I was thinking about this because I recently finally watched, in its entirety, the Percy Jackson movie(s). Yes, I know I'm sixteen years old and the movie actually said ages 8-10. I don't care. I was recently obsessed with Artemis Fowl, if you'll recall. I've also been re-reading the Percy Jackson books, which is for middle schoolers. But hey, a good book is a good book, and I will not be shamed for enjoying good stories. So take that.
But anyways.
As I was watching the movie, I couldn't help but get extremely irritated at the people who'd made the adaptation. Yes, I was that person. "They're getting it all wrong! They're missing that character! That's not at all what happened! They're changing everything! Annabeth would never do that! Why is Persephone in the Underworld during the summer?" Blah-dy blah blah blah. This was mostly for the Lightning Thief - The Sea of Monsters actually got most of the important things right, I'd say, aside from the unforgivable mutilation of the Charybdis myth.... (She swallows the sea and then SPITS IT BACK OUT AGAIN!!! YOU DON'T NEED TO BLOW A HOLE THROUGH HER STOMACH IN ORDER TO GET OUT!!! And what even was that stupid attempt at incorporating Circe with Polyphemus? What was the point of that? And even more importantly, how did they manage to get away from Polyphemus by blocking him with a boulder? Like, the same boulder Polyphemus used as a door in the first place? What sort of logic is happening here right now?)
You see that rant in parentheses? That's what I'm talking about.
But it was more than just... messing up the myths (Charybdis) and outright violation of logic (Polyphemus) and stuff. Like, they gave away the final prophecy of the series in the second movie, the prophecy heroes are never allowed to see because trying to change destiny usually only ensures destiny in the worst way possible (Oedipus, anyone?). That was... something. And especially in the first movie, the characters were pretty much entirely changed. And, it wasn't like it made a huge difference on the story, but the character's.... voices, were noticeably different.
Like Grover, for instance. They turned Grover into, more or less, the token black friend. And I have no problem with Grover being portrayed by a black actor at all. But they turned this dorky, small-kid-with-big-dreams, mildly panicky character that was Grover into the one who has all the snarky comebacks and all the answers and, like, he has the guts to beat up a(n admittedly terrible awful horrible example of a) human with his crutches. Book-Grover would never do that.
Never mind the fact that Kronos, and Clarisse, and Thalia's tree, and Grover's search for Pan, and Ares weren't even introduced in the first movie. Like, they're kind of important, and now the movie series has royally screwed itself over if it plans to continue the series. They managed to fix most of that for the second movie, all except Ares, which was kind of a first-book-adventure anyways, so I have no idea how they're going to justify Percy's sudden weakness in the third movie, if that happens, if they're not using Ares's curse. Also they neglected the search for Pan, which is kind of important as well, so I dunno....
But here's the thing. Does the fact that they changed a hundred million things from the book make the movie bad?
You see, as a bookish kid who is also a film kid, I'm kind of having a serious moral dilemma right now.
As a pretty big fan of the Percy Jackson books (they're what got me started in greek mythology in the first place, and now I'm kind of a walking encyclopedia of greek mythology who's been to Athens for pretty much solely that reason, so....) I find it physically impossible for me to watch the movies without comparing them to the books, and it's really hard for me to take a step back and look at the movies and books as two different entities.
But when I did manage to actually think about the movie as something separate from the books, I had to admit, it did its job. It was fun, and it was an adventure, and I laughed in all the right places and everything.
See, the fact that everything was changed or removed - literally, everything that I adored about the books, from the clever modernization of ancient greek myths (Procrustes sells waterbeds, Charon charges credit cards for passage into the Underworld, Circe runs a spa where she gives makeovers, etc.) and the great character foil that Annabeth and Percy made for each other, all that stuff.... it doesn't really change the fact that the movie was still pretty enjoyable.
See, it was just, in general, an entirely different story... but so what?
This is where the serious moral dilemma comes in.
Integrity of story! Character depth! Tone! Blah blah blah! I support Book's Rights! Let's burn down the movie theatre, that'll show 'em!
But here's the thing. The movie is being made by a lot of different people, over a hundred of them, and none of them are the author of the book. And books belong to their readers, right? That's part of what makes books great. It allows the reader the freedom to interpret their own meanings and, possibly, inspiration, from the text.
Do you see where I'm going with this? This is where I'm going with this.
So, if books belong to their readers, does that not also give the creator(s) of the film the liberty to interpret the text? And if so, doesn't that mean it should have the right to be judged as something aside from the book? After all, no one can deny that they're simply not the same thing.
Basically, what I'm saying is that two different creators, no matter how much they're based on each other... should they really be compared? Because, as artists, they have different intentions and different ideas and different things that they think are important to convey.
Now, impartially here, without keeping the books in mind... I wouldn't watch Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief again. The Sea of Monsters? That was better. And even the final showdown in the Lightning Thief, that was pretty cool, I really liked that. But would I watch the entire movie again? Probably not. I wouldn't avoid it like the plague or anything, but it wouldn't be my go-to, you know?
But even if the movie itself was kinda "meh", I still felt like the point had to be made. Artists are allowed to add on and interpret. That is the duty of an artist. Sometimes they're creating something from the meaningless soup of thoughts and images they have in their mind, and sculpting it into something with meaning... and sometimes they're interpreting the art of someone else and re-sculpting it into something meaningful to them. Like, for me personally, I create my own stories and have been for as long as I can remember, but when it comes to music, I'm an interpreter. And I'm not ashamed of that.
So, yeah. I realize I keep talking about Percy Jackson, but this post isn't about Percy Jackson. I'm using it as my main example because I've recently... re-educated myself on it, and it's what got me thinking about it, and, well, it just illustrates my point properly, but yeah-no, it isn't what this post is about.
Basically what I'm saying is that, we should be allowed to look at a movie and look at it for what it is by itself, you know? I can go on and on about what they changed from the book - in fact, I've done that for a while now - but that isn't what's important, really, is it? It should be measured by its own value alone. The movie should be measured by the makings of a good movie, not the makings of a good book. That's just... logic.
P.S SHALLOW SHALLOW POINT HERE BUT LET ME FANGIRL FOR A SEC
So, for Sea of Monsters there was a change in director, and, apparently, a few changes in casting. We got a new Chiron, for instance, among others.
Guess who the new Chiron is?
Anthony Stewart Head, A.K.A GILES
IN OTHER WORDS, BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER'S MENTOR IS NOW THE MENTOR OF PERCY JACKSON.
Also, of course, Hermes had a role to play in this movie. Yay, they didn't cut him out! yells the Books Rights Activist in my soul. But just take a guess who played Hermes?
Nathan. Friggin'. Fillion.
Yeah, that's right, the guy who's been in every Whedon thing ever, known as Mal on Firefly, known as Caleb on Buffy, known as Captain Hammer in Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along-Blog, known as Dogberry in Whedon's modern production of Much Ado About Nothing. Nathan I-kid-you-not Fillion plays my favourite god of all the greek gods, Hermes.
Needless to say, I freaked out a 'lil bit. And we even got what is clearly a reference to the fate of Firefly:
Hermes: (holding out a magic thermos to Annabeth) Collector's item, mint condition. From Hercules Busts Heads, season 1. Best TV show ever. So, of course, cancelled.
Huh? HUH?!
Also, less freak-out-y, but I was thinking one of the Gray Sisters in the Chariot of Damnation sounded kind of familiar, and naturally, when the credits came up, I was watching the names. And whose name should come up, but Yvette Nicole Brown, A.K.A SHIRLEY BENNETT of Community?
It's like the people casting the movie were like, "We should cast people from shows that Megan Hands likes, so that Megan Hands, who is already a huge fan of Percy Jackson anyways, will actually approve of this sequel." Guess what, team? IT WORKED.
These people are no small part of the reason that Sea of Monsters worked so much better than the Lightning Thief - though I also think a lot of credit is due to the people who worked so hard on cleaning up the mess that was left of the over-arcing plot development after the first movie was through with it.
Okay I'm done now super-promise.
No comments:
Post a Comment