?

Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous Next Next
Gakked from h311ybean I took the most accurate villain… - The Phantom Librarian
Spewing out too many words since November 2003
fernwithy
fernwithy
Gakked from h311ybean



I took the most accurate villain personality test

created by:
The Arch Villainess Gracie



Ah, there are a few people I can think of who might find a cursed spindle... (No, Fern, no. The way of the Dark Side is that! :slaps own hand, then slips back into pleasant evil fantasy:)

I realized I never publicly thanked Emily for the cute Andromeda Black "Of A Sort" art she sent me. I think I may need to start my own HP site to stash all of my stories and so on in; if so, may I have it? (And can I post it here?)


Could someone please direct me to the trailer? I understand with the exception of that one line, it's quite good.

However...

THAT'S A PRETTY BIG FREAKING LINE.

If people want to rag on me about it, go ahead. I managed to survive the rabid Jackson fans without being much hurt, so I don't have a big problem with it.

We, as readers, have been fed enough shit over the years by Hollywood's pretense at adapting books that we could fertilize the damned Sahara. "Oh," they say in a wise tone of voice, "it's all about the transition from book to film. Surely you see that they're different media."

And the really frustrating part is, they've actually hornswaggled readers into taking this nonsense!

Oh, I mean, yes. Of course they're different media. Film is much more linear than a novel, and sometimes because of that, you need to mess around with structure. Not as much as they usually do, but a little bit. Film might have some time constraints. Whatever. And of course, some things which are done in narrative in a novel have to be "scened" to make a film work. All of these things are sensible to expect in the transition between media.

But there is nothing--NOTHING--in this transition that requires one character being given lines from another character... especially if both characters remain in the scene. There is nothing that requires dumbing down character dynamics. I mean, this is Harry Potter we're talking about. Something like two-thirds of American children have read them. Big, thick books. And they don't have the slightest problem following the story or the characters. They can weave deftly through the various interpretations and defend their own. You don't need to give Hermione a brave line to show that she's brave (or a wise one to show that she's intelligent; let's not forget her Dumbledore-klept in CoS). We know that, thank you. And Ron is not a simplistic comic relief sidekick who needs to have his lines taken away so that we can remember, "Oh, he's not the smart one, drrr..."

These things are not necessary changes in the transition from book to screen. They're nothing but ego-tripping by Steve Kloves, deciding that he can do better at reaching a mass audience than the world's best-selling novelist. There's not all that much an author can do about this sort of thing, and the movies have not been as wretched as some, so I suspect JKR is a bit relieved and not prone to fighting over a few lines here and there... either that, or they've been laying on the "The media are different!" mantra pretty damned thickly. I understand Timeline didn't even keep the main plot in its transition from Michael Crichton's novel.

It's obvious just from a casual scan of my f-list that most of the people who've seen this are quite annoyed at that change. Maybe it's time to test the influence of the blogosphere on the Hollywood scene... it's managed to make at least a small impact on the political scene, after all...

(Oh, and look. I got through a whole anti-Hollywood-adaptation post without mentioning Arwen.

Oops.)
10 comments or Leave a comment
Comments
ladyaeryn From: ladyaeryn Date: May 2nd, 2004 08:51 pm (UTC) (Link)
The Leaky Cauldron and MuggleNet both have it (in RealPlayer and WindowsMedia) - the vid quality is pretty dark, but aside from THAT bit, it is quite the excellent trailer. Buckbeak! Lupin! Quidditch! All sorts of lovelies.

I understand Timeline didn't even keep the main plot in its transition from Michael Crichton's novel.

Michael Crichton movie adaptations make Peter Jackson look faithful. With "The Lost World" the biggest similarity was the title. :/ (Several characters, including the main protagonist, were deleted, and another two were simply combined together. And the ending had NOTHING to do with Godzilla T-Rex storming San Diego.)

There was just simply no reason to change that line. It improves nothing, and in fact makes certain things a lot worse. :P Yes Kloves, we get that Hermione's your favorite. Don't MarySue her for us - how about leave her the way she was? You know, the way that made you actually like her? *snerk*

The Dumbledore line in CoS was irritating. But that line didn't hurt two characters at once.
malabud From: malabud Date: May 2nd, 2004 09:36 pm (UTC) (Link)
If I recall correctly, Hermione got a couple of Ron's lines in CoS. The main one I remember is the explanation of the "mudblood" insult. I don't know where I read it (Fern, was it here in your journal?), but someone pointed out that "mudblood" would not have been a grievous insult to Hermione precisely because she is muggle-born. She did not grow up with the taboos of the wizarding world. When a person is learning a new language or entering a new culture, the taboo words never seem all that bad, because they are new. The taboo words don't have the cultural significance they would have if a person had grown up with that language and/or culture. Thus, Ron is naturally much more appalled at the term "mudblood" even though he is a pureblood wizard himself. Hermione could have read something about the term, but she would not have had the reaction she did in the movie. It would have been simply academic to her.

So, to sum up, I agree that there's no rational explanation for taking lines from one character and giving them to another if both characters are present. It not only causes characters to act out of character, it also causes "movie contamination" as Lexicon Steve calls it. Movie contamination is when something is seen in the movie and readers think it must then be in the books and "canon." (The moving staircases are a prime example of this, but Hermione getting Ron's lines is another.) Steve Kloves is going to turn Hermione into a Mary Sue if he isn't careful.
narnian_dreamer From: narnian_dreamer Date: May 2nd, 2004 11:29 pm (UTC) (Link)
The extension of Arwen's role in the movie never bothered me much. I think a case could be made for those added scenes as explaining many things that were discussed in the narrative or in the appendixes, like the fate of elves who fall in love with humans and the exodus of the elves from Middle Earth. Also, because the scene in which Aragorn apologizes to Eomer for not being able to love Eowyn is cut, the addition of Arwen as a character early on could be argued as necessary to make Aragorn's choice make sense.

What did bother me was the entirely random near death scene in the second movie in which Aragorn falls off a cliff into a river and everyone thinks he's dead, until he is rescued by his horse. Why add that scene, especially when so much else was cut for time? And the extraordinary change in Faramir's character is absolute sacriledge, no other word for it. The simplification of Denethor's character in the third movie annoys me as well, and the fact that they pushed Gimli into a comedy relief role, which was not his original function at all.

Sorry. This is supposed to be about the Harry Potter movies. Well, I haven't seen the third trailer yet. The first two movies were fairly close to the books, but I'm nervous about how they handle the third. It's longer and more complicated, for one thing, and my favorite of the series for another.

There may be a reason to transfer dialogue from one character to another, like when McGonagal instead of Binns explains the Chamber of Secrets, but not when both characters are in the scene. That's just wrong.

What is this one line you're talking about?
fernwithy From: fernwithy Date: May 2nd, 2004 11:37 pm (UTC) (Link)
What is this one line you're talking about?

In the Shrieking Shack, Ron has that wonderful moment of bravery, when he stands up to Sirius Black and says, "If you're going to kill Harry, you'll have to go through us."

Nuh-uh. Now he just stands there, and Hermione says that.
sarah531 From: sarah531 Date: May 2nd, 2004 11:59 pm (UTC) (Link)
WHAT???!!!!

Grrrr. There is no excuse for that.

*takes her HP books and runs*
narnian_dreamer From: narnian_dreamer Date: May 3rd, 2004 12:04 am (UTC) (Link)
That is truly horrible and pointless. The only thing I can possibly think of to justify it was that it would just look too silly coming from a boy in extreme pain with a broken leg, because how hard would he be to go through? (Can't remember exactly when Ron broke his leg, though, so this might not be relevant at all.) That's still a pretty lousy excuse, and...urgh, if they do to Ron what they did to Gimli I am going to be very pissed.
calico321 From: calico321 Date: May 3rd, 2004 08:49 pm (UTC) (Link)
He broke it when Padfoot was dragging him into the tree and it is very relevant. For me, the fact that he makes himself stand and say that is very indicative of his character, and taking that away from him is a crime.
From: alouette Date: May 3rd, 2004 02:05 am (UTC) (Link)
REALLY?

*just splutters for a while, then curses in various languages*

The bastards. They can't have done that. Are they complete idiots? What sort of a Ron-hater is Kloves?
volandum From: volandum Date: May 3rd, 2004 06:45 am (UTC) (Link)
I ... excuse me. I can't bring myself to comment.
erised1810 From: erised1810 Date: May 3rd, 2004 03:03 pm (UTC) (Link)
augh.
i'll jsut rent thedvd.
10 comments or Leave a comment