![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fajrdrakoYou may have noticed that I love, absolutely love, Christopher Eccleston as Claude in Heroes. Not as much as I loved him as the Doctor, but hey, nothing could match that. And there's a new episode tonight - great! Last week distressed me by not featuring Claude and Peter at all. This week, I live in hope.
But I keep seeing news items about Eccleston's role in "The Dark is Rising". And I keep trying to feel confident about this, but really, every item I hear makes it harder to fight my dismay.
First of all - and I think this may be heresy, considering how many people recommended this book to me - I didn't much like The Dark is Rising. It was... not terrible. But it didn't match the standards of Diana Wynne Jones for British fantasy. Considering the recommendations I'd heard, it disappointed me.
Secondly, it is clear they have made a lot of changes to the characters and updates to the themes - making the main characters Americans, for example. The updates might make me like the story more. But it annoys me. Why adapt a book as a movie if you're going to change everything? Why not just make an original fantasy movie about American kids in Cornwall? (Er... it was Cornwall, wasn't it?)
Thirdly, this does not bode well for Eccleston having a long tenure on Heroes, which is too bad, since I like Claude so very much.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-02-19 10:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 02:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-19 11:00 pm (UTC)If they do most of the film over the summer, it shouldn't conflict with Heroes much, but I don't know how long Claude is supposed to be on it.
Personally, I consider Heroes a step down for Eccleston. The show is so uneven and the pseudoscience (and Mohindar's voiceovers) are cringworthy.
But I did miss him last week.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 02:18 am (UTC)That's a good thought. I hope he'll be back next week. I hope they keep featuring him. There are characters I would happily do without - but he isn't one of them.
I don't mind the pseudoscience. It's kind of fun. And I like Mohindar's silly voiceovers because I love Mohindar's voice. But I agree that Heroes is a big step down for Eccleston, for various reasons, including that he only has a role that gives him a few minutes screen time per week, rather than being the protagonist.
I wouldn't mind getting a new series called The Invisible Man, starring Christopher Eccleston as Claude Rains.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-19 11:06 pm (UTC)Consider how very pagan The Dark Is Rising is, and then imagine the Christianized version. Note also that the eldest son has been cast as a very bad boy by Dominionist standards: not only pierced and tattooed but rebellious against his father. Not his parents, but his father.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 02:19 am (UTC)Erk. The only good thing I can see about it is that they aren't massacring a book that is precious to me.
Note also that the eldest son has been cast as a very bad boy by Dominionist standards: not only pierced and tattooed but rebellious against his father.
Heh. I can only approve!
no subject
Date: 2007-02-19 11:08 pm (UTC)It's possible (faint ray of hope) that the season-ender of Heroes is in the can, and this is what Eccleston is doing on the hiatus.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 02:20 am (UTC)I hope not!
I hope you're right about the hiatus and Eccleston coming back. I really, really hope.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-19 11:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 02:21 am (UTC)They have no mercy, those guys.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-19 11:11 pm (UTC)It started here tonight and I don't have the channel. I'll have to wait till it comes to BBC2
no subject
Date: 2007-02-19 11:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-19 11:46 pm (UTC)And your icon! Dies laughing!
no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 12:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 02:24 am (UTC)I wish there was some sort of equalization of international television. Some way we could all watch what we want to watch rather than just what they decide to give us.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 02:23 am (UTC)I didn't like Claire much at first, now she's a favourite. And I always loved Peter.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-19 11:12 pm (UTC)Also that whole description of the Old Ones as "warriors"? Give me a fucking break. I bet there's going to be that whole Fantasy
PhallusSword bollocks as well. And then throwing in the "rebellious older son" trope into the family dynamics is totally unnecessary. < /rant>no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 12:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 02:28 am (UTC)How? The power of ruthless cinematography.
Why? Because they want to make lots and lots of money, and that means aiming for the big American market, and they don't think Americans want to watch anything but Americans. It isn't true, but they aren't about to disprove their own theories by trying anything different.
As for WTF - It's a crime against literature, that's what it is!
no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 06:25 am (UTC)And yes, you've exactly identifed the main problem: totally disregarding the intention of the source works. Just who do they think is going to watch it? Do they not remember the uproar over The Wizard of Earthsea? If that had been done properly, they would have minted it. As it was, everyone avoided that abortion like the plague.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 10:27 am (UTC)Over here, it's especially pernicious: we are expected to swallow US versions of our own history and literature. It's very rare that the reverse happens: a delightful ITV adaptation of Pollyanna, the most faithful yet - but set in pre-WW1 England.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 01:44 pm (UTC)There is an irony to that I'll have to think about.
Luckily for Canada, Americans tend to totally ignore our culture and history, so they don't touch it to distort it. An infamous line from an American senator when the Free Trade talks were going on: someone said the Canadians were concerned about the effect on Free Trade on Canadian culture and he said, "What Canadian culture?" Which sort of summed up the whole problem....
It's often said that you can tell a Canadian from an American by asking who won the war of 1812. Though I suppose Canadians and Americans would give the same answer: "We did!"
no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 12:29 pm (UTC)Sadly, they learned that stupidity sells. Just look at the movies out there. Sometimes I'm embarrassed to be watching the trailers!
Even if there is that element to the movie-going audience, they won't be bothering with those movies anyway. They'll be watching Rocky XXXIV.
Or worse. Exactly.
Do they not remember the uproar over The Wizard of Earthsea?
I don't think so. They aren't famous for long memories.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 02:26 am (UTC)Yes. Very annoying, IMHO. Sort of like making King Arthur a Roman solider ... and they did that too.
I bet there's going to be that whole Fantasy PhallusSword bollocks as well.
I wish you hadn't said that. That sounds Only Too True.
The problem isn't even just movie quality. It's having respect for the material. And understanding of it.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 10:24 am (UTC)I have less of a problem with that. It's not implausible to depict him as a late Roman military type. There were worse things in the movie...
no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 01:51 pm (UTC)No, but I don't like it, personally.
There were worse things in the movie...
Oh, sadly true. That was actually one of the better things, which is really too bad.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 07:25 pm (UTC)I may go back and look at my Gawain idea...
Wow, this post is bringing out my inner geek big-time. Thank you. :D
no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 07:41 pm (UTC)Hmm. I think that I have Arthur firmly in my imagination as a Celtic or, preferably, medieval figure. I'd rather not see him put in the late Roman era. I concede this is just a matter of personal taste.
if you're going to go the "historical Arcturus" route, you have to go the whole hog
Yes, here we stumble over all my prejudices. I don't think Arthur ever lived and I don't like the attempts historicize him. I think Arthur is myth, or he is nothing. So I want my Arthur to be in the world (or worlds) of Malory, Cretien de Troyes, Giraldus Cambrensis, and their ilk - not Romanized, not rationalized.
unless you're TH White, in which case anything goes, because TH White is one of my favorite authors
I wish I was! He had the right idea. I think "The Once and Future King" has both strengths and weaknesses - flaws and triumphs - and it has my admiration on many counts.
the only way that interpretation works is in a relentlessly historical context.
In my opinion, there is no way that interpretation works. Someone may yet prove me wrong - though I'm not holding my breath. Rosemary Sutcliffe did a fair job of giving Arthur a Celtic background.
this post is bringing out my inner geek big-time.
Fun, isn't it?
In my opinion, the strength of the "King Arthur" movie, using 'strength' in the loosest sense of the word, was beautiful actors. I liked Tristan. And Arthur and Lancelot, of course.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 08:01 pm (UTC)So, just as fun, but not the King Arthur we got in the movie. They mixed their metaphors, so to speak.
I went off into this whole essay about the historical personage of Taliesin and the literary tradition that built up around him, but I just confused myself. Basically, Celtic scholars can't say that there was an Arthur. On the other hand, there's a nice Arthur-shaped hole in the records. No one has really come up with a cracking argument to settle the matter.
Ok, I have to go do real work now. Blagh. This is fun!
no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 08:11 pm (UTC)Yes, exactly. I'd rather see a story that focussed on a fictional Roman, or a historical king, or some variation of that, than tacking the trappings Arthurian legends onto a historical setting where it really doesn't belong. I'd be happy with a warrior-hero worthy of being remembered as Arthur centuries later, but in that case, I don't want the 12th century trappings of courtly love, Crusades, and Christian mysticism.
And of course, as a great lover of the 12th century, I do love those trappings. So - bring it on! For this reason, I prefer something like "Camelot", with the world-view of 1950 rather than the middle ages, to "King Arthur", which tries to be sort of Arthurian and sort of historical and gets lost in the middle.
They mixed their metaphors, so to speak.
Yes, and rather badly.
I do love debating the Arthur questions of history. I love the story as a study in the historical development of a fictional series that takes on a different flavour in each century it passes through - and it started, when, in the 9th century or so? Maybe the eighth? (I used to be up on all the sources, but my memory fails me now.)
I think "King Arthur" was playing with various ironies about society, culture, and religion, but didn't cope with it very well and ended up being a rather murky adventure/war story.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-19 11:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-19 11:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 02:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 02:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 02:40 am (UTC)Eeek! Sounds as if they weren't even trying.
I hate it when they don't care.
When I think of the efforts I go to, to make my fanfic sound authentically British - or authentically American, when it's set in the US - well, if I can do it, so can they. I don't always succeed, but putting the effort in at least ensures that the most egregious mistakes (like skunks) don't appear.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 10:18 am (UTC)We may have been invaded by grey squirrels, but not raccoons!
no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 01:55 pm (UTC)Do you have black squirrels and red squirrels? I'm always confused as to who has squirrels and who doesn't. I've seen Australians fascinated by our ubiquitous squirrels but I know there are squirrels in Europe.... I guess I should look it up.
What astounded me in Scotland was the number of rabbits. We have rabbits, but you don't see them in quantity like that. Like squirrels!
no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 03:20 pm (UTC)Rabbits are all over the UK. I find them far less entertaining. On the other hand, they are great with red wine and garlic...
no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 03:25 pm (UTC)I couldn't agree more!
I've always liked squirrels, which are pretty harmless and relatively clean (compared to pidgeons and rats, say), and definitely cute. I used to tame them with peanuts as a kid. I also recall how much excercise and entertainment they offered my dog, chasing them.
I don't know what our proportions of grey and black squirrels are - you see both all the time. Red squirels are more rare, but you still see them.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 03:44 pm (UTC)From my window, I can sometimes see the squirrels hurling themselves from tree to tree, like lemurs!
no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 03:47 pm (UTC)I'd have said we have more black squirrels than grey ones but I really have no idea which is more common.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 03:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 04:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 04:34 pm (UTC)Russian black squirrels can turn vicious - there was a recent report from the Russian Far East of a mob of them attacking and killing a dog.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 04:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 04:52 pm (UTC)The Far East case re: the dog was in an area where they were starving due to a failure of their usual nut supply in winter.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 05:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 01:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 06:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 12:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 10:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 03:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 02:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 10:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 01:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 03:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 03:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 12:21 am (UTC)The rider is red-headed. And awesome. And... and...
Dude, I still read those books. They rock.
Oh, well.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 12:23 am (UTC)Ay yay yay.
What ever will they do with Bran?
no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 02:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 12:33 am (UTC)Probably not.
Don't mind me, I'm the dejected fangirl in the corner.
*sulks*
no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 02:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 02:31 am (UTC)The problem with Christopher Eccleston being in it... I don't know if I can resist seeing it. For his sake. Even if I don't approve of what they've done.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-03 05:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-05 04:10 am (UTC)Pic Of CE As The Rider In The Dark Is Rising
Date: 2007-05-24 08:11 pm (UTC)Re: Pic Of CE As The Rider In The Dark Is Rising
Date: 2007-05-25 02:09 am (UTC)And I mean oooooooooooooooooooooh.
Suddenly it's really hot in here.
Instant obsession?
Re: Pic Of CE As The Rider In The Dark Is Rising
Date: 2007-05-25 02:19 am (UTC)Re: Pic Of CE As The Rider In The Dark Is Rising
Date: 2007-05-25 03:06 am (UTC)Re: Pic Of CE As The Rider In The Dark Is Rising
Date: 2007-05-25 04:37 am (UTC)Re: Pic Of CE As The Rider In The Dark Is Rising
Date: 2007-05-25 06:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-03 04:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-03 04:37 pm (UTC)Interesting that he thinks Tolkien, Susan Cooper, and Doctor Who are just for children.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-03 05:23 pm (UTC)But, there's still more for CE to do: Claude and Bennet have to address the fallout from Company Man. Claude and Peter need to chat. Initially, Claude and Peter were going on the assumption that the bomb was all about Peter. But, now Peter knows that his mom and Linderman were huge mitigating factors. That puts Claude's People Suck/No Attachments view in a whole new context for both of them. Claude will be shocked, and he needs to be.
Plus, they need to address Claude's Darwin and Maximum Potential speech in relation to Linderman's matchmaking Niki and DL. Perhaps, he and Angela sought to bring Nathan and Meredith together, as well. The writers have acknowledged that it's probably not a coincidence that Claire's powers are the exact flipside of Linderman's.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-04 01:26 am (UTC)Well, yes. And I had been assuming all along that he'd turn up again - and have more scenes - but I guess not. It's too bad, because he was so interesting.
That puts Claude's People Suck/No Attachments view in a whole new context for both of them. Claude will be shocked, and he needs to be.
Absolutely, and I hope to see that - his reaction, and what he does about it.
Perhaps, he and Angela sought to bring Nathan and Meredith together, as well.
Interesting thought, and very plausible.
Claude Tidbit Via E! On-Line
Date: 2007-06-05 05:44 am (UTC)Rhiannon in Crown Point, Indiana: Has everyone forgotten about Christopher Eccleston on Heroes? He is one of my favorite actors, and I was so excited to see him on Heroes, but he's been absent and no spoilers ever talk about him.
Don't worry—no one has forgotten about him, least of all the producers. Creator Tim Kring says of a possible Invisible Claude return, "We're not making it official, but the truth is we would love to have Christopher back. We are going to pursue it with the hopes we can do it."
E! (http://www.eonline.com/gossip/kristin/detail/index.jsp?uuid=7d4b9f8c-de7f-4f8a-afe0-a2ecce690d31)
Re: Claude Tidbit Via E! On-Line
Date: 2007-06-05 01:06 pm (UTC)