XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: mr@sandman.net   
      
   In article <4cah7aps7un634o7hi25lo2nom7r8a0bsb@4ax.com>, Paul S. Person  wrote:   
      
   > > > Paul S. Person:   
   > > > What other conclusion can there be but that you don't like the   
   > > > story?   
   > >   
   > > Sandman:   
   > > Huh? Nothing of what you said above is story-related.   
   >   
   > /Everything/ I said above is story-related.   
      
   Incorrect.   
      
   > Maybe you need to ask yourself just what the story /is/.   
      
   "An account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment"   
      
   The *pacing* of a movie is not about the story of a book.   
   Comments about an actor is not about the story of a book.   
      
   > > > Paul S. Person:   
   > > > It is, after all, the story that you are objecting to   
   > >   
   > > Sandman:   
   > > 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.   
   >   
   > The pacing is an inherent part of the story.   
      
   No, it isn't.   
      
   > You would react the same way to the book. You are, in fact, discussing   
   > the story.   
      
   Incorrect. And stop telling me how I would react to the book.   
      
   > And, as I have noted, Katniss' character /is/ what you see in the   
   > films.   
      
   And *that's the problem*, as I've told you many times. She is quiet and   
   internal in the books - but in a movie *that does not work*. I've given you   
   numerous examples and explanations that you've just snipped.   
      
   > Perhaps it is time for you to realize that it is the book's   
   > author, not yourself, who determines Katniss' character.   
      
   Sigh... Katniss character in the first book and the first movie are two   
   different persons. While they talk as much, Katniss in the book has a wide   
   array of feelings, emotions and reactions to the events around her. In the   
   movie and movies, those feelings, emotions and reactions have been excluded   
   and removed, making her a completely different character.   
      
   What you are describing is that since YOU know about Katniss inner   
   thoughts, having read the books, this isn't a problem for you, but I am   
   judging the character on a more objetive level.   
      
   > Finally, I see nothing substandard about the acting. This is merely   
   > an opinion, of course, just as your statements are. The difference   
   > is, I don't intend to assert mine as a fact, as you appear to be   
   > doing.   
      
   Just where do I "appear" to be doing this, pray tell?   
      
   > > > Paul S. Person:   
   > > > and, that said, you aren't going to like the next movie any   
   > > > better, although it should have more action in it   
   > >   
   > > Sandman:   
   > > Again with the action. I hope it has better pacing and that   
   > > Jennifer has learned to emote. :)   
   >   
   > Everything you object to is not action.   
      
   Everything I object to is *boring*, and as I've said many times (and which   
   you have snipped many times) is that the remedy for boredom isn't   
   automatically "action", unless your name is Michael Bay.   
      
   > The action sequences, including the ones that /are/ filler in the sense   
   > that they aren't in the book, you don't object to. It is quite clear   
   > where your interests lie.   
      
   It is quite clear that you haven't got the slightest clue was is "clear",   
   in spite of me telling you on numerous occasions.   
      
   > > > Paul S. Person:   
   > > > You also complain about "characterization (lack of)", by which you   
   > > > mean that the actress depicting Katniss isn't emotionally expressive   
   > > > enough but Katniss herself is not expressive.   
   > >   
   > > Sandman:   
   > > 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.   
   >   
   > She is not expressive externally. Nobody else sees these thoughts.   
      
   *that's what I just said*   
      
   > If they did what you appear to want, she would not be Katniss and   
   > she would not be in District 12 or in Panem. She would be a happier   
   > person in a much more pleasant environment.   
      
   Incorrect.   
      
   > Have you really missed a major point of the story?   
      
   No, you have missed a major point of reading comprehension.   
      
   Now, imaging a 400 page book where there isn't a single line of dialogue,   
   but it's a beautiful story told by the inner thoughts of a most interesting   
   person and his/her reflections about some really neat events.   
      
   Now imaging making a movie out of that. Silent movie, I suppose? With title   
   cars, perhaps?   
      
   When adapting a introvert book-character to a movie, you *HAVE TO* solve   
   the situation of his or her's emotions being visualized. If you do not   
   visualize these emotions, *they* *do* *not* *exist*   
      
   In the book, they *DO* exist, and in the movie they *DO NOT EXIST*. See the   
   difference?   
      
   > > > Paul S. Person:   
   > > > Indeed, in the first book she explicitly tells us that children   
   > > > in District 12 are /raised/ to hide their thoughts and feelings.   
   > >   
   > > Sandman:   
   > > 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.   
   >   
   > This, again, is your opinion. It is not a fact, and cannot be taken   
   > as one.   
      
   It *IS* a fact that emotions of a character that aren't somehow visualized   
   in a movie does NOT exist. YOU may know they exist, having read the books,   
   but the movie audience that have not read the book would have no idea about   
   these supposed emotions.   
      
   > And she does show emotions, as I have pointed out before. They are   
   > just often very subtle, albeit not always, as they would have to be   
   > in this situation. If you can't see them, that is not my problem.   
      
   No, she doesn't show emotions. In Mockingjay she had about two or three   
   scenes where her facial expression wasn't totally blank. Once when she saw   
   D12, once when the hospital blew up and once when she thought Gale had been   
   captured. I may have missed some, but some 95% of her screen time, she   
   expresses *no* thoughts, emotions or reactions to anything.   
      
   > > > Paul S. Person:   
   > > > IOW, an emotionally inexpressive (or very subtly expressive)   
   > > > Katniss is a properly-played Katniss.   
   > >   
   > > Sandman:   
   > > Incorrect.   
   >   
   > Very correct. Do it your way, and it wouldn't be Katniss any more.   
   > Or District 12. Or Panem.   
      
   Incorrect.   
      
   > If the problem is that you /don't like the story/ you should just   
   > say so and be done with it.   
      
   I have no problem with the story, and have made no comments about the   
   story.   
      
   > These endless opinions, presented as facts, are pointless. On both sides,   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)