(no subject)
Nov. 28th, 2005 11:29 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lenora_roseMore writing progress, but I'm not going to make all my NaAmbiguWriMo goals. Too much to do in the next handful of days - a library trip, a clothes-shopping trip, and some more gift-buying should probably sneak in there. However, I should get two reviews in to Green Man in the near future. I don't mind too much. The reason self-imposed deadlines hardly ever work for me is that i tend to be easy on myself when I miss them.
For my exercise routine today, I put on the film of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, since I'd been somewhat thinking of re-reading the first book just to see how we've got from point a to point b (While not as disappointed in the latest two books as say,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
matociquala, there have been some bothersome moral and thematic developments besides over-rushed editing). I only got through about 40 minutes of it or a bit more, (I was skimping on my arm exercises since I was heading to archery later). It gave me a thorough reminder why I shouldn't have done that. It also meant I could finally put my finger on what so dis-enthused me abotu the first two films. (I probably wouldn't own a copy of the first one at all if I hadn't been given it as a prize for participating in a quidditch match).
The first two movies are moving illustrations of the book.
That is, they don't "read" like a movie based on a book. The movie-makers were terrified to make their own product. So they gave us: "Here's what the characters look like. Here's the sound of their voices. Here's the scenery." They're constrained to depicting things in the book, unable to flex or shift or move the story around to fit movie fashion better. Yes, I know the flying keys are different, and I know some moments are cut or shifted. But that's the impression. Giant, mobile, highly expensive pretty pictures to set inside the pages of the book. They're not their own thing. There's no independant creation to them. In fact, when i criticise them, it's mostly for where the illustration of the book falters, where someone or something looks wrong, sounds wrong, based on how the book tells me it should look or sound.
(Digression)They said they did it that way for fear of what the fans of the series would say if they changed it too much. Well, they changed it too much for the latest one, and it worked. Nyah. Besides, they should see what the squeee-level fen do in their fanfic. Eek. That can scare ME, and I'm not talking about the slash edge of it, though Harry Potter isn't one of the stories I think warrants, encourages, or in any way suits, eroticizing. I'm talking about the complete misunderstanding and misinterpretation of character, the deep desire to bend the storyline, to say events in the books JKR has written "Never happened".(/digression)
The last two films have actually been good becuase they didn't do that. They adapted the story to its new medium instead of trying to transpose it moment by moment. They shifted it, moved it, looked at it and decided how they wanted to go. They didn't illustrate the book as it was, they made their own version of the same story. They adapted them, the way Juliet Marillier, or Peg Kerr, made their versions of the Seven Swans/Wild Swans Story. The way Robin McKinley rewrote Beauty and the Beast (Twice!) in ways that highlighted and hid different aspects of the story as she went. Or, heck, the way Hayao Miyazaki made an entirely different story out of Howl's Moving Castle (Different enough that the Howl and Sophie in the book still have distinct and separate appearances in my head) but still paid tribute to his source. I have my mild misgivings about the last two films, but they're misgivings about the films, not about how they do or don't suit the book.
Anyhow, I'm happier for being able to articulate that.
In other news, in case you think I'm the only weird fan-type around here, Colin is building a TARDIS.
For my exercise routine today, I put on the film of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, since I'd been somewhat thinking of re-reading the first book just to see how we've got from point a to point b (While not as disappointed in the latest two books as say,
matociquala, there have been some bothersome moral and thematic developments besides over-rushed editing). I only got through about 40 minutes of it or a bit more, (I was skimping on my arm exercises since I was heading to archery later). It gave me a thorough reminder why I shouldn't have done that. It also meant I could finally put my finger on what so dis-enthused me abotu the first two films. (I probably wouldn't own a copy of the first one at all if I hadn't been given it as a prize for participating in a quidditch match).The first two movies are moving illustrations of the book.
That is, they don't "read" like a movie based on a book. The movie-makers were terrified to make their own product. So they gave us: "Here's what the characters look like. Here's the sound of their voices. Here's the scenery." They're constrained to depicting things in the book, unable to flex or shift or move the story around to fit movie fashion better. Yes, I know the flying keys are different, and I know some moments are cut or shifted. But that's the impression. Giant, mobile, highly expensive pretty pictures to set inside the pages of the book. They're not their own thing. There's no independant creation to them. In fact, when i criticise them, it's mostly for where the illustration of the book falters, where someone or something looks wrong, sounds wrong, based on how the book tells me it should look or sound.
(Digression)They said they did it that way for fear of what the fans of the series would say if they changed it too much. Well, they changed it too much for the latest one, and it worked. Nyah. Besides, they should see what the squeee-level fen do in their fanfic. Eek. That can scare ME, and I'm not talking about the slash edge of it, though Harry Potter isn't one of the stories I think warrants, encourages, or in any way suits, eroticizing. I'm talking about the complete misunderstanding and misinterpretation of character, the deep desire to bend the storyline, to say events in the books JKR has written "Never happened".(/digression)
The last two films have actually been good becuase they didn't do that. They adapted the story to its new medium instead of trying to transpose it moment by moment. They shifted it, moved it, looked at it and decided how they wanted to go. They didn't illustrate the book as it was, they made their own version of the same story. They adapted them, the way Juliet Marillier, or Peg Kerr, made their versions of the Seven Swans/Wild Swans Story. The way Robin McKinley rewrote Beauty and the Beast (Twice!) in ways that highlighted and hid different aspects of the story as she went. Or, heck, the way Hayao Miyazaki made an entirely different story out of Howl's Moving Castle (Different enough that the Howl and Sophie in the book still have distinct and separate appearances in my head) but still paid tribute to his source. I have my mild misgivings about the last two films, but they're misgivings about the films, not about how they do or don't suit the book.
Anyhow, I'm happier for being able to articulate that.
In other news, in case you think I'm the only weird fan-type around here, Colin is building a TARDIS.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Police Box
Date: 2005-11-30 02:21 am (UTC)Colin
Re: Police Box
Date: 2005-11-30 04:14 pm (UTC)If you keep denying you're weird, then when you get your "police box" up, I'm goign to spray paint "Bad Wolf" on the side...