The Chocolate Chip Country

Four different kinds!

From:

Ever since I have known you two, you two seem to not like ANY movie based off of a book, comic or whatever originally began as another person's idea.

Can't you two simply watch a movie and enjoy what the new spin on it does for the character? Yes, Spiderman chnaged from chemical webs to natural ones. BIG FREAKING DEAL!

Or maybe Lord of the Rings didn't EXACTLY match the book. Didn't you ever think that it may have been considered SEXIST if it were done in its original telling (which is UNACCEPTABLE IN ANY WAY nowadays?), or that some of it may simply have slowed the story down because the whole scenario was only to do one thing or get a few ites or obtain a plot point? And did you even watch the Return of the King to see that "weeping willow" (as I remember you calling Aeowyn (or however her name is spelled) KICK MAJOR ASS on the leader of the Ring-wraiths?

From:

aefenglommung.livejournal.com

Didn't you ever think that it may have been considered SEXIST if it were done in its original telling (which is UNACCEPTABLE IN ANY WAY nowadays?

This is called bowdlerization, after Thomas Bowdler, who thought he could "improve" Shakespeare by editing out the naughty parts and rude humor. I understand that film makers' technique often requires them to alter stories that are too complicated, hard to visualize, or whatever. But altering them in order to "improve" them after the current ideological fashion always, always, always results in bad art.

From:

I agree, for the most part. And I truly do not know most of the reasons why the director made some of the changes he did to the story.

But that still seems...for lack of a more appropriate word at the moment...unfair to judge the movie based on the changes and not enjoy what was presented.

Unless, as in the case of Shakespeare and many other stories told, the removal of the "offensive" bits alters the story too radically.

From:

The phrase would be 'wilting lily', not 'weeping willow'.

I didn't want to start throwing around spoilers, either, but wouldn't you be slightly upset if a couple of major characters you liked got killed off?

I liked X1, X2, AND X3. I liked both Spiderman and Spiderman 2. However, I notice character changes, and can be expected to have something of an opinion about them.

I didn't like what they did to the Lord of the Rings because their changes changed the basic characters. They didn't just mess with a detail here and there (like Spidey's webbing), they completely failed to capture the mood and spirit of the characters. And talk about sexism! Portraying Eowyn as some scared, wimpy little thing instead of as the cold, hard-hearted woman she was. It doesn't matter if she grew a spine in battle in the movie- the one in the book had a spine. Instead, the one in the book grew more human. They replaced a story about somebody learning to love and live again after so many bitter disappointments with the same old story of some helpless little girl going out and fighting. They didn't just change the character some- they changed the entire nature of her story. They made her less. They did it to a lot of the characters. In a story full of simple strength and honor, they turned too many into weaklings and cowards.

From:

Wilting lily. Thank you for the correction/reminder. I knew it involved a plant somehow. :-)

But the original question remains: Can you watch a movie, even one about which you know A LOT ABOUT, and simply enjoy it for the new take on the character?

From:

Uh, no. I don't 'simply' enjoy anything for its new take on something.

I might enjoy the new take, particularly if it's well done or interesting. I've seen a lot of variations, and Marvel's continuity is scrambled in any case, so new takes come up pretty often in it. Then there are the 'what if' or 'imagine' comics, where the editors of the comics decide to do a new take. Rarely do these disturb the core reality, but if it's an idea they really like, they might whip up an alternate universe for it.

There are two points here. One, any time you make changes, there will be a chance for contrast and some changes will be liked and others not liked. The only way to avoid that is to not make changes, or to make something new yourself. So, it's inevitable that anybody who knows the original will take a moment to line things up and compare the two.

Two, talking about the changes doesn't mean I didn't enjoy the movie. Sometimes my reaction is because of the changes. Sometimes it's in spite of. Sometimes, it has nothing to do with them at all- the product was simply a bad/good movie. Lots of people hated the Daredevil movie, and the only major change was that they made the Kingpin black. *shrug* I liked Daredevil, personally.

I like to examine the changes and think about them because I think about characters in a writing/role-play setting. If you change X, that changes Y, and you get Z different results. I write sometimes, and I GM sometimes, so my brain thinks that way and I like taking things apart and looking at them that way. If you don't enjoy talking about how changes change things overall, then you don't have to participate in the conversation.

But you don't seem to be recognizing the fact that I did, in fact, enjoy the movies. All three X-men, both Spiderman, Daredevil, Blade 1 and 2 (haven't seen trinity yet). For all the changes, they always stayed in the spirit of the characters and the genre, and were enjoyable for their own sake as well.

From:

But the original question remains: Can you watch a movie, even one about which you know A LOT ABOUT, and simply enjoy it for the new take on the character?

So can you sit and read a Star Wars fanfic or short that comes out and just enjoy the new take on the charcters even though you know a lot about it? Or by the same token can you just enjoy a new piece of music that is a remix on an old favorite?

Don't ask us not to be ourselves and just be drones, Corey. It's rather insulting.

From:

KICK MAJOR ASS on the leader of the Ring-wraiths?

Except she wasn't the one who did him in. She killed his mount. Merry was the one who killed him via the wound he gave him with his knife. Except of course they skipped the whole presentation of the gifts beyond saying 'Here you go', no explanation of the blades or their origins. Which is a big deal since they play such a big part in the death of a major villain.

From:

Oh, right, on the whole things I was miffed about from the film. Colossus has a plain old American accent. That's it, that's the only thing I was even remotely ticked about. Other than that, very well done movie.

From:

here's the point I'm trying to make:

I am able to go into a movie, read a fan-fic of any type of thing I enjoy (and the novels I read count as they are simply extremely high-profile fan-fics) WITHOUT being bogged down by what I already know about the characters and/or story. And when I am finished with it, I think about what I did and didn't like and what I thought did and didn't make sense for the characters, based on my interpretation. If I find something I didn't like, I then think about why I didn't like it. 99% of the time it is not the idea or the interpretation of the character I don't like. It is the PRESENTATION OF THAT INTERPRETATION I have problems with. I can and do allow myself to enjoy it if the presentation made sense.

And, stryck, don't you think that is part of what I do when I write or GM? It's part of the creative process. The difference between us is that I seem to be more willing to let go of my interpretations and try to get into the reasons why the new interpretation could be made by the new presenter, given the same knowledge, when it comes to movies.

Anher, to answer your question above, yes I can and HAVE done so, for both forms of expression. The only difference between the two is the medium chosen. I have heard some VERY good remixes of songs I liked originally. Others that I did not like rested solely on the presentation of the remix. Rarely has my rejection been because the music was dischordant to my ears.

Nor was I asking you to "not be ourselves and just be drones." Please. Give me more credit than that.

As for the whole scene where Merry killed the Ring Wraith, the movie had that part edited out in the theater version. So, no, I wasn't aware of that change. Unfortunately my Lord of the Rings DVD's have been misplaced, and I haven't had any opportunities to watch them for the differences from the theater versions.

And I haven't seen X3 yet. I still haven't gotten paid (grumbles vengeful phrases regarding my home town bank).

From:

You know, sometimes it is the interpretation that actually sucks.

LotR's presentation was great. It's what it did to the story and the characters that ruined it.

And you know what? The characters are important. If the story is changed, but the new story is also good, normally I can go with it. BUT, if you're going to do something and call it 'Lord of the Rings', then it should be 'Lord of the Rings', not 'generic fantasy movie with elves and short people'. Just keeping some of the events the same doesn't mean it's the same story.

All the Marvel movies have stayed true to the characters and to the genre. Impressively so. When Brian and I talk about the changes, we're not always complaining- we're processing. You know, like you were talking about. Changing little things may mean changing big things, and it's important when creating a story to understand the implications of those changes. Just changing Spidey's created power to a natural one removed a lot of plot ideas. No longer can he run out of ammo. No longer can he go back and mess around with the formula to tackle a specific problem (like mixing in asbestos to combat heat/fire based foes).

You role-play. You've run. Surely you've realized the implications of those sorts of changes- it makes certain things more possible and other things less so. Being able to anticipate these changes makes it easier as a GM. When my players ask if they can do X, I generally have a good idea of how that could change things in the future.

From: