(no subject)
Dec. 10th, 2005 11:28 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatI give up, was attempting without much success to find the 100 Questions Meme on the Flist. Sorry flist, haven't been reading it frequently enough.
Found lots of posts on Chronicles of Narnia though. It seems to be the in movie at the moment. Entertainment Weekly has an extensive article and review of it. They gave it a B. Time Out New York also has an article - this one is an interview with the director, who co-wrote the screenplay and lugged in two other far more competent writers when he realized that he was being perhaps too faithful to the original series.
Here's a few snippets from the blurb: "Most of what I pictured in my head when I read the books was the way it ended up in the movie." (He read them when he was eight years old then again while making the movie in detail.)
"When I came back and read the books as an adult, I flicked through these pages several times thinking, Where is the battle scene I remember? CS Lewis relies on imagination. HE plants a seed and lets it grow in your head. He says things like, "I can't tell you how bad this is or your parents won't let you read the book.' Immediately that makes you go, 'Shit, that must be really bad,' and you think up these amazing things." (True, I think half the pleasure of the books I read as a child and some tv shows I saw back then were the gaps in narration, where I filled in the story. As a result the story I remember no one else does or knows, because so much of it is in my head. Reading or watching anything is truly an interactive experience.) Andrew Adamson, continues to state: "I always felt like the middle of the book wasn't that exciting. It was a lot of kids running and the witch chasing them and it didn't even seem like they were running! In a book or script you can control the pacing, you can skip through the bits that seem slow and slow down on the bits that seem big. In a movie the director has to do that for you." To ensure it was authentic or as close to the book as possible they consulted Douglas Gresham, the author's stepson, who is an expert on all things Narnia. "A change had to really be a lot better than the book to justify it and if twas on par or 10 percent, why bother."
Another snippet, this one from Entertainment Weekly, regarding the appearance of the White Witch. The director and the actress playing the part apparently saw eye to eye on her appearence, just not on the interpretation of Narnia. Tilda Swinton saw Narnia as a kid fantasy, the director as a real place (not literally, just for film).
But both saw eye to eye on eschewing the typical witchy look. No long red nails, no red lipstick, and no black hair. "To my mind," says the actress, "it's a racist projection that villians should have black hair."(p. 36 of this week's ET.)
Looks like a good film. Going to wait a week to see it, when the crowds die down. I rarely see films on their opening weekend. Hence the fact I saw Rent this weekend instead.
Last weekend, rented Elephant Walk - the old Elizabeth Taylor movie. Was not as good as I remembered. Highly melodramatic in places and somewhat disappointing. Also a little slow. I remembered it differently.
Very odd.
Saw Veronica Mars this week. That show really does have on and off weeks. It feels more uneven writing and direction wise this season. This past week's episode really did not work. Unlike last year's marvelous "Christmas at the Echolls", this year's Xmas episode felt jagged and off-kilter. The jury duty thing -while I understood the temptation to go there - wonderful metaphor, also leads beautifully into the whole Logan/Weevil/Felix murder mystery - it was not believable. High school students don't do jury duty - at least not in the states I've lived in. I know California is wacky, but it can't be that wacky. So my suspension of disbelief went by-by. Then of course we have a mystery that is overly complicated and impossible to follow. Doesn't help it is told orally. By five different people. Not seen visually. Then inter-sliced with the far more interesting and better told mystery that Keith Mars is investigating. I'd be surprised if people did not get lost watching that episode, if you taped it, you don't count. I almost got lost, very hard to follow.
Part of the problem with this season over last season is Keith Mars' mysteries are more interesting than Veronicas and wonkier. Heck, Keith is more interesting than his daughter. I find his interactions with both Duncan and Logan far more fascinating than Veronica's. Veronica's mysteries and relationships are sort of cliche ridden - first there's the parents that switch the drug results to get their kids on the team, then there's the child abuse story - telegraphing to us that Meg's baby is more or less her father's and not Duncan's, and of course Wallace's whole my Daddy isn't who I thought he was. All standard soap stories, repeated over and over again. I think I've seen a few of these on Beverly Hills 90210 back in the day. Okay maybe not so much the whole drugs on basketball team deal. Now, last season...completely different story.
Wondering if they hired new writers or the head writer is doing less of the episodes?
Also Kristen Bell's acting style keeps grating on my nerves. The actress cannot convincingly cry (at least from my perspective) to save her life - always looks like she's pretending. Honey, I want to say to the screen, take crying lessons from the guys playing Logan and Keith Mars. Please. That said, I'm really enjoying the actors playing Logan Echolls, Keith Mars, Beaver, Mack, Weevil, the Vice Principal (now Prinicipal), the sheriff, Wallace's Mom, and Wallace. The actor playing Logan may be able to break into feature films as an interesting character actor after this - he has "it" whatever "it" is. And he's young enough.
Recently read an interview in TV Guide with Kristen Bell. In it she assumes that the entire Buffy fandom is watching Veronica Mars and not Lost and that the two shows do not attract the same audience. Chortles.
Uh. No. From what I've seen the BTVS/ATS fandom has split between the two. Half watches VM, Half watches Lost, and then there's a third group, like myself, that has managed to find a way of watching both. I like both for different reasons. VM appeals to the part of me that enjoys soap operas with a noir underpinings. Love the noir underpinings. Wish they went there more than with the soap opera, but hey it is TV. Lost appeals to my desire for existential/philosophical stories, and complicated twisty characters with loads of unexplored back story.
Lost is far more metaphorical and philosophical than VM. VM is well fun. Both are so serialized that it is well nigh impossible for a new viewer to get hooked on them without starting at the beginning or watching every episode. Which oddly enough has not hurt them as much as one would think.
Neither holds a candle to BattleStar Galatica, the new version, in my opinion. BSG still outshines everything else on TV.
Did watch Nip/Tuck, it's annoying me. Too over-the-top, too shocking, almost to the point of being eye-rolling laughable. The metaphors are also a tad too obvious, even someone who is completely literal minded and couldn't see a metaphor from a mile away would see these. Yet, I keep watching, I don't know why, I can't stop. I'm hooked on the Scean/Christian/Julia relationship and the chemistry between the actors playing them.
OH god, it's one thirty. I'm going to bed.
Found lots of posts on Chronicles of Narnia though. It seems to be the in movie at the moment. Entertainment Weekly has an extensive article and review of it. They gave it a B. Time Out New York also has an article - this one is an interview with the director, who co-wrote the screenplay and lugged in two other far more competent writers when he realized that he was being perhaps too faithful to the original series.
Here's a few snippets from the blurb: "Most of what I pictured in my head when I read the books was the way it ended up in the movie." (He read them when he was eight years old then again while making the movie in detail.)
"When I came back and read the books as an adult, I flicked through these pages several times thinking, Where is the battle scene I remember? CS Lewis relies on imagination. HE plants a seed and lets it grow in your head. He says things like, "I can't tell you how bad this is or your parents won't let you read the book.' Immediately that makes you go, 'Shit, that must be really bad,' and you think up these amazing things." (True, I think half the pleasure of the books I read as a child and some tv shows I saw back then were the gaps in narration, where I filled in the story. As a result the story I remember no one else does or knows, because so much of it is in my head. Reading or watching anything is truly an interactive experience.) Andrew Adamson, continues to state: "I always felt like the middle of the book wasn't that exciting. It was a lot of kids running and the witch chasing them and it didn't even seem like they were running! In a book or script you can control the pacing, you can skip through the bits that seem slow and slow down on the bits that seem big. In a movie the director has to do that for you." To ensure it was authentic or as close to the book as possible they consulted Douglas Gresham, the author's stepson, who is an expert on all things Narnia. "A change had to really be a lot better than the book to justify it and if twas on par or 10 percent, why bother."
Another snippet, this one from Entertainment Weekly, regarding the appearance of the White Witch. The director and the actress playing the part apparently saw eye to eye on her appearence, just not on the interpretation of Narnia. Tilda Swinton saw Narnia as a kid fantasy, the director as a real place (not literally, just for film).
But both saw eye to eye on eschewing the typical witchy look. No long red nails, no red lipstick, and no black hair. "To my mind," says the actress, "it's a racist projection that villians should have black hair."(p. 36 of this week's ET.)
Looks like a good film. Going to wait a week to see it, when the crowds die down. I rarely see films on their opening weekend. Hence the fact I saw Rent this weekend instead.
Last weekend, rented Elephant Walk - the old Elizabeth Taylor movie. Was not as good as I remembered. Highly melodramatic in places and somewhat disappointing. Also a little slow. I remembered it differently.
Very odd.
Saw Veronica Mars this week. That show really does have on and off weeks. It feels more uneven writing and direction wise this season. This past week's episode really did not work. Unlike last year's marvelous "Christmas at the Echolls", this year's Xmas episode felt jagged and off-kilter. The jury duty thing -while I understood the temptation to go there - wonderful metaphor, also leads beautifully into the whole Logan/Weevil/Felix murder mystery - it was not believable. High school students don't do jury duty - at least not in the states I've lived in. I know California is wacky, but it can't be that wacky. So my suspension of disbelief went by-by. Then of course we have a mystery that is overly complicated and impossible to follow. Doesn't help it is told orally. By five different people. Not seen visually. Then inter-sliced with the far more interesting and better told mystery that Keith Mars is investigating. I'd be surprised if people did not get lost watching that episode, if you taped it, you don't count. I almost got lost, very hard to follow.
Part of the problem with this season over last season is Keith Mars' mysteries are more interesting than Veronicas and wonkier. Heck, Keith is more interesting than his daughter. I find his interactions with both Duncan and Logan far more fascinating than Veronica's. Veronica's mysteries and relationships are sort of cliche ridden - first there's the parents that switch the drug results to get their kids on the team, then there's the child abuse story - telegraphing to us that Meg's baby is more or less her father's and not Duncan's, and of course Wallace's whole my Daddy isn't who I thought he was. All standard soap stories, repeated over and over again. I think I've seen a few of these on Beverly Hills 90210 back in the day. Okay maybe not so much the whole drugs on basketball team deal. Now, last season...completely different story.
Wondering if they hired new writers or the head writer is doing less of the episodes?
Also Kristen Bell's acting style keeps grating on my nerves. The actress cannot convincingly cry (at least from my perspective) to save her life - always looks like she's pretending. Honey, I want to say to the screen, take crying lessons from the guys playing Logan and Keith Mars. Please. That said, I'm really enjoying the actors playing Logan Echolls, Keith Mars, Beaver, Mack, Weevil, the Vice Principal (now Prinicipal), the sheriff, Wallace's Mom, and Wallace. The actor playing Logan may be able to break into feature films as an interesting character actor after this - he has "it" whatever "it" is. And he's young enough.
Recently read an interview in TV Guide with Kristen Bell. In it she assumes that the entire Buffy fandom is watching Veronica Mars and not Lost and that the two shows do not attract the same audience. Chortles.
Uh. No. From what I've seen the BTVS/ATS fandom has split between the two. Half watches VM, Half watches Lost, and then there's a third group, like myself, that has managed to find a way of watching both. I like both for different reasons. VM appeals to the part of me that enjoys soap operas with a noir underpinings. Love the noir underpinings. Wish they went there more than with the soap opera, but hey it is TV. Lost appeals to my desire for existential/philosophical stories, and complicated twisty characters with loads of unexplored back story.
Lost is far more metaphorical and philosophical than VM. VM is well fun. Both are so serialized that it is well nigh impossible for a new viewer to get hooked on them without starting at the beginning or watching every episode. Which oddly enough has not hurt them as much as one would think.
Neither holds a candle to BattleStar Galatica, the new version, in my opinion. BSG still outshines everything else on TV.
Did watch Nip/Tuck, it's annoying me. Too over-the-top, too shocking, almost to the point of being eye-rolling laughable. The metaphors are also a tad too obvious, even someone who is completely literal minded and couldn't see a metaphor from a mile away would see these. Yet, I keep watching, I don't know why, I can't stop. I'm hooked on the Scean/Christian/Julia relationship and the chemistry between the actors playing them.
OH god, it's one thirty. I'm going to bed.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-12-11 05:05 pm (UTC)There's also a fourth group - the people who don't really watch either. In my case, I've seen some of the VMars episodes, but it's not anything I'm particularly into or care much about. In January, conference games for college basketball start up - at which point I'll be watching weekly maryland games instead of VMars. I may or may not bother downloading it.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-11 06:46 pm (UTC)Interested to know why you stopped watching VM - since I know you were enjoying it last season? Was it the writing or the fact that show decided to go in a direction that was more "teen soap opera" than noir mystery? Speaking for myself - I think that's my difficulty with it. The teen soap aspects annoy me. But I like the glimmer of noir that keeps popping up.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-11 06:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-11 10:09 pm (UTC)Also agree - the less focus on who Veronica's dating, the happier I am. Actually during the Charisma/Hannigan episode - I thought if Buffy makes an appearance she should advise Veronica to forget Logan and Duncan and just run off with Wallace.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-12 01:19 am (UTC)I don't even care if she dates Wallace. I do, however, like scenes that deal with their friendship. Logan and Duncan both bring drama, as any romantic relationship will, but I think the issues in her friendships with Mac and Wallace introduce more growth challenges in line with her particular character flaws.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 02:15 am (UTC)I don't watch the show for the romance, nor do I think it handles romance well. It does however handle friendship well - the Logan/Duncan friendship, the Mac/Veronica, the Beaver/Dick relationship, etc - in some ways I felt the same way about Angel the Series - which did friendship very well but was horrid when it came to romantic relationships.
What fascinates me about VM and why I keep tuning in is the dark mysterious underpinings. The little twists that remind me a bit of Twin Peaks and Angel or those great noir films of the late 80's early 90's - Blood Simple being one. Where you think they are going one way and nope, they went another. Not sure if you saw last year's Xmas episode with the poker game, but that was an excellent example - no romance, but lots of interesting twisty relationship issues. This year saw somewhat the same thing here and there in the friendships, but not quite as dark as that poker episode.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-11 08:11 pm (UTC)*can't wait for this week's ep where he has to get a shot in the butt and thus pull his pants down...*giggle* *