whither thou goest
Dec. 24th, 2006 01:57 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
slumberjsa;hjfksa I need to stop being a lazy bum and get myself a new layout like I've been promising myself I would, as paid account runs out soon and I hate to say it, but I am rather sick of all the pink. :|
But the internet!Is really really great--for PORN!
I love how I can take a random comment on the internets ("..the Ruth to my Idgie...", and I don't even remember which thread I picked this off from), Google it, find an interesting film I've never heard of before (not even back in the FAP threads related solely for discussion of this sort, where I'd learned to download Wilde and Velvet Goldmine), download it off bittorrent in a few days, and end up spending the middle of the night bawling over a movie I'd missed in the early nineties.
Made me wonder though, about movies made based on books and all those things, and how we all have this meta-discussion about what's canon and not based on what we get from either source, but.
How do you take differing facts from books and movies? And do facts that don't appear in, say, the movie, but are present in the book mean that they are likewise real in the movie too? I mean, I get a lot of discussion about how "It isn't in the movie but it's in the book" as supposed argument for factual things, but shouldn't they be taken separately from each other?
I've always taken both book and movie as one big universe of reality, I think, but recently I've begun wondering if perhaps that shouldn't be the case, that I should leave book and movie each alone. I mean--Wicked the musical, for instance, is vastly different from Wicked the novel, and if I had to combine them in one universe I'd be sorely annoyed, so I had to enjoy them separately, right? Is this perhaps why we can get so pissy about, say, Harry Potter movies?
Haha, I don't know, I should probably go to bed now. :|
But thoughts?
But the internet!
I love how I can take a random comment on the internets ("..the Ruth to my Idgie...", and I don't even remember which thread I picked this off from), Google it, find an interesting film I've never heard of before (not even back in the FAP threads related solely for discussion of this sort, where I'd learned to download Wilde and Velvet Goldmine), download it off bittorrent in a few days, and end up spending the middle of the night bawling over a movie I'd missed in the early nineties.
Made me wonder though, about movies made based on books and all those things, and how we all have this meta-discussion about what's canon and not based on what we get from either source, but.
How do you take differing facts from books and movies? And do facts that don't appear in, say, the movie, but are present in the book mean that they are likewise real in the movie too? I mean, I get a lot of discussion about how "It isn't in the movie but it's in the book" as supposed argument for factual things, but shouldn't they be taken separately from each other?
I've always taken both book and movie as one big universe of reality, I think, but recently I've begun wondering if perhaps that shouldn't be the case, that I should leave book and movie each alone. I mean--Wicked the musical, for instance, is vastly different from Wicked the novel, and if I had to combine them in one universe I'd be sorely annoyed, so I had to enjoy them separately, right? Is this perhaps why we can get so pissy about, say, Harry Potter movies?
Haha, I don't know, I should probably go to bed now. :|
But thoughts?
