Well...I was REALLY disappointed by the "happy-Happy-HAPPY" ending of the movie. There was a decent happy end in the book, but it wasnt enough for Hollywood, was it? I mean, good lord, cant American audience just take certain things, like T being mortal and fallen stars not being able to go back to the sky?
And why did they make Victoria so two-dimensional? She wasnt just a bad and naughty girl in the book. I greatly enjoyed her being sorry and intending to keep her word in the novel. Why leave this drama out?
And I was really annoyed by the frequent phrase "What do stars do?"
There was such a great cast and everybody acted wonderfully. Thats why those things annoy me so much!
You mean it wasnt an American movie? I didnt know that, I am truly sorry!!!
Still, if you look at the majority of American films, you can clearly see that either the American audience is gravely underestimated by the producers or in fact cant take a little pain. Many European movies DVDs have an "alternative American ending" in extras, those ending totally ruin the overall impression (the most obvious example is the "Pride and Prejudice" DVD).
So, that was my automatic opinion that "Stardust" was an American production, the opinion being solidified by Neils semi-autobiographical story "The Goldfish Pool and Other Stories" and his comment during an interview that in Hollywood your work turns into leaves the next morning...
But I apologize for assuming without a research. And now Im even bitterer, cause a European movie with that kind of ending is just UNFORGIVABLE.
I relaly liked the film a lot, and liked it eve more on re-reading the book. I think they did a very good job of keeping the feeling of the story while adapting it to the screen. I was not bothered by the happy-happy ending and I don't think we got to know Victoria enough to have really brought off the ending in the book. Also, to be fair, any film filmed in English has to have an eye to the American audience, and I thin the American audience would have largely rejected Victoria's gesture as it was in the book, certainly not without a lot more time spent on her, at the expense of other story elements.
There are always sacrifices made to get anything but the most basic written work onto the screen. The question isn't how faithful a movie is to the PLOT of its source, but how faithful it is to the FEELING of its source, and there I think it did its good very very well.
|Companion to owls|
To be fair, I don't think they were 'Americanising' the film more than 'modernising' it. There's an interview form the director or script writer that says they wanted to make it a bit more contemporary. I don't particularly agree with this decission personally, but it makes some sense comercially: on the one hand, Victorian period film has the taint of romanticised Jane Austen adaptations, and on the other, if they want the film to be enjoyed by a large audience (which is clearly their intention, hence the big names), they need to remove the bits that will look odd to them (like the pretty, young girl of the town marrying an 'old' guy, for example).
In that light, it makes sense to turn Victoria into the bitchy popular girl from teen movies, and it makes sense to make the ending a bit more family-friendly. I love the ending of the book, which is happy and sad at the same time, but currently Hollywood films are all family-oriented, with healthy and fully-functional families where things end right for the right people and villains are turned into charicatures so we don't feel bad about them.
Just watched the movie. It's great, but the book is better I think.
The ending in the movie differs from the book, though.
Seen the movie, Its great, casting Claire Danes as Yvaine is just the right thing but i just can't help but to feel that the book is better.This message has been edited. Last edited by: Sleepstarved,
I really enjoyed the movie- and more importantly- so did my 2 children (10 and 6).
What I didn't like was the feeling of 'all us chums together' it had- there were too many mates of Mr and Mrs Ross in it for my liking.
The scenery though- mind blowing! The highlight of all this was seeing the location they had Gervais' shop in- a beautiful hillside just half an hour or so from where we live!
I've walked that hill a few times, and have never seen a magical shop or flying boats...
Yes, but did you come to the hill without first passing through the gap in The Wall? I think not.
Heh! Good point!
No- I didn't pass through a magic wall- but then, there's nothing, and I do mean nothingup there! Rocks and moss... no walls!
Yes, I know this is happening, I just dont consider this to be art. Real art has a knack to make people nervous, and things that just fill our bellies are not worth remembering, they dont change your life, it is a pity a great piece of art by Neil Gaiman got caught into this petty belly-filling scheme...Oh well, I am stopping this bitching of mine right now:-)))))))
Hi. New member here but I've been enjoying Neil Gaiman's works for quite a while. I just saw Stardust on DVD (having missed it in the theatre) and really, really enjoyed it. I remeber Stardust being one of my favorite works (Neverwhere probably being my favorite) and the movie really brought bits of the book back to me.
However, in an effort to keep the Stardust "good feelings" going as long as possible I re-read the book and (I know this is probably heresy) I think I actually enjoyed the movie more! I felt the producers did an excellent job translating the gist of the story to the big screen. The compromises were appropriate and the changes simplified the plot enough so that it made sense in the movie format (without being 3 hours long)!
So many movies do such a bad job at telling a coherent and entertaining story. Stardust, IMO, was both.
The DVD was a bit dissapointing as there was no commentary track. Hopefully there will be a "special deluxe collectors" edition with more extras!
I did miss Tori, however....
My cousin and I stopped to see a movie in the only theatre for miles; a ranshack cinema attached to an equally miserable multiplex. Perfect for hiding out.
Usually, for me, movie previews are almost as fun as watching the go-see, but when we watched the preview for Stardust, we no longer felt as pleased to be there watching something else.
Mostly, I forgot about Stardust after that. Until I saw it on the shelves at the store. It just didn't seem to match what I had remembered feeling that day at the ranshack cinema. So I passed it up. My cousin brought it up again and I decided to buy it not shortly after that, and glad that I did.
Especially since I didn't even know it was originally a book written by Gaiman!! Well, of course! I could have simply not known. I've only read part of American Gods, and most of Good Omens. I also have Smoke and Mirrors, as well as Fragile Things... but I've only touched the covers. I'm currently reading Anansi Boys (of them, at least one that I will finish!) which I picked up at the same time finding out about Stardust, after having seen the movie. Not so amazing, but kind of.
Oh yes, and Hello! I'm new
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7|