XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: mr@sandman.net   
      
   In article , Paul S. Person  wrote:   
      
   > You didn't enjoy the first book. You only see the films because your   
   > kids drag you to them.   
      
   Not reluctantly, I have no problem watching the movies. It's not like they   
   had to persuade me :)   
      
   > The "filler" you identified are all part of the story told in the   
   > book, although not perhaps in the exact same form.   
      
   All books have "filler" as you call it, few movies do - unless they are   
   making two movies out of one book that is.   
      
   > What other conclusion can there be but that you don't like the   
   > story?   
      
   Huh? Nothing of what you said above is story-related.   
      
   > It is, after all, the story that you are objecting to   
      
   No, it isn't. I have been very specific that I am objecting to the *pacing*   
   in the first part of this movie, and substandard *acting* of the main   
   character, both complaints have exactly nothing to do with the story.   
      
   > and, that said, you aren't going to like the next movie any better,   
   > although it should have more action in it   
      
   Again with the action. I hope it has better pacing and that Jennifer has   
   learned to emote. :)   
      
   > You also complain about "characterization (lack of)", by which you   
   > mean that the actress depicting Katniss isn't emotionally expressive   
   > enough   
      
   Indeed.   
      
   > but Katniss herself is not expressive.   
      
   Yes, she is. In the book she is full of emotion, thoughts and reactions to   
   what is happening. As I said, in a movie, the inner thoughts of a character   
   needs to be visualized, or they don't exist. Just saying that her emotions   
   are kept internal in the book is no excuse for them not being presented on   
   the big screen at all.   
      
   > Indeed, in the first book she explicitly tells us that children in   
   > District 12 are /raised/ to hide their thoughts and feelings.   
      
   See above - hiding your thoughts and feelings is fine in a book, but in a   
   movie, if they are hidden - they don't exist. In a book they can be hidden   
   and still exist. It's a very very VERY important part of a book adaptation   
   to visualize the inner monolouge of a character. Sometimes you do it by   
   having the character talk about it to another character even when they   
   didn't in the book, sometimes you have a narrative voice which isn't really   
   a nice solution, but most of the time it's up to the actor that portrays   
   the character to *act* the emotions, even if they are hidden.   
      
   > IOW, an emotionally inexpressive (or very subtly expressive) Katniss is a   
   > properly-played Katniss.   
      
   Incorrect.   
      
   > Except, of course, when she acts out. But you've already noted one   
   > or two of those. So you are attacking the actress for doing the   
   > character properly.   
      
   Incorrect.   
      
   > You also complain of Coin's speech at the end.   
      
   No, I didn't. I listed Coin speaking as one of the things that were   
   "fillers". I have no problem with her having speeches (of which I think   
   there are at least two in the movie), but it's tedious when the scenes in   
   the movie consists of them sitting, standing, eating, sitting, staring,   
   eating and nothing happening. Coin's speeches were just another example of   
   this. It's fine if it's interwoven with scenes where things *occur* as   
   well.   
      
   A good example is one of your own. The movie has a scene of the group   
   sitting at a lake doing nothing, and Katniss sings. In the scope of the   
   movie, this scene adds nothing to the story, nothing to Katniss, nothing to   
   the group. The song is then sung by the people in the forest but that says   
   nothing. When you explained this scene you added many layers of depth to it   
   about her father and things that is the very essence of character   
   development.   
      
   > The speech, as such, is not in the book (any more than Snow's speech   
   > welcoming the Tributes to the 74th Games, or the Training Center head's   
   > speech to them are: Katniss regularly summarizes speeches in the book),   
   > but it is a vital part of the /characterization/ of President Coin, a   
   > newly-introduced major character.   
      
   Sure, and as I say above, I don't mind the speech in itself, if it's   
   weighed up with scenes that actually progresses the story, or deepens the   
   character. At the time of the first speech, we already know Coin is the   
   president and that the speech is requested by Katniss to declare immunity   
   to her friends, so actually already listening to the speech adds nothing to   
   the viewer other than the fact that peoples reactions to Peeta's pardon   
   gives us an insight into the minds of D13 - but that isn't touched on again   
   in any way, so it has no consequence.   
      
   > So, on the one hand, you identify as "filler" elements in the film   
   > that are in the book and part of the story while, on the other hand,   
   > you confine your definition of "characterization" to "showing   
   > emotions" in a film where everybody we have seen so far has been   
   > carefully trained to hide them, while disparaging the   
   > characterization applied to Coin. Even Coin: District 13 is a   
   > military state (in the book, we learn that everyone joins the army   
   > at age 14; Katniss' proper name in District 13 is "Soldier   
   > Everdeen").   
      
   Your assesement of my complaints is incorrect. I apologize if I have been   
   unclear, but I have tried to explain my position.   
      
   > And by "everyone" I am including residents of the Capital. Did you   
   > notice what Snow's granddaughter did when the Mockingjay symbol was   
   > banned? With hardly a change of expression on her face?   
      
   Hmmm, she had it on her body and concealed it? Not sure I remember. When   
   Snow said it was banned the camera panned to his grand daughter but I   
   couldn't see if she wore it, she seemed to twiddle with her hair. I may   
   remember incorrectly.   
      
   > This appears worth clarifying:   
      
   > > > Paul S. Person:   
   > > > And to criticize the film /is/ to criticize the book, at least   
   > > > so far as the story goes, because the story is the same.   
   > >   
   > > Sandman:   
   > > WTF? No it isn't. Are you seriously suggesting that critique of   
   > > the Hobbit movies is equal to critique of JRRT's books??   
   >   
   > I was referring only to, specifically, the first Mockingjay film   
   > (although the same would apply to the other two).   
      
   > Critiquing the films of PJ & accomplices related to JRRT's works is   
   > not the same as critiquing the books /precisely because/ the films   
   > do not tell the same story as the books.   
      
   According to you. Pretty much all the events of the Hobbit books are in the   
   Hobbit movies.   
      
   And you *just* told me that my "complaint" of Snow's speeches aren't in the   
   book, so what the hell? Also, my complaints about the scenes at the lake is   
   a prime example of me complaining of something that told another story than   
   in the book.   
      
   > But here, the films do tell the same story as the books, and your   
   > critique of the first Mockingjay film applies equally well to the   
   > book.   
      
   No it doesn't. First of, the pacing of the book is probably not much   
   different than the pacing of the first book - meaning you don't have   
   chapters full of nothing happening. And secondly, Jennifer Lawrence is not   
   in the book, and since most of my complains have been about her, not   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)