Boycotting has never been easier!

[cleolinda]

Okay, 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 to The 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 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 Christopher 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.

Comments

[citrinitas.livejournal.com]

I've...got mixed feelings. I somewhat agree with you, yet disagree as well.

You're right, excessive fidelity to the source material isn't required for a well done adaptation. Sometimes the movie adaptation requires changes to make it good: cutting one character, adding a scene, or tweaking plot to make it flow better in a different medium. (One of my friends, after seeing A Series of Unfortunate Events, went to grab the books...was surprised, and ultimately deemed the movie the superior of the two.)

They're different experiences. A book isn't the same thing as a movie, and I personally get different things out of the two of them. However...

However, adaptations are..adaptations. They aren't original stories (or 'original' depending on your view of plots) but instead are taking someone else's story and changing it to a different medium. As such, the original and the movie are (for better or for worse) tied together...more so if the original happens to be something of significance. (Some book no one's heard about versus a movie adaptation of the Bible or the Iliad or a book series with fans, like the Dark is Rising.) And as such, I feel that the fans who walk into the movie are entitled to a certain amount of...how shall I put it? Respectfulness.

Respectfulness to the source medium in regards to how it's changed to the movie. Because there's changes which make the movie run better, and there's...changes. It's the difference between cutting the Tom Bolbaldi song-and-dance interlude in the first movie, and adding Eowyn to the roster of the Fellowship of the Ring (as in, she's walking with them) so that there's female representation. Or the difference between making the natives of Peter Pan's Neverland a bit more Native American in bent, versus giving Captain Hook a sinister pedophiliac fetish as a social commentary on the greater society. Or, in this case, several fans of the Dark is Rising books not being able to recognize the movie's origin from the trailers. And I feel that people who liked the books being unable to recognize the movie...that's not a sign of a good adaptation.

So, I agree with you in that fidelity isn't necessarily a good thing, but I disagree at the same time...the Seeker might end up as a mediocre-to-decent movie. However, from what I've seen and what I watched, I think it'll be a piss poor adaptation.

[newsong.livejournal.com]

So far, most people dislike the movie, whether they were book fans or not, so it's probably a badly done movie either way... I guess my argument is that even if the adaptation is really loose, the movie can be good in its own right. Which does not seem to be true in this case, but I can't say from official experience, having not read the books or seen the movie yet.

Thanks for the reply!

[citrinitas.livejournal.com]

Oh yes. One of my friends' classmates worked on the special effects of that movie. Her comment was that the effects rocked; the movie sucked.

But yes, I have to agree. Faithfulness to the source material isn't necessarily a good thing. I mean, look at ye olde Greece. O Brother Where Art Thou (which at best could be described as a loose 'inspired by' adaptation) was...I feel...a far better adaptation of the Odyssey than Troy (far more faithful, but still failed to capture the spirit of the original) was of the Illiad.

[newsong.livejournal.com]

Yes, I had actually just had a chance to watch O Brother Where Art Thou. I agree, it's more faithful to the original in the spirit of things than Troy was. Troy had blockbuster written all over it, of course.