"Prince Caspian" and "Iron Man"

[loony_moony]

So today, in effort to compensate for how work was trying to brain-kill me, I went and over-saturated it instead by seeing two huge action movies one after the other.

First, I went to see "Prince Caspian".

Have to say, not a bad job done. I'd imagine C.S. Lewis would be about as tricky to adapt to the big screen as Tolkien would, if not harder because of the hardcore religion going on. "Prince Caspian" as a book is quite cinematic in its editing, but very unevenly done, and a bit confusing at times. Whoever wrote the screen adaptation really knew what they were doing, in a way. As it was, though, a lot of the finer points of the book were lost in the cutting room floor, and some were added that were pretty perplexing. No, not the UST between Susan and Caspian. I thought that was actually a really neat touch, because the book seriously lacks any of it. However, I might be a little rusty on my Narnia Chronicles, but I don't remember even remotely a nighttime invasion on Miraz's castle. I do remember some very beautiful scenes in which Susan and Lucy help nature wake up and help, as well as some very nice background for Caspian's training when he joins the Narnians. I felt like that aspect of the book was mostly lost, which is a shame, because those are some of the book's more memorable passages for me at least. I also didn't care for the huge amount of rip-off Caspian's flee scene had from Arwen and Frodo escaping the Nazgul in FotR. Some shots were precisely taken. Bad form, Narnia. Bad form.
I did like the kids, though. I liked Caspian too, even though he had his wooden moments. But that's okay. We survived Orlando Bloom. ;) He was very mythic-Latino hot, which helped. Hee. :D

Then, HOLY CRAP, I went to see "Iron Man".

HOLY CRAP, THAT WAS AWESOME. HOLY CRAP. Probably the best action movie since "Die Hard". No, you know what, EVEN BETTER. HOLY CRAP. My one and only point of concern with it was the whole Middle Eastern thing with the semi-Al Quaeda terrorist group. I thought that was a little meh and expected. HOWEVER. Robert Downey Jr. is AMAZING. He is AMAZING, PEOPLE. Shit, I'd say that was Oscar worthy for comedic performance alone. It didn't really hurt that the script itself was the fastest, wittiest and funniest dialogue I've heard since The West Wing's first couple of seasons. Seriously, it was part deeply thought, part head-on collision in the best sense, and the viewer is just showered with a bazillion tiny gags, and the audience just either absorves it and LOLs all the time (me), or misses a whole lot of it because it's SO. FAST. (most of the audience) It also didn't really hurt that all the computer voices were done by PAUL FUCKING BETTANY. YES. Even Teh Paltrow wasn't half bad, and her role was so well written, it basically covered the fact she has about half the acting skills as RDJ has. And the scene after the credits! YES! OMG A BILLIONTHY TIMES YES! A sequel teaser IF THERE EVER WAS ONE. Marvelous, marvelous movie. YUM. (also tiny little end note: did or did not the first scene of the movie REALLY REALLY KIND OF ripped "Supernatural" off, or is it just me? :D)

On two last notes about the trailers before the movies:

1. The trailer for "Chihuahua" makes me want to SHOOT THE SCREEN. THEN SHOOT DISNEY.

2. I'm kind of really in love with Verizon's Michael Bay commercial. AWESOME. xD

Comments

[sparkysparky.livejournal.com]

Are you me? No? Are you sure?
Re: Caspian:

not a bad job done that was my exact reaction!! Almost to the word!

UST between Susan and Caspian. I thought that was actually a really neat touch, because the book seriously lacks any of it that was really cute, even if it wrecked havoc with my OTPs of Caspian/Peter and Caspian/Edmund (which I will not write. Probably.)

I also didn't care for the huge amount of rip-off Caspian's flee scene had from Arwen and Frodo escaping the Nazgul in FotR. Some shots were precisely taken. Bad form, Narnia. Bad form. I THOUGHT SO!!! No wonder I had the irresistible urge to rewatch LoTR! I ALREADY WAS FO'SHUR!

mythic-Latino hot, which helped I want to sex Ben Barnes up so bad. I even had to go to IMDB to make sure he was legal (opposed to William Mosely and Skander Keynes who I will wait to sex up a few years.) However, it won't stop be from slashing them and letting them all have nasty smex together he was very hot.

Re: Ironman (which will forever be known as TEH MOVIE MADE OF WIN)

HOLY CRAP, THAT WAS AWESOME. HOLY CRAP YES 100MILLION% YES.

Robert Downey Jr. is AMAZING. He is AMAZING, PEOPLE He is the MOST AMAZING EVER AND I WANT TO HAVE HIS BABIES

It didn't really hurt that the script itself was the fastest, wittiest and funniest dialogue I've heard since The West Wing's first couple of seasons. I wish the award people would recognize action films for best comedy/drama/overall amazing film/script/acting. Because this deserves more than 'best special effects' or whatever it will garner at the Oscars and People's Choice and whatnot.

It also didn't really hurt that all the computer voices were done by PAUL FUCKING BETTANY. YES. Was it really bad that I was slashing the computer & RDJ? Because....OTP of OTP? Y/Y?

And the scene after the credits! YES! OMG A BILLIONTHY TIMES YES! A sequel teaser IF THERE EVER WAS ONE. Marvelous, marvelous movie. YUM. OMG i had to PEE through the credits but I toughed it out and OMG i'm so glad I did. I just...NO WORDS LOONY NO WORDS. I CAN HAVE NAOW PLZ?

Re: Misc:

1. The trailer for "Chihuahua" makes me want to SHOOT THE SCREEN. THEN SHOOT DISNEY. OMG YES. Do I have to watch that through Indiana too? Please to be saying no. I DON'T THINK I WILL SURVIVE.

Right, so I think my reply to your post is longer than your post. But. Dude. WORD. (I need new icons, but I used the only 'hero' icon I have. I think you will like it.)

[loony-moony.livejournal.com]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Clearly we have SIMILAR BRAINS. Similar manufacturer Y/Y?

You know, action movies to Oscars are the genre tv shows to the Emmys and Golden Globes. They almost never get recognized, and when they do, it's really kinda TOO FUCKING LATE. D:

Plus, Narnia, re: SLASH. YES. Peter/Caspian is MY HAPPY PLACE. No offense, Susan, but you need to lay off the eyeliner and lipstick experiments. Go marry Bad Teeth Guy from the train and let Peter and Caspian have hot Narnia vs. Telmar sex. :D

Dude, I dunno about Indiana. There were about a ZILLION movie trailers for both movies. For instance, I thought the new Guru movie sounds kinda suckie for Mike Myers, and I'm not entirely impressed with Wall E either. :/

LOVE THE ICON. 'NUFF SAID. I too need to have bi-fandomial icons. *puts the only one online right now*

[sparkysparky.livejournal.com]

My brain manufacturer's main plant is in the SPECIAL HELL, is that where your's is based?

Or they get recognized at the MTV and Kid's Choice awards, which you know what? Are the best award shows out there anyway. Definitely more fun than the over-rated Oscars. Definitely.

I've shipped Peter/Caspian since I was 10 and read the books the first time. Clearly, once given amazingly adorable boys to immortalize them on screen I was going there. Susan is just mainly BLAH for my anyway, I've always loved Peter & Edmund more. So yes, they get the hot sex with Caspian (Peter in Prince Caspian and Edmund in Voyage trufax) and Susan gets bad teeth boy.

I rather liked the looks of Wall E, though I'm sorry nothing will ever be as amazing as Toy Story. Ever. End of discussion, lol.

Bi-fandomionial icons are the best. I haven't got many right now. But yours right there? MADE OF 100% WIN!! Instead I'll give you THE DOCTOR as he can easily be crossed over into any and all of my current fandoms, so that makes him panfandom. :-D

[loony-moony.livejournal.com]

MINE TOO! :D

You know, all the popularity awards are more attuned to the real audiences anyway. And yeah, that sounded condescending in my head already. "Iron Man" will probably get a zillion nominations in those ones, and RDJ will get slimed. Or something.

Susan was pretty blah for me in the books too, probably because of C.S. Lewis' "girls BAD" attitude. Lucy was always annoying to me, because she was so overly cutesy. GAH. But the boys, mmmmmm. Caspian was pretty hot in the books too, and it didn't really hurt in the movie that all three boys could fight like woah. :D

I felt all the jokes on Wall E's trailer were off-kilter. *shrugs*

Also YES with Stark/Computer Voice OTP. And the movie was totally aware of it too, re: the tetntacle pr0n joke. :D :D :D MADE OF WIN. YEP.

I've never watched Doctor Who in my life. *DUCKS*

[sparkysparky.livejournal.com]

I'd think getting slimed would the penultimate desire of anyone's career. I'd know I had made it at that point. TRUFAX.

Lewis really didn't like women over the age of 13. Even in Lion, Susan was blah, already on the pinncale of that DO NOT WANT age of adolescence. Actually, poor Susan. :( Lucy always annoyed me. She was too goody-goody and didn't grow at all as a character. Edmund and Peter had development. :-D

TENTACLE pr0n IS ALWAYS WIN! (And also, is canon in Torchwood, the Doctor Who spin-off. Along with mpreg and other delicious things.) I blame Titti, among others, for my Doctor Who/Torchwood obsession. She's a gateway drug. :-D If you want to watch Doctor Who/Torchwood, start with the 9th Doctor and work your way up. :-D *giggle* (also, Torchwood has BOYKISSING which can never be wrong, right?)

[loony-moony.livejournal.com]

It's true that sliming is kind of the crown achievement for any mainstream actor/actress in Hollywood, because it's basically the proverbial golden card to do fuck all and people would still swarm the theaters.

Yeah, Lewis wasn't very strong on girl characters. His only half decent female character was of course the White Witch, especially in "The Magician's Nephew".

I'll see about DW. I'm kind of a one show girl. I abandoned "House" for SPN, but maybe in the future. :)

[doubtful-salmon.livejournal.com]

You know, I think about the Narnia/Lord of the Rings parallels a lot, and I think it's unfair to forbid either from having recurring and similar styles. For one, they shot on several of the same locations. For another, the stories are very similar--when it comes to fantasy battle stories, uh...well, how many are there? It's kind of like how those epic war films are usually stylistically similar. And also, I have little doubt that Tolkien and Lewis borrowed from each other in reality, so it doesn't irk me so much that they should share similarities onscreen. I mean, Weta did do Narnia's stuff as well. I thought the similarities were ultimately to be expected, although whether intentional or not, I don't know. The fact is, there is a very finite number of stories in the world, and movies evolve the same way language does, with everybody borrowing this and that from everyone else. And sometimes you can tell the exact scene from the exact movie that a scene imitates even if nobody ever explicitly says it--although I find people seem to be more sensitive about it when it's something so near and dear as a fantasy movie like Lord of the Rings as opposed to something like, uh, a Doris Day/Rock Hudson movie. But I mean, it happens constantly and with reckless abandon. But, people can't make movies without watching other movies. And therefore, they steal ideas. And everyone says, "Yeah, but this one's not okay," but there is no line, and in fact, everyone I've talked to about this had a different scene in Narnia that struck them as eerily similar to Lord of the Rings. I think there is a big difference between ripping off and borrowing and people need to expect to see more borrowing as they grow more able to recognize the sources. Just thoughts. But additionally, I feel like Chihuahua forgot to borrow from good movies.

[loony-moony.livejournal.com]

See, I feel like that even for Narnia, who is the mother of all exceptions in fantasy-religion-whatever movies, it's still too early to start quoting/ripping off so extensively from LotR. I mean, we're not even a decade away from the first movie yet, and though they already are entirely cult movies, it's still too early to treat them as such. I dunno, maybe it's conservative of me. My feeling when it comes to fantasy movies is that if you've decided to make another adaptation of a fantasy classic, why not be inventive about it? Find new ways to tell stories, new ways to film scenes. It's not like Hollywood lacks geniuses in every single department you can think of when it comes to making movies, and since fantasy movies like Narnia are such huge projects, why not get those people? They could think things through. Look at "Iron Man" vs. "Batman Begins". Both fantastic movies, both based on classic comixes, both tell very similar tales. And yet both are worlds different from each other. I don't see why this should be any different for fantasy franchises.
Btw, re: Chihuahua. They forgot to borrow from good music too.

[doubtful-salmon.livejournal.com]

I think the thing that is probably problematic with this is that there are not often very obvious and apparent references to recent movie history, but the problem is only that they aren't apparent, not that they aren't there. Turnover rates are very high. And yeah...Iron Man and Batman Begins are vastly different despite their uh...astounding similarities, but that's just it. Their plots and their characters are similar so they must be different, or Iron Man just would've been too...plagiaristic. Similarly, Marvel and DC have very, very different styles, and even Marvel's dark times tend to be lighter than DC's light times. It's evident in all of the movies. People were shocked by Spider-man's cheesiness although it struck me as faithful to the spirit of Spider-man's basis because, uh, even when it was dark it was still essentially a story about good. But I don't think DC comics have that tendency (particularly Batman). So I think their tones are vastly different despite their similarities and that changes everything.

The same cannot be said of Lord of the Rings and Narnia. Their stories are technically different but tonally congruous. It isn't that they're both fantasies, it's that the actual source material is...actually similar. I don't doubt it accounts for, in some part, Lewis and Tolkien's friendship, and I think both their stories are kind of odes to both England and the underdog. They want to show, with the hobbits and the Pevensies, that even the smallest and most unusual foursome can change the world. Their styles of writing are even similar, although perhaps The Hobbit matches Narnia more than Lord of the Rings does. Nevertheless, the stories are vastly similar tonally in source, and it makes sense that they would be tonally similar when transmediated. You could argue too soon, and I could see that, but it's not unprecedented and, like I was going to say at the beginning but got sidetracked and didn't, you have to account for the current style. There are always people trying to break conventions (and ironically they tend to accidentally set them--like Tarantino, whose convention was borrowing from so many things it became its own art, and the lack of linear time, and dialogue-heaviness, thus spurring 39482394829348 wannabes), but it cannot be ignored that in 2008, and in 2001, the way that movies are made has not much evolved. It doesn't seem so evident at the time but it will, when you look back on it later, be apparent what the trends were in movies. And it isn't that movies don't try to break them and that there aren't exceptions, but the fact is that you are simply expected to live up to certain trends, and your movie will lose a big portion of its audience if you alienate it by not doing so. But look at movies from the '70s, and the '80s. When you watch them now it seems cliched, but at the time, or at least in the beginning, it wasn't. The reason it seems cliched is because it evolved so slowly in movie time and now that it has you can spot it easily because you simply don't spend ten years of your life watching only movies from the '80s and earlier.

There is more to this comment...I just typed a novel.

[doubtful-salmon.livejournal.com]

Part two!

The point is that there are standards people expect with movies, and there are standards they expect with fantasies, and there are standards they expect when adapting dearly-beloved epic series into movies (which includes tonal similarities--I noticed that, at least at first, a lot of people seemed to hate Prisoner of Azkaban because it didn't really give them the same feeling they'd had when they read the book--but it is interesting to note that in the long run it is often cited as a favorite movie). They change, over time, and I've no doubt that in 20 years you'd've seen a VASTLY different Narnia movie than you would now. But, as it is, they haven't changed much since Lord of the Rings. Furthermore, movies are not expected to deviate from their own predecessors, and in that sense Prince Caspian was very similar to Wardrobe. (And it is, I think, the lack of observance of that pattern that makes Harry Potter such an interesting series of movies. But, directed by 30482348 different people, it's to be expected. But a lot of people really hate that about them.) I just think that now, they couldn't have made a movie very different than the one that they did.

And then there is the whole other argument that Iron Man and Batman Begins are really worlds apart. Because I don't think they are. I think one is directly responsible for the other and its influence shows, but admittedly, not as much as Narnia. But again, I think the sources for Iron Man and Batman are more different than those of Narnia and Lord of the Rings.

[loony-moony.livejournal.com]

I was wondering when Harry Potter would get thrown into this discussion. Just something I had to say before the rest of this.

Okay. So I get what you're saying; we do live in a very particular era in moviemaking wherein quoting from other cult movies, old or new, is to be expected. Hell, this is why fandom exists, in many ways. It's all part of a particular trend in which being versed in cultural references is a must, and a lot of people are versed, knowingly or not. We're just the people who are aware, and talk about it too.

What you've said about things not changing since LotR came out rang something within me. When RotK came out, I went to a trilogy screening, and at the time said that LotR had its own league of moviemaking the rest of Hollywood would take years to catch up with. This is definitely them catching up. The visual aspect of movies, especially big-budget, literary movies is very much heavily influenced by the work of the LotR people. I also get that because LotR and Harry Potter have succeeded so much, Narnia is riding the wave, knowing it would be easier to find funds and audience, because of the general thirst for fantasy onscreen.

However, I'm still saying that this is not something we should just accept. This is sheer laziness. We're almost 6 movies into Harry Potter, we're 2 movies into Narnia, and we're at least 7 movies into comix remakes. It's time people stopped saying "well, you know, LotR was just that good, we honor it by quoting it", and started making new steps. To add to that, the industry is moving in light speed compared to what Old Hollywood used to be. I'm just thinking that if we're chest deep into fantasy moviemaking era, it's time the creative people should start owning up to it.

Stylistically speaking, though LotR and Narnia come from two friends with similar styles, similar views and similar universes they've created, LotR is decidedly more mature, more profound, and definitely more poetic than Narnia. We see a lot of similarity between the casts of characters, but at the same time, those characters are going through vastly different adventures. Frodo and Sam are going to destroy the One Ring, but The Pevenses are simply taking the proverbial rabbit hole and having some marvelous old time in a magical land. Narnia is created for the enjoyment of children, even in The Last Battle, which is the darkest book in the series. And though Lewis definitely has dark themes in his books, you'd have to agree it's nothing compared to Tolkien's earth-shattering battles, family tragedies and constant death talk. This is not the entire list, but it's a part of it. My point is that the books are not entirely similar, nor are their styles, and cultural references aside, I'm not accepting direct quotes of scenes, because Lewis and Tolkien didn't really intend their books to be thrown together in the end of the day. And this is just like DC and Marvel are, in a way, and yet we see two wholly different movies coming out of the same type of material. I'm not accepting. No.

[doubtful-salmon.livejournal.com]

I disagree that it was sheer laziness. There isn't really such a thing as quoting a scene. I seriously believe that you can take the same scene and as long as someone different is doing it, it's an entirely different animal. Context is king. Theater subsists on this concept.

And again, you have to consider that Weta is responsible for a lot of Narnia's effects. Perhaps they could've gone to a different set of people, but they didn't. And this is because--and here I'm sure you'll agree--Weta is simply the best at what they do. The fact is that if you want to get the best, and Disney would not take a gamble with something as big as Narnia. A lot of it is undoubtedly politics. We KNOW that Weta is the best, maybe because they have the most experience, but the usage of similar special effects--and between Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, and Narnia, I don't think there is a single mythical being with the exception of the hobbits (again, mirrored in the Pevensies, although no, not exactly the same) that doesn't appear in at least two of the above series. And I think you will also agree that Harry Potter leaves something to be desired when it comes to their special fx--sure the magic was cool but their magical creatures did leave something to be desired. There is no question at all whether Weta is just that good, because they are. And when you are using the same people to do a similar job, you are going to get similar results. You even have it being shot in a similar location, because, and while I don't know nearly as much about Narnia's history as I do about Lord of the Rings' history, they both seek to impersonate the same type of place, and so it makes sense that they would both go to the same place to film, especially considering both their directors are both New Zealanders--which no doubt accounts for the Weta connection as well. You could even argue the business of a national cinema influencing the two of them, although it is arguable that New Zealand really has a national cinema. (They can hardly be blamed for that...it's not a very big place.) But there is a very big difference between spotting similarities between two movies and plagiarizing them. I do NOT think that Narnia was anything like plagiarism. I just think that you could not possibly expect them to not mimic each other in some ways. I guarantee you that, had Narnia and Lord of the Rings been released concurrently (and nobody in showbusiness would be stupid enough to schedule that which possibly explains why it didn't happen), people would've been accusing them of stealing from each other. But there are only so many options for this oddly specific genre. You can see it in all types of films, including, and not limited to, such catastrophes as the Kingdom of Heaven/Troy business (they couldn't even be bothered to get an entirely different set of actors).

What I am saying here is not that Narnia and Lord of the Rings are the same. Because they obviously aren't and if they were, one wouldn't really exist anymore (because that is the way of things). But I am saying that they do have a seriously uncommon number of similarities, and that their movies having a seriously uncommon number of similarities in response is to be expected--particularly considering the geographical relativity of Peter Jackson and Andrew Adamson (because even if there isn't really a New Zealand national cinema, they no doubt were exposed to similar movies and situations in their childhoods).

Wow, I wrote even more this time...

[doubtful-salmon.livejournal.com]

Part two, again, and I thought it would all fit but I suck at math and didn't split up my comments right so there has to be a PART THREE because I never shut up, ever. (This is not news, though.)

But you can't call similar styles lazy filmmaking. I mean you can, and I can't stop you, but I'm saying that similar styles are natural, and they happen constantly, and when it's not a geek fandom, few people call each other on it. Actually, even when it is a geek fandom, people rarely call each other out on it. I mean honestly, I could make a large, expansive list of Iron Man and Batman Begins similarities, both in producing and ultimate execution of both operations, and apart from the occasional griping about which one is better, most seem content to ignore borrowing because the fact is that they are borrowing from a source that improves the quality of a given film. You have to take a thing individually or you'll never have any fun. It's why I won't see adaptations with purists--because they nitpick and never consider whether or not a movie functions on its own, and rather its fidelity to the book. And that's the problem with a fantasy series, really--purism. Because you have to please the longtime fans but you cannot please everyone because a movie can never be a replica of a book and some people won't understand that. But it also seems to happen a lot with this stuff, and sci-fi series shout at each other a lot, too--movie X sucks because it's kinda like movie Y sometimes? But movie X shouldn't influence movie Y at all, unless movie Y is a sequel (in which case, uh...well, it should be similar...so you wouldn't really hear that anyway). But it's not honoring it, or paying homage to it. Filmmakers have overlapping styles. It's just the way things are. Even worse is this obsession with originality that everyone seems to have, because anyone in Hollywood spends every day agonizing over the lack of that fabulous original idea (and pretending not to have it when they finally think of it because they're afraid somebody will steal it).


I just don't think that similarities is plagiarism, I don't believe you can do such a thing as quote a scene (unless you are literally reproducing it, which uh...that never happens with the occasional movie-within-a-movie sort of exceptions...and these are almost always comedies), and I really don't believe that similarities, and even borrowing, is lazy filmmaking. It's just the way people make movies. It is that simple. It is in every movie you will see, and the only difference is whether or not you know the source. Because, when you do, you can almost always tell, and it would be impossible to make a movie without thinking about other movies. In fact, that's the only reason movies ever become different--because you can't ignore them. You have to learn from them, and take the best of them, and improve upon them. I mean, it's just like writing. If you never read, you can't write. And what you read influences the way you write. It's like that with movies.

[doubtful-salmon.livejournal.com]

At last, part three:

And no, I mean, I will never love Narnia more than I love Lord of the Rings. But love for each of them and for each of their movies does not have to be mutually exclusive. It's unfair to say that just because Lord of the Rings deals with serious stuff, Narnia doesn't. Because yeah, you are right that Sam and Frodo are going to destroy the One Ring and that's a big deal, but it would be unfair to say that there isn't any darkness or family tragedy in Narnia. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is essentially a story about how familial pressure--and even if you like Peter you have to admit that he is unnecessarily cruel to Edmund sometimes just because he's older--can actually drive one into betraying the only people who love you. That is not light stuff. It is certainly not having a marvelous old time in a magical land. The reason they even stay there longer than teatime is because their brother sold them out to a witch who intends to kill them. I mean, hell on earth, Prince Caspian is full of kids beheading people. (I had to admire that it had the guts not to depict Peter as one of those people with a moral center so great that he couldn't really kill anybody like I would've expected from Disney.) But it's not as if the fact that Narnia is chock full of dark themes, even if written for the enjoyment of children (and so was Alice in Wonderland, and yet...how much LSD has been done in the name of Alice in Wonderland?), negates the fact that Lord of the Rings also has them. And I feel like it is important to remember that the first introduction of Middle-Earth is The Hobbit, which is written specifically for children, and is painfully evident at times (and which, and here I sympathize, Tolkien seemed pretty displeased with retrospectively). But it's not as if there's only a finite number of important themes in fantasy movies even if there is only a finite number of fantasy epics.

And also, when did Billy Ray Cyrus become America's favorite dad? My TV tells me this is so. I thought it was still Alec Baldwin. Alas!

[loony-moony.livejournal.com]

Initial reactions:

1. You gonna have to give me one day to answer you thoroughly, because I'm going to get plastered in less than an hour. :D

2. I'm going to link to this discussion on another post because you're saying great things, and you're saying them beautifully.

3. <333333333 :)

[doubtful-salmon.livejournal.com]

You know, so dense am I, that it actually took me like, 20 minutes after I read this comment to realize that by getting plastered, you meant what you mean. For some reason, in my head, you were getting a mold of yourself made out of plaster. I'm not really sure why this didn't strike me as odd until now, but there you are.

And <333333333333 to you, my friend. I'm only saying them beautifully because I'm inspired by your beauty.

[loony-moony.livejournal.com]

Firstly, re:Weta. Yes, they are the best, and because of that, they've been hired to do virtually every fantasy movie ever since LotR, with the exception of the Harry Potter saga. I personally wasn't aware they were also behind the Narnia series. Good to know. However, for me it still doesn't save them from basically doing a cinematographic cut and paste of one very famous scene from movie X into the opening friggin shot of movie Y. I mean, it's not for nothing that the Nazgul/Arwen chase is so memorable; it's a pretty much unique horsechase scene, at least in the last couple of decades. I just think that copying it right in the beginning of Prince Caspian is a bit obvious, and actually ruined my viewing a tiny bit.

Also, I need to clarify that I'm not a purist. I know that previous paragraph kinda makes me sound like one, but believe me, I know how purists react to the movies, because my sister is a Tolkienist. We used to start watching the movies, and about 10 minutes in we'd lose our place in any of them because we'd be arguing so much. So no, I'm not a purist, but to me that sort of reusage kinda reeks.

I also liked the fearlessness of letting Peter and Edmund be shown beheading people. I guess it's one step forward, two steps back for Disney, heh. (i.e. Chihuahua)
All fantasy novels, even children-oriented ones deal with adult themes. That's the whole point of them. That's why so many people are convinced Tolkien was relocating WWI/WWII into LotR. That's why J.K. Rowling admits to having put Nazi idealism into the Death Eaters. Hell, Lewis actually located The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe in London during the Blitz. Children myths and fantasy is always either an allegory for real life, or tries to introduce real life themes for children in a way that's more harmless than anything else, because it's fictional. I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but what I'm saying is that though this is a universal custom, this particular set of morals changes when adapting to the big screen, simply because the rules are different. You can show this, but you can't show that. And if you are targeting the adaptation for children to be able to see in the US's set of conservative censurship rules, you're talking about a lot of lukewarm material. Lots of roadblocks and bumps. Again, something LotR pretty much leaped through without lots of issues, but many movies haven't really bridged yet. So yeah, kudos for kids beheading...?? :D

Billy Ray Cyrus is about as creepy as Joe Simpson used to be when his daughters were underage and he was a preacher. Alec Baldwin is the most children-friendly one!

[doubtful-salmon.livejournal.com]

But I think that's debatable. I just didn't feel that. The closest I got to the Lord of the Rings sensation was at the river when Aslan did his thing (AND EVEN THE TREES STARTED WALKING. I WAS LIKE, WHAT). But I don't think so. I didn't see that as being ripped from Lord of the Rings. I'm just saying it's debatable whether it is okay or not to do such a thing, but not once during that entire sequence that you're talking about was I thinking "Lord of the Rings." You could argue that Lord of the Rings is very unique in its whole...er...horse chase sequence, I guess we'll call it, but I don't think so. I'm not saying it isn't good or even exceptional, because obviously I think it was, but I don't think that it was a cut-and-paste version of it. I think perhaps the illusion may have been created by parallels of story and location but I do not think that, apart from that, it was very similar. Actually I think the shots of Telmar were done in a studio in Prague (it's now officially very chic to film at Barrandov Studios, apparently), but they would've tried to echo the feeling because, though Telmar and Narnia are not the same place, they are neighbors and would no doubt share many geographical qualities. I think the fact that it is a horse chase that takes place in a world with a similar look is enough to invoke the sensation of familiarity, whereas had I seen a horse chase exactly like it in a period piece or something, it wouldn't even seem similar. I don't think it was a replica; I don't even think it was an homage; I think it was just the obvious way to present Caspian hightailing it out of Telmar. But you could argue that any scene in the movie was incredibly similar to another in Lord of the Rings, I think because of the location and content thing. I mean like I said, loads of people I know who've seen it have picked out different parts that struck them as most Lord of the Rings-esque, and I don't think I've seen anybody pick the same part. I mean my point is that the entire movie cannot be a carbon copy of another movie, because though I don't doubt that Narnia called upon Lord of the Rings' success to get itself made and that Disney would urge some parallels, I do know that the last thing a studio really wants is a replica of another movie (unless they can somehow release it before the movie they're replicating...which sounds weird but it does happen all the time). Basically, I don't think the resemblance was lazy or intentional; I think it was circumstantial.

There's more on the way; I need to work on becoming less verbose...

[doubtful-salmon.livejournal.com]

Here's the rest:

And you know, allegory and direct adult content are so different is what I mean here, to add to your second point. I mean I'm agreeing with you, I was just really surprised that Disney let that happen. Not that, as I said earlier, I'm against it--I really liked it. It's just that Nazi or Christian or Atheist or wartime allegory is harder for children to see even if they understand its deeper meaning (as they no doubt did with Harry Potter, for example, when that Nazi business made a clear point even before you thought of it as Nazi business...and here I'm not suggesting that kids are dumb, but that even when I was reading it the first time, I didn't draw that many direct parallels to real life because I was too busy reading--the only obvious one I think I pulled out before I had finished was Nurmengard...so maybe I'm dumb but uh, my point is that if I was 19 and didn't get it directly, I have little doubt kids didn't all figure it out, which again I mention because it is important to me to clarify because I don't think kids are too stupid to get it; I just think that kids aren't usually looking for the meta-stuff). So again, I was really surprised that they weren't too weak to actually do what they would easily have done in the books because it's not Disney's prerogative to do that. And it is important to remember that it's Disney...Lord of the Rings could perhaps have had an audience of children, but I think it was intended for adults (and I think it was so freaking complicated that I couldn't have expected an ordinary kid to get it all), and it is also notable that there are few humans in the story and it's not about four kids the age of the audience being asked to do this stuff. Which is untrue of Narnia--the Pevensies I think are meant to be the audience so it's surprising when they have kids in their teenage years beheading people, particularly when Disney has never been a studio with very violent undertones. I think it's awesome that they not only let them do the things they would have in the books, but they let them do the things they probably would have done in real life, regardless (and they do stress that mentally they're older than they are physically, but I feel like part of the point was that they aren't as old as they think--like Peter seems actually less mature than Edmund in this one). Again, as opposed to New Line...which just got sort of dissolved...and which I'm furious about...did you know that Warner Bros wants to bring New Line back to its 'roots', like, and here I'm naming something from an exact quote, HOUSE PARTY? Yeah...after New Line became one of the most successful independent studios ever with such things as Lord of the Rings and Sex and the City (which yeah, it's not out yet, but I think we all know it must be a big deal for a studio), and things like A History of Violence, they want to go back to releasing movies like House Party!?!?!? I'm sorry, I think that's a travesty, and I just wanted someone else to feel my pain here.

And you know, I just can't understand how you can have a normal childhood when your father is most famous for singing "Achy Breaky Heart." Of course I guess Miley Cyrus has had a decidedly not-normal childhood (I mean, I may have been awesome at age 15, but I can tell you I was not making millions and millions of dollars a year. Not till I was 16, anyway), but you know. At least she's getting money for having a weird childhood. I didn't get paid.