Three Fantasy Novels and a Missing Cowboy
I find it ironic that three great fantasy series of the 20th century were all translated into film form in this decade. I suppose The Golden Compass is up next. And of course this coincided with several Sci-Fi films and comic book adaptations- this says something about the modern popularity of showing off special effects gimmics.
Lord of the Rings was a fabulous book trilogy and a fabulous movie trilogy, mostly because Tolkien's work is its own mythology with no connection to the modern everyday culture and history, so when a battle was changed or a line was given to the wrong character (or when Haldir was spontaneously added to the second movie and even more spontaneously killed in the second movie) it felt less like a rape of the original canon and more like a retelling of a popular myth, much like the ancient myths and fairy tales that were handed down over the centuries by word of mouth and were significantly altered with each telling to fit the situation.
Harry Potter was and is bad. I'm sorry, but Harry Potter is not a modern mythology about something that could have happened Long Ago And Far Away; it is a modern portrayal of the modern world, eclectricity and all, and how ancient magical figures like giants and hippogriffs survive in secret in the modern world. There is really very little room for artistic liscence, because the characters and plots are deliberately constructed in a very concrete and very real and tangible way. The difference between LOTR and HP is the difference between Troy and World War II. And really, its just a bad idea to make a movie based on a series that isn't even finished yet.
The Chronicles of Narnia is amazing. It is initially set during World War II, and the four main children have just been separated from their home and parents and are personally affected by this. Like Harry Potter, Narnia is a fantasy world constructed around something real. That is twice as hard to do well as Mythological Middle Earth because it is based on something that exists outside the series' canon. What is impressive is how Narnia came through for me where Harry Potter did not. The Pevensies were just as I always imagined them, Prof. Kirke was wonderful, and Aslan-the-CGI-character was a surprisingly believable talking lion. I think Narnia was less likely to be successful than LOTR but ended up being on par with it in terms of quality. I really, really enjoyed it and was very impressed by it.
I was less impressed with the state of Maine's inability to support either art films or films with gay couples. I really want to see Brokeback Mountain and it is only playing FOUR times a day in ONE theather in the ENTIRE state of maine. this sucks. I really wanna see it!
In case you haven't noticed, movies are the only interesting thing going on in my life. And the Gilmore Girls. And Lost, which is a new episode on wednesday. yippee. I need to go back to school and get a life again...
Lord of the Rings was a fabulous book trilogy and a fabulous movie trilogy, mostly because Tolkien's work is its own mythology with no connection to the modern everyday culture and history, so when a battle was changed or a line was given to the wrong character (or when Haldir was spontaneously added to the second movie and even more spontaneously killed in the second movie) it felt less like a rape of the original canon and more like a retelling of a popular myth, much like the ancient myths and fairy tales that were handed down over the centuries by word of mouth and were significantly altered with each telling to fit the situation.
Harry Potter was and is bad. I'm sorry, but Harry Potter is not a modern mythology about something that could have happened Long Ago And Far Away; it is a modern portrayal of the modern world, eclectricity and all, and how ancient magical figures like giants and hippogriffs survive in secret in the modern world. There is really very little room for artistic liscence, because the characters and plots are deliberately constructed in a very concrete and very real and tangible way. The difference between LOTR and HP is the difference between Troy and World War II. And really, its just a bad idea to make a movie based on a series that isn't even finished yet.
The Chronicles of Narnia is amazing. It is initially set during World War II, and the four main children have just been separated from their home and parents and are personally affected by this. Like Harry Potter, Narnia is a fantasy world constructed around something real. That is twice as hard to do well as Mythological Middle Earth because it is based on something that exists outside the series' canon. What is impressive is how Narnia came through for me where Harry Potter did not. The Pevensies were just as I always imagined them, Prof. Kirke was wonderful, and Aslan-the-CGI-character was a surprisingly believable talking lion. I think Narnia was less likely to be successful than LOTR but ended up being on par with it in terms of quality. I really, really enjoyed it and was very impressed by it.
I was less impressed with the state of Maine's inability to support either art films or films with gay couples. I really want to see Brokeback Mountain and it is only playing FOUR times a day in ONE theather in the ENTIRE state of maine. this sucks. I really wanna see it!
In case you haven't noticed, movies are the only interesting thing going on in my life. And the Gilmore Girls. And Lost, which is a new episode on wednesday. yippee. I need to go back to school and get a life again...