dear hollywood: you suck.
25 Jul 2007 02:57 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kaigouDear Hollywood Producer:
I grew up reading The Dark is Rising series, and had minor hopes you wouldn't pull a Jackson halfway through the book (in re Faramir), but I certainly never expected this. I must say, do you intend to preface the movie with a thirty-second clip consisting of an apology to fans over the past forty years, and perhaps a warning that if one liked the book, one may -- if not most likely -- detest the movie, and for this fact you are most sincerely apologetic?
It's possible, of course, that you didn't actually read the book. I'm willing to give that creedence, given you seem to have missed some incredibly important details. Like, say, the fact that Will Staunton is -- I'm not making this up, but am in full seriousness here -- BRITISH.
Yes. What a shocker. British. Who would've thought it?
Although, I'm willing to consider that at some point, someone did point this out. I can only guess that you must have argued that for a movie to be popular in America, it must have an American face, an American accent, an American perspective. You have no idea how mistaken you are, and I can prove that point intwo three words.
Harry. Frickin'. Potter.
Or maybe you only read the synopsis, and you missed the fact that it's Simon (in the first book) and his siblings, Jane and Barney, who have blond hair and blue eyes. Will is described throughout the series as a round-faced, serious boy with "a thick hatch of brown hair", with a fringe just long enough to get into his eyes. It's a rather standard cut for a kid in the early seventies, granted, but it's not that outlandish for today. It's certainly not a blond kid with an adrogynous face so baby-cheeked I almost thought the opening shot was of a girl, let alone a blond kid with a buzz cut. That, my dear Hollywood Producer, would be Simon. Not Will. I suggest you have a few words with your casting director.
While we're on the issue of appearances, Merriman has a "shock" of white hair, not salt-and-pepper that's mostly pepper. And, too, he's well over six-two, towering over Will. Now, I acknowledge that anyone's first choice for Merriman already got snagged by Jackson to play Gandalf, but couldn't you have at least made a tiny bit more effort to find a well-known, powerful, commanding screen presence to play the part?
There are other details, too, and this is not an issue of being misled by the trailer, as the trailer does everything but set up the synopsis from the -- admittedly butchered -- storyline you created. Will Staunton does not have "a girl", he cares little for them. He's eleven; he is not fourteen.
While there's mention in the book of the importance of eleven as a number, and I can understand time limitations being the reason for cutting that explanation, I fail to see any value in changing Will's age. Or were you all stressed by a Harry Potter association, given Harry's story starts just before his eleventh birthday, too? Let's do some basic math: the first HP book was published in 1997; this book in Cooper's series was published in 1973. No one is going to suggest that Cooper leapt into the future to steal from Rowling. Trust me on this one.
Furthermore, Will does not have abusive or malicious siblings; his elder siblings are by turns annoying and comradely, but otherwise leave him to himself. It's bad enough your trailer shows James (or Stephen?) summarily tossing Will from his room -- neither brother would do such, as James shared with Will previously, and Stephen gave Will his attic room when Stephen left for the Navy. The ultimate example of OOC, for Will's sibling-relationship, is your clip where his elder brothers do a tape outline on the floor to indicate where he'll sleep.
He does not live in the suburbs, but in an older farmhouse where everything creaks at night; the family also owns rabbits and chickens and chops wood to heat the house. The emphasis on the rural surroundings, too, allows Cooper to use nature/animals to illustrate something harmful is twisting Will's environment.
She demonstrates this with three significant events. One, a strange type of oversized weasel with no apparent fear of humans has been breaking into the chickenhouse and killing chickens, but not eating them: it's killing for joy of the act. Two, the wish for snow on Will's birthday (which begins the story), turns into a blizzard hammering at the house, leaving Will uncertain whether he's being babyish for thinking the snow is attacking the family -- and him -- personally. Three, Will's brother defends an immigrant boy being taunted by neighborhood kids (and it's made clear the level of malice is above and beyond normal).
Much of the suspense in the story's opening is from an otherwise normal and bright event (birthday, Christmas) turning sinister. Cooper underscores that, in essence, by putting Will's world heels-over-head with those three details: animals, the environment, even people, are all acting odd at the least, violently malicious at the most. Meanwhile his otherwise normal and cheerful (and loving) family is perturbed but can rationalize the incidents, while Will can't shake it.
Your version? It appears your version of "world gone crazy" consists of two cops stopping Will at the mall and insisting he tried to steal something. (I'll ignore that his reason for being at the mall was to buy something "for his girl". Who wrote this, my great-aunt? Who the hell says "my girl", and who the hell says it when they're aneleven-year fourteen-year old boy? Even the average fourteen-year old is still struggling with cooties, people. Get a clue.)
I really hope your trailer doesn't reflect the final reality, and you did something more than just that heavy-handed, annoyingly-cliched, "we've been watching you" BS in the cop scene. Points to you for catching the "strange" around Will in the story's opening, but you rather missed the entire boat in Cooper's choice of that "strangeness".
The point is: it is not Will who is questioning his sanity. Maybe you missed the basics of analysis in your college literature classes, but this much should've been obvious -- assuming you'd read the book(s), of course. The crux is that Will, upon reaching his eleventh birthday, begins to doubt the world's sanity.
As for other characters, the books do not have a "girl" (unless we mean Maggie, who happens to be sweet on Max, not Will), and this may be a surprise, but a story about a young man accepting his role as the last of the Old Ones does not necessarily require a love interest. It is just fine being what it is, and what's won -- and kept -- its fans for so many years. I assure you, the legions of female fans who grew up reading this book and loving the series would think no less of you for, say, filming the actual story, and they would certainly spend money to take their kids, too -- sons and daughters. We already love the book; we do not need you to throw in a Token Female to convince us to love a movie adaptation.
Merriman's counterpart -- the Dark Rider -- should be the stuff of nightmares. At the risk of being tedious, I again direct you to Jackson: the Dark Rider is a singular version of the Nazgul. I'm sure you tried really hard, but a guy dressed in black on ablack white* horse in broad daylight and speaking with an American midwest accent just don't make no frickin' Nazgul.
[*ETA: White horse? Please, tell me my eyes are mistaken. Death don't ride no a pale horse in Cooper's story; she kept to the all-dark for the Dark, all-light for the Light. Duh. This story is grounded hard, fast, and deep into the pre-christian mythologies of the British Isles. A Christian metaphor has its place... and that place isn't this story.]
Couldn't you at least have requested a bit more smarmy used-car salesman tone from the actor playing the Dark Rider? It's not that hard, you had Merriman do it in spades, judging from the trailer. It's the Dark Rider who's attractive and repulsive at the same time; Merriman, in contrast -- unlike your version -- does not give Will a sales pitch. He simply dumps it on Will's lap, telling him some things but not all. He sure as hell don't give no grocery list of Speshul Powerz, or even details to anyone at all, not if he can save the breath and let the person find out for himself.
There's also no involvement of Will's family in his path as an Old One. In fact, it's a scary moment when he realizes early on that after being attacked by crows, his brother has no recollection by the time they're home. Something has wiped his brother's memory. Later, this realization turns melancholy. He is isolated. He is eleven years old, and although his family recognizes that he's a "very old eleven", he must accept that such responsibility -- and ability -- comes at a steep price.
He does not, for the record, blow up any cars, toss people about, or otherwise give frivolous or spiteful displays of his Speshul Powerz. In fact, through the book -- and much of the story -- oftentimes it takes something, or someone, to drive or entreat Will to the point he'll use his (magical) knowledge/skills at all. It's always his last choice.
Which brings me to the final point: Will is not Superman. He does not "develop" skills. He does not start "evidencing" strange powers. He never throws his twin brothers across the room, he does not make pencils fly across the desk with merely a thought, he does not just snap his fingers and fire appears. He is taught how to do these things.
Maybe you feared that "learning to be an Old One" would make people think you were copping a development point off Rowling, but let's refresh: the nineteen-seventies came before the nineteen-nineties. You really need to get over your fear of comparisons.
Nor does Merriman give Will a list of what he'll be able to do. Merriman is, in fact, quite tight-lipped about Will's role and place, given there's always a suspenseful feeling that they're being watched. Instead, through many machinations, Merriman sets up a chance for Will to learn what he needs to know in the course of one night. It's really a fascinating, moving, and psychologically powerful scene, too, if you'd bothered to read it; despite Will's curiosity about Old Ones and being one of them, he's also level-headed enough to recognize that the Light is as cold as the Dark, in the sacrifices it can demand. In fact, I have significant trouble believing Will -- the real one, not your plastic model -- would ever ask Merriman if he'd be able to fly. Will, the real Will, is simply too level-headed, serious, and reflective to go after the shiny.
Seriously, now. If I wanted to watch a story about a young man who develops strange powers and thinks he must be going crazy to be able to do all that stuff, I bloody well would watch that story. It's already been written, too. Maybe you've not heard of it, but I guess it might not be that well-known by now. I mean, Superman was written in the thirties, and that's positively last century.
Given all that, I suppose I must ask if there's anything in your movie that bears resemblence to Susan Cooper's work, other than character names and the title. (And why not start the series with the, oh, actual start of the series? Or was there no way to remove the British-ness from that one, so you decided to just skip it? I'm curious how you'll mangle Greenwitch, if you keep on this American-only kick.) I'm willing to allow that you might be able to identify a good story, select a good writer, and end up with a well-written product, though I'd admit great shock if you've ever won any awards for your work, let alone anything as prestigious as, oh, the Newberry Award, a Humanitas Award, let alone been nominated for an Emmy. Maybe you can write adequately, but you're not Susan Cooper, and it's what she wrote that I've re-read on almost an annual basis since I first read it over twenty years ago.
The story, the entire series, is a classic that's stayed popular through going on three generations, now. Yes, I expect changes when a story moves from print to visual, but I also expect that the vast majority of the story -- however abbreviated in places -- will essentially remain the same story. I fail to see how you could argue that, when you've changed so many fundamental details, and make it patently clear that you've done so in the trailer(s).
For comparison's sake, it's possible Jackson gave an eloquent argument for why he altered the middle movie to have Faramir fall prey to the ring, and threw in some eyecandy with the Nazgul and Frodo in a bizarre stand-off that never happened in the book. I'm sure he had his reasons. You cannot claim by any stretch to be modifying Cooper's story with that same otherwise light touch. You've created the Cooper-equivalent of Jackson deciding to make Frodo a dwarf.
Okay, maybe you shouldn't bother with a thirty-second recorded clip extending your deepest apologies to any long-term fans. You're right, it's probably too late for that. I suggest you contact the FBI instead, and see how much it'll cost you to get into their protection program.
You're going to need it.
Nolove,
me.
PS: from the cast listing on IMDB:
Jim Piddock ... George
Mark Donovan ... Fight Promoter
Stephen Evans ... Trickster
Where's Dawson? Or John Wayland Smith? Who the hell are these characters, and what are they doing in one of my favorite storylines? Maybe someone else can explain this. I'll be back to find out if so, but in the meantime, I must go find my happy place.
Which today happens to be: in the LIBRARY, with a GLASS OF WINE, reading the REAL THING.
*gnashes teeth*
I grew up reading The Dark is Rising series, and had minor hopes you wouldn't pull a Jackson halfway through the book (in re Faramir), but I certainly never expected this. I must say, do you intend to preface the movie with a thirty-second clip consisting of an apology to fans over the past forty years, and perhaps a warning that if one liked the book, one may -- if not most likely -- detest the movie, and for this fact you are most sincerely apologetic?
It's possible, of course, that you didn't actually read the book. I'm willing to give that creedence, given you seem to have missed some incredibly important details. Like, say, the fact that Will Staunton is -- I'm not making this up, but am in full seriousness here -- BRITISH.
Yes. What a shocker. British. Who would've thought it?
Although, I'm willing to consider that at some point, someone did point this out. I can only guess that you must have argued that for a movie to be popular in America, it must have an American face, an American accent, an American perspective. You have no idea how mistaken you are, and I can prove that point in
Harry. Frickin'. Potter.
Or maybe you only read the synopsis, and you missed the fact that it's Simon (in the first book) and his siblings, Jane and Barney, who have blond hair and blue eyes. Will is described throughout the series as a round-faced, serious boy with "a thick hatch of brown hair", with a fringe just long enough to get into his eyes. It's a rather standard cut for a kid in the early seventies, granted, but it's not that outlandish for today. It's certainly not a blond kid with an adrogynous face so baby-cheeked I almost thought the opening shot was of a girl, let alone a blond kid with a buzz cut. That, my dear Hollywood Producer, would be Simon. Not Will. I suggest you have a few words with your casting director.
While we're on the issue of appearances, Merriman has a "shock" of white hair, not salt-and-pepper that's mostly pepper. And, too, he's well over six-two, towering over Will. Now, I acknowledge that anyone's first choice for Merriman already got snagged by Jackson to play Gandalf, but couldn't you have at least made a tiny bit more effort to find a well-known, powerful, commanding screen presence to play the part?
There are other details, too, and this is not an issue of being misled by the trailer, as the trailer does everything but set up the synopsis from the -- admittedly butchered -- storyline you created. Will Staunton does not have "a girl", he cares little for them. He's eleven; he is not fourteen.
While there's mention in the book of the importance of eleven as a number, and I can understand time limitations being the reason for cutting that explanation, I fail to see any value in changing Will's age. Or were you all stressed by a Harry Potter association, given Harry's story starts just before his eleventh birthday, too? Let's do some basic math: the first HP book was published in 1997; this book in Cooper's series was published in 1973. No one is going to suggest that Cooper leapt into the future to steal from Rowling. Trust me on this one.
Furthermore, Will does not have abusive or malicious siblings; his elder siblings are by turns annoying and comradely, but otherwise leave him to himself. It's bad enough your trailer shows James (or Stephen?) summarily tossing Will from his room -- neither brother would do such, as James shared with Will previously, and Stephen gave Will his attic room when Stephen left for the Navy. The ultimate example of OOC, for Will's sibling-relationship, is your clip where his elder brothers do a tape outline on the floor to indicate where he'll sleep.
He does not live in the suburbs, but in an older farmhouse where everything creaks at night; the family also owns rabbits and chickens and chops wood to heat the house. The emphasis on the rural surroundings, too, allows Cooper to use nature/animals to illustrate something harmful is twisting Will's environment.
She demonstrates this with three significant events. One, a strange type of oversized weasel with no apparent fear of humans has been breaking into the chickenhouse and killing chickens, but not eating them: it's killing for joy of the act. Two, the wish for snow on Will's birthday (which begins the story), turns into a blizzard hammering at the house, leaving Will uncertain whether he's being babyish for thinking the snow is attacking the family -- and him -- personally. Three, Will's brother defends an immigrant boy being taunted by neighborhood kids (and it's made clear the level of malice is above and beyond normal).
Much of the suspense in the story's opening is from an otherwise normal and bright event (birthday, Christmas) turning sinister. Cooper underscores that, in essence, by putting Will's world heels-over-head with those three details: animals, the environment, even people, are all acting odd at the least, violently malicious at the most. Meanwhile his otherwise normal and cheerful (and loving) family is perturbed but can rationalize the incidents, while Will can't shake it.
Your version? It appears your version of "world gone crazy" consists of two cops stopping Will at the mall and insisting he tried to steal something. (I'll ignore that his reason for being at the mall was to buy something "for his girl". Who wrote this, my great-aunt? Who the hell says "my girl", and who the hell says it when they're an
I really hope your trailer doesn't reflect the final reality, and you did something more than just that heavy-handed, annoyingly-cliched, "we've been watching you" BS in the cop scene. Points to you for catching the "strange" around Will in the story's opening, but you rather missed the entire boat in Cooper's choice of that "strangeness".
The point is: it is not Will who is questioning his sanity. Maybe you missed the basics of analysis in your college literature classes, but this much should've been obvious -- assuming you'd read the book(s), of course. The crux is that Will, upon reaching his eleventh birthday, begins to doubt the world's sanity.
As for other characters, the books do not have a "girl" (unless we mean Maggie, who happens to be sweet on Max, not Will), and this may be a surprise, but a story about a young man accepting his role as the last of the Old Ones does not necessarily require a love interest. It is just fine being what it is, and what's won -- and kept -- its fans for so many years. I assure you, the legions of female fans who grew up reading this book and loving the series would think no less of you for, say, filming the actual story, and they would certainly spend money to take their kids, too -- sons and daughters. We already love the book; we do not need you to throw in a Token Female to convince us to love a movie adaptation.
Merriman's counterpart -- the Dark Rider -- should be the stuff of nightmares. At the risk of being tedious, I again direct you to Jackson: the Dark Rider is a singular version of the Nazgul. I'm sure you tried really hard, but a guy dressed in black on a
[*ETA: White horse? Please, tell me my eyes are mistaken. Death don't ride no a pale horse in Cooper's story; she kept to the all-dark for the Dark, all-light for the Light. Duh. This story is grounded hard, fast, and deep into the pre-christian mythologies of the British Isles. A Christian metaphor has its place... and that place isn't this story.]
Couldn't you at least have requested a bit more smarmy used-car salesman tone from the actor playing the Dark Rider? It's not that hard, you had Merriman do it in spades, judging from the trailer. It's the Dark Rider who's attractive and repulsive at the same time; Merriman, in contrast -- unlike your version -- does not give Will a sales pitch. He simply dumps it on Will's lap, telling him some things but not all. He sure as hell don't give no grocery list of Speshul Powerz, or even details to anyone at all, not if he can save the breath and let the person find out for himself.
There's also no involvement of Will's family in his path as an Old One. In fact, it's a scary moment when he realizes early on that after being attacked by crows, his brother has no recollection by the time they're home. Something has wiped his brother's memory. Later, this realization turns melancholy. He is isolated. He is eleven years old, and although his family recognizes that he's a "very old eleven", he must accept that such responsibility -- and ability -- comes at a steep price.
He does not, for the record, blow up any cars, toss people about, or otherwise give frivolous or spiteful displays of his Speshul Powerz. In fact, through the book -- and much of the story -- oftentimes it takes something, or someone, to drive or entreat Will to the point he'll use his (magical) knowledge/skills at all. It's always his last choice.
Which brings me to the final point: Will is not Superman. He does not "develop" skills. He does not start "evidencing" strange powers. He never throws his twin brothers across the room, he does not make pencils fly across the desk with merely a thought, he does not just snap his fingers and fire appears. He is taught how to do these things.
Maybe you feared that "learning to be an Old One" would make people think you were copping a development point off Rowling, but let's refresh: the nineteen-seventies came before the nineteen-nineties. You really need to get over your fear of comparisons.
Nor does Merriman give Will a list of what he'll be able to do. Merriman is, in fact, quite tight-lipped about Will's role and place, given there's always a suspenseful feeling that they're being watched. Instead, through many machinations, Merriman sets up a chance for Will to learn what he needs to know in the course of one night. It's really a fascinating, moving, and psychologically powerful scene, too, if you'd bothered to read it; despite Will's curiosity about Old Ones and being one of them, he's also level-headed enough to recognize that the Light is as cold as the Dark, in the sacrifices it can demand. In fact, I have significant trouble believing Will -- the real one, not your plastic model -- would ever ask Merriman if he'd be able to fly. Will, the real Will, is simply too level-headed, serious, and reflective to go after the shiny.
Seriously, now. If I wanted to watch a story about a young man who develops strange powers and thinks he must be going crazy to be able to do all that stuff, I bloody well would watch that story. It's already been written, too. Maybe you've not heard of it, but I guess it might not be that well-known by now. I mean, Superman was written in the thirties, and that's positively last century.
Given all that, I suppose I must ask if there's anything in your movie that bears resemblence to Susan Cooper's work, other than character names and the title. (And why not start the series with the, oh, actual start of the series? Or was there no way to remove the British-ness from that one, so you decided to just skip it? I'm curious how you'll mangle Greenwitch, if you keep on this American-only kick.) I'm willing to allow that you might be able to identify a good story, select a good writer, and end up with a well-written product, though I'd admit great shock if you've ever won any awards for your work, let alone anything as prestigious as, oh, the Newberry Award, a Humanitas Award, let alone been nominated for an Emmy. Maybe you can write adequately, but you're not Susan Cooper, and it's what she wrote that I've re-read on almost an annual basis since I first read it over twenty years ago.
The story, the entire series, is a classic that's stayed popular through going on three generations, now. Yes, I expect changes when a story moves from print to visual, but I also expect that the vast majority of the story -- however abbreviated in places -- will essentially remain the same story. I fail to see how you could argue that, when you've changed so many fundamental details, and make it patently clear that you've done so in the trailer(s).
For comparison's sake, it's possible Jackson gave an eloquent argument for why he altered the middle movie to have Faramir fall prey to the ring, and threw in some eyecandy with the Nazgul and Frodo in a bizarre stand-off that never happened in the book. I'm sure he had his reasons. You cannot claim by any stretch to be modifying Cooper's story with that same otherwise light touch. You've created the Cooper-equivalent of Jackson deciding to make Frodo a dwarf.
Okay, maybe you shouldn't bother with a thirty-second recorded clip extending your deepest apologies to any long-term fans. You're right, it's probably too late for that. I suggest you contact the FBI instead, and see how much it'll cost you to get into their protection program.
You're going to need it.
Nolove,
me.
PS: from the cast listing on IMDB:
Jim Piddock ... George
Mark Donovan ... Fight Promoter
Stephen Evans ... Trickster
Where's Dawson? Or John Wayland Smith? Who the hell are these characters, and what are they doing in one of my favorite storylines? Maybe someone else can explain this. I'll be back to find out if so, but in the meantime, I must go find my happy place.
Which today happens to be: in the LIBRARY, with a GLASS OF WINE, reading the REAL THING.
*gnashes teeth*
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 25 Jul 2007 08:10 pm (UTC)I've collared everyone I know who might possibly go see this atrocity and explained to them, at length and in great detail, why they shouldn't bother.
no subject
Date: 25 Jul 2007 09:36 pm (UTC)I keep wanting to ask if I just slept through six months or so and woke up at the onset of April. What other excuse can there possibly be for this? Can I even think of a single book-adaptation that has so blatantly altered the story from the original -- especially for a book so loved, for so many years, that it remains among the top sellers for YA even though the kids who read it first now have kids who have kids of their own?
On the other hand, this might be all one big plot by New Line Cinemas, to make Jackson's Lord of the Rings look stunningly accurate in comparison.
no subject
Date: 25 Jul 2007 08:25 pm (UTC)I'm speechless, and possibly traumatized. I love those books, and the thought of them being massacred kills me.
no subject
Date: 25 Jul 2007 08:51 pm (UTC)http://www.walden.com/walden/properties/dark/
no subject
Date: 25 Jul 2007 09:46 pm (UTC)Sigh. But just the thought of a self-proclaimed biblical missionary to hollywood, directing a fairly pagan based storyline makes me wince. That's going to translate well, I'm sure.
no subject
Date: 26 Jul 2007 02:14 am (UTC)And while I like Ian McShane, he is not Merriman. And what's up with them not knowing each other, I though Merriman was his great uncle, that he'd known all his life? It's been a while since I read the first book, because Greenwitch is my forever favorite, but... seriously. That was, uh, just-- weird.
no subject
Date: 26 Jul 2007 04:45 pm (UTC)Oh, and, get this...
There's no Wild Hunt.
The entire culmination of the damn book, what everything is working towards, and there's no Herne the Hunter, no Wild Hunt, no Lady...
But then, you get a bible-freak rewriting a book heavily influenced by pagan/pre-xtian mythologies, and I guess no one should really be surprised.
no subject
Date: 25 Jul 2007 10:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 25 Jul 2007 10:50 pm (UTC)Which today happens to be: in the LIBRARY, with a GLASS OF WINE, reading the REAL THING.
Sounds like a damn good idea to me.
no subject
Date: 26 Jul 2007 01:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 31 Jul 2007 08:56 am (UTC)I'm trying to think of any well-done book-adaptation where the actors involved had not read the book, and/or had no intention of doing so. Didn't the folks on the LotR cast(s) sit around and read the books during their breaks in shooting? I seem to recall they had a round-robin going at some point... and I'm quite certain there's not a person on the HP casts who hasn't read each and every book. It's the source material, fer cryin' out loud!
If nothing else -- even assuming the movie was a decent attempt at an accurate adapation -- I'd still be patently disgusted at the notion of a cast of actors with no interest in reading the written version. I'd think it's the least they could do, to respect the author who wrote the story that's going to be the vehicle for their paycheck. Arrogant assholes.
no subject
Date: 26 Jul 2007 07:23 am (UTC)i haven't seen the trailer yet, but from what i can see here maybe i shouldn't....
no subject
Date: 31 Jul 2007 08:42 am (UTC)I'm thinking, hrm, maybe Miyazaki.
no subject
Date: 26 Jul 2007 12:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 31 Jul 2007 08:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 26 Jul 2007 12:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 31 Jul 2007 08:52 am (UTC)Which made me less than surprised, and more than startled (but in a "hunh, I think you're onto something" way) upon reading another essay in which a fan posited that the only way anyone could justify this absolute butchering is if the director, producer, and other PTB for the movie all, in fact, hate the book. (I put that against the director's bluntly stated purpose in 'being a director,' and I have to say, hrm, maybe the fan's onto something.)
After all, Cooper's perspective is that it's possible to win in the Light/Dark war, an attitude that was unusual even when I read the books for the first time in [censored -- let's just say, uhm, a while ago]. Most fantasy novels seem to emphasize "balance of good and bad!" while Cooper does the "we won, but this means the evil in the world, now, is the fault of humans, and it's humans who must deal with it."
Plus, of course, the heavy emphasis on the mythology and folklore of the British Isles, and the implication -- if not outright stated -- theme that a lot of the assumed-Xtian behaviors/beliefs in fact predate Xtianity. Rather than the attitude Cooper seems to adopt (that such things are, perhaps, integral to humanity regardless of what religious title we put on it), it's like these hollywood scum thought it'd be an improvement to de-paganize a story that's, well, so heavily grounded in the pagan, the mythology, the folklore. Sheesh.
I just can't see any reason to remove the Wild Hunt from the story. Really. It's the entire premise -- and resolution -- of the entire book. It's the mask (from Stephen) that starts the story, and it's Herne's acceptance of the role that brings the story to its conclusion. How can you have The Dark is Rising with no Lady, no Herne, and no Wild Hunt?
no subject
Date: 2 Aug 2007 03:38 pm (UTC)I have absolutely no desire to see this film succeed but fear that it will get good reviews.