aletheiafelinea (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
aletheiafelinea) wrote2020-03-17 06:30 pm
aletheiafelinea) wrote2020-03-17 06:30 pm
Entry tags:
Pretty Good Omens
Maybe even Nice and Accurate.
So, uff, I got down to watching it, finally. And half an hour in I started to wonder if I really wanted to keep going... The greatest surprise turned out discovering that I liked extra pieces more than the original ones; something I never expect from any adaptation. The latter were just... kind of going through the moves but somehow overdone and underdone at the same time – the drunken discussion at Aziraphale's is arguably the funniest ever piece of writing I know, which couldn’t be said about the show version at all. Instead, my favorite was the intro to the 3rd episode, and within it – the Globe scene, though the Victorian park was great, too. (And am I the only who feels sorry for the French executioner? Yes? Okay...) Then again, I always liked the historical retrospections trope in the GO fandom.
I didn’t like some things that weren’t exactly bad per se, but felt like pointless changes for the sake of changing:
# Crowley’s apartment black instead white?
# The shades come off too early and too often; in the novel we learn their purpose only when they get knocked off in the burning bookstore, and later when he puts on a new pair it’s a significant gesture as well – him getting his shit together, regaining composure and making a decision; it’s lost when they’re on’n’off all the time, just so.
# I always liked that tiny detail when Crowley revives the dove suffocated under Aziraphale’s coat; it happens almost in the background, no attention drawn to it either by himself or narrator, just a casual miracle of saving a little life that’s very unfit for a self-respecting demon... but in the show it’s Aziraphale who does that, in the same casual manner, and that takes the miracle out of the miracle, you know?
# Why changing the details of the climax? Especially why the sword for the all Four instead of the kids making their own set – crown against crown etc.
Not as much a change as rather a novelty, but I’m somewhat meh at making God the narrator. It can’t be put into the pointless category either, because the novel relies on the narration so much it makes it really difficult to film it with visual tools only, so I understand that choice, but still – it puts God too close, in a way. In the novel it’s the one character that’s spoken about a lot, but never shows up (well, except to grill Aziraphale about the sword). On the other hand, if there had to be narrator, God is probably the best choice. Ehhh, I don’t know...
Some other things were actually failures:
# Death’s voice. The visual design was mostly okay (it was a wise decision to show very little), but voice was just... come on, like it’s allowed to use digital tools only for footage? It was like they didn’t even try.
# Famine was... he wasn’t. Just traitless. You can recognize the others for what they are, but Famine you couldn’t without being told. The novel’s choice was making him a slick CEO in a suit instead of some gaunt allegory – someone who causes hunger instead of being an embodiment of it. The show’s Famine is neither. There was an attempt of a slick CEO, but not really effective. We’re left with basically a random no-one-in-particular. Granted, it’s not like I’ve ever been that much invested in the Four (maybe except Death, though mostly by association with the Discworld one), so I’m rather nitpicking on the principle here.
# I don’t know if this is a failure, but the lack of explanation feels so: why Aziraphale can’t break those shackles of Liberté on his own? Miracling his way out would be unholy, but a demonic job is okay, or what?
And things I actually appreciated a lot, the way they put attention to details:
# The Mona Lisa sketch!
# While disapproving the shades being constantly off like it’s nothing, I liked the designs changing over centuries a lot! And the general evolution of Crowley’s appearance, too.
# The Bentley falls apart when Crowley gets distracted and turns his attention elsewhere. The Mournful Moment (again an added thing!) was a fan-service if I ever seen one, and the finest sort of it. :’)
# Crowley saying he never had oysters, Aziraphale jumping in “Let me tempt you... oh, that’s your thing” and Crowley’s silent ‘gotcha’. You don’t even make it difficult, angel. XD
# And of course later the whole deal around “Hamlet” and all small details of it (Shakespeare catching Crowley’s line) was even so much better. :’)
# Agnes Nutter was much more impressive than her written version. And I can’t really say I liked him (hey, that’s a compliment actually :P), but Hastur was well made, too.
# Another of those good additions: Agnes warning Aziraphale about his cocoa. Not like this helped anyway, it seemed...
# Pollution casually throws the carton into the stream, while focusing only on the crown.
# The guard reading “American Gods”, heh. It’s a honourable mention, because not a fan here, but I appreciate the care for details again.
Overall it was like the opposite of my most recent slash current fandom: damn good writing, damn cheap realization. And ‘cheap’ here means mostly the CGI and the headcount in public places, while the ‘analog’ parts – costumes and props – mostly looked fine, especially the non-fantasy ones. I found the show reflects the general impression the book leaves: there’s a demon, an angel and their friendship, everything else being somewhat superfluous. Of course, this everything else needs to be there to make a working plot and what this story is about, but now I’m talking about a fan’s perspective. And picking at details aside, what really matters is: is this adaptation really the Good Omens or is not? And to my immense relief (and no small surprise), yes, it is. It rang true. In spite of surprises (ginger Crowley; nervous Aziraphale), it never becomes another classic wretched case of an utter rewrite you can’t even recognize anymore and with the “on motifs” slapped on as the universal excuse. The surprises were something to get used to, not a dealbreaker. Same about the theatrical exaggerated manner – a convention, not artificiality. All in all, those were the true Crowley and Aziraphale (and the others, too), and again – it was an immense relief to finally see actors that really get it, and a filming team that actually works for the sake of honoring the original instead of just exploiting its popularity.
So, yeah. Cannot say about long term impression yet, of course, but the fresh one is mostly positive.
So, uff, I got down to watching it, finally. And half an hour in I started to wonder if I really wanted to keep going... The greatest surprise turned out discovering that I liked extra pieces more than the original ones; something I never expect from any adaptation. The latter were just... kind of going through the moves but somehow overdone and underdone at the same time – the drunken discussion at Aziraphale's is arguably the funniest ever piece of writing I know, which couldn’t be said about the show version at all. Instead, my favorite was the intro to the 3rd episode, and within it – the Globe scene, though the Victorian park was great, too. (And am I the only who feels sorry for the French executioner? Yes? Okay...) Then again, I always liked the historical retrospections trope in the GO fandom.
I didn’t like some things that weren’t exactly bad per se, but felt like pointless changes for the sake of changing:
# Crowley’s apartment black instead white?
# The shades come off too early and too often; in the novel we learn their purpose only when they get knocked off in the burning bookstore, and later when he puts on a new pair it’s a significant gesture as well – him getting his shit together, regaining composure and making a decision; it’s lost when they’re on’n’off all the time, just so.
# I always liked that tiny detail when Crowley revives the dove suffocated under Aziraphale’s coat; it happens almost in the background, no attention drawn to it either by himself or narrator, just a casual miracle of saving a little life that’s very unfit for a self-respecting demon... but in the show it’s Aziraphale who does that, in the same casual manner, and that takes the miracle out of the miracle, you know?
# Why changing the details of the climax? Especially why the sword for the all Four instead of the kids making their own set – crown against crown etc.
Not as much a change as rather a novelty, but I’m somewhat meh at making God the narrator. It can’t be put into the pointless category either, because the novel relies on the narration so much it makes it really difficult to film it with visual tools only, so I understand that choice, but still – it puts God too close, in a way. In the novel it’s the one character that’s spoken about a lot, but never shows up (well, except to grill Aziraphale about the sword). On the other hand, if there had to be narrator, God is probably the best choice. Ehhh, I don’t know...
Some other things were actually failures:
# Death’s voice. The visual design was mostly okay (it was a wise decision to show very little), but voice was just... come on, like it’s allowed to use digital tools only for footage? It was like they didn’t even try.
# Famine was... he wasn’t. Just traitless. You can recognize the others for what they are, but Famine you couldn’t without being told. The novel’s choice was making him a slick CEO in a suit instead of some gaunt allegory – someone who causes hunger instead of being an embodiment of it. The show’s Famine is neither. There was an attempt of a slick CEO, but not really effective. We’re left with basically a random no-one-in-particular. Granted, it’s not like I’ve ever been that much invested in the Four (maybe except Death, though mostly by association with the Discworld one), so I’m rather nitpicking on the principle here.
# I don’t know if this is a failure, but the lack of explanation feels so: why Aziraphale can’t break those shackles of Liberté on his own? Miracling his way out would be unholy, but a demonic job is okay, or what?
And things I actually appreciated a lot, the way they put attention to details:
# The Mona Lisa sketch!
# While disapproving the shades being constantly off like it’s nothing, I liked the designs changing over centuries a lot! And the general evolution of Crowley’s appearance, too.
# The Bentley falls apart when Crowley gets distracted and turns his attention elsewhere. The Mournful Moment (again an added thing!) was a fan-service if I ever seen one, and the finest sort of it. :’)
# Crowley saying he never had oysters, Aziraphale jumping in “Let me tempt you... oh, that’s your thing” and Crowley’s silent ‘gotcha’. You don’t even make it difficult, angel. XD
# And of course later the whole deal around “Hamlet” and all small details of it (Shakespeare catching Crowley’s line) was even so much better. :’)
# Agnes Nutter was much more impressive than her written version. And I can’t really say I liked him (hey, that’s a compliment actually :P), but Hastur was well made, too.
# Another of those good additions: Agnes warning Aziraphale about his cocoa. Not like this helped anyway, it seemed...
# Pollution casually throws the carton into the stream, while focusing only on the crown.
# The guard reading “American Gods”, heh. It’s a honourable mention, because not a fan here, but I appreciate the care for details again.
Overall it was like the opposite of my most recent slash current fandom: damn good writing, damn cheap realization. And ‘cheap’ here means mostly the CGI and the headcount in public places, while the ‘analog’ parts – costumes and props – mostly looked fine, especially the non-fantasy ones. I found the show reflects the general impression the book leaves: there’s a demon, an angel and their friendship, everything else being somewhat superfluous. Of course, this everything else needs to be there to make a working plot and what this story is about, but now I’m talking about a fan’s perspective. And picking at details aside, what really matters is: is this adaptation really the Good Omens or is not? And to my immense relief (and no small surprise), yes, it is. It rang true. In spite of surprises (ginger Crowley; nervous Aziraphale), it never becomes another classic wretched case of an utter rewrite you can’t even recognize anymore and with the “on motifs” slapped on as the universal excuse. The surprises were something to get used to, not a dealbreaker. Same about the theatrical exaggerated manner – a convention, not artificiality. All in all, those were the true Crowley and Aziraphale (and the others, too), and again – it was an immense relief to finally see actors that really get it, and a filming team that actually works for the sake of honoring the original instead of just exploiting its popularity.
So, yeah. Cannot say about long term impression yet, of course, but the fresh one is mostly positive.
no subject
Czuć, że to nie jest historia pisana z myślą o sześciu odcinkach, prawda? Zwykle da się wyczuć te etapy w odcinkach, wstęp, koniec wstępu, przejście do finałowej części, przerwa na rozładowanie emocji, wprowadzenie postaci, powrót postaci i tak dalej. Z jednej strony takie pisanie pod schemat bywa nudne i przewidywalne, z drugiej, kiedy coś mocno od niego odchodzi, czuje się, po co ten schemat jest.
Nie pomagało, że czołówka wskakiwała dopiero po bardzo dłuuugich wstępach.
Rekordem jest chyba trzeci odcinek, gdzie jest chyba grubo po piętnastu minutach.
Przy tym te monologi są bardzo szybkie, zwłaszcza ten konkretny.
Tak, tylko dokładają się do "skondensowania" treści. Odcinki wcale nie są takie długie, nie dłuższe niż w wielu serialach, ale są bardzo "naładowane".
To wyglądało, jakby popatrzyli na budżet i stwierdzili, że lepiej zrobić solidny teatr telewizji niż silić się na udawanie Hollywoodu z przeceny.
Brytyjska telewizja w jednym zdaniu? :D
W sumie chodzi nawet nie tyle o konkretnie biel ("spacious, white, elegantly furnished ... a white leather sofa") co wrażenie dizajnerskiego ąę przeciwieństwa ("that designer unlived-in look") Azirafalowej jaskini starego papieru i wytartych foteli.
A, rozumiem. Zastanawiam się, czy trudno byłoby coś takiego pokazać na ekranie, żeby na pierwszym planie była ta cecha unlived-in, a nie bogactwa, skojarzeń futurystycznych albo z laboratorium. Bo jakby wprost przenieść disajnerskie wnętrze, to otrzymalibyśmy typowe filmowe mieszkanie :D
Dla artysty ograniczenie to otwarcie możliwości (nie mówię, że nie kłopotliwe). Przy tym kino ma całkiem niezłą kolekcję kultowych a przynajmniej popularnych postaci z zakrytą CAŁĄ twarzą lub połową (którąkolwiek), w skrajnych przypadkach przez 100% czasu ekranowego.
Sama widziałam spektakl, w którym przypomniałam sobie, że aktor nosił maskę, gdy zdjął ją do ukłonów, ale wciąż uważam, że jeśli nie ma konieczności, a serial reklamuje się jako show dwóch aktorów, to po co wkurzać fanów jednego ;)
mijani na ulicy ludzie po stronie Crowleyowej wpadają na latarnie/obszczekują ich psy/pozdrawiają gołębie; po stronie Azirafalowej w ostatniej chwili zauważają latarnię/psy merdają/gołębie chybiają
:D
Scena "przyszliśmy kupować porno" zdecydowanie bardziej cringe niż fun, ale jako wnerwiający korpo-manager był przekonujący.
Mnie się podobała :) Ale to też kwestia zobaczenia aktora znanego z poważnej roli w roli komediowej, mam wrażenie, że wiele rzeczy wtedy śmieszy bardziej.
no subject
W pierwszym odruchu odpowiedziałam, że w ogóle o odcinkach, po czym zaczęłam się wahać - czy dałoby się to zrobić lepiej? czy w ogóle trzeba? może po prostu dostaliśmy wynik optymalny, gdy ideał był nieosiągalny? GO jest bardzo Pratchettowy - sorry-not-sorry, Neil - co oznacza także, że napakowany stężeniem istotnej treści per strona nieosiągalnym dla innych autorów, z kłopotliwym skutkiem ubocznym, czyli ciężką przekładalnością na ekran (mimo że w czytaniu Pterrowe książki są tak bardzo "filmowe", paradoksalnie!). Więc...
Odcinki wcale nie są takie długie, nie dłuższe niż w wielu serialach, ale są bardzo "naładowane".
No właśnie. Odcedzić i ścisnąć bardziej, żeby wyszedł "pojedynczy" film?* Duże ryzyko przesadnego uproszczenia; wielowątkowość w GO jest podstawą struktury, a detale jego duszą; wszelka próba odejścia od tego nie byłaby już tak naprawdę adaptacją. Rozwlec na dłuższy serial? Zgubi się tempo; "jednoczesne dzianie wszędzie naraz" też definiuje GO. W sumie to cały czas mam z tyłu głowy myśl, że dostałyśmy wynik "nobody's perfect", a mogłyśmy kompletne zarżnięcie i rozczarowanie. Wolę więc się cieszyć, że jesteśmy z twórcami wyraźnie po jednej stronie w tym temacie i że to nie był skok na kasę a la "o to jest podobno popularne, bieremy", tylko realizacja fanów dla fanów. :) Z autorem na planie i to raczej nie tylko jako marketingowy ozdobnik.
* Odcedzenie, które już mamy, wygląda właściwie w miarę sensownie. Wydaje mi się na przykład interesujące, że w trzy osoby (komciatorka wyżej, jej córka i ja) byłyśmy zgodne co do zasadności wywalenia Hell'sAngelowych Jeźdźców. Robili część klimatu, ale jako ornament, na którym się nic ze struktury nie opierało.
z drugiej, kiedy coś mocno od niego odchodzi, czuje się, po co ten schemat jest.
To przy okazji podsumowuje sens unikania zmian dla zmian, w tym takich, dla których nie ma się lepszego uzasadnienia niż "zaznaczenie siebie"* w adaptacji. Czyli stara zasada nienaprawiania czegoś, co działa. Jak ja nie lubię podejścia "to jest dobre, więc zrobimy to zupełnie inaczej"...
* Znaczy, można, ale do tego są uprawnione wyłącznie fanprodukcje. Takie już ich zbójeckie prawo i sama go będę bronić. Natomiast inaczej ocenia się "oficjalne" adaptacje. Chociaż wiesz, reguły i wyjątki... Jak Tarantino albo Burton robią adaptację, to wszyscy wiedzą, czego się spodziewać i nie jest to w pierwszym rzędzie wierność. :)
Bo jakby wprost przenieść disajnerskie wnętrze, to otrzymalibyśmy typowe filmowe mieszkanie :D
Osz... no fakt. Telewizja zepsuła możliwości telewizji. XD W każdym razie coś bardziej w tym (https://www.dhoumm.co/cdn-k1/si/winning-simple-modern-living-room-design-contemporary-designs-ideas_room-interior-and-decoration.jpg) niż tym (https://cdn.homedit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/kelly-behun-interior-design1.jpg) kierunku, mimo że oba są równie nierealistyczne i "na pokaz" zamiast do życia. To drugie jest zbyt indywidualne. :P
jeśli nie ma konieczności, a serial reklamuje się jako show dwóch aktorów, to po co wkurzać fanów jednego ;)
Spójrz z drugiej strony - jaki byłby lans i duma fanów (konkretnie jego, nie GO), gdyby wyszedł z tego z tarczą. ;) A sądzę, że mógłby.
Ale to też kwestia zobaczenia aktora znanego z poważnej roli w roli komediowej, mam wrażenie, że wiele rzeczy wtedy śmieszy bardziej.
Potwierdzam. :D (Jako zasadę, nie przypadek, bo w sumie gościa nie znam.) Najlepiej działa, kiedy widać, że aktor też się dobrze bawi rolą.