garden scene in Act II where rival Lancs and Yorks
pluck red and white roses never even happened at all.

Moral: Shakespeare's historical plays might be entertaining Tudor propaganda,
but don't necessarily portray accurate history. Meanwhile PJ can't even get
imaginary history right.
Paul S. Person
2017-07-20 15:30:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
I have spilled lots of electrons over how badly PJ mangled Tolkien's Canon.
So imagine my dismay at finding something like it in Shakespeare.
Act 1 Scene 1 of _1 Henry the 6th_ starts off with the funeral of Henry V.
Therefore the year is 1422.
However the eulogies and speech-making are barely getting under way
when messengers burst in to announce that Joan of Arc has broken
the English siege of Orleans and that the Dauphin has been crowned Charles X
of France at Reims.
So all of a sudden it's now 1429! Meaning that 7 years have gone by
in less than 2 minutes on stage.
What's even worse: the Temple Garden scene in Act II where rival Lancs and Yorks
pluck red and white roses never even happened at all.
Moral: Shakespeare's historical plays might be entertaining Tudor propaganda,
but don't necessarily portray accurate history. Meanwhile PJ can't even get
imaginary history right.
The difference is:
-- many people enjoy most of Shakespeare's plays, and so don't really
care about any defects they may have
-- some people don't like PJ's films, and so the defects, real or
perceived, stand out and are used as an excuse for not liking them

IOW, the /first/ criterion is: that the play/film be a /good/
play/film, that is, one that people actually /want/ to pay to see
(which implies that they do not feel the experience a waste of time or
money, among other things), as opposed to something they go to see
because everybody else is or because they read the book.

Shakespeare, by and large, wrote /good/ plays.
PJ's movies, OTOH, are not good.
Post by s***@gmail.com
cc: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Please add to your "Newsgroups" line rather than posting separately.
What you did prevents Agent from removing the duplicate.
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
solar penguin
2017-07-21 16:06:52 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 08:30:16 -0700, Paul S. Person posted...
Post by Paul S. Person
Post by s***@gmail.com
cc: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Please add to your "Newsgroups" line rather than posting separately.
What you did prevents Agent from removing the duplicate.
He can't. He's posting from Google Groups, which doesn't allow
crossposting.
Paul S. Person
2017-07-21 16:38:51 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 16:06:52 -0000 (UTC), solar penguin
Post by solar penguin
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 08:30:16 -0700, Paul S. Person posted...
Post by Paul S. Person
Post by s***@gmail.com
cc: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Please add to your "Newsgroups" line rather than posting separately.
What you did prevents Agent from removing the duplicate.
He can't. He's posting from Google Groups, which doesn't allow
crossposting.
Then he's excused, I suppose ...
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
Stan Brown
2017-07-22 00:41:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by solar penguin
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 08:30:16 -0700, Paul S. Person posted...
Post by Paul S. Person
Post by s***@gmail.com
cc: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Please add to your "Newsgroups" line rather than posting separately.
What you did prevents Agent from removing the duplicate.
He can't. He's posting from Google Groups, which doesn't allow
crossposting.
Then, if he insists on using that broken tool, he should confine
himself to one group for a given article.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://BrownMath.com/
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen)
Tolkien letters FAQ: http://preview.tinyurl.com/pr6sa7u
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
Sandman
2017-08-23 09:32:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S. Person
-- many people enjoy most of Shakespeare's plays, and so don't really
care about any defects they may have
-- some people don't like PJ's films, and so the defects, real or
perceived, stand out and are used as an excuse for not liking them
IOW, the /first/ criterion is: that the play/film be a /good/
play/film, that is, one that people actually /want/ to pay to see
(which implies that they do not feel the experience a waste of time or
money, among other things), as opposed to something they go to see
because everybody else is or because they read the book.
Shakespeare, by and large, wrote /good/ plays.
PJ's movies, OTOH, are not good.
Funny thing is that you're probably bound to find a lot more Shakespear
detractors than LotR movie adaptation detractors.
--
Sandman[.net]
Julian Bradfield
2017-08-23 10:22:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S. Person
..
IOW, the /first/ criterion is: that the play/film be a /good/
play/film, that is, one that people actually /want/ to pay to see
(which implies that they do not feel the experience a waste of time or
money, among other things), as opposed to something they go to see
because everybody else is or because they read the book.
Shakespeare, by and large, wrote /good/ plays.
PJ's movies, OTOH, are not good.
Getting on for a hundred million people have paid to see PJ's films,
and at least in my anecdotal experience - even among a circle of
friends particularly predisposed to dislike them - a large majority
did not feel it a waste of time or money.
So why, in your own definition of "good", are they not "good"?
Paul S. Person
2017-08-23 15:56:20 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 10:22:54 +0000 (UTC), Julian Bradfield
Post by Julian Bradfield
Post by Paul S. Person
..
IOW, the /first/ criterion is: that the play/film be a /good/
play/film, that is, one that people actually /want/ to pay to see
(which implies that they do not feel the experience a waste of time or
money, among other things), as opposed to something they go to see
because everybody else is or because they read the book.
Shakespeare, by and large, wrote /good/ plays.
PJ's movies, OTOH, are not good.
Getting on for a hundred million people have paid to see PJ's films,
and at least in my anecdotal experience - even among a circle of
friends particularly predisposed to dislike them - a large majority
did not feel it a waste of time or money.
So why, in your own definition of "good", are they not "good"?
And how many times did they pay to see them?
Or even watch them for free?

When people /like/ something, they are willing to re-experience it.
When they don't want to do it again, they do not think it worth doing.

I have seen many films that were worth watching once, but none of them
were /good/ films, just watchable films. (I have also seen quite a few
not-so-watchable and even the occasiional unwatchable film -- the kind
that makes you want to demand your money and your time back).

And here we are, splitting hairs again ...
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
Julian Bradfield
2017-08-23 16:30:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S. Person
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 10:22:54 +0000 (UTC), Julian Bradfield
Post by Julian Bradfield
Post by Paul S. Person
..
IOW, the /first/ criterion is: that the play/film be a /good/
play/film, that is, one that people actually /want/ to pay to see
(which implies that they do not feel the experience a waste of time or
money, among other things), as opposed to something they go to see
because everybody else is or because they read the book.
Shakespeare, by and large, wrote /good/ plays.
PJ's movies, OTOH, are not good.
Getting on for a hundred million people have paid to see PJ's films,
and at least in my anecdotal experience - even among a circle of
friends particularly predisposed to dislike them - a large majority
did not feel it a waste of time or money.
So why, in your own definition of "good", are they not "good"?
And how many times did they pay to see them?
Or even watch them for free?
That is of course impossible to measure except by commissioning a
poll, since cinemas don't ask their customers how many times they've
seen a film.
Post by Paul S. Person
When people /like/ something, they are willing to re-experience it.
When they don't want to do it again, they do not think it worth doing.
The figures are murky, but tens of millions of copies of the dvd have
been sold - more than a million in the first week of release in the UK
alone, for FotR.
Post by Paul S. Person
I have seen many films that were worth watching once, but none of them
were /good/ films, just watchable films. (I have also seen quite a few
not-so-watchable and even the occasiional unwatchable film -- the kind
that makes you want to demand your money and your time back).
And here we are, splitting hairs again ...
I have only a handful of films I have or would see again, but I don't think
that makes the others not "good", just not so (good *and* to my taste)
that I want to see them again. But I'm not discussing what I mean by
"good".

For myself, I can't tell whether FotR (the only one I've seen) is a
good film, because I can't disentangle that question from its
perversion of Tolkien's thought.
Stan Brown
2017-08-23 22:55:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian Bradfield
For myself, I can't tell whether FotR (the only one I've seen) is a
good film, because I can't disentangle that question from its
perversion of Tolkien's thought.
+1

I would give them high marks for cinematography, meaning the visual
experience of what I see on screen. Acing was generally good. But
like you, I can't get past the degradation of Tolkien's thought.

If I had no idea of the actual story, would I feel differently? I
know I would find some things awfully hard to get over, like the
dwarf-tossing. And I still wouldn't understand why Arwen, an immortal
Elf, was dying.

But by insisting over and over again that he was being faithful to
the books, Jackson made it impossible for those of us who know the
books to judge the films as independent works. Jackson insisted that
we view his work through the lens of Tolkien's work, and he has only
himself to blame for our bad opinion of what he did.

Not, of course, that he cares. He did what he wanted and made pots of
money off it.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://BrownMath.com/
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen)
Tolkien letters FAQ: http://preview.tinyurl.com/pr6sa7u
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
Paul S. Person
2017-08-24 16:12:43 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 16:30:06 +0000 (UTC), Julian Bradfield
Post by Julian Bradfield
Post by Paul S. Person
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 10:22:54 +0000 (UTC), Julian Bradfield
Post by Julian Bradfield
Post by Paul S. Person
..
IOW, the /first/ criterion is: that the play/film be a /good/
play/film, that is, one that people actually /want/ to pay to see
(which implies that they do not feel the experience a waste of time or
money, among other things), as opposed to something they go to see
because everybody else is or because they read the book.
Shakespeare, by and large, wrote /good/ plays.
PJ's movies, OTOH, are not good.
Getting on for a hundred million people have paid to see PJ's films,
and at least in my anecdotal experience - even among a circle of
friends particularly predisposed to dislike them - a large majority
did not feel it a waste of time or money.
So why, in your own definition of "good", are they not "good"?
And how many times did they pay to see them?
Or even watch them for free?
That is of course impossible to measure except by commissioning a
poll, since cinemas don't ask their customers how many times they've
seen a film.
Post by Paul S. Person
When people /like/ something, they are willing to re-experience it.
When they don't want to do it again, they do not think it worth doing.
The figures are murky, but tens of millions of copies of the dvd have
been sold - more than a million in the first week of release in the UK
alone, for FotR.
Post by Paul S. Person
I have seen many films that were worth watching once, but none of them
were /good/ films, just watchable films. (I have also seen quite a few
not-so-watchable and even the occasiional unwatchable film -- the kind
that makes you want to demand your money and your time back).
And here we are, splitting hairs again ...
I have only a handful of films I have or would see again, but I don't think
that makes the others not "good", just not so (good *and* to my taste)
that I want to see them again. But I'm not discussing what I mean by
"good".
I respect your reticence.

I have several categores for films I do not consider "good":

A film I enjoyed but don't particularly want to see again is "worth
seeing once". This can be viewed as a recommendation, albeit not a
very enthusiastic one.

A film that I didn't actually enjoy but which was clearly done well is
"a well-done film". This is more of a warning than a recommendation.

Anything less than that is "a waste of celluloid" or, for films I
really loathed, "a large stinking cow-pie". This is definitely a
warning which, of course, others are free to ignore and to disagree
with, since tastes vary.

But that's just me. Feel free to adopt your own terminology.
Post by Julian Bradfield
For myself, I can't tell whether FotR (the only one I've seen) is a
good film, because I can't disentangle that question from its
perversion of Tolkien's thought.
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
Paul S. Person
2017-08-23 15:51:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sandman
Post by Paul S. Person
-- many people enjoy most of Shakespeare's plays, and so don't really
care about any defects they may have
-- some people don't like PJ's films, and so the defects, real or
perceived, stand out and are used as an excuse for not liking them
IOW, the /first/ criterion is: that the play/film be a /good/
play/film, that is, one that people actually /want/ to pay to see
(which implies that they do not feel the experience a waste of time or
money, among other things), as opposed to something they go to see
because everybody else is or because they read the book.
Shakespeare, by and large, wrote /good/ plays.
PJ's movies, OTOH, are not good.
Funny thing is that you're probably bound to find a lot more Shakespear
detractors than LotR movie adaptation detractors.
If you say so.

(I would say something about spelling, but I am currently reading
older novels and "Shakespear" is used in one of them so often that it
must be an alternate spelling.)
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
Loading...