my favorite adaptation

seeing Beauty and the Beast in hyper-realistic CGI has forced me to re-evaluate the entire concept of the movie. Like the whole “talking furniture” thing was adorable & COOL in animated-form, but in reality it’s like a fuckin horror movie. You’re trapped in a place where cups have EYES and literally anything could’ve been an ex-person. That spoon you just licked clean? A person. That chair you’ve been sitting on? Practically someone’s LAP. That toilet in your bathroom? Oh-ho-hooo bOY DO I HAVE SOME NEWS FOR YOU.  

One of my favorite moments in this adaptation is this exchange:

Belle: Why do you care about him so much?

Mrs. Potts: We’ve looked after him all his life.

Belle: He’s cursed you somehow. Why? You did nothing.

Mrs. Potts: You’re quite right there, dear. You see, when the master lost his mother, and his cruel father took that sweet, innocent lad and twisted him up to be just like him, we did nothing.

It always bothered me that the staff was cursed when they did nothing to deserve it, but in this version they were punished for a reason. They let him become the way he was when they could have stopped it. I thought this was a beautiful addition to the story.

25 Days of Outlander Day 11 - Favorite Emotional Scene

There is something so quietly beautiful about Claire’s arrival home from L’hopital after her miscarriage. The soft piano of Faith’s theme, the overcast lighting of the courtyard scene, how little dialogue there is. I have yet to make it through that scene without crying––even just watching briefly to take the screen grabs I started to cry. 

Fergus helping her out of the carriage, giving her someone to lean on physically as she makes her way through the lines of servants…

Suzette with her heart breaking so obviously for Claire, reaching out but unable to find words for her mistress (and friend)…

And of course, Magnus––Claire refusing to let him bow to her and instead thanking him for all he did for her, curtseying to him while he succumbs to a few tears of his own (wishing he could have done more for her)––all while Claire remains as stoic as she can, silent tears running down her own face. 

Reminder that every time you insult Russia and call him a psycho, murdered, insane - whatever it may be - think about this:

Russia in canon material has been shown more than once to be hurt and beaten up. One of my favorite strips - it was adapted into one of the earlier seasons - has Russia under Tartar’s rule with him being scraped up and blood on his sleeves. Or one of the earlier strips about Bloody Sunday too shows Russia very vulnerable.

Yes, I get it. We’ve gotten a lot of material with Russia being this sadistic character (”kolkolkolkol xDDD” as the fans would say). But Russia is actually a really deep character. He really does try, but sometime the translation seems to come out wrong. He tries, and in things like this you can see his vulnerability.

I mean for Christ’s sake in the episode today his boss made him stand in front of a tank. That’s not someone else’s blood, that’s his blood. He’s constantly been beaten down, obviously his mental state isn’t going to be perfect. Look at how sad he looks in both.

In conclusion, Russia is more than just some psychotic freak he is complex with many emotions and if you tell me otherwise I will fight you.

You know what my favorite bit of irony involving any Biblical adaptation is? The casting/writing of Moses and Aaron in The Prince of Egypt

(bear in mind, I love that movie to the point where it’s my favorite Bible adaptation, but this bit of trivia makes me giggle every time)

So, in the original story of Exodus, Moses complains that he’s not good at the whole “public speaking” thing when God tells him to go verbally knock some sense into the Pharoah. As such, God appoints Aaron, Moses’ older brother, to do all the talking for him and be his “prophet”.

Obviously, a lot of adaptations decided “Nah, Moses isn’t as cool if he’s gotta have someone else talk for him” and just have Moses give all the badass speeches himself. But then Prince of Egypt goes one step further and also casts Jeff Goldblum and his unique speech pattern as Aaron.

Maybe I’m just a jerk, but that’s kinda funny to me.


about the blogger [three/fifteen] relationships: Hazel & Augustus
“She is so beautiful. You don’t get tired of looking at her. You never worry if she is smarter than you, you know she is. She is funny without ever being mean. I love her. I am so lucky to love her, Van Houten. You don’t get to choose if you get hurt in this world, old man, but you do have some say in who hurts you. I like my choices. I hope she likes hers.”

2017 is the year in which all of my favorite things get adapted into other mediums - and more. I can’t wait for American Gods, Maddaddam, His Dark Materials, The Handmaid’s Tale and The Runaways. What is happening. I cannot process this.

anonymous asked:

speaking of adaptations. My favorite Jane Austen book is Mansfield Park. But frankly tbh, I did not admire any screen adaptations of the book. They all always get Fanny wrong. There is always so much stuff left out all the time. I mean I know and understand what it is like to produce a film, or a series and that sometimes you have to leave stuff out and the adaptation will never be exactly like the book, but not one adaptation was anywhere close to this book. They ruined my favorite character.

I think a common problem with adapting Fanny to the screen is that so much of her processing is internal that she is quite simply impossible to bring to cinematic form without copious amounts of voiceover for her inward thoughts and reactions. And since voiceover in particular must only be used sparingly, if indeed it must be used at all, there remains little other option in modern cinematic techniques apart from altering the character of Fanny to suit the media. There’s always an urge to adapt some books because they are so well-loved, but there are many which might frankly be better off without any adaptation at all. Fanny and Anne Elliot are both heroines prone to being altered for the screen as they each have a tendency to need a voice written in for them to be heard at all, resulting in moments of speaking up being given to them or created for them where they never existed, before.

That said, from a cinematic point of view I’ll defend Rozema’s adaptation as, from a filmmaking standpoint, she made lots of gutsy choices and a pretty good film, even if it’s not, strictly spreading, a good adaptation of Fanny as-written. But I’m sure the textual-purity argument could come into play for any Austen adaptation–it’s just most obvious in the case of Mansfield Park because Mansfield Park is the book/heroine least-suited to cinema.

aimeereadsalot  asked:

My favorite book to movie adaptation is Stardust! The movie is totally different than the book in a lot of ways, but I think the characters are delightful, I love all the actors and Robert DeNiro as a cross dressing pirate? Yeah, its pretty amazing.

YES CAPTAIN SHAKESPEARE!! I love Neil Gaiman and I did enjoy Stardust, but the movie is a MILLION times more fun and silly and the ending is adorable and touching. I love that movie so much!

What is your favorite book to movie adaptation?

haias  asked:

Honestly, my favorite book to movie adaptation was The Princess Bride!! I don't think anyone can truly find a fault in either the book or the movie. It's still a beloved classic :)

THE ULTIMATE MOVIE! I love the Princess Bride too, but who doesn’t? xD It’s just so much fun. I did enjoy the book a lot, but I personally like the movie a bit more because it’s so fun and lively on screen. Plus the casting was perfection! <3

What is your favorite book to movie adaptation?