Fiction Friday: Lame Lists

I've had a busy week and haven't had time to reread a book I had planned to review for Fiction Friday.  Instead, I'm just going to post some of my favorite literary things.  Lame?  Yes. 

Sorry.

Five Top Favorite Book Series:

1. The Chronicles of Narnia by C. S. Lewis
    -Fave book from the series: Voyage of the Dawn Treader
2. The Time Quartet by Madeleine L'Engle
    -Fave book from the series (and favorite novel in general): A Wrinkle in Time
3. Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien
    -Fave book from the series: The Return of the King
4. Harry Potter by J. K. Rowling
    -Fave book from the series: either The Prisoner of Azkaban or The Half-Blood Prince. I think.
5. The Chronicles of Prydain by Lloyd Alexander
    -Fave book from the series: Taran Wanderer
Honorable Mentions: The Hunger Games books by Suzanne Collins, Anne of Green Gables books by L. M. Montgomery, "Austin Family" books by Madeleine L'Engle, Ramona books by Beverly Cleary, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy books by Douglas Adams, Space Trilogy by C. S. Lewis, Winnie-the-Pooh books by A. A. Milne

Top Five Film Adaptations of Novels:

1. The Princess Bride, novel AND screenplay by William Goldman
2. The Return of the King, novel by J. R. R. Tolkien
3. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, novel by J. K. Rowling
4. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, novel (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) by Roald Dahl
5. Jurassic Park, novel by Michael Chriton
Honorable Mentions: Ramona and Beezus, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (both parts), Water for Elephants, 10 Things I Hate About You

Five LEAST FAVORITE Film Adaptations

1. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, novel by J. K. Rowling, film by morons
2. A Wrinkle in Time, novel by Madeleine L'Engle, film by malicious beings intent on mutilating one of the greatest works of fiction of all time
3. Eragon, novel by Christopher Paolini, film by people who didn't seem to realize this would have made a brilliant SERIES of movies
4. 2010: The Year We Make Contact, novel (2010: Odyssey Two) by Arthur C. Clarke, film by people who probably thought it was a good idea at the time
5. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005 version), novel by Douglas Adams, film by people who were brilliant enough to cast Zooey Deschanel and Alan Rickman, yet who still just don't seem to get it
Dishonorable Mention: Twilight

Five Film Adaptations that were vastly different from the books, yet, IMO, still highly enjoyable:

1. Pollyanna, novel by Elanor Porter, film by Disney
2. The Hunchback of Notre Dame, novel by Victor Hugo, film by Disney
3. The Sword and the Stone, novel by T. H. White, film by Disney
4. Mary Poppins, novel by P. L. Travers, film by Disney
5. The Black Cauldron, novel (mashup of The Book of Three and The Black Cauldron) by Lloyd Alexander, film by Disney (I'm totally seeing a theme here)
Honorable mentions: Alice in Wonderland, The Three Musketeers, and The Jungle Book.  All wonderfully screwed up by Disney.

Top Five Fictional Characters (that I didn't invent)

1. Meg Murray from A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle
2. Samwise Gamgee from Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien
3. Lucy Pevensie from The Chronicles of Narnia by C. S. Lewis
4. Vicky Austin from A Ring of Endless Light (etc.) by Madeleine L'Engle
5. Neville Longbottom from Harry Potter by J. K. Rowling
Honorable Mentions: Eeyore, (I'm ashamed to admit it--okay, so I'm not) Peeta Mellark, Anne Shirley/Blythe, Puddleglum, Inigo Montoya, Taran

Top Five Dead Writers

1. Madeleine L'Engle
2. C. S. Lewis
3. Lloyd Alexander
4. J. R. R. Tolkien
5. Alfred Lord Tennyson
Honorable Mentions: Douglas Adams, L. M. Montgomery, A. A. Milne, Kenneth Grahame, Beatrix Potter, Shel Silversteen, Roald Dahl

Top Five Writers Who Are Still Alive:

1. J. K. Rowling
2. Suzanne Collins
3. William Goldman
4. Beverly Cleary
5. Tie among several authors who wrote books I loved as a kid (and as an adult): Katherine Paterson, Jerry Spinelli, Louis Sachar, Judy Blume, James Howe, Caroline B. Cooney, etc.
Honorable Mentions: Homer Hickman, Lemony Snicket

Thanks for reading this drudgery.  Please now feel the need to bombard my comments with all of your favorite and least favorite things, and I'll promise to read them.

Again, I am sorry for this boring blog of lame lists.  Please accept my apology and this lame picture of me holding the book with my least favorite title:

Film Adaptation Praise: Water for Elephants

I’m one of those annoying people who has to read the book before I see the movie (in most cases). People tell me that I’m just setting myself up for disappointment, but the thing is, I’d rather be disappointed in the movie than in the book. I’d rather read the original story, as the original author intended it, before seeing a film adaptation. I’d rather go see the film and say, “Wow, that wasn’t anything like the book,” than to read a book of a film I’d already seen and say, “Wow, that wasn’t anything like the movie.”

In an ideal world, any films based on novels would be good adaptations. So what makes a good adaptation? It’s NOT a film that follows the book exactly. Most novels would not translate well into a movie without some changes. Some books are weak on action scenes, or the dialogue doesn’t sound as good as it reads. Some books translate better to film if their story sequence is slightly altered, or if characters or situations are combined. I don’t believe that every film adaptation has to be exactly like the book on which it is based, but I do have some high expectations. A good film adaptation is a film that captures the main themes of the book and adequately tells the original story the author intended.

I’ve seen some really bad film adaptations, but I’ve also seen some remarkably good ones. For the most part, the Harry Potter movie series were great adaptations. They had their problems (especially “HP and the Prisoner of Azkaban,” which was impossible to understand if you hadn’t already read the book—fail!), but for the most part, they were excellent. I’m looking forward to the Hunger Games movie coming out in March. The previews look good!

Anyway, there are a few movies that I actually like better than the books. In almost every case, it was a movie that I saw before I read the book (which is a shame, because who knows what might have happened if I had read the book first?).

I can name these books on one hand:

-The Three Musketeers. Sorry Dumas, but “All for Love” was my favorite song for like a year, and Chris O’Donnell was hot—plus what was that deal about drowning Rebecca DeMornay’s a creepy lady’s head in a swamp. I am still having nightmares….

-The Hunchback of Notre Dame. I love you, Victor. May I call you Victor? Vic? Vicky? Okay, then. Mr. Hugo, I love you. I love Les Miserables. I even loved your version of Hunchback. I really do like tragic stories. Okay, so I don’t. But I like them when the French write them. Anyway, your story was all right, but I kinda sorta liked Disney’s happy ending version a LOT better than the “everyone dies but the jerky guy” version. Also, the music in the Disney version is simply amazing. It’s nothing personal. I hope you understand, Vicky. Dude. That’s totally my mom’s name. I can’t take you seriously at all if I call you Vicky. How about just plain Hugo? Hugh?

-The Wizard of Oz. Okay, I get that Frank Baum was trying to write a political commentary and that MGM screwed up his story. I just really couldn’t get into the written version. And I really just wanted to see midgets dancing around with giant plastic lollipops.

-The Phantom of the Opera.  The book was good, but Andrew Lloyd Weber makes everything more awesome.  Sorry French type author dude.  I can't remember your last name, but I remember your first name was Gaston.  I can only imagine you were quite the guy, using antlers in all of your decorating, having biceps to spare, eating five dozen eggs every day, being especially good at expectorating, and so on and so forth....

Up until recently, those were pretty much the only films I liked better than the books, but I just added another one to the list.

Water for Elephants by Sara Gruen was well-written. I liked the characterization. There wasn’t anything really wrong with the story—except for the fact that I just could not get over the sexually graphic scenes. I’m a very visual person; when I read something, it sticks with me forever. And though I liked the story itself, if I could find some mindbleach and rid my brain of the book, I would in a heart beat. I wish I had never read the book, because I’ll never forget the scenes that I don’t want to remember. Someone gave me that book as a present. I’m not ashamed to say that after one reading, I gave that sucker to a used book store.

Some people aren’t affected by books like I am, and many people wouldn’t have a problem with graphic imagery, anyway. I do have a problem with it, and that’s why I’ve never read The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, although I’ve heard it’s excellent. I just don’t want to open my mind to images that will never go away. Incidentally, The Kite Runner is another book I wish I hadn’t read. The story itself was excellent, but I’m stuck with mental images I don’t want. And they will never go away.

Water for Elephants was made into a film a while ago, but I was hesitant to watch it. First, I wasn’t sure that Robert Pattinson would be a very convincing lead. After watching the first three "Twilight" films (I won’t see the last until both parts are out and I can rent them for cheap), I kind of figured he was a bad actor, despite his charming portrayal of Cedric Diggory in "HP and the Goblet of Fire". The second reason I didn’t want to see Water for Elephants was because I was afraid it was going to be too graphic. I read some reviews, which calmed my fears, but I still was hesitant.

The main reason I finally rented and watched Water for Elephants was because I know a guy who played one of the circus side show performers (he’s over seven feet tall in real life, and at least twice as awesome as he is tall). I’m glad I finally did, because I really enjoyed the film. Turns out, Rob Pat does a pretty good job when he’s not playing an emo vampire in a poorly directed fangirl flick Edward Cullen. I was able to connect with his character and watch the story unfold without being forced to watch a ton of inappropriate sexual images.

Don’t get me wrong. I get it that this story took place in a circus in the early 1930s, and there probably was a lot of inappropriate sexual stuff going on behind the scenes. My issue was the way the author penned it out, making us witness everything the main character was witnessing (and I have a feeling that both the main character and the author have a dirty mind). it is possible to tell a story, and be true to that story, without being disgusting.  The film proves that.  The film was great in that it told the story, keeping in a lot of the truth about sexual issues and such, but not in a way that completely grossed me out.  In my opinion, if there’s so much graphic, shocking imagery in a book that it actually overwhelms the story the author is trying to tell, then that’s not good story telling.  I’d rather have a writer tell me a good story instead of trying to shock me.

But maybe that’s just me.

Again, I don't think Gruen is a bad writer.  I don't think Water for Elephants is a bad book.  I just can't handle grotesque imagery, and I think the book would have been better without those scenes (or if the scenes had been toned down dramatically).

Anyway, I highly recommend the movie Water for Elephants. It’s PG13 and contains a lot of violence and some sexual issues, but nothing that I would consider overwhelming for older teenagers and adults.

Thoughts on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2

Spoilers ahead. Don't read any further if you haven't watched the movie (and preferably also read the book).  Also, this is not a movie where I sap on about how much I'm going to miss Harry Potter.  You can find THAT post here.

About a decade ago, I got into Harry Potter. And I remember going to that first movie (which also came out about a decade ago) thinking, "What will it be like when the seventh movie is over? The kids will be all grown up." Yes, the kids are all grown up. And there were actually eight movies.

I'm glad there were eight movies. They took their time adapting the last book. I'm not sure they could have done an adequate job of telling the story in one movie. Well, maybe. But I like what they did. Plus, it dragged Harry Potter out a little longer. And now...it's over.

Overall, I really enjoyed this movie. I loved it. I loved the Gringotts scene--of course with the Dragon! I'd been looking forward to seeing the Dragon escape the bank since the book came out. There are some things that are awesome in print, but seeing it on screen is a whole new experience.

I also loved loved loved the Hogwarts battle scenes--especially getting to see McGonagall take on Snape and Molly Weasley take on Bellatrix (even if Bellatrix's death was a little hokey and CGI'd). The only time the battle scenes got tedious were near the end--after Harry had already gone to meet Voldemort in the Forbidden Forest, "died," and come back to life. To me, that was kind of the big major climax. Yes, Voldemort actually dying was also a big major climax, but it wasn't as important as Harry's sacrificial acts, of his meeting and speaking with Dumbledore at "King's Cross."

In fact, I think the whole "death of Voldemort" thing was really overplayed. Sometimes books don't transfer well into movies and need a little help. Sure, okay. Nothing wrong with spicing things up a little visually. But they took it too far. I'm sure the filmmakers were going for more drama, more suspense. They took it past the dramatic and suspenseful and made it just plain boring. I was having to bite my tongue to keep from screaming, "OH JUST SHOW NEVILLE SLICING OFF NAGINI'S HEAD ALREADY SO WE CAN GET ON WITH THIS!" Because, honestly, watching Neville slice off Nagini's head was one of the things I was most looking forward to seeing.  I heart Neville so much.

But, no no, there was this big, long, drawn-out battle between Harry and Voldemort where the latter chased the former through Hogwarts for no apparent reason. It was boring. I was ready for Voldemort to just die, since we all knew that was coming. And when Voldemort did die, I was a little underwhelmed. I don't like comparing books and movies too much, but in this case, I really think the filmmakers missed something important. In the book, Voldemort didn't crumble into pixie dust or whatever that was that he did in the film. No. Harry's signature defensive "Expelliarmus" spell caused Voldemort's killing curse to rebound, and he just kind of fell down dead. Anticlimactically. He just died. No fanfare. No big dramatic death scene.

I really liked the fact that in the book, Voldemort, the greatest dark wizard ever, who went to great, tremendously evil lengths to preserve his own life, died a ridiculously simple, lackluster death. And I guess the filmmakers thought it too simple, so they spiced it up with some more silly fake CGI. But that wasn't too big of a deal--just something that irked me slightly.

I'm also slightly irked by the "King's Cross" scene. For one thing, the whole backstory on Dumbledore was not revealed. Anyone who hasn't read the books still doesn't know a thing about Ariana other than some vague idea from Aberforth that Albus gave her "everything except his time." It reminded me slightly of the film "Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban" where they left out a lot of important background information about the Marauder's Map and Harry's dad, Sirius, Lupin, and Peter Pettigrew. And I'm not sure if the filmmakers just didn't see Dumbledore's family history as being pertinent information to the story they wanted to convey, or if they didn't think there was time for it, or if perhaps they wanted the movie-going audience to still see Dumbledore as a bright shiny character without any personal demons. Maybe it was a combination of all those things.

But what really bothers me more than it probably should was something movie Dumbledore said in "King's Cross" that wasn't in the book at all. Something like (definitely paraphrasing here--only saw the movie once): "I once said that help would always be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it. I'd like to amend that. Help will always be given at Hogwarts to those who deserve it."

Dumbledore didn't say that in the book. I'm pretty sure the Dumbledore of the book WOULD NOT EVER say that. I don't know exactly what the filmmakers were trying to convey by that. I think it was perhaps a halfhearted attempt to show that Voldemort didn't deserve help or that Snape really did deserve help...or something (I really need to see the film again and hear the line in its proper context). But see, one of the major themes near the end of the book (and probably running through all the books) was that there might still be some hope for Voldemort if he showed a little remorse.

Rowling revealed that there are intentional Christian themes in Harry Potter, especially in the seventh book.  I don't want to go too deep into something she might not have meant to be this deep, but being the Christian reader/writer that I am, I can't help but wonder.  Metaphorically, is that idea of remorse akin or even figuratively equal to salvation?  I don't know how far Rowling wanted to carry that out.

But it doesn't really matter how deep she meant that idea to go.  The fact remains, she did seem to want to communicate that Voldemort was not beyond help and hope if he would simply show remorse.  And the Dumbledore of the books was always ready to see the best in others--and to offer second chances.  He HAD a personal history that was less than perfect.  He knew first hand that HE didn't deserve help.  He was ready to offer help to others whether they deserved it or not.  And that's probably why he was able to see that there was hope for Voldemort...if Voldemort was willing to let go of his pride and confidence in himself...and ask for help.

And it bugs me that the filmmakers completely missed that.  They fudged it over.  Maybe it's because I want to see Christian themes (dragging them out kicking and screaming), or maybe they really are there in the book, or maybe it's a little of both.  But the fact is, redemption and salvation don't depend on how much someone deserves it.  No one deserves it.  But if we ask for it, it's given.  Ask, and it shall be given.  Seek, and you shall find.  Knock, and the door will be opened unto you.  So no.  Dumbledore would not have said anything about help being given to those who deserve it. 

But that's the biggest issue I have with an otherwise wonderful movie.  I shed lots of tears--starting with Snape's death (everything about Snape in this movie was stinking amazing) and pretty much not ending until I got bored watching Voldemort chase Harry through Hogwarts.  Some things could have been done in a less cheesy manner (Ron and Hermione's kiss just made me giggle in a not good way).  The epilogue was cute and touching, but I was underwhelmed with the "aging makeup/CGI," (sidenote--the makeup/CGI anti-aging on Snape was fantastic!) but it was a good way to end a great series--just looking into the faces of Ron, Hermione, and Harry Potter.

Even without the bad aging CGI, those kids really have grown up.

Film Adapations of Books

I saw The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader for the second time today.  I hadn't seen it since the day it came out in theaters.  I only saw it today because they were showing it for free at the local theater as part of their free "Summer Kid's Movie Series" program, which is an ingenious way the local movie theater can make a lot of money by selling overpriced popcorn and soda.  I felt silly coming to a "kids' movie" without any kids, and since kidnapping is still illegal, I tagged along with the family I nanny for...on my day off.

Now, I've already written a blog about my thoughts on the third Narnia movie, and I really don't want to go into it again.  But the movie made me think about how some film adaptations of books are really well done, and how some of them really stink. 

Some people confuse me for one of those people who expect film adaptations to be almost identical to the book.  This just isn't the case.  I took a class called Lit and Film in college, which was one of the most interesting classes I've ever had.  And I agree with what the professor said--that a good film adaptation is one that properly captures the essence of a book.  That doesn't mean a good film adaptation has to cover every intricate detail of a book in exactly the same way the book handled it.  Sometimes things have to be changed for time (a 500 page book doesn't always fit well into a 90 minute movie) or because what works in print might not work well on screen.  I know some people who like to nitpick over minor details that don't change the basic themes of the story.  I'm not one of those people.

I am, however, one of those people who will get upset if I think a film did a bad job of translating a book on screen--particularly if I LOVED the book.  The Voyage of the Dawn Treader wasn't horrible, but I do have some major problems with it because I think the filmmakers missed the point of the book (FYI, I LOVED the book).

There are a lot of film adaptations that I really don't like because I feel that the filmmakers didn't really grasp the main themes of the books they were trying to adapt.  At the top of this list is Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (the third one).  Not only did the filmmakers try to cram the theme of "time" into the movie, when the book really didn't have that overarching theme, but they left out all sorts of important themes and details that made the story understandable.  If I hadn't read the book and were just relying on the film, I'd have no idea what was going on.  And this was a common complaint I heard from people who hadn't read the book.  They didn't understand the movie.

A Wrinkle in Time is another film adaptation that leaves a lot to be desired.  It was a made for tv movie, but that doesn't give it the right to suck as much as it did.  The movie got several small details wrong--which might have been redeemable if they had been done well.  But almost nothing about this movie was done well.  The vast majority of the actors were miscast (so even the good actors like Alfre Woodard gave dreadful performances).  The writing was choppy and incoherent.  It makes me a little angry because A Wrinkle in Time is my favorite book, but the film version made it look dreadful.  So all of those people who like to see the movie first to see if they might like the book are now under the impression that it's a dreadful book.  If you're one of these people, I urge you to go read the book.  I promise it is SO much better than the movie.  I'm hoping that eventually someone picks up the whole Time Quartet series and does some major motion pictures that don't stink.  I do have to say, the music wasn't bad.  And the kid they got to play Charles Wallace was cute.  And Mrs Who was actually pretty likable.  Other than that...meh.  I've also heard that the Disney made-for-tv version of A Ring of Endless Light (another Madeleine L'Engle book) was also dreadful.  Maybe I'll see it for myself one day.

I don't want to spend much more time griping about film adaptations I don't like, but here is a list of others that really bother me (I still might watch these movies from time to time, as I often still watch A Wrinkle in Time, if only because I like to relive parts of the story when I don't have time to read the book):

Tuck Everlasting
The Black Cauldron
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (the 2005 movie version--which was not redeemable even with Zooey Deschanel as Trillian AND Alan Rickman as Marvin.  The cheesy 1980 BBC version, however, is epic!)
Twilight
First Knight
The Little Mermaid (Okay, I like the songs.  And Sebastian.  But Disney turned the self-sacrificing (and unnamed) Hans Christian Anderson protagonist into a selfish spoiled brat named Ariel)
Eragon
The Flight of Dragons (based off the book The Dragon and the George)

There are a lot of film adaptations of books that I really don't like, but there are probably a lot more that I do like.  The Princess Bride is my favorite film, and it's one of my favorite books.  I think one of the reasons I'm such a big fan of both the film and the book is that William Goldman wrote both of them (the book and the screenplay).  Not every detail was the same.  There were lots of omissions and changes in the film version, but the film was a hilarious and touching story that paid true homage to the book.

Some of the film adaptations I like are very different from the books, but they're still enjoyable AND they retain the basic thematic essences of the books.  Pollyanna is one of these.  Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (in case you're confused, I mean the Gene Wilder one) is another.  I do like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (the Johnny Depp version), and it IS closer to the book than the Gene Wilder version "Willy Wonka," but I don't like it as much.  The Neverending Story is another film I love that doesn't follow the book very well, and it makes me sad that they tried to make it more like the book by making an absolutely horrendous sequel.  And another sequel--which thankfully, I have not seen.

Here's a list of film adaptations I really like:

Jurassic Park
Jurassic Park: The Lost World
October Sky (based on a memior originally published as Rocket Boys--it's an anagram)
All of the Harry Potter films except for Prisoner of Azkaban (I just can't forgive it)
Ramona and Beezus  (I would love to see more Ramona movies!)
The Hobbit (the Rankin Bass cartoon version, since the live action one hasn't come out yet)
The Return of the King (again, the Rankin Bass version)
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (the Peter Jackson ones)
The Bridge to Terebithia (both the 80s version and the more recent version of this)
Winnie the Pooh (even after Disney mutilated A. A. Milne, I still like it)
The Phantom Tollbooth
2001: A Space Odyssey (the book was written at the same time as the film, but I think it still counts)
The BBC versions of The Chronicles of Narnia (they only did up to the Silver Chair...which makes me sad)
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
A Christmas Carol (while almost any version--including Mickey's Christmas Carol and Scrooged--is likable, my favorite version is the Patrick Stewart one)
10 Things I Hate About You (based on Taming of the Shrew.  True story.)
Alice in Wonderland (again, pretty much any version of this would do--including the Johnny Depp version which was very unlike the original Lewis Caroll story.  I like what they did with it)
Anne of Green Gables/Anne of Avonlea
Hook (which was based off Peter Pan, which was a book)
Matilda
Holes
The Little Prince
The Secret of NIMH (Based on the book Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH--they changed a lot, but the movie was still amazing!)
The Face on the Milk Carton (made for tv and really cheesy, but it's not too bad)
The Jungle Book


I'm sure I could name more, but...that would take longer than I want to spend on typing a blog. 

There are rare occurrences when I actually prefer the film version of a story to the book.  The Wizard of Oz is one of these.  Perhaps if I had read the book before seeing the Judy Garland/Ray Bolger rainbow-riffic classic movie from 1939 (the same year my daddy was born--which makes me extra sentimental about it), I might feel differently.  But I tried to read the book as a grown up.  I found it dreadful and unimaginative.  I get that it was a political commentary and all that, but that didn't increase my enjoyment of it.  I much preferred the musical film version. 

Another musical movie I preferred to the book was Phantom of the Opera.  The book wasn't the worst thing I've ever read, but it couldn't compete with the haunting genius of Andrew Lloyd Weber. 

I also preferred the happy ending Disney version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame to Victor Hugo's classic where everybody dies (hopefully didn't ruin that for you).  The incredible songs, again, didn't hurt either. 

I have to admit I also liked the 90's version of The Three Musketeers way better than the book.  Rebecca De Mornay.  Keifer Sutherland.  Chris O'Donnell.  Tim Curry.  Oliver Platt.  Oh, and Charlie Sheen LONG BEFORE he went crazy.  Ah, what a great flick!  I had a cassette tape of the song "All For Love." Yep.  I was awesome.

Right now I'm anxiously awaiting a couple of film adaptations.  I've read that they're probably going to do "Magician's Nephew" (Chronicles of Narnia) before "Silver Chair" (and that "MN" isn't coming out until 2014).  So I'm not holding my breath for those.  I wouldn't be surprised if they got dumped.  Which is sad.  But after seeing what they did with "Dawn Treader," I'm not sure I want them messing with Puddleglum.

But I'm getting a little excited (along with a lot of people) about The Hunger Games, which is set to come out in March of next year.  I'm thinking that The Hunger Games is the new Harry Potter, at least in terms of waiting for the next movie to come out.  Oh...and I'm waiting for the final HP movie, too...but it will be here VERY soon! 

Other books I'd love to see made into good major motion pictures are:

A Wrinkle in Time and the other books in the Time Quartet (as I said before)
A Ring of Endless Light and the other Austin Family books by Madeleine L'Engle (actually starting with Meet the Austins)
The Chronicles of Prydain (The Black Cauldron was based on the first two books, but it fell sadly, sadly short.  I would love to see the whole series done in epic live action LOTR style.)
The Bunnicula Series
The Space Trilogy by C. S. Lewis

Again, there are probably others, but this blog is long enough. 

How about you?  Are there film adaptations you LOVE?  Are there film adaptations you HATE?  Are there movies you like better than the books?  Are there any books/series you would LOVE to see made into movies?

Fiction Friday: The Book/Film That Has Everything

When I was in college, I had the opportunity to take a remarkable class called "Literature and Film."  In this class, I was given the best possible assignment someone like me could ever hope to be assigned.  I had to write a paper about a book and that book's film adaptation.  We were given a list of books/films to choose from.  One of my favorite books (and my favorite film of all time) was on that list.

I am the sort of person who likes a lot of different things.  If you were to ask me what my favorite genre of literature is, I would probably say Young Adult, and I might say Fantasy/Sci Fi, but I'd have to throw in some Adventure, definitely a splash of Romance or some Paranormal or some Mystery/Suspense.  And the funnier the better.  I like...well...everything (even Horror if it's done right).  The same thing goes for film.  I like everything (except for MOST Chick Flicks and Horror...and Westerns). 

So when a writer combines all the genres into one big awesome novel/film, that's when said writer makes Ruth happy.  It's like that writer got right into my brain and said, "AS YOU WISH!"

What I like is a novel/film with fencing, fighting, torture, revenge, giants, monsters, chases, escapes, true love, miracles!  All of these things and more can be found in the novel/film The Princess Bride by S. Morgenstern William Goldman.  This brilliant writer wrote both the novel and the film's screenplay (as well as several other screenplays, including the one for "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid."  (Is that a Western?  Maybe I should actually WATCH that one...  Because right now the only "Westerns" I like are the funny ones, like "The Shakiest Gun in the West" and "The Apple Dumpling Gang"...and does "Three Amigos!" count?  What about "Old Yeller"???)).

Most people I consider to be cool have seen the movie "The Princess Bride."  Yes, it was made when my age was still in the single digits...back when Andre the Giant (who could also be called Andre the Awesome) was still alive.  I can quote the movie frontwards and backwards.  Okay, maybe not...but I could probably get pretty close.  The special effects are dreadful.  The music is lousy.  It matters not.  It's still my favorite movie...and I like movies.  The acting is extraordinary (especially the comedic scenes...Mandy Patinkin FTW!).  The writing is outstanding.  This is one of the funniest movies ever...and it's got a great plot full of all that stuff I listed above.  If you haven't seen "The Princess Bride" (INCONCEIVABLE!) either because you've been living under a rock for the past 25 years and have never heard of it or because you've written off a movie with such a title as a "Chick Flick," then stop reading my blog (if I say that, then you KNOW this is serious) and GO BUY THAT MOVIE.  I didn't say rent.  I said buy.  Trust me.  You'll want to keep it and cherish it forever...and ever...  And I mean it (anybody want a peanut?).

As for the book, well, it's not my favorite book, though it's definitely one of my favorites.  That being said, it's even better than the movie.  It's funnier.  It's got more action.  It's got more "twue wuv."  It's got more fencing, fighting, torture, revenge...etc.  It's got more everything.  And William Goldman successfully managed to hoodwink a more naive Ruth.  I truly believed for a long time that there actually was such a person as S. Morgenstern who wrote The Princess Bride way back in the day.  William Goldman actually wrote it in the 1970s pretending to offer an edited version of Morgenstern's original.  Clever of Goldman.  Clever and tricksy hobbitses.  So if you've seen the movie (and of course, loved it...because everyone loves this movie, and if you don't then there's something wrong with you, you miserable vomitous mass, you warthog faced buffoon; you queen of refuse, you queen of garbage, you queen of PUTRESCENCE!  BOO!  BOO! BOOOOOOO!) and haven't read the book, then GET THEE TO A LIBRARY/BOOKSTORE IMMEDIATELY.  Or the Dread Pirate Robers will come for your SOULLLLLLL!

As for that paper I had to write for that class...well, I've never had so much fun writing a paper.  I've never had such a good time doing research.  ...and I got an A (not to mention the best grade in the class). 

By the way, never get involved in a land war in Asia or go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line...just sayin'.

Fiction Friday: Disney Movies

So movies aren't books, but they're still fiction.  And I can't think of anything else to blog about for this Fiction Friday.  Lol.

I am like a lot of people who grew up watching Disney movies.  In fact, there was this youtube video that showed brief clips from all 50 of the animated films Disney has put out so far (did you know Disney has put out 50 films (not even counting the Pixar movies)?  Now you do.  In fact, there might be more by now...shrug).  Of those 50 films, there were only two I hadn't seen.  Part of that is because I watch kids, and part of that is because I pretty much am still a kid.  Which two Disney cartoons haven't I seen?  Brother Bear and Home on the Range.  That almost makes me want to go rent them so I can have my perfect record...but...nah.

Anyway, like most good American girls, I was raised on stuff like Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, and Snow White.  These put all kinds of unrealistic ideas into my head.  For instance, I think I grew up fully expecting to be able to waltz out into the forest, sing a song, and immediately befriend three dozen forest animals before Prince Charming came along to carry me away.  (I love the movie Enchanted, because Disney is making fun of itself.  And self-deprecation is one of my favorite forms of humor...and I also like it because Amy Adams is incredible.)

Then Ariel came along and showed all us independent women that we didn't have to listen to our dads.  I mean, sure.  King Triton was overbearing and had a short fuse, but dude was a single father who was just trying to take care of his SEVEN daughters...while also trying to run an entire underwater kingdom.  Talk about pressure.  Ariel was a princess.  She had a lot of good things going for her.  She had a loving family.  She had great friends.  She could sing amazingly.  But who cares.  No big deal.  She wanted MORE.

Oh, good job, Disney.  You completely violated Hans Christian Anderson.

I believe The Little Mermaid came out in 1989.  And most of the Disney animated films of the 1990s have that similar theme of wanting more more more.  Belle wanted MORE than this provincial life (nothing against Belle, though--she's my fave--she reads books).  Aladdin wanted everyone to see there was so much MORE to him, while Jasmine wanted a different life, too.  And honestly, I couldn't blame Jasmine for not wanting to get married off--but in her culture, she would have been raised to expect it (and if she had defied her father like that in real life, he would have probably done something horrible to her--just sayin').   Simba just couldn't wait to be king.  Pocohontas wanted to find out what was beyond the river bend (and with this film, Disney mutilated historical fact!).  Quasimodo wanted to spend one day out there (although I have to admit I liked the happy Disney movie better than the original novel where everyone died,  I'm sure that Victor Hugo is rolling in his grave).  Hercules wanted to be a true hero that could go the distance.  Mulan wanted to be a warrior (okay, okay, so she was being noble and protecting her father).  Tarzan wanted to know more about those strangers like him.

There's nothing particularly wrong with that theme.  It's just that I noticed that these movies were a big part of what shaped my later childhood.  It's probably why I spent a lot of my time staring into the sunset in my late teenage years, wondering what MORE was in store for me instead of actually doing stuff with my life.  There's nothing wrong with dreaming.  There's nothing wrong with hope.  There is something wrong with discontent, and I'm not blaming Disney for this as much as myself.  Because I tend to get caught up in fantasy...if you haven't noticed.

Anyway, the 2000s were kind of a let down for me, Disney movie-wise (again, not counting Pixar--because I love me some Pixar).  I loved Fantasia 2000, but what followed it were a series of Disney films that just didn't seem very Disney-ish.  The Emperor's New Groove made me laugh, but it lacked something I'd come to expect from Disney films.  Perhaps it was simply that the main characters didn't burst into song every five minutes for no apparent reason.  I like Disney movies where people burst into song.  In fact, I'd like life a lot better if everyone just randomly burst into song.  I've tried it, but usually people just give me funny stares and I eventually stop singing...or I just endure the funny stares.

Yeah.  Like NONE of the Disney animated films from the 2000 decade have people that burst into song--unless you count The Princess and the Frog.  I liked that one, but it didn't strike me as a truly Disney film.  It lacked something.  Some kind of magical Disney quality that I believed to be dead.

When I saw previews for Tangled, I just sighed.  I had no desire to see it.  The previews just made it look like a stupid parody--like Disney was trying too hard to be hip and cool and funny.  But it was playing at work one day, so I watched part of it.

Oh.  My.  Gosh.  I had to go rent it afterwards so I could watch the whole thing.

The Disney movie is NOT dead.  Tangled is a funny parody, but it's also a more traditional Disney movie--complete with characters randomly bursting into song!  I don't want to give too much away if you haven't seen Tangled.  It's an original story that does a great job of incorporating the original fairy tale.  I'm not sure what Disney animation has in store for the 2010's, but I'm paying attention again.

Only this time, I hope I'm able to differentiate fantasy and reality.

What I Liked and Didn't Like About "Voyage of the Dawn Treader" (the film)

I had been waiting for Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader to come out, oh, since Prince Caspian was in theaters. This was my MUST SEE movie of 2010, and it didn't even come until the end of the year. I saw it on opening night (not the midnight showing--I'm too old for that nonsense) after rereading the book. It's my favorite book from the Narnia series.

I knew when I reread the book that I was setting myself up for some disappointment. I mean, I knew they were going to change stuff. They ALWAYS change stuff. I just happen to find it interesting to see how people translate books onto the big screen. Sometimes they do an excellent job (think Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets) and sometimes they really screw it up and I get angry and want to start petitioning filmmakers for a do-over (think Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban).

Don't read any more if you haven't seen VotDT, because there will be some spoilers.

I was very impressed with the special effects (even in 3-D, which was, as I suspected, completely unnecessary). The Dragon and the sea serpent were UH-MAY-ZING. The music was also excellent, as was the majority of the acting. I'm a big fan of Skandar (is that NOT the coolest name ever?) and Georgie--and the guy who played Eustace was hilarious (I'm sure I'll learn that kid's name by the time Silver Chair comes to theaters). Now that the technical stuff is out of the way, on to the story...

I'm really glad they got in all the major plot points. They were ordered differently than they were in the book and some were handled differently, but they were all there. I'm also glad they included the most important line from the book--Aslan telling Lucy and Edmund that he had brought them to Narnia so that they would know who he was in their world and learn to know him by his name there (coughJESUScough). Most important part. I got really nervous when I thought the filmmakers had left that out, but they came through. Liam Neeson is pretty much the most amazing Aslan voice ever, btw.

Speaking of, there wasn't enough Aslan to suit me, but IMO there can NEVER be enough Aslan.

I was also disappointed that the Dufflepuds scene was so short, but then one can never have too many Dufflepuds. Well, okay, I suppose "DUFFLEPUDS: THE MOTION PICTURE" would be a little bit ridiculous.

Now, some people confuse me for one of those people who gets angry over every minor detail that was changed in movies that were adapted from books. Not so. What I think is important is that the movie version adequately captures the spirit and essence of the book in a way that is clearly communicated. The problem I had with Prisoner of Azkaban is that there were themes that were heavily emphasized in the movie that were not really in the book (time), and I was left with the impression that if someone had not read the book, they wouldn't know what was happening. That's crappy filmmaking, IMO.

The biggest problem I have with the film version of VotDT is that the filmmakers seemed to completely miss the point of the story. They added in a new element that basically drove the plot because apparently they seemed to think the story needed something that C. S. Lewis didn't provide. FAIL. If you haven't read the book, you might be surprised to learn that the seven swords were not in the book at all, nor was there this underlying evil that Lucy and Edmund had been summoned to go concur. They had been called to Narnia to have an adventure. That was the plot of the book. That was the story line. That was all that was needed.

And personally, I think that the story would have worked quite well on screen without their additions. The filmmakers seemed to think that they needed to add some kind of element that would make things more exciting or give purpose to the story. No. The purpose of the story was that there was something worth seeking beyond the known seas around Narnia. Yes, there were the seven lords that Caspian wanted to find, but he was not seeking them for any reason other to be seeking them. Caspian and Reepicheep and several of the others were ultimately seeking adventure, the End of the World, perhaps even Aslan's country--that was the point of the story--not some "green mist of evil" that had to be destroyed. I think the filmmakers really missed the point, and that makes me sad.

It makes me sad to think that filmmakers assume people don't want to see movies that are just about adventure and excitement and the mystery of the unknown. It makes me sad to think that they might actually be right.

But quite honestly, the whole "green mist of evil" thing was just stupid. It took me awhile to realize what it reminded me of, but once I realized it, I was amused. The "green mist of evil" was ripped off from another movie. Do you want to know which movie it was? Anastasia. Yep, the kid's cartoon from the late 1990s. I half expected Rasputin to come out with Bartok and burst out into an evil song and dance number.

No, instead you have the "green mist of evil" which (at least to Edmund) took the form of the "White Witch." Personally, I was really put off by this. For one thing, I was never really happy with Tilda Swinton's portrayal of the White Witch (I can't get past the fact that the lady has NO FREAKIN' EYELASHES), and I really hate seeing her have a cameo in all the movies she's not a part of. She died--let her stay dead. On a more serious note, I also want her to stay dead. Aslan killed her. It was finished. All that she represented was defeated. I didn't like that the filmmakers keep bringing her back as if Aslan isn't strong enough to have defeated her once and for all.

But I was fortunate enough to be watching this film with a friend who had not read the book. She saw this part differently and gave me her perspective, which I had already been thinking about myself, and kinda sorta agree with to an extent. Edmund--at least in the films--keeps meeting the White Witch again. In the film of VotDT, he was still struggling with temptation regarding her. Okay, I can get that. I can relate to that. Even if sin has been conquered once and for all, I still struggle with temptation and sin. I'm going to struggle with temptation and sin until I die or this world ends. So I can kinda understand where they might have been going with that.

Now, Lucy's little temptation scenes bothered me a little more. It was good theology, but it was simple theology. I can totally get that we are all valuable--we aren't meant to be like anyone else (except Christ), and God didn't create us to be like anyone else. He made one me. He made one you. So yeah, there was nothing untruthful about what Aslan said to Lucy in the mirror (aside from the fact that this scene was NOT in the book). He wanted her to value herself. Okay. Sure. It's just that right now there's this theme I see in Christian circles about feeling good about yourself and feeling beautiful, blah blah blah. Johnny Diaz theology is awesome for awkward teenage girls. It's just a little milky for me. And Lucy in the book wanted to be beautiful and get attention like Susan (she didn't want to BE Susan, fyi), but she didn't sit and dwell on it for very long. Aslan drove that vanity from her head with one roar and she was tempted by something else. Anyway, I would have preferred Aslan's lines to be closer to what was in the book, but as I already said, they got the most important line.

I'm just really annoyed they left out another important group of lines:

Aslan: "Do not look so sad. We shall meet soon again."
Lucy: "Please, Aslan, what do you call soon?"
Aslan: "I call all times soon."

Mmm.

Now, I was pleased with the way they made Eustace the Dragon look/act/etc. That was awesome. I was a little confused with what they did with him because it was VERY different from the book. With that being said, given all the rest of the changes they made to the story, I actually LIKE what they did with the Dragon. I liked that they kept him in the film longer as a Dragon and I liked that they had Eustace be the one to put the sword on the table and save everyone (though the glowing blue swords seemed to be a ripoff from the Hobbit...oh well, Tolkien and Lewis will probably have a good laugh about that if there are Inklings meetings in heaven--and I'm kinda hoping there will be and that I'll get to sit in on them). I liked that the epic battle with the sea serpent took place on the dark island (even though it took place much earlier in the book). Given all the other changes they had made to the story, the rest of it just made sense. I would have preferred they had left the story alone as much as possible, but given the changes they'd made, they actually managed to create a decent storyline with Eustace as a Dragon who gained redemption by placing the final sword. Also, I'm VERY happy they worked hard to foster an onscreen friendship between Eustace and Reepicheep. Reepicheep is awesome.

What does kind of bother me is how they handled Eustace's transformation from Dragon back into a human. Now, I do like that Aslan just scratched the sand and those scratches were what cut into Eustace. BUT, here's what bothered me. How he just burst into light and fire during his transformation reminded me of another film...another kid's movie...another cartoon from the 90's. Beauty and the Beast. Tale as old as time, baby.

SIGH.

All in all, I'm displeased that the filmmakers seemed to miss the point of the story, but they did some interesting things with the changes that I did like. I will want to see this movie again, mainly because I'm not sure how much I liked it--but I think I did. I shed some tears (oh, Reepicheep). It left me wanting a sequel (I WANT PUDDLEGLUM!!!). I am a little afraid with what they'll do with "Silver Chair," but we'll see.