I Want Hogwarts

After rereading Harry Potter I felt there were a couple things that made HP as popular as it is.

Firstly: Just the obvious stuff, it didn't suck. It was competently written, the characters had personalities, it had a mix of humor and serious moments.  Even the movies were competently done.


Secondly: The world JK created. Hogwarts is such an appealing wonderful place, and JK does an amazing job writing and creating the world. Simply namedropping things like The Daily Prophet and using Harry to explain how the wizarding world works, JK was able to create an appealing world. I think people could see themselves going to Hogwarts. Hell there's a website where you can take online Hogwart's classes. If that doesn't show the appeal of the world itself (not the characters or the plot) I don't know what does.

I feel these aspects made HP popular. But it is the next aspects which took HP over the top and made it one of the best selling books of all time.

It's progression. Specifically it was able to take to grow at about the same pace as its readers. As the main characters grew up and new books were released the readers of it grew up. Having a growing up tale that parallels the readers growing up, having each book get more "mature" is an opportunity very few books have. And this sort of experience no other readers are going to be able to get from the books.


The last aspect that made HP as popular as it is today is its popularity. This might sound redundant but its extremely relevant. Events like the opening night release of the next book or movie, were very special and the only reason why these occurrences were able to become the EVENTS they were was because HP had an established popularity. These events added to HP's popularity. Even if the book wasn't as good as you liked you could still remember the fun you had at the event, Whether it was a book release, or a convention, or whatever.

West Side Story: On Stage and In Film

All right, Going back to the last class one thing that interested me was when Dr. Mitchell-Buck mentioned that the America scene was different in the play than it was in the movie. Specifically that in the play the America song was done only by women. I found that interesting so I looked it up on youtube. And to no surprise, Dr. Mitchell-Buck was right.

I find this interesting  because it creates a different mood and feeling than that of the movie's scene. In the movie the song is sung as an opposition between the male gangsters and the females. While both a united by a racial identity, they seem clearly divided over their feelings about America. This gives the gang more of a motive and makes them more sympathetic. However the theater version has the opposition and support for America singularly in the hands of the girls. By doing this it removes the gang dynamic but creates a more unified feeling for the Puerto Ricans as a whole. Instead of dividing the complainers and supporters along gender lines, it makes the it difficult to tell who supports and who opposes America. It makes the Puerto Ricans able to see both sides of America. To be fair it could be argued that the movie version does that as well, but by making it one group both singing for and against America this group seems more unified in their opinions of America as a whole.

The movie version though I feel is stronger though because the song gives the Sharks more of a motive and empathy, as well as allowing better banter, because of the gender dynamics.

Teen Love, Romeo+Juliet and the King Killer Chronicles

This is just a small random post. I am posting it here instead of in the Fandom journal, because it relates to our class discussion, and is more my thoughts than actions of the Fandom.

One aspect in our talk about Romeo and Juliet that I found interesting was the talk about them being teens. Many seemed to agree their love felt rushed, but that was somewhat acceptable because they were teenagers. Whether you agreed with whether their love was true, or would have faded away with time, The story itself doesn't seem to be hurt by it. You don't hear a lot of complaints that it is unrealistic, and it ruins the story because of it. In short, the rushed love affair seemed to be accepted because the individuals (Romeo and Juliet) were teenagers.

I find this interesting because in my fandom, the exact opposite is true. The main male and female characters  (Kvothe and Denna respectively) are obviously very interested in each other. For Kvothe, it is obvious because we have his perspective and  Denna has hinted, flirted, and in one case (while drugged admittedly) flat out said she liked Kvothe. And yet neither character has had the nerve to make a serious move. This has lead to some hatred or annoyance at  one or both of the characters but a lot of people seem to accept and even empathize with their relationship, because they are teenagers. You will hear comments like, well they're teenagers of course they're going to be shy.

I find it really interesting that both being really impulsive and being extremely cautious in a relationship can be related with the same, oh well they're teenagers. To be honest it sounds accurate to me, it was just something I found funny, and while seemingly paradoxical, accurate.

West Side Story and Warm Bodies

I had seen West Side Story a long time ago so I had almost no memory of it so I went in mostly fresh. I had heard it was good and after watching it I have to agree. It was a really good movie. It was also amusing hearing songs that I had heard before and finding out they're from this movie. But it left me with two big thoughts. Firstly Baz Lurhmann's felt a bit inspired by West Side Story, especially the opening sequence of his movie.

The Other interesting aspect for me was the changes that were made. One specific change seemed so small, but on reflection, has such a large impact on the meaning of the story. And that change, was the removal of parents. In West Side Story (WSS) the only real parental figures we see are Doc, and the police. And none of them are treated with any respect by the gangs.. In Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, much of the blame lies on the adults who did nothing to actually prevent the violence between their households from taking place. There was a lot of responsibility placed on them to uphold the peace and their failure to do so, caused the deaths to occur. But by removing those authority figures the blame for the deaths shifts from them to the gangs. They made the choice to pick fights and while death was never actually intended, they are the only ones are responsible for it. They lose any opportunity to hide behind the fact that it was their house's or families feud and have to accept that they were responsible for the deaths. It creates a very different dynamic because in Romeo and Juliet, the blame was on their parents for not ending the feud, and much of the tragedy lies in the fact that if the parents had ended their feud the violence could have been avoided. But in WSS the blame lies, if on any outside force, society itself. It creates a dynamic where those responsible (the gangs) seemed to have no power over what actually occurred. This makes the violence seem more inevitable, and in that light, makes the deaths more tragic.




Now on to Warm Bodies. Honestly, went in to it extremely skeptical. It did not seem like the sort of movie I would like. By the end I... I.... I didn't hate it. For the most part, while finding corny I enjoyed it. The main character was interesting as his zombie friend had some hilarious lines. However the main female lead, while attractive, I hated. Alright to be honest, I had been listening to the unabridged audio recording of World War Z (which is completely amazing and I highly recommend) and that work is a lot more serious and more recognizes hard choices have to be made sometimes. Which is why I absolutely despised the girl. She whines about her dad killing zombies, things that had been willing to kill everyone. She whines about getting medicine and worrying about the safety of the community. She whines about having to be checked for infection after she was out in zombie infested territory. She comes off as an obnoxious bratty character and considering this is supposed to be based off Romeo and Juliet the fact she didn't die is extremely disappointing.

Speaking of it being based off of Romeo and Juliet, I can kind of see it. Honestly if it was not for the balcony scene I probably would disagree. Right now, I honestly stuck with whether the balcony scene (and some of the other events) make this movie based partly of Romeo and Juliet or whether just the balcony scene was an homage to Romeo and Juliet and the rest was just a romance.

Romeo and Juliet is Insane

My first reaction to watching Romeo and Juliet (the one with DiCaprio) was, holy @#$! this is crazy. There is no subtlety, no restraint. And... on thinking about it, that was really appropriate. I mean, yes this goes more crazy than Shakespeare certainly intended, cross dressing Mercutio being one obvious example, I feel that it worked. Not in a serious light in any way, but it seemed to have fun going completely crazy and I did enjoy a bit of it. At least I enjoyed the first half of it.
The second half was where it went downhill for me. The first half was so over the top, it seemed almost a parody, for it then to go more serious seemed dumb. To have a gun fight with a freaking gas station exploding and then for me to be worried about a character being wounded? A GAS STATION BLEW UP. YOU ARE HAVING GUN DANCES. YOU CANNOT EXPECT ME TO TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY.

And before you give the argument that the same happened in Shakespeare. NO. In Shakespeare it works because having a happier beginning only serves to more starkly contrast the tragedy that would follow, AND the beginning, while more jovial, was still tense and somewhat serious. Yes, there was good times had by Romeo and company, but that was intended to make us like and care for the characters in the play. So when they actually die, we care.
If you're going to go insane, go fully insane. Make it all a joke. But by having the giant contrast between the first and second half, and not doing it in a deliberate and skilled way, it weakens the movie, putting it somewhere between a parody and a serious take.
(An example of a hilarious parody of Romeo and Juliet[and Shakespeare in general] is this The Complete Works of Shakespeare(Abridged):Romeo and Juliet )

As for the update to modern times, or any other times that was not intended in Shakespeare, It can work. One amazing example of a change  that looked really cool was this interpretation of Julius Shakespeare that used African Americans for Romans http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Q7apiYunEU
I feel that what makes Shakespeare, Shakespeare is the language. If you can make his writing sound natural I feel that you can make any Shakespeare play work. The imagery, the characters, heck even the plot can be changed(as the Abridged Shakespeare proves), but the language is the most important for maintaining the identity. The language isn't everything though. While I feel it is important, and the most signifying part of a Shakespeare play, the play is still made up of the acting, props, costumes, the stage. While changes can be made, they need to be made in way that maintains some sort of internal consistency and logic, as well as working.

And finally, and on a slightly less relevant note, I love the beginning scene of Romeo and Juliet, Do you bite your thumb at me Sir?