Warning: there may be spoilers here.
It's not that I'm entirely satisfied, I just understand how difficult the task could be.
Percy Jackson and the Olympians is an intricate and delicious piece of literature. It's classic and contemporary. And it is arguably one of the best series in the young adult literature in ages.
I've always felt the pull towards mythology. For me, it's the origin of all soap opera plots ever written. And to be able to read it in contemporary form is nothing short of amazing.
When I heard of the film adaptation, I got all giddy. I heard Columbus is directing and I thought another Harry Potter-ish film - the making of a classic. In my excitement, I forgot how the Potter films are inferior to the book.
Seeing the movie is actually a mixed experience for me. I was fascinated as to how much the film deviated from the book but remained interesting at the same time. I also realized how the makers are going to be in hot water when the reviews come in.
There are a lot of details in the book to cram in (insert run time), but it's still not a valid excuse to make an adaptation faithful to the book.
First, the main villain is not even in the movie. Kronos' name was mentioned as well as the most possible motive that he has for going after the Olympians. The villain was not clearly defined actually- which is okay in the absence of the Kronos detail, since every god is basically neither friend nor enemy to Percy. Well, they've not decided yet anyway.
Second, there was Percy's quest- which is basically the whole plot of the novel. It's totally different. I was waiting for the opportunity for the movie to pick up its feet and reveal that it's as smart as the novel, but I was left wanting.
And third, the most interesting- albeit annoying- characters were removed. Nancy Bobofit, Clarisse, and Ares were no show. It's important to have these characters because they elicited the reactions that define Percy.
I still enjoyed the film. Percy's character is funny and has that near-endearing swagger, a split between Radcliffe's Potter and Efron's Troy . The effects were great but not too extraordinary. There are just too many factors which could have made it much better. Some argued that the reason for these compromises is the existence of a target audience. Do filmmakers "sacrifice" too much simply because they feel that their audience wouldn't get it?
If you take away the fact that the movie was based on a book, it would've been better. It makes sense anyway. But as it is, it is not. And that makes all the difference.
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, February 16, 2010
and is filed under
coloured
.
You can leave a response
and follow any responses to this entry through the
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.
0 comments