A curiosity.
Sep. 5th, 2004 09:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ashinaeHaving just read someone over in ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
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 ofColumbus'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.
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
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-09-06 05:42 pm (UTC)