When a movie comes out that there has been an earlier edition of.....

[Cassi]

A lot of people complain movies kill their vision of characters when they read the book.... So when a movie comes out that there has been an earlier edition of, eg. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory or The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, does your picture of the characters change too??

[bluesalamanders]

Of course. That's part of why people get so up in arms about remakes of old movies and movie versions of stage productions and so on. And sometimes new versions are be better and sometimes they're not.

I saw the movie version of the musical Phantom of the Opera recently, and I sat there comparing it to the stage production. Unfavorably, I might add, since I think that the movie was a pretty poor representation of one of my favorite shows. But now, when I listen to the soundtrack to the stage show, I will undoubtedly think of the movie, at least for a while.

And some things I just don't go see, for just that reason. The movie of The Girls With the Pearl Earring. I loved the book too much and didn't want to see what they changed about it, and I didn't like who they picked to play her. Also, the new Pride and Prejudice movie. I just don't have any interest in seeing a new version of something like that, when there is already a version that I think is nearly perfect.

[alla]

I agree Blue, although I totally enjoyed the Phantom of the Opera movie (as I haven't seen the stage production).

What I've found is the best thing to do, if you want to appreciate the 'new movie' or the adaptation of a book is not to read the book or watch an earlier version of the movie before hand. I did this for the first three Harry Potter movies, and the Fellowship of the Ring, and all I did was sit there going 'That's not right'.

I enjoyed the new 'The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe' adaptation, as I haven't read the books in years. I also enjoyed the GoF movie, for all that it left out so much, because I hadn't read the book for a while.

[bluesalamanders]

Don't get me started on what is completely wrong about the Phantom movie :P And I don't mean just wrong as in different from the stage production. But anyway.

Otherwise, I agree, Alla. For LoTR, I read all three books (for the second time) a year before the first movie came out and then I didn't read them again, in part because I didn't want to be one of those "they screwed that up!" people. Also because they're not my favorite books ever (I'm all for history and description, but even I can reach a point where I say enough! enough!). The same goes for HP. I read the books when they come out, but that's all. Oh, and I haven't read any Narnia books in 10 years.

But that won't work for my favorite books and movies. If they make movies of/remakes of those, I'll know what the changes are and what's left out no matter how recently I've read or watched the other version, because I reread and rewatch my favorites over and over again. My favorite books are often (literally) falling apart, and I have whole lines and passages memorized. Can't help it

Anna

[Kathy Li]

Originally posted by bluesalamanders:
Don't get me started on what is completely wrong about the Phantom movie :P And I don't mean just wrong as in different from the stage production. But anyway.

Oh, go ahead. I actually thought that the dumbest mistake they made was to change some of the recitative into spoken dialogue. Which suddenly brings into question why the heck people are bursting into song. If the whole thing is through-sung, that's not an issue.

My other pet peeves were the absolutely pointless references to Cocteau's La Belle et La Bete bits in the underground cavern design, and how the Phantom's lair actually looked smaller on film than it did on stage (all hail Maria Bjornssen of the lovely beautiful signature draperies--I wish to god I'd seen the production of Hamlet she designed--the photos of the stage design look awesome.) Not to mention a whole lot ticky-tackier than the silent movie version. (oi.) When a black and white silent Red Death is more impressive, there's a serious problem. Making "Masquerade" a black & white ball was so wrong-headed it hurt.

OTOH, the casting was cherce, the touch on some numbers was just right, and I will forgive them nearly everything for getting Ciaran Hinds, Miranda Richardson, and Minnie Driver in there. And stacked up against, say, the movie version of Evita it does more than ok. And I think the score was very well served.

Myself, I need to see Rent very badly, because it's mostly the original Broadway cast. I'm curious to see if more musicals get made, or if they think that Chicago was just a one-off.

I guess it's a trick of mine, but I don't have a very strong visual memory of anything, so while a movie might warp my view of a character, it's only a partial warp, and generally not enough to ruin it. If it's a bad production, I can just sort of write it off as being of Earth-movie.

Or maybe that's it. I've read so many comic books, and seen so many different productions of the same plays (I'm a Shakespeare fanatic) I can accept multiple versions of the same story, and discount the effect of any bad versions on my personal vision of how it ought to be. When I read an Aubrey/Maturin book by Patrick O'Brian, I never even think of the movie, the casting there was soooo wrong-headed.

[Sean L.]

So would you guys be up in arms if they made a young wizards movie and a character was pretty bad?

[Kathy Li]

Just a note to the newbies (sorry Sean, I don't mean to single you out--I've just seen a lot of new posters doing this recently), please try and post a little more than one line--keep the conversation going, if you can: we basically want to use DD's money (she pays for the upkeep of this board herself) efficiently to foster a genuine conversation.

Also, we've had the YW movie discussion, before. Actually several times. You may want to search for past threads, and look at what's already been posted.

Myself, I couldn't see the characters being badly done in a YW movie, simply because DD's stated that she won't sell the rights unless she's producer/screenwriter on the project (tv or film). If DD's writing the characters and choosing the director, I really doubt they'd go horribly wrong.

[Dragon Writer]

i'm glad about taht. I mean, even if they never made a movie as a result, having people staring at me blankly when i talk about the series is much better then having everyone go: oh yeah, that was a HORID movie, you know what i mean?

[Countryfan1394]

Dia cousin,

BLUE the phatom of opera movie was great ... and writes kill their characters to keep the readers on the edge I mean look at the last 3 Harry Potter books someone dieds in them but the plot of the books was a hugh sucess

Dia stiho cousins

[Mel]

*phweeeee* another country fan!! *phweeeeee*

hmm... I think...that if I see a movie that's a remake, and I've seen both, I'll keep the one I like most in myy thoughts, but I'll store the other somewhere in my cob-webby mind.

Heh, reminds me of a Spongebob I saw once... He was hypnotized with the words, "Forget everything but how to waiter." and so he did. his name, where he was, yadda yadda.

That made me LAAAAf. haha, its fun saying Luagh that way. LAAAAAf. Yay for digressing!!

[Kathy Li]

Originally posted by Mel:
hmm... I think...that if I see a movie that's a remake, and I've seen both, I'll keep the one I like most in myy thoughts, but I'll store the other somewhere in my cob-webby mind.

By "remake" do you mean something adapted from another form (i.e., book -> movie; movie -> tv show, etc.) or a remake remake, where a movie is redone as another movie (i.e., Last Holiday).

With adaptations, I'm with you. The original can live in a separate mind compartment. But with remakes, I tend to completely forget the remake, since the original is usually better.* I'm with Jay Sherman of The Critic cartoon: "If it's a remake of a classic, rent the classic!"

*The usual handful of exceptions apply, with His Girl Friday leading the pack, and An Affair to Remember muddying up the issue. (The original, Love Affair (1939) is pretty much equalled by its remake, An Affair to Remember (1957), but its remake, Love Affair (1993) stank on ice.)

[bluesalamanders]

Alright, Kli - you asked for it!

Kli6 said:
I actually thought that the dumbest mistake they made was to change some of the recitative into spoken dialogue.

Oh I agree, there were many lines that should have stayed sung. They also shuffled some lines around in the oddest ways (I admit I have the music to the stage production memorized, I've listened to it so often over the past, oh, 10-15 years), changed random words and phrases...

Kli6 said:
how the Phantom's lair actually looked smaller on film than it did on stage

So. I missed the part where there was actually a lake. Some tunnels and a, er, pond-sized open area, but where was the lake? And was there mist? I don't remember mist, but that, I admit, could be because I was concentrating on the lack of a lake.

Kli6 said:
Making "Masquerade" a black & white ball was so wrong-headed it hurt.

Not to mention making it so...choreographed. Overly choreographed. It's supposed to be a dance, a ball, not a ballet or something. I was shocked when I saw the black-and-white costumes and I couldn't help laughing at the "dancing".

Re casting. I think most of the casting was ok. Minnie Driver was fantastic and stole the show. Emmy wasshername had wide-eyed as every expression and a very weak voice, Raoul doesn't matter because he's always a boring character anyways, and Gerard Butler...

Gerard Butler. Was so totally wrong for the Phantom that I'm not even sure where to begin. Ok.

Item 1) He can't sing. The Phantom is supposed to have a transcendent, angelic voice. Why didn't they get someone with at least a moderately good voice? His was painful!

Item 2) Why was he tanned? He spend his entire life underground, he should be pasty white!

Item 3) Pretty much every version of Phantom that you read or see will emphasize his emaciated figure and cold touch. Even the libretto of the stage production. The whole point of those times when he's standing there with his arms around her basically groping her is that he's getting her used to the way he feels, which is not like normal people. Why is he buff?

Item 4) Um. The face. Not really that scary. And when she took the mask off, the part that was "deformed" was bigger than the mask could have covered. And...when exactly did she see his face, anyway? She took off the mask and immediatly he turned away and covered it with his hands. There's no way she could have seen anything.

I'm sure if I really tried, I could come up with more things. But there were parts I liked. As I said, Minnie Driver was fantastic. Meg and especially her mother were good, too. The costumes were pretty neat and the sets were nice.

Blue

[Lamarquise]

Interesting.

Well, I loved Phantom. I wasn't terrifically impressed with some of the casting (Gerard Butler just had nowhere near the vocal or acting skills to carry the role off properly and the girl who played Christine needed a more mature voice), but I loved the sets and spectacle. And thought Masquerade was fun. What else was it supposed to be? But they really needed to fix the Phantom's makeup so the mask, and the horror of his unmasked appearance, could really work.

[bluesalamanders]

I don't quite understand. If the two main characters in the musical (musical) couldn't sing well - and the entire reason the whole story happened in the first place (his face) wasn't done well... Well, that doesn't spell a lovable movie to me.

What else was Masquerade supposed to be? A ball, where people dance with each other, in bright, colorful costumes!

Blue

[Dragon Writer]

blue salamanders said Um. The face. Not really that scary. And when she took the mask off, the part that was "deformed" was bigger than the mask could have covered. And...when exactly did she see his face, anyway? She took off the mask and immediatly he turned away and covered it with his hands. There's no way she could have seen anything.

um...one question? if he turned away that fast, how in the world do you know the mask was to small? no offense or anything. Just wondering.