|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:23 pm
Schizo_S A K U This is kind of off topic, but it has Snape, so.... That makes it okay, right?  LMAO. rofl /saves Here's another funny one:
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 3:03 pm
Schizo_S A K U Potions Master Snape Schizo_S A K U As far as Book!Snape versus Rickman!Snape goes, I have to say that Rickman is the only actor that could pull off the role of Snape and pull it off well. Though they could do with making Rickman's skin a little sallower, I find the two are quite similar. Plus since the book is sort of in Harry's POV, the description given was rather biased, I think. Either way, wonderful cosplay, Professor. I can't believe that a cosplay with just shoddy Goth items won. And the Celebrity Date=Lily thing is really just stupid. If they'd made the avi with the right theme in mind, instead of just throwing things together, it may have looked quite good. It's rather sad, really..
I'll concede that point that the books were written in Harry's POV, but I guess it's a preference thing. Personally, I like him uglier. Hollywood just has a tendency to pretty up things (I have a rant about other characters in various media too, and not just Snape. >> There are some where the source material is unbiased and from a third-person perspective that clearly shows the characters as homely, but they allowed the actor to keep his handsomeness for eye candy instead of breaking out some make-up and making them look truer to their source).
I couldn't believe it either. I could find the cosplay if you want; it came out the same month as the last book.And that's terrible. That they cut out his finer moments, that is. I think that since Hollywood can't stand unattractive people, it effects films greatly. I mean, the 2004(I think..) Phantom of the Opera movie had Gerard Butler as a total hottie. I could totally live with the partial disfigurement and the rather tattered hair, which is basically all that was used to portray his disfigurement and when originally the Phantom was supposed to look way worse ("Like yellow parchment is his skin . . . a great black hole served as the nose that never grew . . ." as said by Joseph Buquet, rather aptly describing the Phantom, if we're going by the book) I think the eye candy thing is to enhance the way the movie looks, because as a general rule, humans are shallow in that way. Most people aren't going to see a romantic movie like The Phantom of the Opera if, for example, Miss Daae was rather lacking in the department of looks, and the Phantom was disfigured as he should be and not as Hollywood believed correct. And as for Snape being 'uglier' as you put it, I think that he's probably not ugly, so much as not what society deems handsome. (cough Lockhart cough) I'd quite like to hear this rant of yours, and I'd like the link to the cosplay as well. =]
I know the movie is supposed to be romantic. I also know that (and for the record, I enjoy the 2004 movie despite this) they pretty much ruined the Phantom. People were able to tolerate the Lon Chaney Phantom back in the 30's, back when beauty was a much bigger deal (hough, to be fair, it was also classified as horror). Why not now? Honestly, I went to the movie expecting something truly grotesque and terrifying, and the reveal was...a disappointment, to say the least. The "disfigurement" was of a kind that a little make-up (even for the time) and a wig could fix, and the only detraction after would be a partially closed eye. For me, it was, "A lifetime of angst for that? Are you serious?"
Christine is supposed to be lovely, so free pass. Erik is supposed to be hideous. My other complaint with Mr. Webber (and to an extent, Mr Schaumacher) is that he romanticizes Erik so much that a lot of his villainy is lost, and there is so much focus on him that Raoul kind of takes a backseat to him and comes off as a lousy hero because of it. Erik loses a lot of his characterization to become fangirl eye candy. I think they could have easily done what Disney does for its homelier characters: make the character truly ugly/disfigured/etc., but still allow a little visual appeal (some examples: Beast, Quasimodo, numerous villains). The approach they took with the Phantom was simply not a good one at all.
Personally, a movie will not be ruined for me if some characters are not more handsome than others. It is a disgusting stereotype that prettier people seem to get all the glory, unless they have some sort of charisma (like Erik or Snape).
My other rant is Cillian Murphy as the Scarecrow. I read a lot of comics. And for the record, I loved his performance (though we will not get into my long rant about how his character was vastly shorted and what more the writers could have done with him). But I also feel he was partially picked for the part of the Scarecrow because he has intense features and does have his own brand of eye candy. And comic book movies do like to have fanservice for both genders.
I would have loved to see him roughed up a little: kind of old-looking clothes (comics have Jonathan so obsessed with books that he will buy them before new clothes), hair that looks unkempt, maybe a little shadow under his eyes. All of these are subtle things, but all of them, I feel, are truer to the character (part of his reasoning to become the Scarecrow was poverty, and Jonathan is the type to get so obsessed with his work that nothing else matters) and would not only make him look a bit more average-looking, but also a little scarier while still keeping part of his visual appeal.
And you make a vivid point. It actually has been proven that more average-looking people tend to be more attractive. Then again, I always have had a different view of handsome than what most of society seems to think.
As for the cosplay, it is not letting me search that far back. -_- It goes to part of 2008, but beyond that, nothing. If there is another way to get to some of the older entries, I have not found it.
Randomly, a long time ago, I read a rant that a person who worked in a comic shop posted about some of his customers. They were a group of girls who came in and asked for X-Men comics, specifically for Wolverine. The clerk pointed them out. The girls go over, take one look, go, "He's not handsome!" "Ugh, he's so ugly!" "Yeah, he's not hot like Hugh Jackman!" and walked out. Needless to say, the clerk was disappointed.
Way to go for looks over character, shallow dolts, and thank you, Hollywood, for allowing them to remain shallow dolts. >>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Potions Master Snape Crew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 3:20 pm
Potions Master Snape Schizo_S A K U And that's terrible. That they cut out his finer moments, that is. I think that since Hollywood can't stand unattractive people, it effects films greatly. I mean, the 2004(I think..) Phantom of the Opera movie had Gerard Butler as a total hottie. I could totally live with the partial disfigurement and the rather tattered hair, which is basically all that was used to portray his disfigurement and when originally the Phantom was supposed to look way worse ("Like yellow parchment is his skin . . . a great black hole served as the nose that never grew . . ." as said by Joseph Buquet, rather aptly describing the Phantom, if we're going by the book) I think the eye candy thing is to enhance the way the movie looks, because as a general rule, humans are shallow in that way. Most people aren't going to see a romantic movie like The Phantom of the Opera if, for example, Miss Daae was rather lacking in the department of looks, and the Phantom was disfigured as he should be and not as Hollywood believed correct. And as for Snape being 'uglier' as you put it, I think that he's probably not ugly, so much as not what society deems handsome. (cough Lockhart cough) I'd quite like to hear this rant of yours, and I'd like the link to the cosplay as well. =]
I know the movie is supposed to be romantic. I also know that (and for the record, I enjoy the 2004 movie despite this) they pretty much ruined the Phantom. People were able to tolerate the Lon Chaney Phantom back in the 30's, back when beauty was a much bigger deal (hough, to be fair, it was also classified as horror). Why not now? Honestly, I went to the movie expecting something truly grotesque and terrifying, and the reveal was...a disappointment, to say the least. The "disfigurement" was of a kind that a little make-up (even for the time) and a wig could fix, and the only detraction after would be a partially closed eye. For me, it was, "A lifetime of angst for that? Are you serious?"
Christine is supposed to be lovely, so free pass. Erik is supposed to be hideous. My other complaint with Mr. Webber (and to an extent, Mr Schaumacher) is that he romanticizes Erik so much that a lot of his villainy is lost, and there is so much focus on him that Raoul kind of takes a backseat to him and comes off as a lousy hero because of it. Erik loses a lot of his characterization to become fangirl eye candy. I think they could have easily done what Disney does for its homelier characters: make the character truly ugly/disfigured/etc., but still allow a little visual appeal (some examples: Beast, Quasimodo, numerous villains). The approach they took with the Phantom was simply not a good one at all.
Personally, a movie will not be ruined for me if some characters are not more handsome than others. It is a disgusting stereotype that prettier people seem to get all the glory, unless they have some sort of charisma (like Erik or Snape).
My other rant is Cillian Murphy as the Scarecrow. I read a lot of comics. And for the record, I loved his performance (though we will not get into my long rant about how his character was vastly shorted and what more the writers could have done with him). But I also feel he was partially picked for the part of the Scarecrow because he has intense features and does have his own brand of eye candy. And comic book movies do like to have fanservice for both genders.
I would have loved to see him roughed up a little: kind of old-looking clothes (comics have Jonathan so obsessed with books that he will buy them before new clothes), hair that looks unkempt, maybe a little shadow under his eyes. All of these are subtle things, but all of them, I feel, are truer to the character (part of his reasoning to become the Scarecrow was poverty, and Jonathan is the type to get so obsessed with his work that nothing else matters) and would not only make him look a bit more average-looking, but also a little scarier while still keeping part of his visual appeal.
And you make a vivid point. It actually has been proven that more average-looking people tend to be more attractive. Then again, I always have had a different view of handsome than what most of society seems to think.
As for the cosplay, it is not letting me search that far back. -_- It goes to part of 2008, but beyond that, nothing. If there is another way to get to some of the older entries, I have not found it.
Randomly, a long time ago, I read a rant that a person who worked in a comic shop posted about some of his customers. They were a group of girls who came in and asked for X-Men comics, specifically for Wolverine. The clerk pointed them out. The girls go over, take one look, go, "He's not handsome!" "Ugh, he's so ugly!" "Yeah, he's not hot like Hugh Jackman!" and walked out. Needless to say, the clerk was disappointed.
Way to go for looks over character, shallow dolts, and thank you, Hollywood, for allowing them to remain shallow dolts. >> (Honestly, I think that this is the longest non roleplay conversation that I've ever had on Gaia. ) And I totally agree. And about the Wolverine thing (because you've just worded basically all my thoughts on the matter of the Phantom and Hollywood, though I was rather peeved that they referred to him only as the Phantom. And the film is wayyyy different than Susan Kay's book. I haven't yet found Leroux's version) that's terrible. And I admit that Hugh Jackman is hot, but I wouldn't judge the comics based on the movie representation. >.> I've never been one for comics anyways, so I'll just stick to the movies. If I find a good comic turned movie, then I might read the comic, but I'm not going to snub it just because the ink and paper Wolverine doesn't look like the film Wolverine. I think the comic Wolverine is rather attractive, as far as art goes, and that it fits. Going back to the Phantom, though.. It was a long shot that anyone really liked that movie anyways, because they hired no name actors for it. They took a big chance on that, and that was pretty ballsy to be honest. Kudos to them for that. But Hollywood as a whole is over romanticized and needs to widen it's horizons because if they plan on making a movie, they should keep it as true to character as physically possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 3:48 am
Susan Kay's book is basically published fanfiction. Leroux's book can likely be found in a local library (even abridged, easy-to-read versions for children tend to be fairly accurate). Locate it and read it. The power of Snape compels you.
On the Wolverine thing, I remember a lot of the comments had "I am ashamed of my gender" remarks on behalf of those girls. I just kind of find it insulting to both genders that Hollywood thinks we need pretty dolls to relate to the characters. A lot of my favorite characters are genuinely ugly, or at least plain (Snape, Scarecrow, Frankenstein's monster, Erik, Quasimodo...). I also find it even more insulting that people buy into the stereotype, often at the sacrifice of good characterization.
I admit that I am a now-and-again comic junkie, and I also admit that no matter what the original source was (book, comic, etc.), I am inherently picky about film representations, if you haven't noticed. >> Still, if the character is still true to their source (I think Cillian played a good Scarecrow, even if he only got about nine minutes of screen time), I will overlook some things (his handsomeness does still bug me, but I can still watch Batman Begins and enjoy it. Same with the 2004 Phantom).
I always forget that Phantom was done without name actors. Still, something more than a sunburn would have been nice. I mean, you can still have ugly without going into gory/grotesque territory. I just remember almost everyone in my row when I saw it in theatres was disappointed at the reveal. I was not the only one; we were all pretty much, "That was a good movie, but a sunburn? Really?" All of us wanted to see something uglier, especially given how big a plot point it was. And as with my example with Scarecrow, some small changes could have made it a lot better without being over-the-top and still keeping some physical appeal (try looking up the Batman: The Animated Series Two Face, for example. One half is handsome, the other is clearly grotesque without going too over-the-line. Something like that could have worked better for Phantom).
And I do agree with you that Hollywood needs to expand. Pretty much every character now is played by some typecast actor unless no typecast exists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Potions Master Snape Crew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 10:00 am
Potions Master Snape Susan Kay's book is basically published fanfiction. Leroux's book can likely be found in a local library (even abridged, easy-to-read versions for children tend to be fairly accurate). Locate it and read it. The power of Snape compels you.
On the Wolverine thing, I remember a lot of the comments had "I am ashamed of my gender" remarks on behalf of those girls. I just kind of find it insulting to both genders that Hollywood thinks we need pretty dolls to relate to the characters. A lot of my favorite characters are genuinely ugly, or at least plain (Snape, Scarecrow, Frankenstein's monster, Erik, Quasimodo...). I also find it even more insulting that people buy into the stereotype, often at the sacrifice of good characterization.
I admit that I am a now-and-again comic junkie, and I also admit that no matter what the original source was (book, comic, etc.), I am inherently picky about film representations, if you haven't noticed. >> Still, if the character is still true to their source (I think Cillian played a good Scarecrow, even if he only got about nine minutes of screen time), I will overlook some things (his handsomeness does still bug me, but I can still watch Batman Begins and enjoy it. Same with the 2004 Phantom).
I always forget that Phantom was done without name actors. Still, something more than a sunburn would have been nice. I mean, you can still have ugly without going into gory/grotesque territory. I just remember almost everyone in my row when I saw it in theatres was disappointed at the reveal. I was not the only one; we were all pretty much, "That was a good movie, but a sunburn? Really?" All of us wanted to see something uglier, especially given how big a plot point it was. And as with my example with Scarecrow, some small changes could have made it a lot better without being over-the-top and still keeping some physical appeal (try looking up the Batman: The Animated Series Two Face, for example. One half is handsome, the other is clearly grotesque without going too over-the-line. Something like that could have worked better for Phantom).
And I do agree with you that Hollywood needs to expand. Pretty much every character now is played by some typecast actor unless no typecast exists. If we're going by that logic, then so is the Phantom of Manhattan, which I did read. Sunburn=not enough to be angst ridden for life. I tend to overlook that a bit, though, because the acting was phenomenal and the singing.. Don't get me started on Gerard Butler's voice. (I think it'd probably be much the same as getting me started on Alan Rickman's voice...) The power of Snape compels me, eh? Then I feel that I must comply, albeit it will be sometime in the not so near future, because I'm trying to get through a million books at one time. I think I've got Les Miserables, Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, and whatever my Lang Arts teacher decides to throw at us after break. I think it's the work of Poe... And I feel ashamed of my gender if Hugh Jackman was the only reason those girls thought of comic books. D<
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 25, 2009 12:36 am
Just thought I'd drop in and say Merry Christmas in case I didn't manage to check this thread today. ^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Potions Master Snape Crew
|
Posted: Fri Dec 25, 2009 9:07 pm
Phantom of Manhattan doesn't exist to me. Erik dies. The end.
I did so enjoy all the singing in that movie. And in Sweeney Todd ("Pretty Women" shall forever be one of my favorite songs from there).
So long as you get to it sometime in your lifetime.
And Merry Christmas to you too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 25, 2009 9:32 pm
Potions Master Snape Phantom of Manhattan doesn't exist to me. Erik dies. The end.
I did so enjoy all the singing in that movie. And in Sweeney Todd ("Pretty Women" shall forever be one of my favorite songs from there).
So long as you get to it sometime in your lifetime.
And Merry Christmas to you too. I cried when Erik died, even if Kay's version was only published fanfiction.... I think I cried when Snape died too... It was a while ago though, so.. But Christine dies in Phantom of Manhattan, and that was rather unexpected. I've been wanting to see Sweeney Todd, and I shall get to it sometime eventually. How was your Christmas, if you don't mind my asking?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Potions Master Snape Crew
|
Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 3:06 pm
*totally cried when Snape died* >>
It was actually quite pleasant. Yours?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 3:19 pm
/totally expected that/
Same here. So, how are you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Potions Master Snape Crew
|
Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 1:40 pm
Well enough, and yourself?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 6:57 pm
Could be better. Family trouble right now.. Not too good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Potions Master Snape Crew
|
Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 12:48 pm
That sucks. I hope things get better for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 1:43 pm
Potions Master Snape That sucks. I hope things get better for you. Thanks. Things have gotten better, recently. /totally read that in Snape's voice on accident/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Potions Master Snape Crew
|
Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 3:13 am
Schizo_S A K U Potions Master Snape That sucks. I hope things get better for you. Thanks. Things have gotten better, recently. /totally read that in Snape's voice on accident/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
