![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Caution: may contain rant
Mar. 11th, 2009 03:50 pmI've tried and failed to concentrate at work today, which was doomed to failure from the start due to migraine hangover and general impenetrable fug that comes along with that, so instead I've decided to get something off my chest that's been festering since Sunday when I saw this poster outside my local multiplex when attending to see "Watchmen".
I can't begin to describe how annoyed this makes me. I actually stamped my foot and pouted like a four year old outside the cinema. The BBC's mini-series was epic, and I mean that in all senses of the word. Not only was the storyline intricately woven and carefully constructed, it was also six hours long. Six hours. There is no way that anyone could do justice to the complexities of the tale in a feature-length movie. The relationships were so tangled, most of all the history between Stephen Collins and Cal McCaffery. That history dribbled out in drips and drops during the course of the series adding richness to the unfolding tale, and I don't see how they can do that justice in a movie. Then that raises the next question: how on earth are they going to put the hurt, angst and conflict that Cal feels at the end of the story, faced with the truth of the extent of Stephen's involvement with the death of Sonia Baker, into any kind of context if all the audience is told is "yeah, Stephen Collins and Cal McCaffery used to know each other once". I just can't see it.
I've seen a snippet of Helen Mirren's portrayal of Cameron (yes, that's right. Cameron is now a woman) and she looks pretty good. However, they seem to have written Dan Foster out of the story. They've changed a whole bunch of names and genders of the characters, though, so his character might still be in there somewhere, just hidden under an alias. But the thing that is the biggest fail for me is the casting of the lead. Russell Crowe as Cal McCaffery? Do. Not. Want. The character is supposed to be as complex as the story - driven; selfish; caring; cutting; and ultimately hurt and betrayed. I just can't see it from Crowe. And as for his physical appearance? I have to say I agree with![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
terraswrath in that they seem to be going for hobo rather than tabloid hack. I just don't see how they are going to generate any of the chemistry and spark between Crowe and Ben Affleck that John Simm and David Morrissey shared in the TV show.
I am horribly torn. I don't know whether I want to watch it and hope to be proved wrong with a demonstration that it can bring this fantastic story to a mass audience, or if I just want to torture myself more if [as I predict] it all turns to shit.
I just wish that Hollywood would lay the hell off our classic telly :/
I can't begin to describe how annoyed this makes me. I actually stamped my foot and pouted like a four year old outside the cinema. The BBC's mini-series was epic, and I mean that in all senses of the word. Not only was the storyline intricately woven and carefully constructed, it was also six hours long. Six hours. There is no way that anyone could do justice to the complexities of the tale in a feature-length movie. The relationships were so tangled, most of all the history between Stephen Collins and Cal McCaffery. That history dribbled out in drips and drops during the course of the series adding richness to the unfolding tale, and I don't see how they can do that justice in a movie. Then that raises the next question: how on earth are they going to put the hurt, angst and conflict that Cal feels at the end of the story, faced with the truth of the extent of Stephen's involvement with the death of Sonia Baker, into any kind of context if all the audience is told is "yeah, Stephen Collins and Cal McCaffery used to know each other once". I just can't see it.
I've seen a snippet of Helen Mirren's portrayal of Cameron (yes, that's right. Cameron is now a woman) and she looks pretty good. However, they seem to have written Dan Foster out of the story. They've changed a whole bunch of names and genders of the characters, though, so his character might still be in there somewhere, just hidden under an alias. But the thing that is the biggest fail for me is the casting of the lead. Russell Crowe as Cal McCaffery? Do. Not. Want. The character is supposed to be as complex as the story - driven; selfish; caring; cutting; and ultimately hurt and betrayed. I just can't see it from Crowe. And as for his physical appearance? I have to say I agree with
terraswrath in that they seem to be going for hobo rather than tabloid hack. I just don't see how they are going to generate any of the chemistry and spark between Crowe and Ben Affleck that John Simm and David Morrissey shared in the TV show. I am horribly torn. I don't know whether I want to watch it and hope to be proved wrong with a demonstration that it can bring this fantastic story to a mass audience, or if I just want to torture myself more if [as I predict] it all turns to shit.
I just wish that Hollywood would lay the hell off our classic telly :/
