Birthday film
Nov. 7th, 2011 01:54 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
skull_bearerYou know, for the first time I really feel my age. Being twenty six fits really well. Maybe it's the fact I'm sorta settling down, or that I looked at photos of myself at 19 and went wow, I look young. More spots, for one thing. And hair, god, the hair. Going short was the best thing I could have done. Really unmanageable.
Anywhoo, I went to see Tintin today. I took my little Milou stuffed toy along (shaddap, I always wanted it as a kid, and the best thing with being an adult is all the stuff you always wanted to do and now can) which, is just as well, because I gave my nails a break and instead of biting them just clutched Milou and squeaked.
So yeah, it's good. It's neck-breaking and Tintin is one of those things that I know so well that I'm not bothered if they change stuff as long as I can see why. The changes in Tintin were well thought out and made sense. And wow, were there changes.
Firstly, this isn't an adaptation of one book, don't let the title fool you. It's two, and a bit of a third. The first is, of course, Secret of the Unicorn, but the second is a previous book in the Tintin canon, Crab with the Golden Claws. At first I was rather confused, Golden Claws is an fascinating globe-trotting drug-busting case (incidentally, the cans of crab in the film? All filled with opium) while Unicorn is a cosy mystery and thriller which never leaves Belgium save in flashbacks. but then, when I thought about it and saw how the executed it, it made sense. They had to introduce Captain Haddock for those who weren't familiar with the books, and so much of his character development takes place in Golden Claws that it would be hard to do it otherwise.
The choice of bad guy was a bit odd, as Professor Saccarine in the books was really just a naval enthusiast who was fascinated with finding a ship identical to one already in his collection. He was in fact a victim of the canonical villains, who didn't turn up at all in this one.
Again though, I see why they did it. The book bad guys are really just treasure hunters who are more willing to be ruthless than our heroes. Making Saccarine a descendant of Red Rackham was... well, it made wonderful sense, actually. By this point, although a wonderful storyteller, I don't think Herge had quite grown out of his weekly strip phase and would occasionally throw in some funny bit-pieces for laugh value, one such moment was at the beginning of Red Rackham's Treasure when the so-called descendants of Red Rackham besiege their house demanding a share of the treasure. It allows Captain Haddock a hilarious scene where he sends them off, but nothing more comes of it.
So these is canonical backing for Saccarine to be the real Rackham's descendant, and it allows a nice sense of completeness and brings Captain Haddock's history closer to his character (there's no mention of it in Golden Claws). In many ways, this is really Captain Haddock's story. He's the real main character. He's the one who triumphs over obstacles, both physical and mental, and fulfills a character arc. I hope it continues into the next film and hopefully we'll get to see one for Professor Calculus (Tintin's such an everyman that him having one would be weird). I love the desert hallucinations all the more because when I saw the trailer that made me go WTF more than anything else. But it makes perfect sense! In Golden Claws, he does hallucinate, in Unicorn, he does flashback. Blending the two worked beautifully and gave one of the best scenes in the film (I loved that bit of the book, and the Red Rackham/Haddock fight was something I wanted to see so bad. My verdict? The film was better. Wow. Fantastic. Beyond fantastic. Lovelovelove), was I the only one who thought the raging sea still kept something of the character of the desert? I'm not sure how, or if it's just me, but wow.
(One complaint, why did the pirate ship seem to get tangled with Haddock's ship and swing above it for a few moments? It was this really weird moment that made no sense. I tried to ignore it and soon it went away).
The Middle-Eastern adventure was loads of fun, although the final chase scene was a bit much. I love how they set in Morocco when the original was set in Palestine :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD I totally understand why, but it made me giggle. The ending, the final showdown between Saccarine and Haddock was wonderful. The crane duel was over the top even for Tintin, but still enough in the spirit of the books that it wasn't jarring.
The final scene? I'm lost. In a good way. That's the biggest departure so far. See, in the book, the coordinates led to an island in the Caribbean, where they search and search for nothing, only to come back and find the treasure in Moulinsart (I know, I know, Marlinspike. But I'm French dammit). That was all the treasure there was. Now they've found that, I'm wondering what the next film will do. Just look for the rest of the treasure? Will it mix with another book again? The Shooting Star perhaps? :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD (great book once Herge got rid of the really messy anti-semitism, perils of working under the Nazis) And what are they going to call it? They can't call it Red Rackham's treasure, since it's explicitly said not to be his. Francis Haddock's Treasure maybe? I love that they opened the globe by having Captain Haddock find an island that doesn't exist. It's a great piece.
So anyway, this film, is loads of fun, lots of action. Don't get me wrong, I love Unicorn, but I understand that they wanted some action for this first in the series. The makers want this to be a franchise (I really hope it is one too) and for that they need to prove interest- bums on seats. They could best do this by packing tons of action into the film. That they did this by splicing Unicorn with the more actiony Golden Claws instead of just taking Unicorn and stuffing it full of generic action is something I'm very glad of.
And that's what I love most about this film. Although it made changes, there is no doubt that the people who made this really, really, really love Tintin. There were about a million shout-outs are a wonderful moment when the bad guys just mention 'The Milanese Nightingale' and I knew exactly who they were talking about and what their plan would be. I literally bounced and squeed myself silly. The intro sequence, the wonderful clippings on the walls, the first sight of Tintin with the caricaturist, these are people who have read the books as often as I have and made a wonderful homage to it. Every change could be backed up in other books, every change made senser. It was a labour of love and devotion, and I loved every moment of it. My badly squished Milou can attest to that.
Really looking forward to the next one, and really hoping it won't end there. Seven Crystal Balls? Tintin on the Moon? (PLEASE!) Tintin in Tibet? Shooting Star?
Anywhoo, I went to see Tintin today. I took my little Milou stuffed toy along (shaddap, I always wanted it as a kid, and the best thing with being an adult is all the stuff you always wanted to do and now can) which, is just as well, because I gave my nails a break and instead of biting them just clutched Milou and squeaked.
So yeah, it's good. It's neck-breaking and Tintin is one of those things that I know so well that I'm not bothered if they change stuff as long as I can see why. The changes in Tintin were well thought out and made sense. And wow, were there changes.
Firstly, this isn't an adaptation of one book, don't let the title fool you. It's two, and a bit of a third. The first is, of course, Secret of the Unicorn, but the second is a previous book in the Tintin canon, Crab with the Golden Claws. At first I was rather confused, Golden Claws is an fascinating globe-trotting drug-busting case (incidentally, the cans of crab in the film? All filled with opium) while Unicorn is a cosy mystery and thriller which never leaves Belgium save in flashbacks. but then, when I thought about it and saw how the executed it, it made sense. They had to introduce Captain Haddock for those who weren't familiar with the books, and so much of his character development takes place in Golden Claws that it would be hard to do it otherwise.
The choice of bad guy was a bit odd, as Professor Saccarine in the books was really just a naval enthusiast who was fascinated with finding a ship identical to one already in his collection. He was in fact a victim of the canonical villains, who didn't turn up at all in this one.
Again though, I see why they did it. The book bad guys are really just treasure hunters who are more willing to be ruthless than our heroes. Making Saccarine a descendant of Red Rackham was... well, it made wonderful sense, actually. By this point, although a wonderful storyteller, I don't think Herge had quite grown out of his weekly strip phase and would occasionally throw in some funny bit-pieces for laugh value, one such moment was at the beginning of Red Rackham's Treasure when the so-called descendants of Red Rackham besiege their house demanding a share of the treasure. It allows Captain Haddock a hilarious scene where he sends them off, but nothing more comes of it.
So these is canonical backing for Saccarine to be the real Rackham's descendant, and it allows a nice sense of completeness and brings Captain Haddock's history closer to his character (there's no mention of it in Golden Claws). In many ways, this is really Captain Haddock's story. He's the real main character. He's the one who triumphs over obstacles, both physical and mental, and fulfills a character arc. I hope it continues into the next film and hopefully we'll get to see one for Professor Calculus (Tintin's such an everyman that him having one would be weird). I love the desert hallucinations all the more because when I saw the trailer that made me go WTF more than anything else. But it makes perfect sense! In Golden Claws, he does hallucinate, in Unicorn, he does flashback. Blending the two worked beautifully and gave one of the best scenes in the film (I loved that bit of the book, and the Red Rackham/Haddock fight was something I wanted to see so bad. My verdict? The film was better. Wow. Fantastic. Beyond fantastic. Lovelovelove), was I the only one who thought the raging sea still kept something of the character of the desert? I'm not sure how, or if it's just me, but wow.
(One complaint, why did the pirate ship seem to get tangled with Haddock's ship and swing above it for a few moments? It was this really weird moment that made no sense. I tried to ignore it and soon it went away).
The Middle-Eastern adventure was loads of fun, although the final chase scene was a bit much. I love how they set in Morocco when the original was set in Palestine :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD I totally understand why, but it made me giggle. The ending, the final showdown between Saccarine and Haddock was wonderful. The crane duel was over the top even for Tintin, but still enough in the spirit of the books that it wasn't jarring.
The final scene? I'm lost. In a good way. That's the biggest departure so far. See, in the book, the coordinates led to an island in the Caribbean, where they search and search for nothing, only to come back and find the treasure in Moulinsart (I know, I know, Marlinspike. But I'm French dammit). That was all the treasure there was. Now they've found that, I'm wondering what the next film will do. Just look for the rest of the treasure? Will it mix with another book again? The Shooting Star perhaps? :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD (great book once Herge got rid of the really messy anti-semitism, perils of working under the Nazis) And what are they going to call it? They can't call it Red Rackham's treasure, since it's explicitly said not to be his. Francis Haddock's Treasure maybe? I love that they opened the globe by having Captain Haddock find an island that doesn't exist. It's a great piece.
So anyway, this film, is loads of fun, lots of action. Don't get me wrong, I love Unicorn, but I understand that they wanted some action for this first in the series. The makers want this to be a franchise (I really hope it is one too) and for that they need to prove interest- bums on seats. They could best do this by packing tons of action into the film. That they did this by splicing Unicorn with the more actiony Golden Claws instead of just taking Unicorn and stuffing it full of generic action is something I'm very glad of.
And that's what I love most about this film. Although it made changes, there is no doubt that the people who made this really, really, really love Tintin. There were about a million shout-outs are a wonderful moment when the bad guys just mention 'The Milanese Nightingale' and I knew exactly who they were talking about and what their plan would be. I literally bounced and squeed myself silly. The intro sequence, the wonderful clippings on the walls, the first sight of Tintin with the caricaturist, these are people who have read the books as often as I have and made a wonderful homage to it. Every change could be backed up in other books, every change made senser. It was a labour of love and devotion, and I loved every moment of it. My badly squished Milou can attest to that.
Really looking forward to the next one, and really hoping it won't end there. Seven Crystal Balls? Tintin on the Moon? (PLEASE!) Tintin in Tibet? Shooting Star?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2011-11-07 04:40 pm (UTC)