XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien
From: mr@sandman.net
In article , Paul S. Person wrote:
> > > > > Paul S. Person:
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Paul S. Person:
> > > /Everything/ I said above is story-related.
> >
> > Sandman:
> > Incorrect.
>
> > > Paul S. Person:
> > > Maybe you need to ask yourself just what the story /is/.
> >
> > Sandman:
> > "An account of imaginary or real people and events told for
> > entertainment"
>
> You appear to have misread "the story" for "a story".
Not at all. You claimed I don't like "the story", and I correctly said that
nothing I've complained had anything to do with the story. You remained
confused and it was my guess that you don't know what *a* story is, and as
such are making misdirected conclusions about this particular story based
on that.
> I wasn't talking about the definition of "story". I was talking
> about the story told by the books, in this case, the first part of
> Mockingjay. /That/ is what I am suggesting you might want to
> identify.
I don't, since I haven't made any specific comments about the story.
> > Sandman:
> > The *pacing* of a movie is not about the story of a book.
>
> It is when it /matches/ the pacing of the book.
You keep saying that, but until you outright claim that there are pages in
the book that are pretty much completely blank, this is false.
On top of that, you have yourself listed numerous things in the book that
varied a lot from the pacing in the movie, so you're just contradicting
yourself.
> Apparently, you think the pacing of the book is irrelevant to the
> enjoyment of the story. It isn't.
What is "apparent" to you isn't relevant to reality or me, so I will just
ignore the above.
> > Sandman:
> > Comments about an actor is not about the story of a book.
>
> Comments about an actor as such are completely irrelevant to the
> discussion of a film.
Haha, did you seriously just say that that an actor performance is
irrelevant to the discussions of a movie? I'm going to go ahead and assume
you miswrote something above, because that makes no sense at all.
> Comments about how well the character portrayed by the actor was
> portrayed are relevant -- but the focus is on the /character/ not the
> actor.
Ok, maybe not. You seem to actually think that an actor's performance isn't
connected at all to his or hers portrayal of a character.
> And, anyway, /your/ complaints have been that certain scenes are
> "filler", by which you mean "material, not in the book, added to pad
> out the film"
You really need to stop telling me what I mean.
> > Sandman:
> > Incorrect. And stop telling me how I would react to the book.
>
> The movie and the book are so close that how you react to one /is/
> how you would react to the other.
Incorrect.
> This isn't a PJ & accomplices film, where you can react one way to
> the film and another way to the book it is allegedly based on.
That's just pure bullshit. The first HG book was vastly better than the
movie adapted from it. The LotR movies was far more enjoyable as
adaptations than the HG movie was.
You're blind if you believe the above.
> > > Paul S. Person:
> > > And, as I have noted, Katniss' character /is/ what you see in
> > > the films.
> >
> > Sandman:
> > 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.
>
> It does work.
Incorrect.
> It works in each and every one of these films.
Incorrect.
> It works for me, and it works for a very large number of other people.
Ah, you're the spokesperson of a very large number of other people now?
Interesting.
> If it doesn't work for you, well, that's just too bad. Everybody
> doesn't see things the same way -- nor do they have to.
But clearly a "very large number of other people" see it your way, huh?
Haha, ironic.
> > > Paul S. Person:
> > > Perhaps it is time for you to realize that it is the book's
> > > author, not yourself, who determines Katniss' character.
> >
> > Sandman:
> > 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.
>
> That is simply not the case.
Yes, it is.
> I saw the film before I read the book, and the emotional state of Katniss
> was clear at each point throughout the movie.
Not at all. Jennifer Lawrence doesn't deliver much emotion at all,
unfortunately, that's the problem.
> They are all present, they just aren't done in some over-the-top fashion
> you have convinced yourself they should be.
Now you're just outright lying about what I think, given the fact that I've
told you many times what I think, and nothing I've said is even remotely
related to your above remarks.
> > Sandman:
> > 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.
>
> Not for the first film. Although having read the books does enrich
> the experience, of that there is no doubt.
Because suddenly you have access to a wide array of emotions from Katniss,
excluded from the movie. No surprise there.
> /You/ are judging the film based on your ideological belief that,
> being the first of two films of the same book, it /must/ have
> filler.
Incorrect. I *did* read the book before seeing the movie. having done that,
I knew all along that there was a lot of things missing from Jennifer's
performance.
> /You/ are judging the portrayal of Katniss based on your ideological
> belief that the actress cannot emote.
Incorrect. I am judging her performance based on her performance.
> There is /nothing/ objective about how you are judging the film
Nor have I ever claimed there is. All judgement is subjective to some
degree. I am, however, claiming that my judgement of the pacing and the
actors are more objective than your excuses, especially considering the
fact that throughout this thread, you have supported all my claims with
examples from the books where the actor failed to portray something, or a
scene in the book actually contained character development.
> That said, /I/ went into the theatre expecting (based on prior
> experience) to see an adaptation of the story of however much of the
> third book made it into the first movie. And that is what I saw. So,
> yes, both of us are being subjective. The difference is that I am
> not claiming to be anything else.
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
