Boycotting has never been easier!
Oct. 2nd, 2007 06:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cleolindaOkay, as I mentioned to someone else I was talking to, this may just be the week that I get unnecessarily worked up about things, but: I feel like this is something that has to be done, and that y'all are probably going to be with me on this.
I mentioned a detailed list of changes toThe Dark Is Rising The Seeker in the linkspam Monday evening. To recap my experience with the books, I read The Grey King in grade school not knowing that it was part of a series, liked it but was very confused, and never got around to reading the other books even after I knew. So I'm not a pissed-off fan talking here, although I do know what the books are actually like, in part. I know enough to know what a travesty this movie is, basically. Let's also recap some of the major points from ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
kiandra_fire's list:
1) Arthurian legend does not play a part.
2) Will is a thirteen-year-old American with neglectful parents and bullying brothers.
3) "Will goes to the mall and is accused of shoplifting by security guards, who take him to their office, demand the signs, then turn into rooks and chase him around the mall."
4) The Walker is young and the Rider has a white horse.
5) "Merriman relies on a mace... Miss Greythorne is rocking her swordcane on two fully-functional legs."
6) Will has a crush on Maggie Barnes and Max is working for the Dark.
7) "Will is Superman, Jr., with super strength and a bunch of other powers. He just can't fly. Alexander Ludwig says in his interview that he regrets he doesn't have this power as well, but — what was it? Ah, yes — 'It would totally change the whole story though.' " OH, WELL THEN.
8) Ian McShane: " 'I think the one thing I wanted to bring to this was reality,' he says. 'It was written in Old English.' "
9) Will has a twin.
10) OLD ENGLISH? ARE YOU SHITTING ME?
I just realized that this is coming out this Friday, so I'm going to say something, I have to say it now. Let me explain why I care about this, and why you should, even beyond the obvious suggestion that I'm a writer and I feel horrified for Susan Cooper. No, first and foremost--nothing has made me happier than the fantasy movie renaissance of the last seven years, and given y'all's responses to things I've posted, I'm pretty sure most of y'all are fantasy fans as well. And so far, miraculously, we've gotten by with extremely respectful adaptations. In the beginning, LOTR and HP (both in 2001) set excellent precedents for faithful book adaptations making shitloads of money, and most subsequent productions have followed in their footsteps. (And yes, the Harry Potter movies have made tons of changes and omissions over the years, but--go back up and read that Dark Is Rising list and see if you don't look at the Harry Potter changes in a totally different light now.) The Lemony Snicket movie changed a few things, including more of a wrap-up at the end, but they all worked, and the rest of the movie was so obviously trying to capture the books. The Narnia movie was fantastic, the Dark Materials people are obviously trying to be as faithful as possible despite the religion issue, Stardust made some majorish changes but was still a lovely adaptation--the only other really, really horrible travesty I can think of off the top of my head was the Earthsea miniseries, and it bombed, so, you know, faithful = money was still being upheld.
What if The Dark Is Rising adaptation ("adaptation") is a hit?
Oh, the studios will say, you can still make a ton of money, but you can do whatever you want? You can change the story and put in pointless but trendy family conflicts, love interests, younger characters? You can squeeze action into bizarre places and completely miss the point of the story? You can whittle it down until it hardly resembles the original at all? Wow, this is really convenient! All this time, we were busting our collective ass for nothing! Why bother actually trying to do the work of translating a beloved property to a different medium? We can just use a known title to sell people a completely different story, and it doesn't even have to be any good!
You see why I'm getting concerned here.
Think of any book series they haven't put on screen yet--because they will, particularly now that Harry Potter has run its course and there's only two movies left. Think of any series you love. The Seeker: The Dark Is Rising is what could happen to those books. In fact, I've heard that they're just calling it The Seeker now, which, as people have pointed out, is a term also used in... Harry Potter.
So what I'm asking is this: please, please do not go see this movie. Wait all of three months for it to come out on DVD, if you just need to seeChristopher Eccleston the carnage. If you're talking to people about what movies you're all thinking of seeing, but they're not familiar with the books, "Oh, I've heard it's terrible. Basically, a really lame Harry Potter rip-off" ought to suffice. If you're actually talking to Susan Cooper fans, make sure they know that The Seeker is, in fact, a Dark Is Rising adaptation, despite all indications to the contrary. Make sure that people know how flippantly they've massacred the whole thing, and talk as many people out of seeing it as you can. Meanwhile, I'm going to go get the actual books--probably for Christmas--and try to support Susan Cooper that way. If you love the books already, now would be an excellent time to get a set for a young relative, for example, and try to pull in new readers. What I'm basically asking you to do is vote with your wallet--even if you don't want to spread the word, not seeing a movie is a pretty easy thing to do. This shit cannot be allowed to stand, y'all.
I mentioned a detailed list of changes to
kiandra_fire's list: 1) Arthurian legend does not play a part.
2) Will is a thirteen-year-old American with neglectful parents and bullying brothers.
3) "Will goes to the mall and is accused of shoplifting by security guards, who take him to their office, demand the signs, then turn into rooks and chase him around the mall."
4) The Walker is young and the Rider has a white horse.
5) "Merriman relies on a mace... Miss Greythorne is rocking her swordcane on two fully-functional legs."
6) Will has a crush on Maggie Barnes and Max is working for the Dark.
7) "Will is Superman, Jr., with super strength and a bunch of other powers. He just can't fly. Alexander Ludwig says in his interview that he regrets he doesn't have this power as well, but — what was it? Ah, yes — 'It would totally change the whole story though.' " OH, WELL THEN.
8) Ian McShane: " 'I think the one thing I wanted to bring to this was reality,' he says. 'It was written in Old English.' "
9) Will has a twin.
10) OLD ENGLISH? ARE YOU SHITTING ME?
I just realized that this is coming out this Friday, so I'm going to say something, I have to say it now. Let me explain why I care about this, and why you should, even beyond the obvious suggestion that I'm a writer and I feel horrified for Susan Cooper. No, first and foremost--nothing has made me happier than the fantasy movie renaissance of the last seven years, and given y'all's responses to things I've posted, I'm pretty sure most of y'all are fantasy fans as well. And so far, miraculously, we've gotten by with extremely respectful adaptations. In the beginning, LOTR and HP (both in 2001) set excellent precedents for faithful book adaptations making shitloads of money, and most subsequent productions have followed in their footsteps. (And yes, the Harry Potter movies have made tons of changes and omissions over the years, but--go back up and read that Dark Is Rising list and see if you don't look at the Harry Potter changes in a totally different light now.) The Lemony Snicket movie changed a few things, including more of a wrap-up at the end, but they all worked, and the rest of the movie was so obviously trying to capture the books. The Narnia movie was fantastic, the Dark Materials people are obviously trying to be as faithful as possible despite the religion issue, Stardust made some majorish changes but was still a lovely adaptation--the only other really, really horrible travesty I can think of off the top of my head was the Earthsea miniseries, and it bombed, so, you know, faithful = money was still being upheld.
What if The Dark Is Rising adaptation ("adaptation") is a hit?
Oh, the studios will say, you can still make a ton of money, but you can do whatever you want? You can change the story and put in pointless but trendy family conflicts, love interests, younger characters? You can squeeze action into bizarre places and completely miss the point of the story? You can whittle it down until it hardly resembles the original at all? Wow, this is really convenient! All this time, we were busting our collective ass for nothing! Why bother actually trying to do the work of translating a beloved property to a different medium? We can just use a known title to sell people a completely different story, and it doesn't even have to be any good!
You see why I'm getting concerned here.
Think of any book series they haven't put on screen yet--because they will, particularly now that Harry Potter has run its course and there's only two movies left. Think of any series you love. The Seeker: The Dark Is Rising is what could happen to those books. In fact, I've heard that they're just calling it The Seeker now, which, as people have pointed out, is a term also used in... Harry Potter.
So what I'm asking is this: please, please do not go see this movie. Wait all of three months for it to come out on DVD, if you just need to see
no subject
Date: 2007-10-03 01:11 am (UTC)Never mind that the religious connotations are so glossed over in GC that stupid people won't even notices it's about religious tyranny and not cute fuzzy animals and talking polar bears. Chances are the next two films will be so brutalized you'll fall into a plot hole as soon as the opening credits roll.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-03 01:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-03 01:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-03 02:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-03 02:40 am (UTC)I can't wait to see how they'll handle that.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-03 02:21 am (UTC)And since a faithful adaption and America's religous-right fundie groups don't mix well, you can bet on the fact that if they make the rest of the HDM trilogy, they aren't going to be faithful. And they aren't even going to have a plot by then. I love the books too, but if Hollywood can rape the Dark is Rising, do you honestly think New Line's willing to take a chance at pissing off a hearty chunk of American movie goers, when they're so close and getting closer with each lawsuit to filing Chapter 11? I don't think so. Because even if the director and the stars love it, it's the bureaucrats that ultimately make that decision. If LOTR was at all allegorical (which it wasn't), the Christ figure won. HDM on the other hand brings down the Catholic church. Which do you think sounds better in an election year where faith is going to be a hot topic? They're being mighty quiet on GC's religous connotations at all, as far as I can see.
As it stands, NL hasn't even committed to the second and third books, and I'm willing to bet I guess why. Can you?
I don't trust Bob Shaye's New Line as far as I can throw him, not anymore. And I'm not about to let him continue screwing the people who did all the hard work while he sat behind a desk counting bills. Not even for a trilogy I enjoyed and once looked forward to seeing onscreen.
hmmm....
Date: 2007-10-03 03:24 am (UTC)i mean if they did, no harry potter movies would ever have been made.
just because something has "anti-religion" statements/plots doesn't mean it wont make money. just look at the da-vinci code (or dogma, my uber catholic father LOVES dogma). not all religious people refuse to see things that are 'attacking religion'. people like myself have no problems distinguishing between fact and fiction and can still be entertained by the story even if they don't agree with the message. people can still enjoy a movie if its well made and the story is good even if they patently disagree with the message.
Also, LOTR is allegorical many parallels can be drawn between aragorn's story and the gospel of mark. (for example, in that gospel the closer jesus gets to jerusalem, the closer he is to picking up his mantel of kingship, just like aragorn and gondor. Tolkien was a Christian so its not entirely surprising, plus he was good friends with cs lewis who wrote narnia which is one of the most popular allegories)
im just saying you are getting a little worked up here. if anything, hollywood tries to tone down the things that ARE religious. i was shocked that they did keep the allegory in the chronicals of narnia.
if they do tame down the anti religious nature of golden compass it will be because its coming out at the holidays and maybe they just want people to anjoy it, even if they haven't read the books. i highly doubt it will be because 'otherwise it will piss off the fundies' because if that was a reason no movie containing: gay/premarital sex/drugs/alcohol/other 'offensive' subject matter would be made. truth be told, you're always going to make the religious mad in SOME way. because theres a few people out there who shoot their mouths off over every little thing and ruin it for the rest of us.
Re: hmmm....
Date: 2007-10-03 04:09 am (UTC)I would be surprised if the bias v. religion from TGC makes it intact into the movie, and I think the rational will be a blend of, "Yes, we want people to bring their happy children to the theater and not wander off thinking distractedly that they really thought this was a childrens movie." and the fears that there will be back-lash from those ultra-religious activists. They do have power, as quite a lot of them hold some purse strings. It's not a mass conspiracy though - it's what the company looking to make money feels will be the safest choice for raking in large wads of cash. Movies that are more militantly gay/anti-religious/etc do not make as much money. Dogma rather proves that point brilliantly.
Re: hmmm....
Date: 2007-10-03 04:15 am (UTC)The allegory in Narnia WAS the story. Without it, there is no plot at all. It is the same with HDM, only the references in it have the capacity to piss religious movie goers off rather than recall bible stories reenacted in a fantasy setting. And with New Line currently on the rocks and possibly about to be dissolved, they would much rather have a movie be popular than a faithul adaption. Like it or not, religious politics is going to piss people off. Hollywood is about making money. I'm not talking about the Golden Compass here, I'm talking about the next two, which stand to be much more "tamed down" than I think we fans are going to like.
And that, I think is the point of Cleolinda's original post, that there is no point to some movies if they are changed so much you can't see where they came from. I would rather not see a book adapted movie at all if they can't do it justice. Personally, I would like to see those movies in the hands of a producer who can make those decisions without worrying that it's his own ass on the line. That's what Bob Shaye over at New Line is doing with GC. If Bob Shaye makes money on the Golden Compass, it is possible that Bob Shaye could still be the one in charge when The Subtle Knife and Amber Spyglass come along, and I don't want that to happen.