Ain't Gonna Study Epic War No More

[vovat]

I haven't seen Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, and just about every review I've read suggests I probably shouldn't. I mean, I'm sure I'll watch it when it comes out on DVD, but not at the theater. One thing I remember seeing about it (and I obviously can't confirm this) is that there's a big action sequence near the end. It looks like that's pretty much inevitable for fantasy films these days. Hey, Lord of the Rings was successful, so let's make every other fantasy movie an action epic! Really, I even question some of the fighting in LotR. If taking out Sauron was the key to winning the war, why even bother with all those other battles until he's dead? I'm not saying that killing Sauron would have ended it all, any more than assassinating Hitler would have brought World War II to a screeching halt, just that any orc-killing done while the lord of evil was still around would be akin to moving the contents of a sandbox with tweezers. Still, that was what happened in the books, so I can't blame the movies for following suit. Besides, we got war elephants and fighting trees! When adapting a different sort of book, though, why is it necessary to follow suit? Hey, the Chronicles of Narnia had plenty of battles of their own, but the screenwriter for Prince Caspian still decided he needed to throw in more. And it seems like the only historical films that receive much attention are ones about war. People loved 300 (another one I haven't seen), but it seems to me that the Spartans were one of the least interesting societies in ancient Greece.


Considering who I am, you knew I was eventually going to bring this around to Oz, right? The MGM Wizard of Oz was made in a different time, and it's interesting to note how much LESS violent the movie is when compared to its source book. The book had Dorothy's companions battling wolves, crows, bees, Kalidahs, a wildcat, and a giant spider, usually in confrontations that ended quite badly for the belligerent creatures. None of this was in the movie, but on the other hand, they made the showdown with the Wicked Witch of the West into more of an epic conflict. The film had the Witch's death at the end of a scene with Dorothy's friends breaking into the castle and fighting the guards, while the equivalent in the book occurred when Dorothy was scrubbing the floor for the Witch and became angry at the hag's stealing one of the Silver Shoes. Then again, while the Dorothy of the book certainly didn't know water would kill the Witch, she did fully intend to douse the nasty woman. The splashing of Margaret Hamilton's Witch was collateral damage from Judy Garland's trying to save the Scarecrow. More epic, but also much more polite. Funny how that worked out. I've joked before that a modern remake of The Wizard of Oz would have Dorothy leading a regiment armed with Super Soakers, and unfortunately that probably isn't too far from the truth.

Comments

THIS IS SPARTA!

[bec-87rb.livejournal.com]

HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR.


That image pretty much captures the spirit of 300, except the gayness of it. 300 utterly shaved men in leather speedos and capes, hm.

Plus yelling, lots and lots of yelling.

Re: THIS IS SPARTA!

[vilajunkie.livejournal.com]

Do "macho", male hardcore fans of "300" not realize how epically gay the movie really is? Especially when you take into account that the real Greeks encouraged homosexual relationships in warriors as kind of a romantic buddy system. Achilles anyone?

Re: THIS IS SPARTA!

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Sometimes it seems like sexuality goes in cycles. If you get TOO hyper-masculine, it comes right out the other side. That could have something to do with why the most fervently anti-gay politicians all seem to be having affairs with men on the side.