A curiosity.

[ashinae]

Having just read someone over in fanficrants (where I ventured from a quote on metaquotes) say "as movies are NOT canon in this fandom" in regards to Harry Potter...

Why is that okay? Really. Why is it that so very many people reject the movies as being any sort of canon in Potterdom, even when, while Rowling says that no, Tom Felton is not Draco and no, Jason Isaacs is not Lucius, she still has a lot more say in what happens there than people seem to acknowledge?

On the flip side -- why in the name of all that is good and fantastical in this world, can a person barely escape from being lynched when wanting to deny the validity of the Lord of the Rings movies as canon? Why is it I still have to look nervously over my shoulder if I want to say in public that I thought Prisoner of Azkaban was a hell of a better adaptation than Return of the King -- saying this in fear of people from both fandoms, for opposite reasons?

Why does it seem far more okay to accept Sean Bean as the ideal Boromir, than Alan Rickman as the ideal Snape? Why are the fans of Tolkien's vision sneered at by fans of Jackson's vision, while fans of Columbus's (*snerk*) Cuaron's vision are sneered at by fans of Rowling's vision?

Why is it more acceptable to do a mish-mash personal canon of both Lord of the Rings movie- and bookverse, while if you take both canons and combine them together in the Potterverse, you're looked upon as a second-class citizen?

After all, I could be snobbish enough to say that yes, The Lord of the Rings is most certainly literature -- true, it's only stood the test of 50 years, but if anything, it is the grandfather of the fantasy genre. Harry Potter? Not so much. What gives the Harry Potter fandom more right to be anal about their books than the Lord of the Rings fandom? Why don't the book fans get looked down upon the way the LotR book fans do?*

Why is it that there is such a polar difference in these fandoms, in regards to the source texts, and the movie adaptations?

*OMG. If it's not been made at all obvious, I love the Potter books. I adore them, though admittedly, I would so not put Rowling on the list of fantasy greats. Possibly not even among the greats of children's literature. Don't flame me over that last paragraph, for the love of God. It's certainly flame-baity in regards to the more militant of the Potterfans, but if you can't figure out that I was saying that to make a point, rather than saying something that might make people think, I can't help you. Don't go looking for stuff to get yer knickers in a twist in this journal. It's curiosity, that's all.

Comments

[wytch-sansmerci.livejournal.com]

I must admit I'm guilty of movie canonization, the books weren't all that sexy. Excellent yes, sexy no. I don't see problems with using the movies in either case (looking for sex in the book LOTR is like looking trees in Bonneville, it just isn't there.)I didn't even realize that there were conflicts.

Just out of it I suppose.

[ashinae.livejournal.com]

I see stuff crop up here and there and everywhere. It's bizarre. HP fans seem to complain more loudly about the movies. *shrug* I find that with both books, the slashyness might be there, but it did take actually seeing everything on-screen to really cement everything on my brain, with the exception of Sirius/Remus and Legolas/Gimli, which were already there (let's not mention the fact that Jackson thoroughly mangled my lifelong OTP, though *g*).

[ashinae.livejournal.com]

*is confused*

You and me both!

The movies haven't really deviated from the books that much (I mean HP, obviously), so how can there be two different sets of fans?

"OMGWTF that was RON'S LINE!" They haven't been paying attention, obviously. While the first two movies were very Disney-fied and not exactly innovative or anything, the three HP movies on the whole were far more faithful to the books than LotR. The biggest changes, really, were storyline cuts. I mean, really -- the length of the lists for character-personality-changes weighs heavily on the LotR side, the sheer number of deviations from events, etc. I don't. get. it.

I figure that if LOTR was a "mythic prehistory" then details can change over the years, like any history does.

That's a really interesting way of looking at things. Cool :)

[zillah975]

*blinks* Are LOTR book-fans looked down on? Heh. I guess I've been too busy enjoying the books to notice anyone sneering. *g*

Seriously, I think there are plenty of snobs to go around, and the movie adaptation of ROTK makes me froth at the mouth. Gorgeous vision of how stuff looks, yes, but Osgiliath a stone's throw across the Pelennor? Denethor a raving loony with no table manners who does a flaming nose-dive off the parapet? *GAH!*

*cough*

Anyway, I've seen LOTR fans get very up-in-arms about people combining movie-verse and book-verse (my personal peeve has to do with green-eyes and blond hair versus grey-eyes and black hair, and people who say Sean Bean made Boromir into a sympathetic character that he wasn't in the book -- Sean Bean showed Boromir to be the sympathetic character that a careful reading of the books will reveal), and the places where I hang out in fandom, the movies are a beautiful fanfiction of the books, which are where the deeper wealth lies.

I guess my only point is that the fandoms are probably big enough that depending on where you go, you'll find the full range of snobbery and non-snobbery. :)

[ashinae.livejournal.com]

Oh, yes, that's all very possible. It just seems strange because generally I see more vehemence against the HP movies when I think they have the least to complain about. It of course seems all the weirder coming from fans of the LotR movies, which makes me want to thwap them with a hardcover single-volume LotR... *G*

[ashinae.livejournal.com]

Alas, no one else really seems to have anything to say. Oh well. Nobody ever really wants to talk to me, I'm used to that :)

I'm afraid I'm rather suddenly finding myself with a lack of anything to say on the subject; you make some very interesting points, and, of course, I do know that there are all kinds wherever you go. Thanks so much for responding :)

[dphearson.livejournal.com]

So silly.
I love Alan Rickman, and yet, I don't see him as Snape per se - but this is a positive way. There is a deeply sensual, well fed hotness to his being that come throught the screen that does not seem to apply to Snape ( who I feel has deeply repressed sensuality and anger in his makeup- his anger at the kids is only the tip of the iceberg)as we see him in the books.
But then again, the interpretation is an intering one. As what all fandom is, really, isn't it? Interpretation of our favorite characters?

[ashinae.livejournal.com]

a deeply sensual, well fed hotness to his being

Um, guh. That's a beautiful way to put it.

As what all fandom is, really, isn't it? Interpretation of our favorite characters?

Heh, yes, it does certainly seem that way, and sometimes, I think that's where so much hostility comes from. I say this very sincerely as a Due South fandom survivor.