A to Z: Heroes

The definition of a hero (according to google, where I get all my information) is a person who is admired for courage or noble qualities. It also says something about men and good qualities, but I think heroes are women too.

My personal definition of a hero is someone who looks out for other people, who is selfless and kind and isn't afraid of getting their hands dirty for the good of others. That includes a lot of people. There are in particular some professions that are worthy of the title 'Hero'. These include Doctors and Nurses, Police Officers, Firefighters, Care Workers, Social Workers, anyone doing charity work. Even, if I may be so bold, Politicians. If I missed any other heroic professions out, sorry, but that's all I could think of. Isn't it nice that some people get paid to be heroes?

 Then there are personal heroes. For a lot of us I would think that includes our parents. It definitely does for me. My mum is even a Nurse, so I guess that's doubly heroic. For others personal heroes can be actors or TV personalities, or even musicians. This is where we step into somewhat darker territory. Often it's children and teenagers who idolise these kinds of people, but often they're not the kind of people they should idolise. For example, Justin Bieber. Why, oh why would that kid ever be a role model? So I think perhaps it's more healthy for children and teens to idolise someone they know, because then they see all the human brilliance and weakness inside us, and then use it to their own advantage, instead of following someone they don't know blindly.

Milo Ventimiglia from the TV Show Heroes. Google came up with him because he is so very pretty,
and I thought his face may attract more visitors to my humble site.

There are also action heroes and best of all, super heroes. And the TV Show Heroes. Now that was a great show, everyone should watch that show. Anyway, super heroes are rather wonderful. They teach kids to do right and all of these great heroic qualities, whilst showing their human side (be they human or alien) and weaknesses. They are far more realistic, approachable and down to earth, mostly, than real life celebrities.

This brings me to probably the greatest question of them all.
If you were a superhero, who would you be?
And even greater:
What superpower would you have if you could choose one?

My answers are first and foremost: Possibly Mystique from X-Men, when she's not evil.
And, I'd quite like to hear thoughts. I am very nosy. However manipulating the fabric of time and space would be amazing.

How about you? What power would you have?

'Bofiloksms' - Why Books and Films don't mix.

Adapting books into films. You'd think that the film makers would have learned their lesson by now. Where has this seemingly endless fascination with adaptations come from?

Sure they'd realise by now that most of them are pretty much doomed to failure.

Especially if the book is a good one.

We'll take, for example Children's books.

Always irreversibly ruined by the film industry.

I give you here as examples Rick Riordan's Percy Jackson Series, Darren Shan's Cirque Du Freak Series and Christopher Paolini's Inheritance Cycle (Including Eragon) series. Of course, these adaptations are now virtually unheard of. A. Because they're a bit pants in comparison to the books and B. because they haven't even made a second film adaptation for any of these series.

Inkheart Book Cover.

Some are in fact horrifically massacred. A favourite of mine is the Inkworld Series by Cornelia Funke. It's set in a beautifully crafted world which absorbs the reader right into it, quite literally. The characters are lovable and interesting, with their bad sides on show for everyone to see. But the film version just takes the book and does a number 2 on it.

Brendan Fraser and Helen Mirren are fine in their own way, but they are definitely not at their best. The story completely lacks the ethereal beauty and description of the books and turns a novel into generic children's film. As I'm sure you can tell, I was not best pleased.

Saying this, some adaptations have been hugely successful. This includes J.K Rowling's Harry Potter, Stephanie Meyer's Twilight, J.R Tolkien's Lord of the Rings and C.S Lewis' The Chronicles of Narnia Franchises. Though some of these books are deemed of bad quality and little inspiration, the film have nevertheless been adored by millions of people around the world. Harry Potter and Twilight are always seen to be competing for both bad press and the headlines, fans seemingly both overjoyed and outraged at the differences between the books and the films of each.

Whereas the Chronicles of Narnia are a light read and watch, and in my opinion have the warmth, simplicity and charm you expect from an older styled book, reminiscent of Enid Blyton and Beatrix Potter.

Lord of the Rings, however was made into an adventure epic that seemed to overshadow the book, but missed out some of the more intricate and perhaps necessary plot points.

Some film adaptations have had me screaming at them. OK, quite a few. The Time Machine, for example, had me raging at it's incapability to be even remotely based on the interesting H.G Wells novella. Once you've plodded your way through the obscure wording and far-reaching concepts you really want the film to be slightly like it. The film, instead, was a study on a man trying to bring back his loved one, but ending up going into the future and trying to help a future race.
Yes, this is vaguely the storyline of the book, except the future race are very, very different and there is no loved one. He travels simply for the knowledge and excitement.

Also an interesting, rather than good adaptation of the same kind is The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde. I was put off of the film automatically because it seemed to me to be trying to make the story too action-y. And the ending was a far cry from the events of the book, but still a good one. Ben Barnes would not have been my choice for Dorian either, his character lacks the subtlety that I would have liked. Not a film I would see again.

The three Alice's. 1.Book
2. Original Disney Cartoon
3. Tim Burton Disney film

Perhaps one of the best adaptations I have seen would be Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland. It captures the devilish and oddball side of the story that the older Disney version lacks. Although not sticking to the original stories, it doesn't need to. It's a new story about Alice, and a good one at that. (Also see Lewis Carrols Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)

One area I haven't covered yet, mainly because it's so trashily awful, is the comic book genre. Spiderman, Superman, Watchmen, Catwoman, X-Men, Fantastic Four, Batman, Iron Man.. you name it, it's been ruined.
The film versions of comics are always going to be a little crap with a general mixing of story lines. Mainly because the story lines of comics changes so much. But when they get something really wrong, it makes comic geeks out there furious. And the hugely successful Spiderman franchise is an example of this. It doesn't follow story lines and the characters are out of place and sometimes just plain wrong.
Most of these comic based films completely miss out on their fan base because they don't use the better story lines, the characters are one-sided and are more child-oriented than their comic counterparts.

And perhaps some other good ones are more of the older style books. Such as Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility and Pride and Prejudice, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and Bram Stoker's Dracula, depending on which versions you choose. But generally these book make good films because of their originality. The way that they can be adapted in a variety of ways that still makes sense.

If you watch these adapted films alone, they're OK, sure. But when you read the book your estimation of them just crashes down around your feet. It's very rare to find a film that matches up to the book, let alone is better than it, although for me Narnia comes close.

Although most films seem to bare no resemblance to their book counterparts, here the Guardian lists some films that apparently do:  Guardian's Top 50 good adaptations - This includes Alice in Wonderland, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Sin City, Dangerous Liaisons and The Remains of the Day.

On the other hand here is A list of 20 Good Books made into awful Movies. This includes Bicentennial Man, Stardust (a favourite book, and a horrifically child-oriented film), The Shining, Breakfast at Tiffany's (Although there is some debate about that one, some say it's brilliant, and some say it's awful), The Black Cauldron and a Mention of other classics such as The Hunchback of Notre Dame and Mary Poppins.

 So there you have it. Books and films just don't mix. You know it. I know it.
So a notice to film studios everywhere: Just don't do it. And if you do, make sure it's a rubbish book that you can make better.

-----------------------------------------------------------

This blog was written with inspiration from http://empire500.blogspot.com/ - A blog reviewing films from Empire Magazines 500 5 Star Rated films of all time. Thank you :).

-----------------------------------------------------------
And for those who read this only to see if there was a picture of twilight.. I'll give in to your needs. Only this picture will be a nice, natural picture. Shirts on:

There you go. I hope you're happy.

 OK, I lied completely, but he does have a very chiseled body.

 (All images from a google search)

Fairy Tales: They used to be pretty Grimm.

Upon watching The Brothers Grimm (Which is a must by the way, it is rather brilliant, and takes pieces of inspiration from everywhere) I decided to write about Fairy Tales.

Fairy tales are odd things really. They were folk tales made up to scare people, cause superstition and to provide some sort of twisted form of moral reasoning.

So what moral exactly did they provide? For a start, lets dwell on the infamous Snow White. All I'm getting here is that you shouldn't trust kindly old women, because they just might turn out to be your evil stepmother hell-bent on killing you.
And Little Red Riding Hood? Carry an axe around with you, just in case.

Not really the kind of thing you want to teach children is it? (Although perhaps being on the defensive isn't such a bad idea. There are wolves and witches out there you know.)

Really, the traditional morals are usually something along the lines of: 'love conquers all', 'be wary', 'don't talk to strangers', 'good always triumphs over evil, 'the grass is always greener on the other side'(Billy Goats Gruff guys) and such. But to be honest I think they're mostly explaining why you shouldn't be as plain idiotic as the heroes/heroines in these stories.

Now, as I've said, the heroes and heroines in the stories are pretty stupid. But that's pretty much nothing compared to the antagonists. Clumsy 'bloodthirsty' giants, trolls under bridges, witches living in gingerbread houses, evil beauty queens, frankly ridiculous bears and wolves and not to mention the scariest of all: an ugly little all singing, all dancing man who makes people guess his name. Oh, the horror.
Although saying this, folk tales have had some very good villains. Vampires (NOT the sparkly kind), Werewolves (Not the dog kind), Dragons and truly awesome Sorcerers are some good examples.

But fairytale land wasn't always this way. All the cutesy-ness can pretty much come down to one infinitely famous company. (And others who try making it more.. child-friendly). Of course I'm talking about Disney.
As much as the Disney movies are old classics, in my opinion the more scary and, yes, gory older versions are better. It exposes more in the characters. Cinderellas sisters were so selfish and wanted the Prince so much that they would cut off their own heel and toe just to fit into a shoe? That says something.
Lets not forget how much the real Little Mermaid had to give up. Every step she took out of the ocean was like knives being stabbed into her feet. Not only that but she didn't get the Prince in the end. She died. Ouch.
See what I mean? The morals are more... pertinent.

If you are like me, and much prefer these kinds of stories, or fairy tales rewritten, then I have a few books for you:

1. Anything by Gregory Maguire.
-Try Mirror, Mirror (For Snow White).(Click Here for a Review.)
-Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister (For Cinderella).(Click Here for a Review.)
-Or for something different, and not actually a fairytale Try Wicked (For The Wizard of Oz, also made into a theatre production). (Click Here for a Review.)
2. Neil Gaimans' Stardust (Also made into a film) is also a reworking, but of the whole fairytale genre. I rather love this book.(Click Here for a Review.)
3. Lets not forget that Shrek has a whole rather funny ensemble of fairy tale and storybook creatures.

One thing I must mention, is the utter awfulness of the Princes in these stories. They're charming, heroic and supposedly gorgeous. Can you imagine how vain they must be? And probably with very little capacity for staying still and listening. Although the adventures may be exciting, I have a feeling the conversation wouldn't be.

To end, I'll give you a moral of this here blog:
If you want a fairy tale with substance, do it yourself. (And don't trust odd little men who offer you favours.)