![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alixtiiApparently, this year--i.e. the first year I've signed up for ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
3_ships--is the first year that 3_ships will be disallowing incest. Which means that Simon/Kaylee/River threesome I was so looking forward to requesting is out. Sad.
Luckily, Mac/Madison is not technically incest. And there are loads of other interesting potential threesomes, and while I did keep on going, "No, wait, that's incest," I did finally manage to pick four, three f/f/m and one f/f/f.
Speaking of incest, I watched Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events (the film, obviously, I didn't sit staring at the books) trusting it to be 'cestastic, and it mostly was, but that was a pretty certain conclusion seeing as I brought my trusty 'cest goggles. (But they all shared a room! And in the deleted scenes, there was only one bed!)
Am bothered by the gender dynamics, though. Maybe it's my own kinks biasing me, but Emily Browning seemed to be the better actor and to have the bigger part, with the movie structured around her character arc. (It ends when she reads the letter from their parents.) And it was my impression that she was the eldest sibling--certainly she is the first to be introduced. But she is billed below Liam Aiken. WTF?
Of course, Klaus is the one to save the day, a fact which is mitigated someone by the fact that I was pretty much squeeing over the forced-child-bride-marriage, which apparently hits kinks I didn't know I had. And if we see Klaus as a rival suitor, then it becomes nicely 'cesty. Still, Violet as passive damsel-in-distress wins no points.
Klaus saving the day could make it his movie if it acted as some kind of character point, if being unable to think outside the box like Violet because of his bookworm nature ("he only knows what he reads in books" or some such) was presented as a character flaw which he is then able to overcome, but it wasn't. It's just him saving the day as another in a series of comparatively fortunate events. The king died and then the queen died, not a story. Klaus has no character arc (except insofar as it parallels Violet's); it's not his movie, but Violet's. But Emily has lower billing. Can anybody tell me why?
Otherwise, I wonder if they committed the cardinal sin of adapting children's stuff which is funny: they made it a comedy. Now, I get the feeling that maybe the source books don't really take themselves too seriously, as I'm assuming Jude Law's narration was suppose to capture the whimsy of the original. But I know of plenty of other movies which have committed this sin (it's a common mistake, for reasons I don't pretend to understand). The original texts of Scooby Doo, Inspector Gadget, or what have you are not comedies. They are funny, yes, just like Buffy was often funny, but they took their premises seriously--or at least I, as a young viewer, did so. Inspector Gadget is a thrilling action-adventure series about a teenaged girl with a really cool book, and the way the movie version wasted Michelle Trachtenberg was a crime. (Doing Inspector Gadget as a movie right would so hit so many of my kinks!) I saw the cartoon series Men in Black first and was sorely disappointed when I saw the movie which inspired it--a mere Will Smith comedy that didn't take its science fiction premise seriously.
Speaking of adaptation, I also a version of Jane Eyre that had Anna Paquin in it, and there I think the film was harmed by overly slavish devotion to the original, as if the filmmakers felt they had to tell the same exact story that Charlotte Bronte had hundreds of pages to tell in under two hours. It seemed clear that what they thought the book was about was (or at least that the story they wanted to tell, or thought would sell, was) a love story, making that Jane's central character arc, but if that is the case then all of Paquin's scenes--despite being the best scenes in the movie--were completely superfluous and took away time from developing the story they really wanted to be telling, so that Jane's and Rochester's love for each other seems completely pasted on.
Seriously, dudes: figure out what story you (you, not the original source) are telling, and then tell it. Skipping step #1 is so not optional.
Except in Hollywood it seems it kinda is.
3_ships--is the first year that 3_ships will be disallowing incest. Which means that Simon/Kaylee/River threesome I was so looking forward to requesting is out. Sad.Luckily, Mac/Madison is not technically incest. And there are loads of other interesting potential threesomes, and while I did keep on going, "No, wait, that's incest," I did finally manage to pick four, three f/f/m and one f/f/f.
Speaking of incest, I watched Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events (the film, obviously, I didn't sit staring at the books) trusting it to be 'cestastic, and it mostly was, but that was a pretty certain conclusion seeing as I brought my trusty 'cest goggles. (But they all shared a room! And in the deleted scenes, there was only one bed!)
Am bothered by the gender dynamics, though. Maybe it's my own kinks biasing me, but Emily Browning seemed to be the better actor and to have the bigger part, with the movie structured around her character arc. (It ends when she reads the letter from their parents.) And it was my impression that she was the eldest sibling--certainly she is the first to be introduced. But she is billed below Liam Aiken. WTF?
Of course, Klaus is the one to save the day, a fact which is mitigated someone by the fact that I was pretty much squeeing over the forced-child-bride-marriage, which apparently hits kinks I didn't know I had. And if we see Klaus as a rival suitor, then it becomes nicely 'cesty. Still, Violet as passive damsel-in-distress wins no points.
Klaus saving the day could make it his movie if it acted as some kind of character point, if being unable to think outside the box like Violet because of his bookworm nature ("he only knows what he reads in books" or some such) was presented as a character flaw which he is then able to overcome, but it wasn't. It's just him saving the day as another in a series of comparatively fortunate events. The king died and then the queen died, not a story. Klaus has no character arc (except insofar as it parallels Violet's); it's not his movie, but Violet's. But Emily has lower billing. Can anybody tell me why?
Otherwise, I wonder if they committed the cardinal sin of adapting children's stuff which is funny: they made it a comedy. Now, I get the feeling that maybe the source books don't really take themselves too seriously, as I'm assuming Jude Law's narration was suppose to capture the whimsy of the original. But I know of plenty of other movies which have committed this sin (it's a common mistake, for reasons I don't pretend to understand). The original texts of Scooby Doo, Inspector Gadget, or what have you are not comedies. They are funny, yes, just like Buffy was often funny, but they took their premises seriously--or at least I, as a young viewer, did so. Inspector Gadget is a thrilling action-adventure series about a teenaged girl with a really cool book, and the way the movie version wasted Michelle Trachtenberg was a crime. (Doing Inspector Gadget as a movie right would so hit so many of my kinks!) I saw the cartoon series Men in Black first and was sorely disappointed when I saw the movie which inspired it--a mere Will Smith comedy that didn't take its science fiction premise seriously.
Speaking of adaptation, I also a version of Jane Eyre that had Anna Paquin in it, and there I think the film was harmed by overly slavish devotion to the original, as if the filmmakers felt they had to tell the same exact story that Charlotte Bronte had hundreds of pages to tell in under two hours. It seemed clear that what they thought the book was about was (or at least that the story they wanted to tell, or thought would sell, was) a love story, making that Jane's central character arc, but if that is the case then all of Paquin's scenes--despite being the best scenes in the movie--were completely superfluous and took away time from developing the story they really wanted to be telling, so that Jane's and Rochester's love for each other seems completely pasted on.
Seriously, dudes: figure out what story you (you, not the original source) are telling, and then tell it. Skipping step #1 is so not optional.
Except in Hollywood it seems it kinda is.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-18 03:08 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-18 03:18 am (UTC)The Hoffman girls are given very-much low billing (although possibly after Streep's "and" billing) and are absent completely from the DVD case, but I don't think anyone would be surprised by that or find it particularly problematic.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-18 03:24 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-18 05:56 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-18 07:50 pm (UTC)