When I saw the movie originally, it had been a while since I read the book.
I thought the casting and art direction were spot on, but the story seemed watered down.
So, I just recently reread the book, and re-watched the movie.
So, I ask the question why was the princess freed by the murder of the witch, rather than released by the prophecy (and as a side note why the new suitor)?
And, why did they star shine to kill the witch rather than give her heart to Tristrin like she did in the book?
They alluded to the giving of the whole heart to help them to live happily ever after. Which also diluted the image of her continuing to rule justly in his honor.
Does anybody know who made the changes, and why the decision to do so?
Sadly, people often change things for films that are adaptions of books.
I'm guessing here, but they probably decided to cut stuff out/change stuff just to a) Make the film shorter; b) Presumably easier to film and c) Perhaps make it easier to understand? After all, children watch it...which might also mean why they decided to go for the whole Happily Ever After theme... :P
I don't know who made the changes, though the director was Matthew Vaughn, and it was written by him and Jane Goldman.
|Poisoner of Chonae|
Though Jane - Jonathan Ross's missus - is a good friend of Neil's so presumably any changes would have been sanctioned to some degree - but yeah realistically in any film from book adaptation there will be changes and those are as often as not decisions made by exec producers aka suits, whose entire ethos hinges upon marketability/profit margins as opposed to aestheticism/artistic integrity. Personally, I was irked that the unicorn didn't die the noble death he did in the book and that I didn't get to see his blue - and pathetic - tongue.
cause and effect:
the best often die by their own hand just to get away, and those left behind can never quite understand why anybody
would ever want to get away
Charles Bukowski Septuagenarian Stew
|Powered by Social Strata|