Peter Jackson on how Tolkien stopped a Beatles LOTR film (2021)

Post by sharma-arjun » Mon, May 13, 2024, 5:22 AM UTC

tetris11 wrote: post #80

arnavpraneet wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did we watch the same movie? It was more about their cultural impact than painting them as gods

Imagine you have a friend who plays a nice song for you, and is dumfounded -nay- awestruck to the point of murder - that you aren't moved to tears by the performance because he believes the song was written by the angels themselves. That movie overglorified the Beatles beyond credibility, and it was genuinely painful to watch.

Post by tetris11 » Mon, May 13, 2024, 6:20 AM UTC

sharma-arjun wrote: post #81

tetris11 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine you have a friend who plays a nice song for you, and is dumfounded -nay- awestruck to the point of murder - that you aren't moved to tears by the performance because he believes the song was written by the angels themselves. That movie overglorified the Beatles beyond credibility, and it was genuinely painful to watch.

I think the dumbfoundedness didn't arise from the inherent quality of the music, but his shock at the fact that five people in England didn't know who the Beatles were. That said, I do think this movie missed out on a lot of potential, by not exploring what the actual significance of the Beatles to the world would have been: it never really asks what the world would be like had the Beatles never existed, which I thin…

Post by CoastalCoder » Mon, May 13, 2024, 12:00 PM UTC

shagie wrote: post #49

karaterobot wrote: post #9

> "Ultimately, they couldn't get the rights from Tolkien, because he didn't like the idea of a pop group doing his story. So it got nixed by him. They tried to do it. There's no doubt about it. I'm a Beatles fan. Tolkien was right to be skeptical, it would have been terrible. No doubt in my mind: campy, perfunctory, self-mocking. Please recall how "nerd" material was treated before the 2000s, if you'd like some prece…

> Please recall how "nerd" material was treated before the 2000s And I present The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins. https://youtu.be/BC35cQKHwzg?si=KWIbiEpEVb36tqh1

Post by d1sxeyes » Mon, May 13, 2024, 12:18 PM UTC

salad-tycoon wrote: post #68

aspenmayer wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Gollum that's funny for five seconds and then just incredibly irritating. This is the canonical Gollum of the original text. Only half-kidding. Now that I think about it, the Beatles probably could have made all those songs and rhymes from the source material really sing. Only a matter of time before someone uses voice cloning and video generation AI models to make this, and when they do, I’ll probably watch it, or…

If I’ve learned anything from here it’s that “AI” getting to this point is hardly a given within any relevant time frame. Of course, luckily we are surrounded by experts who I am sure will gladly point out why I’m wrong. It is a fun kool aid to drink though. Super AI enabling us to do things like “computer compose the best symphony for me that has ever been made in the style of the Beatles and successfully trade on t…

Post by RavingGoat » Mon, May 13, 2024, 12:50 PM UTC

drob wrote: post #50

kayodelycaon wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a writer, I really would not like someone taking something I wrote, trashing it and then have that person’s version be the one everyone knows.

On a personal level I can absolutely empathize, but respectfully, I don't see why that should be the state's concern. The goal of IP law should be to promote the creation of good art, not to make sure artists' wishes are respected. So, for example, theft should be illegal, because a world of unrestricted IP theft might be one in which we would get a lot less art. But allowing Tolkien to block adaptations of his bests…