- Posting Speed
- 1-3 posts per week
- One post per week
- Slow As Molasses
- Writing Levels
- Adaptable
- Preferred Character Gender
- No Preferences
- Genres
- Science Fiction, Fantasy, Science Fantasy, Dark Fantasy, Historical, Shounen-ai and Shoujo-ai, Psychological, Steampunk and... well, I'm actually up for most kinds of role plays.
Okay, I was just re-watching the trailer for the spooks film adaptation, and it almost made me want to cry... so now I need a little rant.
I know films usually don't follow the books by a 100%, but this seriously takes the record. The amount of changes they made to this wonderful assembly of novels is sickening, and makes me frustrated as hell. I haven't even seen the movie yet, but can already see that the film and the books clearly ARE NOT the same thing. The only thing they have in common is the names. Everything else... is just changed- and in a terrible way it seems. If spooks had been a mindless action thing, I wouldn't have enjoyed the books as much as I did. Now that is exactly what the film has been made- and I absolutely hate it.
Tom, the main character and the spooks apprentice, is a 12 - 13 year old boy in the first book, where he starts his apprenticeship. Guess what they did? They had a 31 (31!) year old actor play the role. Delaney, the author of the book said that it made sense if they aged him up because of the romance elements- but I beg to differ. 13 is a perfect age for a first crush, not to mention a good excuse for being gullible and easily tricked by the girl. That is the time when raging hormones makes us act in ways an adult usually wouldn't. Besides, in the time and era the story is set... it simply makes more sense to start an apprenticeship at 13, rather than an older age.
There are dragons in the trailer. Fucking dragons! Had they read the latter books in the series, they would have known dragons are nothing but generally harmless elementals most can't even see. So, why the hell, do they put a damn dragon that has nothing to do with the plot into the film?! Ah yes, because it should suit the american audience, and they need the explosions and mindless violence (take no offense, Americans... but it is pretty typical for Hollywood) X3. And then there were lots of other monsters the book never speaks off. Right now the film looks like they will mostly be running around killing monsters who are just there for the sole reason of being killed. The book certainly was not like that at all.
WHY DOES MOTHER MALKIN LOOK YOUNG?! She is a grotesque old hag who's been locked up in a pit in the spooks damn garden for years. One does not look young and 'attractive' when one climbs out of a pit, strengthen by only rat blood and worm flesh. Besides, she is also described looking like a hag. A freakin' hag, so why not make her a freakin' hag? When I read the books years ago, I found her terrifying. That was the whole fucking point with Mother Malkin... So why change it?!
I swear, they won't even include the house boggart...
The wardstone chronicles are set in a world based off Lanchire, England... and how they could almost completely ignore the entire setting when making the film is beyond me. It does not have the dark and slightly gloomy feeling the books give you...at all. It doesn't even fit the descriptions very well.
I seriously don't care for their terrible excuse that spooks does not have a large fanbase like other books getting film adaptations. If they didn't want to make a film adaptation of the spooks to begin with, they should never have bought the rights. It enrages me that they so completely butcher one of my favorite book series, for no good reason at all. They should just have done their own thing and left spooks out of it. As for now, the only thing the books and film seem to have in common is the names of the characters, and the fact that Tom is a seventh son of a seventh son... and perhaps the slight romance (that certainly was not very elaborate in the first book) between Tom and Alice... I SWEAR, IF THEY HAVE THEM KISS IN THE FILM I'M GONNA KILL SOMETHING! T_T
II think...I'm done ranting now. Gonna go cry myself to sleep because they ruined my childhood... please, people, if you've read this far... buy the wonderful books and read them. Support them, so that one day, they might get a film adaptation that does them justice. They are good just the way they are, and the charm with them in the beginning was that they weren't all bombastic and... overdone. They were simple, yet complex at the same time. They were wonderful, a-and... *sobs while hugging my favorite witch assassin Grimalkin*
Sorry for the rant. X) I'm not even sure anyone here knows the books... but I needed to get rid of some steam somewhere. You guys who have heard of the movie/seen the trailer but haven't read the books could perhaps give a unbiased opinion about the film... and from those who have read the books, it would be interesting to hear your opinions as well. ^^
I know films usually don't follow the books by a 100%, but this seriously takes the record. The amount of changes they made to this wonderful assembly of novels is sickening, and makes me frustrated as hell. I haven't even seen the movie yet, but can already see that the film and the books clearly ARE NOT the same thing. The only thing they have in common is the names. Everything else... is just changed- and in a terrible way it seems. If spooks had been a mindless action thing, I wouldn't have enjoyed the books as much as I did. Now that is exactly what the film has been made- and I absolutely hate it.
Tom, the main character and the spooks apprentice, is a 12 - 13 year old boy in the first book, where he starts his apprenticeship. Guess what they did? They had a 31 (31!) year old actor play the role. Delaney, the author of the book said that it made sense if they aged him up because of the romance elements- but I beg to differ. 13 is a perfect age for a first crush, not to mention a good excuse for being gullible and easily tricked by the girl. That is the time when raging hormones makes us act in ways an adult usually wouldn't. Besides, in the time and era the story is set... it simply makes more sense to start an apprenticeship at 13, rather than an older age.
There are dragons in the trailer. Fucking dragons! Had they read the latter books in the series, they would have known dragons are nothing but generally harmless elementals most can't even see. So, why the hell, do they put a damn dragon that has nothing to do with the plot into the film?! Ah yes, because it should suit the american audience, and they need the explosions and mindless violence (take no offense, Americans... but it is pretty typical for Hollywood) X3. And then there were lots of other monsters the book never speaks off. Right now the film looks like they will mostly be running around killing monsters who are just there for the sole reason of being killed. The book certainly was not like that at all.
WHY DOES MOTHER MALKIN LOOK YOUNG?! She is a grotesque old hag who's been locked up in a pit in the spooks damn garden for years. One does not look young and 'attractive' when one climbs out of a pit, strengthen by only rat blood and worm flesh. Besides, she is also described looking like a hag. A freakin' hag, so why not make her a freakin' hag? When I read the books years ago, I found her terrifying. That was the whole fucking point with Mother Malkin... So why change it?!
I swear, they won't even include the house boggart...
The wardstone chronicles are set in a world based off Lanchire, England... and how they could almost completely ignore the entire setting when making the film is beyond me. It does not have the dark and slightly gloomy feeling the books give you...at all. It doesn't even fit the descriptions very well.
I seriously don't care for their terrible excuse that spooks does not have a large fanbase like other books getting film adaptations. If they didn't want to make a film adaptation of the spooks to begin with, they should never have bought the rights. It enrages me that they so completely butcher one of my favorite book series, for no good reason at all. They should just have done their own thing and left spooks out of it. As for now, the only thing the books and film seem to have in common is the names of the characters, and the fact that Tom is a seventh son of a seventh son... and perhaps the slight romance (that certainly was not very elaborate in the first book) between Tom and Alice... I SWEAR, IF THEY HAVE THEM KISS IN THE FILM I'M GONNA KILL SOMETHING! T_T
II think...I'm done ranting now. Gonna go cry myself to sleep because they ruined my childhood... please, people, if you've read this far... buy the wonderful books and read them. Support them, so that one day, they might get a film adaptation that does them justice. They are good just the way they are, and the charm with them in the beginning was that they weren't all bombastic and... overdone. They were simple, yet complex at the same time. They were wonderful, a-and... *sobs while hugging my favorite witch assassin Grimalkin*
Sorry for the rant. X) I'm not even sure anyone here knows the books... but I needed to get rid of some steam somewhere. You guys who have heard of the movie/seen the trailer but haven't read the books could perhaps give a unbiased opinion about the film... and from those who have read the books, it would be interesting to hear your opinions as well. ^^
