![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Apparently, 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. ( Spoilers start here )
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 ( probably gratuitous spoiler cut ) 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. ( Spoilers start here )
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 ( probably gratuitous spoiler cut ) 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.