More spoilers for the Peter Pan movie!

A word about that mediocrity thing I mentioned there in my review/rant about the Peter Pan movie. Thing of it is, in a movie--and I so hate to admit this--I think you can get away with a certain amount of cliche, because there are so many other factors to hopefully enjoy. This could maybe be because I'm still trying so hard to like this movie (as I'm not likely going to see another, newer version of it anytime soon aside from the one in my head,) but it totally had redeeming factors, you know?

Okay, I should rephrase that: a movie shouldn't "get away with" boring cliche just because it has other things to back it up, but those other things are still there. *sigh* You don't really get that in a book. A book is a one shot deal: it's just the writer and, in published works, the editor. There's no special effects, no ensemble cast, no cinematography or Oscar winning performances. A novel kinda stands alone the way a movie never will. Which is why I can say that, while I was disappointed in Peter Pan (*sob sob!*) I'd see it again just for certain performances or scenes that I did like. Whereas if a novel tastes like chicken, there's no redeeming it. (So suck on that, Fangirl Of Yourself.)

(That's totally not to say that I make any claims to being a good writer--just that I can't sit still for a cliche-driven novel, while I can occasionally sit still for a cliche-driven movie.)

I understand now that this movie was based on the play rather than the book; I wasn't aware of that while I was seeing it, or if I had heard about that, I wasn't aware that the play was so wildly different from the book. I guess I can't make any judgments on the characterization and the differences in plot, since I've never seen any version of the play.

Or maybe I'm still just trying to like this movie. I think of what Jason Isaacs did with Hook--and that's wonderful, because his is the image I'll have now when I read the book and that's a good thing--and of a few other elements that I liked, and I feel like seeing it again. And then I think of SMEE TALKING TO THE GODDAMNED CAMERA and Hook flying (gah! An adult, flying! Not even!) and the stupid "I do believe in fairies, I do! I do!" and Wendy's thimble AWAKINNING PETERs SPIRIT OMFG HOW BETUIFUL!!!!11 and I want to slap something or someone. Does the word "cloying" mean anything to you, PJ Hogan?

O, me! I am torn, I am torn!

;)

More spoilers for the Peter Pan movie!

A word about that mediocrity thing I mentioned there in my review/rant about the Peter Pan movie. Thing of it is, in a movie--and I so hate to admit this--I think you can get away with a certain amount of cliche, because there are so many other factors to hopefully enjoy. This could maybe be because I'm still trying so hard to like this movie (as I'm not likely going to see another, newer version of it anytime soon aside from the one in my head,) but it totally had redeeming factors, you know?

Okay, I should rephrase that: a movie shouldn't "get away with" boring cliche just because it has other things to back it up, but those other things are still there. *sigh* You don't really get that in a book. A book is a one shot deal: it's just the writer and, in published works, the editor. There's no special effects, no ensemble cast, no cinematography or Oscar winning performances. A novel kinda stands alone the way a movie never will. Which is why I can say that, while I was disappointed in Peter Pan (*sob sob!*) I'd see it again just for certain performances or scenes that I did like. Whereas if a novel tastes like chicken, there's no redeeming it. (So suck on that, Fangirl Of Yourself.)

(That's totally not to say that I make any claims to being a good writer--just that I can't sit still for a cliche-driven novel, while I can occasionally sit still for a cliche-driven movie.)

I understand now that this movie was based on the play rather than the book; I wasn't aware of that while I was seeing it, or if I had heard about that, I wasn't aware that the play was so wildly different from the book. I guess I can't make any judgments on the characterization and the differences in plot, since I've never seen any version of the play.

Or maybe I'm still just trying to like this movie. I think of what Jason Isaacs did with Hook--and that's wonderful, because his is the image I'll have now when I read the book and that's a good thing--and of a few other elements that I liked, and I feel like seeing it again. And then I think of SMEE TALKING TO THE GODDAMNED CAMERA and Hook flying (gah! An adult, flying! Not even!) and the stupid "I do believe in fairies, I do! I do!" and Wendy's thimble AWAKINNING PETERs SPIRIT OMFG HOW BETUIFUL!!!!11 and I want to slap something or someone. Does the word "cloying" mean anything to you, PJ Hogan?

O, me! I am torn, I am torn!

;)