Why do JKR and Chris Columbus not want Americans in the movies?
Michael Wilcox
or there? Like, I could see Lee Jordan (The Quidditch commentator) as a
Yank. Or ho about some of those other guys in Harry's dorm? Any thoughts?
--
Michael Wilcox
mjw...@yahoo.com
The Beast
"Michael Wilcox" <mjw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:sIDJ7.48996$S4.45...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Maybe cause Hogwarts is in Britain, and there is reference to other schools.
So they're just aren't any Americans in the British school, Hogwarts.
The Beast (American)
http://fictionempire.com
Michael Wilcox
> > Chris Columbus is American, why can't he ask JKR to insert an American
> here
> > or there? Like, I could see Lee Jordan (The Quidditch commentator) as a
> > Yank. Or ho about some of those other guys in Harry's dorm? Any
thoughts?
> Maybe cause Hogwarts is in Britain, and there is reference to other
schools.
> So they're just aren't any Americans in the British school, Hogwarts.
Yeah, but there still could be some American kids in a, you know, student
exchange type of program. There are American people in Britain, you know.
--
Michael Wilcox
mjw...@yahoo.com
martin todd
just that there are no Americans in the book.
It's about a group of British kids at a British public school (even though
no-one appears to have to pay any fees) and there's no mention of any
Americans or otherwise (until GoF).
Looks as though CC is in a no-win situation here -
1 - Put American kids in the movie to keep the Americans happy and he'd be
accused of selling out and going against the spirit of the book.
2 - Don't put American kids in the movie and get the Americans complaining.
I reckon he's probably had a hard enough job trying to keep people happy
without having to worry about this as well.
Martin
Michael Wilcox <mjw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:K0EJ7.49015$S4.45...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
MaryBeth
First, please don't take this as any kind of 'flame'. I'm new to this group,
(name is 'MaryBeth' but I prefer 'Mare', <g>) but not to USENET. I'm probably
one of the oldest of this group, tho maybe not...<g>
Your post just happened to be the one I read first when rejoining the group
tonight...been lurking. So it is *sincerely* nothing personal, but is geared
toward all of you out there with this 'problem'.
My nephew got me into the books, and I LOVED them. It did take me awhile to
get down to reading them, though.
I am Scottish/American, and can find absolutely nothing offensive about not
including 'American' students/teachers/characters of any kind. The book takes
place there and they *do* speak the same language, (erm, uhm, okay, it doesn't
*sound exactly* like it at times, <BG>). IOW, I could see a problem with my
being a non-English speaking person or it being in a language I don't
understand, and having to use sub-titles, or, even *worse*, dubs.
I read, much more than I watch TV so I also haven't been 'saturated' with
the influx of products nor other tie-ins.
I consider myself to be VERY lucky that I have just finished reading the
GoF, and the others in their turn, all in the past couple of weeks, for the
first time. And now have the movie right away, to see!! I know most here have
been HP fans for years, and have been waiting much longer to see this. :)
I grew up in a Scottish home/town/area/streets with all of my family or
others from the same towns in Scotland. So I do understand a lot better then
most Americans, including my husband. (I can't even get him to listen to Billy
Connelly, as it ruins all the jokes by the time I've explained them. <G>)
Mainly I picked up *my* Scottish accent from making fun of our parents and
Aunties and Uncles. <G> My own wee Mam says I speak with a better Scottish
accent than she does. I'm sure that's because all of the first generation, (the
ones right before us), all tried to fit in here, and tried to rid themselves of
the accent. To help them be better understood, for work, for other
acquaintances...whatever.
Anyway, as usual I've run off at the mouth again, and will get to my point.
WHY, WHY, WHY, are so many 'Americans' bothered by the all British cast????
I don't see it as either enhancing nor ruining any part of it for me. As a
matter of fact, I would like to get my hands on the British versions of the
books, if they are all "Americanized" here. I felt a wee bit cheated when I
found out they had differing narratives. :)
So, I just don't understand why ppl are so upset about this? I hear the
movie's great, and I'm lucky to have just finished all four books in the past 2
weeks or so, and am therefore immersed in 'Hogwarts' at this time, along with
the movie!
Tomorrow is my Birthday, and my husband and I are going out to dinner,
(anywhere I choose), as long as we go to see our already paid for tickets for
the afternoon flick.
I say, ENJOY, ENJOY ENJOY....and let all the teeny things go. You'll have
much more to be bothered by than this, in your coming years, but hopefully,
sincerely, nothing much worse. :)
Peace,
Mare
PS to all the Brits that are putting down the Americans as in 'dumbing the
books and movie down' to be understood. I can understand most of all the various
'accents', I don't however speak Gaelic, tho the book never does either, really.
And I have lived here forever, have had to 'interpret' some of the slang British
words for my pals. I *never* once felt that they were 'stupid' nor 'dumb',
because they didn't realize what some of the thicker accent were. I found it
very fun and pleasant to teach them.
There is nothing funnier than one of your pals, walking around trying to
speak with a Scottish accent all day long. Waaaaay too funny, but definitely not
dumb nor stupid. <ROFLMAO>
There is a fine line there, and I've read some posts that went far over to
the nastier side, on this point. Please, remember, "It is wiser to look the fool
to others and not say a thing, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
Cheshire55
or there? Like, I could see Lee Jordan (The Quidditch commentator) as a
Yank. Or ho about some of those other guys in Harry's dorm? Any thoughts? >>
First of all b/c it was in the contract that JKR wanted it to be filmed in
Britian and have a british cast. Second, it's a british school and it's stated
very clearly that the different wizarding schools mostly keep to themselves b/c
they don't want their "secrets" leaked out. Plus the Ministry of Magic is only
for Britian. It's not a global thing and other "ministries" probably have
different rules.
Take care.
TTFN,
Jennifer
25yrs old
PCO
AP SAHM to Chris (12/98) and Ian (8/00)
"We can dream our dreams forever
Dream our dreams together
Open our eyes
make a wish on a star in the sky
And keep the dream alive"
Frank Wustner
> Chris Columbus is American, why can't he ask JKR to insert an American here
> or there? Like, I could see Lee Jordan (The Quidditch commentator) as a
> Yank. Or ho about some of those other guys in Harry's dorm? Any thoughts?
It's happening in the U.K. All the characters are Brits. What sense
would there be in using Americans actors to play British characters?
--
The Deadly Nightshade
http://deadly_nightshade.tripod.com/
http://members.tripod.com/~deadly_nightshade/
|-----------------------------------|
|"I, too, believe in fate... |
|the fate a man makes for himself." |
|Lord Soth ("Time of the Twins") |
|-----------------------------------|
| Want to email me? Go to the URL |
| above and email me from there. |
|-----------------------------------|
Frank Wustner
But none in the story. That's what matters.
Michael Wilcox
> 1 - Put American kids in the movie to keep the Americans happy and he'd be
> accused of selling out and going against the spirit of the book.
>
> 2 - Don't put American kids in the movie and get the Americans
complaining.
Hmmmmm. I guess he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Ah, well.
The movie's still cool anyhow.
--
Michael Wilcox
mjw...@yahoo.com
Michael Wilcox
> Chris Columbus is American, why can't he ask JKR to insert an American
here
> or there? Like, I could see Lee Jordan (The Quidditch commentator) as a
> Yank. Or ho about some of those other guys in Harry's dorm? Any thoughts?
Well all, thanks for the input. I just thought I'd create a stir and see
what happened.
G'night all!
--
Michael Wilcox
mjw...@yahoo.com
RichardCranium69
What people fail to realize is that the book's purpose was to feature
the growing pains of British youth in particular and how to deal with them
within means. The spirit of the novel itself would be undermined if it were
catered to the whims of a certain ethnic group or belief system.
If I were producing a film revolving around the circumstances of the
U.S. Civil War, why would it be necessary to include Chinese actors? Why
would they consider it offensive if they were not mentioned? What
overwhelming evidence exists that did they particpated in that era of
American history?
I'm a Democrat and I have to say that maybe we have been conditioned to
reason that somebody somewhere is being purposely excluded from some
activity for no reason whatsoever. Ridiculous!!!
Anywho, those are my two cents worth. Nuff of this rant, bye!
"MaryBeth" <marb...@home.com> wrote in message
news:ljFJ7.229488$5A3.85...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
The Beer Baron
British characters. You lot can't do the accent and we don't need any Dick
van Dyke style 'cor blimeys' 'ain't it jus' dandy' crap.
It just wouldn't be right with Schwarzenegger as Hagrid or Charlton Heston
as Dumbledore.
--
The Beer Baron (or am I?)
"Michael Wilcox" <mjw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:K0EJ7.49015$S4.45...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
RCLOVELY
>It just wouldn't be right with Schwarzenegger as Hagrid or Charlton Heston
>as Dumbledore.
Ya know, they could have done the parts very well. Not as well as Harris or
Coltrain, but it would have worked.
RC
scooter
So where is the token British child in every American childrens' movie?
Ah, I thought so.
What is this mindset that dictates everything should be aimed at America?
The books took place in England, and all the kids were British. That's the
way the book was written - period.
I also think the Americanisations that were done to the books were
ridiculous. So the British call it a "jumper", and Americans call it a
"sweater"? God forbid an American child actually reads a British phrase
and figures out it's meaning from the context. What a horrible thing to
learn something new that's outside of the American experience.
Sorry to rant, but I just hate American ego-centrism...
And BTW, I'm American.
--
Reporter: "What do you call that hairstyle?"
George Harrison: "Arthur"
ELurio
sure you're going to see cameos up the wazoo.
eric l.
John Smith
news:Xns915DCB8776CB...@24.91.0.34...
I'm with you there. I think it is absolutely ridiculous that people think
they should have used an American cast.
However, I only partially agree with you on the edits in the American
version of the book. I actually read the English version, and for the life
of me I couldn't figure out what "trainers" were or why Ron's were showing.
I eventually had to compare it to the American version to figure it out.
That and I found some of word spellings annoying. Not that I couldn't read
them, just that it sort of bugged me that they were spelled different. All
the other edits were pretty much pointless though.
My 2 cents.
~J (Also American)
(Long time lurker, first time poster)
Pluto (M)
"The Beer Baron" <gillandy...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9t7qla$dmk$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
> Us non-Americans are very pleased that they haven't used Americans to play
> British characters. You lot can't do the accent and we don't need any Dick
> van Dyke style 'cor blimeys' 'ain't it jus' dandy' crap.
>
> It just wouldn't be right with Schwarzenegger as Hagrid or Charlton Heston
> as Dumbledore.
Many Americans are pleased with Rowling and Columbus not selling out as well..
Such as me :D
The Beer Baron
--
The Beer Baron (or am I?)
"RCLOVELY" <rclo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011118130802...@mb-ca.aol.com...
Aurinia
as the books are set in London, I think that is one answer as to why the
actors should be English. Does the world have to revolve around America?
Alternatively, would you want broad English accents on people doing a
re-enactment of the American Civil War?
I think not.....
I'm Australian, but I don't think they should bring out and Australian
version of Harry Potter. Those 'strine accents are funny in bursts, but like
fingernails down a blackboard after a while.
A
"RCLOVELY" <rclo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011118130802...@mb-ca.aol.com...
> >
The Original Jade
"Aurinia" <aur...@kermit.com> wrote in message
news:cb1K7.369253$8x1.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> Alternatively, would you want broad English accents on people doing a
> re-enactment of the American Civil War?
> I think not.....
>
Five words for you. Vivian Leigh as Scarlett O'Hara.
Jade
The Beer Baron
Michael Wilcox
.........or Haley Joe Osmend "I see magic people, they're everywhere. They
don't even know that they're magic".
*Shudders* Did you know there was a chance he could have been cast? With
Speilberg directing?
--
Michael Wilcox
mjw...@yahoo.com
Andy Platt
that Spielberg wanted to do an animated version with the voice of HJO as
Harry. IMHO this is absolutely crap and the only thing I've seen attributed
to Spielberg on the subject is that he didn't want to do the Harry Potter
movie because it wasn't enough of a challenge.
Andy.
--
I'm not really here - it's just your warped imagination.
"Michael Wilcox" <mjw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:GOdK7.54229$hZ.52...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Michael Wilcox
> So where is the token British child in every American childrens' movie?
> Ah, I thought so.
But when the audience for the movie is so inclusive of so many people (most
of which are American), I would have thought that they would stick in one or
two.
> What is this mindset that dictates everything should be aimed at America?
> The books took place in England, and all the kids were British. That's
the
> way the book was written - period.
I never said that there should be an all British cast, just a few Americans
dotted in here or there.
> I also think the Americanisations that were done to the books were
> ridiculous. So the British call it a "jumper", and Americans call it a
> "sweater"? God forbid an American child actually reads a British phrase
> and figures out it's meaning from the context. What a horrible thing to
> learn something new that's outside of the American experience.
Well, what if they had left that jumper/sweater translation in Enland
English? Then a sentence might be, "So Hermione took off her jumper because
the room was growing hot." In America, Hermione would have been taking off
her dress, had it not been translated.
> Sorry to rant, but I just hate American ego-centrism...
At least we drive on the right side of the road ;-)
> And BTW, I'm American.
Oh. Then you already know the jumper/sweater thing. Ok, well here's one for
you. This one was told to me by my English teacher:
He had been in England a while ago, staying with some friends. They needed
to wake up early (I think to go to a museum) and his friend said, "I'll come
knock you up in the morning!"
Well, obviously there's a different meaning of "to knock someone up" in
England then there is in America. Just goes to show that leaving things in
their own languages might not be a good idea.
--
Michael Wilcox
mjw...@yahoo.com
Terry Eden
news:d%dK7.54247$hZ.52...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> "scooter" <sco...@noway.com> wrote:
>
> > So where is the token British child in every American childrens' movie?
> > Ah, I thought so.
>
> But when the audience for the movie is so inclusive of so many people
(most
> of which are American), I would have thought that they would stick in one
or
> two.
Only 4.5% of the worlds population live in the USA. Sorry.
> I never said that there should be an all British cast, just a few
Americans
> dotted in here or there.
Like the previous poster - once the Brits, Germans, French, Australian,
Papya New Guinians all get their thoken characters in USain films; we'll
let you know.
> Well, what if they had left that jumper/sweater translation in Enland
> English? Then a sentence might be, "So Hermione took off her jumper
because
> the room was growing hot." In America, Hermione would have been taking
off
> her dress, had it not been translated.
But, as it happened, it wasn't. You never see American slang changed in
Britain (the *only* thing I can think of is "Teenaged Mutant Ninja Turtles"
being changed to "TM Hero T" because the connotations of violence were too
strong for kids)
> > Sorry to rant, but I just hate American ego-centrism...
>
> At least we drive on the right side of the road ;-)
Yup - but you have no proper past tense word for the verb "spit" ;-)
> He had been in England a while ago, staying with some friends. They
needed
> to wake up early (I think to go to a museum) and his friend said, "I'll
come
> knock you up in the morning!"
They are, actually, used interchangably in different parts of Britain.
Along with "chat up" which can mea to talk to someone OR to talk to someone
in the aim of dating them.
The Fabulous Disney Babe
What percent of the world's population lives in England?
Thank you for playing.
Fab
http://www.laughingplace.com
One thing that I do find fascinating is Quidditch, the sport of Harry Potter,
the sport of wizards. It seems just about the greatest sport ever invented,
better even than NASCAR. ~Joe Posnanski
Terry Eden
news:20011119161933...@mb-mv.aol.com...
> >Only 4.5% of the worlds population live in the USA. Sorry.
>
> What percent of the world's population lives in England?
About 1%. Yet we produce 9% of all scientific papers and 14% of all
citations in science papers - making us the worlds net exporter of
cleverness.
> Thank you for playing.
You still haven't apologised for calling me a racist.
Terry
[Yes, dammit, I hold a grudge]
--
___________________________________________________________________________
___
Certified 100% virus-free and safe to trust with your life by Wally
AntiVirus,
cos a real e-mail virus wouldn't lie to you with a message like this would
it?
To reply, change "deadspam.com" to "uea.ac.uk"
The Fabulous Disney Babe
>
>Terry
>[Yes, dammit, I hold a grudge]
Sorry, don't remember doing that. What did you say that made me think you one?
The Fabulous Disney Babe
>citations in science papers - making us the worlds net exporter of
>cleverness.
You forgot the apostrophe in world's, Mr. Cleverness.
David Empey
news:9tbqte$1l134$1...@ID-89774.news.dfncis.de:
>> He had been in England a while ago, staying with some friends. They
>> needed to wake up early (I think to go to a museum) and his friend
>> said, "I'll come knock you up in the morning!"
>
> They are, actually, used interchangably in different parts of Britain.
> Along with "chat up" which can mea to talk to someone OR to talk to
> someone in the aim of dating them.
>
>
Are you sure you've grasped the point of this example? In the US,
'Knock you up' means, umm, 'make you pregnant'.
--
Dave Empey
Terry Eden
> >About 1%. Yet we produce 9% of all scientific papers and 14% of all
> >citations in science papers - making us the worlds net exporter of
> >cleverness.
>
> You forgot the apostrophe in world's, Mr. Cleverness.
"Well, gee Mom, it wasn't an English fair."
Terry
[Experimenting with irony]
Terry Eden
> >You still haven't apologised for calling me a racist.
> >
> >Terry
> >[Yes, dammit, I hold a grudge]
>
> Sorry, don't remember doing that. What did you say that made me think
you one?
9j7hsq$mucc4$1...@ID-89774.news.dfncis.de has the final word stemming from
20010719163450...@ng-cf1.aol.com
You made some half-arsed excuse and then dropped it, sorry I bought it back
up really.
Terry
Terry Eden
news:Xns915E980B1156...@209.155.56.83...
> > Along with "chat up" which can mea to talk to someone OR to talk to
> > someone in the aim of dating them.
> >
> >
>
> Are you sure you've grasped the point of this example? In the US,
> 'Knock you up' means, umm, 'make you pregnant'.
Yeah, I know - it can be taken both ways (ooh-err!) in most of England.
Definatly context dependant, though.
She got herself knocked-up by the milkman.
I hadn't paid the bill so the milkman knocked me up this morning.
Iaan Spence
"Michael Wilcox" <mjw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d%dK7.54247$hZ.52...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
DON"T Speak English...they speak American.....English is Spoken in
England......There are literally thousands of differences between the Two in
spelling, grammar and definitions.....A good comparison would be comparing
Creole and French.......Someone who speaks French can often understand
someone speaking Creole but will often get confused and misunderstand
certain phrases and words.
IS anyone here upset that HP has been translated into approx. 15 other
languages....has anyone taken exception to those translations???? All that
was done was that there was a translation made from "The Queen's English" to
"American English"......No reason to be insulted.....and this stupid concept
that the books and movies were "Dumbed" down childish babbling by immature
children!
And NO I am NOT an American!
I am a member of the British Commonwealth!
For your consideration
Iaan Spence
Cheshire55
> 'Knock you up' means, umm, 'make you pregnant'.
Yeah, I know - it can be taken both ways (ooh-err!) in most of England.
Definatly context dependant, though.
She got herself knocked-up by the milkman.
I hadn't paid the bill so the milkman knocked me up this morning. >>
Ok now I hate to say this but to me (speaking my bad american english) The
first example "She got herself knowcked-up by the milkman" says that she was
having an affair with the milkman and got pregnant. The second "I hadn't paid
the bill so the milkman knocked me up this morning." sounds like you paid your
milk bill thru physical pleasure. It's just a cultural difference. And yes if I
read that Hermione took off her jumper I'd think that she took her dress off
and not her sweater.
It's not "dumbing down" it's translating it to our dialect so we wont
misunderstand the intent of the wording. Yes eventually most of us would work
it out after a while thru the context but it's a lot easier for everyone to
just change a few words and avoid the misunderstandings as much as possible.
Take care.
TTFN,
Jennifer
25yrs old
PCO
AP SAHM to Chris (12/98) and Ian (8/00)
"We can dream our dreams forever
Dream our dreams together
Open our eyes
make a wish on a star in the sky
And keep the dream alive"
Michael M Mason
<T.E...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> [...] You never see American slang changed in
>Britain (the *only* thing I can think of is "Teenaged Mutant Ninja Turtles"
>being changed to "TM Hero T" because the connotations of violence were too
>strong for kids)
How do you know this? Are you sure that American books
aren't edited for the British market?
I wouldn't be at all surprised to discover that British
editions of American books had, at the very least, the
spelling changed to British conventions (such as "colour"
and suchlike). And, especially for children's books, it
seems quite reasonable to change words that would otherwise
cause confusion.
Older British books -- Enid Blyton, for example -- have been
updated to make them more acceptable to today's children
(mainly, as I understand it, by removing archaic slang of
the "I say you chaps what a wizard wheeze" type).
--
Michael
Terry Eden
news:3kpkvto1p972r35tt...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 20:43:22 -0000, "Terry Eden"
> <T.E...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>
> > [...] You never see American slang changed in
> >Britain (the *only* thing I can think of is "Teenaged Mutant Ninja
Turtles"
> >being changed to "TM Hero T" because the connotations of violence were
too
> >strong for kids)
>
> How do you know this? Are you sure that American books
> aren't edited for the British market?
My "Catcher In The Rye", "No Logo" and "Design of Everyday Things" all have
their American spelling intact. I can't speak for every book in the
universe, though.
> I wouldn't be at all surprised to discover that British
> editions of American books had, at the very least, the
> spelling changed to British conventions (such as "colour"
> and suchlike).
Nope. None of the Academic works nor works of fiction that I've got have
been transliterates - except those not written in a varient of English.
> And, especially for children's books, it
> seems quite reasonable to change words that would otherwise
> cause confusion.
Not really. People are different. Words fall in and out of vouge. I
think it's essential that people (children are people too!) get a feel for
cultural and historic differences through literature.
> Older British books -- Enid Blyton, for example -- have been
> updated to make them more acceptable to today's children
> (mainly, as I understand it, by removing archaic slang of
> the "I say you chaps what a wizard wheeze" type).
I've not seen the new versions, but part of the fun reading Blyton when I
was a kid was the "foreigness". I annoyed my mother endlessly by calling
her a "brick" :-) It's part of the magic of reading, to transport yourself
to a place where things are done differently.
Andy Platt
> I've not seen the new versions, but part of the fun reading Blyton when I
> was a kid was the "foreigness". I annoyed my mother endlessly by calling
> her a "brick" :-) It's part of the magic of reading, to transport
yourself
> to a place where things are done differently.
And the other joy was asking, "Mum, do you think George is a lesbian?". OK,
I didn't really ask that - I didn't know about those things when I read the
Famous Five books but really it seems so obvious now!
Cyber Scout
Wilcox says...
>
>Chris Columbus is American, why can't he ask JKR to insert an American here
>or there? Like, I could see Lee Jordan (The Quidditch commentator) as a
>Yank. Or ho about some of those other guys in Harry's dorm? Any thoughts?
Why should he want to? There's no good reason for him to do this.
Jonathan Buzzard
Michael M Mason <ad...@cambridge-optical.com> writes:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 20:43:22 -0000, "Terry Eden"
> <T.E...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>
>> [...] You never see American slang changed in
>>Britain (the *only* thing I can think of is "Teenaged Mutant Ninja Turtles"
>>being changed to "TM Hero T" because the connotations of violence were too
>>strong for kids)
>
> How do you know this? Are you sure that American books
> aren't edited for the British market?
I am 99.99% certain they are not.
> I wouldn't be at all surprised to discover that British
> editions of American books had, at the very least, the
> spelling changed to British conventions (such as "colour"
> and suchlike). And, especially for children's books, it
> seems quite reasonable to change words that would otherwise
> cause confusion.
Well you would then be er wrong. I cannot think of a single American
book that I have read that is so altered. I would actually by upset
to the point of returning them and ordering orignal US editions from
the web if they where. Even childrens books will keep the American
spelling, and certainly my parents never worried about giving me
books with American spellings.
I did hear that a British publisher wanted to change a Stephen King
novel once. Apparently it didn't go down to well.
The whole concept of "Anglicising" American books is an entirely
foreign concept to British publishers. It fits with the European
attitude that experiencing other cultures is a *good thing*, as opposed
to the prevailing attitude in America is that foreign culture needs
a good dose of "Americanization" before it is fit to be shown to the
general public.
> Older British books -- Enid Blyton, for example -- have been
> updated to make them more acceptable to today's children
> (mainly, as I understand it, by removing archaic slang of
> the "I say you chaps what a wizard wheeze" type).
Have they? Yuck! Time to hang onto my genuine original non-bastardised
editions then. It would be like taking Shakesphere, Dickens, Jane Austin,
etc. etc. and updating the language. It's bastardization plain and
simple, no if's no buts.
JAB.
--
Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: jona...@buzzard.org.uk
Northumberland, United Kingdom. Tel: +44(0)1661-832195
Iaan Spence
"Jonathan Buzzard" <jona...@buzzard.org.uk> wrote in message
news:fh0et9...@192.168.42.254...
the cost of the reedit worth while.........whereas Britain is too small of a
market...as is Canada to make it cost effective.
In Canada we finally had to pass laws to get things like this changed....now
there is Canadian edition of all US Magazines that come here...or they can't
cross the boarder....and yes in the Canadian edition we Americans Use the
"proper" spellings of words like colour etc...Also the magazines are tilted
to Canadian Content!
Andy Platt
>Well let's see it wouldn't be cause the US market is large enough to make
> the cost of the reedit worth while.........whereas Britain is too small of
a
> market...as is Canada to make it cost effective.
You've never been to the UK have you?!!!
Jonathan Buzzard
The UK market is 2.5 times the Canadian market and that is not counting
Eire (seperate country but right next door and use English as opposed
to American) which would basically take it to over three times.
Also the cost would be *very minor* in modern book production. Should
take less than a day for a person to change all the spellings. All books
are typeset electronically now, so once the master file is changed it
is easy to format and print in its updated content.
That given the real reason is there is no demand for it. Unlike America
it is considered good to be exposed to other cultures (even if it is
American).
Iaan Spence
World...Including Great Britain.
IS
"Andy Platt" <a...@turnip.his.com> wrote in message
news:3bfab...@vienna7.his.com...
Iaan Spence
make
> > the cost of the reedit worth while.........whereas Britain is too small
of a
> > market...as is Canada to make it cost effective.
> > In Canada we finally had to pass laws to get things like this
changed....now
> > there is Canadian edition of all US Magazines that come here...or they
can't
> > cross the boarder....and yes in the Canadian edition we Americans Use
the
> > "proper" spellings of words like colour etc...Also the magazines are
tilted
> > to Canadian Content!
> > For your consideration
> > Iaan Spence
> >
>
> The UK market is 2.5 times the Canadian market and that is not counting
> Eire (seperate country but right next door and use English as opposed
> to American) which would basically take it to over three times.
YOU FEEL TELLING THE WORLD THAT UK IS 2.5 TIMES THE SIZE OF CANADA IS AT ALL
TO THE POINT? PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME.???
> Also the cost would be *very minor* in modern book production. Should
> take less than a day for a person to change all the spellings. All books
> are typeset electronically now, so once the master file is changed it
> is easy to format and print in its updated content.
REWRITES, OR SHE CAN PASS IT ON TO SOMONE OF HER CHOOSING. THE REAL POINT IS
WHAT WOULDIT COST TO GET SAY SOMEONE LIKE KING TO GO BACK AND REWRITE A NEW
BOOK CHANGING TERMS TO BE MORE UNDERSTANDING TO THE BRITISH. ALSO TAKE INTO
CONSIDERATION THAT UNTIL VERY RESENTLY EUROPEAN PUBLICATIONS CAME OUT MONTHS
SOMETIMES OVER A YEAR AFTER THE NORTH AMERICAN RELEASE. sO NOW YOU HAVE TO
CONVINCE KING TO PUT DOWN THE NOVEL HE IS PRESANTLY WORKING ON AND GO BACK
AND DO ANOTHER REWRITE, OF SOMETHING HE "PUT TO BED" A YEAR AGO ??? LETS SAY
IT WOULD BE COSTLY, WHERE AS JKR WAS A VIRTUAL NO ONE AND PROBABLY DID THE
REWRITES FOR NO CHARGE....JUST TO MAKE THE BIG SALE....I WOULD BE SURPRISED
TO SEE IF THIS WILL CONTINUE...OR HAS CONTINUED WITH ANY OF THE REST OF THE
BOOKS? CAN ANYONE COMMENT ON THIS LAST POINT ??? WITH SOMETHING MORE THAN
AN UNINFORMED OPINION?
IS
Igenlode
> Are you sure that American books
> aren't edited for the British market?
>
> I wouldn't be at all surprised to discover that British
> editions of American books had, at the very least, the
> spelling changed to British conventions (such as "colour"
> and suchlike). And, especially for children's books, it
> seems quite reasonable to change words that would otherwise
> cause confusion.
I do assure you they don't, however much we might prefer it.
One thing that does sound awfully queer to us is fantasy novels where the
Middle-European-type peasants speak in broad country accents - where
'country' equals 'Country & Western'.
>
> Older British books -- Enid Blyton, for example -- have been
> updated to make them more acceptable to today's children
> (mainly, as I understand it, by removing archaic slang of
> the "I say you chaps what a wizard wheeze" type).
>
I say, I object to being called archaic! :-)
--
Igenlode
'The Day the Stories Went Dark' - story now on-line at
http://curry.250x.com/HoedownII/
The Fabulous Disney Babe
>it is considered good to be exposed to other cultures (even if it is
>American).
>
>JAB.
May I take this moment to point out that you are full of shit?
Michael M Mason
(Jonathan Buzzard) wrote:
>In article <3kpkvto1p972r35tt...@4ax.com>,
> Michael M Mason <ad...@cambridge-optical.com> writes:
>> I wouldn't be at all surprised to discover that British
>> editions of American books had, at the very least, the
>> spelling changed to British conventions (such as "colour"
>> and suchlike). And, especially for children's books, it
>> seems quite reasonable to change words that would otherwise
>> cause confusion.
>
>Well you would then be er wrong. I cannot think of a single American
>book that I have read that is so altered.
I had a quick look on my bookshelf and the very first book I
tried ("How To Lie With Statistics" by Darrell Huff) has
been anglicised -- it uses "colour" and "centre", and many
of the monetary values are shown in pounds sterling.
Of course, that's only one book and doesn't give any
indication of how widespread the anglicisation of American
books might be. But it shows that it *has* been done.
>> Older British books -- Enid Blyton, for example -- have been
>> updated to make them more acceptable to today's children
>> (mainly, as I understand it, by removing archaic slang of
>> the "I say you chaps what a wizard wheeze" type).
>
>Have they? Yuck! Time to hang onto my genuine original non-bastardised
>editions then. It would be like taking Shakesphere, Dickens, Jane Austin,
>etc. etc. and updating the language. It's bastardization plain and
>simple, no if's no buts.
It depends how it's done. As I understand it, Jane Austen
used erratic spelling, idiosyncratic punctuation, and she
capitalised words randomly. There is no obvious advantage
in preserving these faults, so publishers correct them.
Careful editing is not *necessarily* philistinism.
--
Michael
Andy Platt
> > >Well let's see it wouldn't be cause the US market is large enough to
make
> > > the cost of the reedit worth while.........whereas Britain is too
small
> of
> > a
> > > market...as is Canada to make it cost effective.
> >
> > You've never been to the UK have you?!!!
>
> Actually you are Wrong...I have traveled extensively all over the
> World...Including Great Britain.
Aha, then you should have seen bookshops littering the place - stacked on
top of each other they are! The book industry is big in the UK - I looked it
up yesterday and the market for adult non-fiction consumer books in 2000 was
approx 2.5 billion pounds (that's US billions by the way, - that's about 3.5
billion US dollars). That's a big big chunk of change!. You should also have
seen, if you bought any of the books, that they are almost certainly UK
editions (though that doesn't necessarily mean they have been edited
differently).
In short the market in the UK is plenty big enough for American books to be
re-edited and re-published in the UK if desired.
Over the Thanksgiving holiday I'm planning to peruse The Great Gatsby. I've
picked that one because it's one of the few books that I brought across from
the UK that my wife also owns so I'll see if I can spot any changes between
them. Just for grins!
Jonathan Buzzard
Michael M Mason <ad...@cambridge-optical.com> writes:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 16:31:43 +0000, jona...@buzzard.org.uk
> (Jonathan Buzzard) wrote:
>>In article <3kpkvto1p972r35tt...@4ax.com>,
>> Michael M Mason <ad...@cambridge-optical.com> writes:
>>> I wouldn't be at all surprised to discover that British
>>> editions of American books had, at the very least, the
>>> spelling changed to British conventions (such as "colour"
>>> and suchlike). And, especially for children's books, it
>>> seems quite reasonable to change words that would otherwise
>>> cause confusion.
>>
>>Well you would then be er wrong. I cannot think of a single American
>>book that I have read that is so altered.
>
> I had a quick look on my bookshelf and the very first book I
> tried ("How To Lie With Statistics" by Darrell Huff) has
> been anglicised -- it uses "colour" and "centre", and many
> of the monetary values are shown in pounds sterling.
Thats a text book by the sounds of it, so not quite the same as a
littery work.
> Of course, that's only one book and doesn't give any
> indication of how widespread the anglicisation of American
> books might be. But it shows that it *has* been done.
Well I have just pulled five books from American authors off my
shelf. As far as I can tell (they still have American spellings) they
are all unchanged.
>
>>> Older British books -- Enid Blyton, for example -- have been
>>> updated to make them more acceptable to today's children
>>> (mainly, as I understand it, by removing archaic slang of
>>> the "I say you chaps what a wizard wheeze" type).
>>
>>Have they? Yuck! Time to hang onto my genuine original non-bastardised
>>editions then. It would be like taking Shakesphere, Dickens, Jane Austin,
>>etc. etc. and updating the language. It's bastardization plain and
>>simple, no if's no buts.
>
> It depends how it's done. As I understand it, Jane Austen
> used erratic spelling, idiosyncratic punctuation, and she
> capitalised words randomly. There is no obvious advantage
> in preserving these faults, so publishers correct them.
> Careful editing is not *necessarily* philistinism.
>
That is different from updating the language which is what is
begin suggested has happened.
Richard Eney
The Beer Baron <gillandy...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Us non-Americans are very pleased that they haven't used Americans to play
>British characters.
Some of us Americans are also very pleased that they haven't used
Americans to play British characters.
As an American, I'm really tired of Hollywood forcibly shoving Americans
into British stories. I'm extremely tired of Disney in particular,
shoving American animals into cartoon animal versions. There are places
in the world where there don't happen to be Americans, there are stories
in which there are no Americans, and I'm glad of it.
JKR said in an interview that there are magical schools in America
for the American students to go to. That's good enough for me. Just
drive up along the Hudson River and you'll see lots of large buildings
that could just as easily be a school as whatever they are (they don't
have signs on them). Heck, we have Sedona, Area 51, the Okefenokee Swamp,
the Badlands, the entire Grand Canyon, Yellowstone Park - there are any
number of great places to hide a magical school.
=Tamar
Richard Eney
>.........or Haley Joe Osmend "I see magic people, they're everywhere.
>They don't even know that they're magic".
You know, that's a truer statement than you might think.
For various definitions of "magic".
=Tamar
Michael M Mason
Buzzard) wrote:
>In article <l23nvtcncilff1t6e...@4ax.com>,
> Michael M Mason <ad...@cambridge-optical.com> writes:
>> I had a quick look on my bookshelf and the very first book I
>> tried ("How To Lie With Statistics" by Darrell Huff) has
>> been anglicised -- it uses "colour" and "centre", and many
>> of the monetary values are shown in pounds sterling.
>
>Thats a text book by the sounds of it, so not quite the same as a
>littery work.
>
>> Of course, that's only one book and doesn't give any
>> indication of how widespread the anglicisation of American
>> books might be. But it shows that it *has* been done.
>
>Well I have just pulled five books from American authors off my
>shelf. As far as I can tell (they still have American spellings) they
>are all unchanged.
I've tried half-a-dozen more off my shelf...
Four of them had English spelling ("Wizard of Oz" by Frank L Baum,
"One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" by Ken Kesey, "On the Road" by Jack
Kerouac and "Hell's Angels" by Hunter S Thompson); one of them had
American spelling ("Catch-22" by Joseph Heller); and one of them I
gave up without finding out ("Bonfire of the Vanities" by Tom Wolfe).
Obviously this is only a very small sample; nevertheless it shows that
American books *have* been edited for the British market. Not always,
but definitely sometimes.
--
Michael
Richard Eney
Terry Eden <T.E...@deadspam.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Yup - but you have no proper past tense word for the verb "spit" ;-)
"Spat". Is there another? ("spitted" means "thrust through with something
long and sharp, for cooking")
=Tamar
Aiken
insert Long and tedious argument here
..............................................................
Is it possible that everyone could have a choice as to what version of
the book they can read and should be able to buy either version easily?
Maybe we should all stop wasting energy shouting at each other about
this and start talking to the publishers.
--
Aiken Drum
Melissa Houle
I agree. While I dislike the feeling that a book has been
"Dumbed-down" as I think dumbing-down is a stupid counter-productive
thing to do to any book, I think the things the US and the UK editions
have in common is far greater than the things that are different.
Harry still mysteriously survives a murderous attack by Voldemort at
the age of one year, and is simultaneously orphaned while he becomes
the toast of the Wizard World. He is still left on the doorstep for
his aunt and uncle who reluctantly take him in, but treat him terribly
for the next ten years.
At age eleven, Harry begins to get letters from Hogwarts, meets Hagrid
and learns the truth about his parents and their world. He goes to
Hogwarts where his life takes a decided turn for the better. He gains
both new friends and new enemies at Hogwarts, saves the
Philosophers/Sorceror's stone from Quirrell and Lord Voldemort, and
goes home from Hogwarts a hero at the end of his first year at
Hogwarts.
Same basic story, and I have to admit, the title change doesn't bother
me all that much. Yes, the Philosopher's stone is real, and has a
long history in Europe. Yeah, they could have left in the English
words and put a glossary at the back of the US edition, which would
probably have been better all the way around. But the US edition,
changed title and changed words and all, was enough to make a Potter
fan out of me. These are great books no matter WHAT title is printed
on the cover. Worrying about these minor discrepancies just begins to
feel like hair-splitting, after a while.
Melissa
--
"Don't allow your mind to wander; it's too little to be allowed out by
itself."
Rugrat
> here or there? Like, I could see Lee Jordan (The Quidditch
> commentator) as a Yank. Or ho about some of those other guys in
Yes.
Why?
I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm genuinely curious as to why you think
there should be an American character in the film.
Rugrat
Rugrat
> Well as the books are set in London,
Try Scotland (mostly). Although I suppose compared to distances in America
(and Australia), they're practically the same place!
Someone on this group said:
An American is someone to whom a hundred years is a long time, a Briton is
someone to whom a hundred miles is a long way.
Very true!
Rugrat
Rugrat
>>it is considered good to be exposed to other cultures (even if it is
>>American).
>>
>>JAB.
>
> May I take this moment to point out that you are full of shit?
I'll have to agree with you there. IMO he does have /some/ good points, and
I suspect my attitude is similar to his, varying only by degree.
But by God, you need an industrial-standard Shit-Sifter(tm) to find the
good bits!
Rugrat
Guy Robinson
> << Chris Columbus is American, why can't he ask JKR to insert an American here
> or there? Like, I could see Lee Jordan (The Quidditch commentator) as a
> Yank. Or ho about some of those other guys in Harry's dorm? Any thoughts? >>
>
>
> Britian and have a british cast. Second, it's a british school and it's stated
> very clearly that the different wizarding schools mostly keep to themselves
> b/c they don't want their "secrets" leaked out. Plus the Ministry of Magic is
> only for Britian. It's not a global thing and other "ministries" probably have
> different rules.
The books mentions that travelling a long distance by magic is
expensive when it explains whyb someone has not had distant holidays.
Furthermore the wizard communities appear to be quite small and prone
to be disconnected from local muggle society so transatlantic magical
travel might be a lot less common than modern day aviation.
Secondly wouldn't the American equivalent of the Ministry of Magic be
the Department of Wizardry?
--
Guy Robinson
[all standard disclaimers apply]
Guy Robinson
[...]
> > Also the cost would be *very minor* in modern book production. Should
> > take less than a day for a person to change all the spellings. All books
> > are typeset electronically now, so once the master file is changed it
> > is easy to format and print in its updated content.
> STANDARD IN ALL WRITING CONTRACTS IS THE AUTHOR'S RIGHT TO PERFORM ALL
> REWRITES, OR SHE CAN PASS IT ON TO SOMONE OF HER CHOOSING. THE REAL POINT IS
> WHAT WOULDIT COST TO GET SAY SOMEONE LIKE KING TO GO BACK AND REWRITE A NEW
> BOOK CHANGING TERMS TO BE MORE UNDERSTANDING TO THE BRITISH. ALSO TAKE INTO
> CONSIDERATION THAT UNTIL VERY RESENTLY EUROPEAN PUBLICATIONS CAME OUT MONTHS
> SOMETIMES OVER A YEAR AFTER THE NORTH AMERICAN RELEASE. sO NOW YOU HAVE TO
> CONVINCE KING TO PUT DOWN THE NOVEL HE IS PRESANTLY WORKING ON AND GO BACK
> AND DO ANOTHER REWRITE, OF SOMETHING HE "PUT TO BED" A YEAR AGO ???
For a start few UK editors would think this kind of thing necessary.
I think you will find, as people have discovered, there are often no
more than minimal spelling changes made that are completely
uncontroversial and need no author intervention at all. If the
grammar, cultural references or idiom are different then we just take
it on board when we read it - it's no big deal to a literate person.
> LETS SAY
> IT WOULD BE COSTLY, WHERE AS JKR WAS A VIRTUAL NO ONE AND PROBABLY DID THE
> REWRITES FOR NO CHARGE....JUST TO MAKE THE BIG SALE....I WOULD BE SURPRISED
> TO SEE IF THIS WILL CONTINUE...OR HAS CONTINUED WITH ANY OF THE REST OF THE
> BOOKS? CAN ANYONE COMMENT ON THIS LAST POINT ???
J.K. Rowling topped the UK adult bestseller charts with the
Philosopher's Stone in 1997 before the decision was made to release
the book in America. By that time she had proved herself by making a
children's book that sold well, something that had broke all
expectations. The US publisher wanted the book.
Jonathan Buzzard
"Iaan Spence" <thesp...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>> >>Well let's see it wouldn't be cause the US market is large enough to
> make
>> > the cost of the reedit worth while.........whereas Britain is too small
> of a
>> > market...as is Canada to make it cost effective.
>> > In Canada we finally had to pass laws to get things like this
> changed....now
>> > there is Canadian edition of all US Magazines that come here...or they
> can't
>> > cross the boarder....and yes in the Canadian edition we Americans Use
> the
>> > "proper" spellings of words like colour etc...Also the magazines are
> tilted
>> > to Canadian Content!
>> > For your consideration
>> > Iaan Spence
>> >
>> > SORRY ABOUT THE CAPS. BUT.........
>>
>> The UK market is 2.5 times the Canadian market and that is not counting
>> Eire (seperate country but right next door and use English as opposed
>> to American) which would basically take it to over three times.
>>
> AND THE CANADIAN MARKET IS WHAT 1/25 OF THE US MARKET?? I FAIL TO SEE HOW
> YOU FEEL TELLING THE WORLD THAT UK IS 2.5 TIMES THE SIZE OF CANADA IS AT ALL
> TO THE POINT? PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME.???
Well based on population figures the Canadian market is not 1/25 of the
USA market. However the British market based on population figures it is
a much bigger market than Canada, and one fifth that of the USA market.
Therefore the cost of any "Britishization" is much easier to justify than
in Canada which is a much smaller market than the UK. This does not take
account of the any varying habits in buying books. More books per head
are sold in the UK than the USA which makes the difference in market size
smaller still.
>> Also the cost would be *very minor* in modern book production. Should
>> take less than a day for a person to change all the spellings. All books
>> are typeset electronically now, so once the master file is changed it
>> is easy to format and print in its updated content.
>>
> STANDARD IN ALL WRITING CONTRACTS IS THE AUTHOR'S RIGHT TO PERFORM ALL
> REWRITES, OR SHE CAN PASS IT ON TO SOMONE OF HER CHOOSING. THE REAL POINT IS
> WHAT WOULDIT COST TO GET SAY SOMEONE LIKE KING TO GO BACK AND REWRITE A NEW
> BOOK CHANGING TERMS TO BE MORE UNDERSTANDING TO THE BRITISH. ALSO TAKE INTO
> CONSIDERATION THAT UNTIL VERY RESENTLY EUROPEAN PUBLICATIONS CAME OUT MONTHS
> SOMETIMES OVER A YEAR AFTER THE NORTH AMERICAN RELEASE. sO NOW YOU HAVE TO
> CONVINCE KING TO PUT DOWN THE NOVEL HE IS PRESANTLY WORKING ON AND GO BACK
> AND DO ANOTHER REWRITE, OF SOMETHING HE "PUT TO BED" A YEAR AGO ??? LETS SAY
> IT WOULD BE COSTLY, WHERE AS JKR WAS A VIRTUAL NO ONE AND PROBABLY DID THE
> REWRITES FOR NO CHARGE....JUST TO MAKE THE BIG SALE....I WOULD BE SURPRISED
> TO SEE IF THIS WILL CONTINUE...OR HAS CONTINUED WITH ANY OF THE REST OF THE
> BOOKS? CAN ANYONE COMMENT ON THIS LAST POINT ??? WITH SOMETHING MORE THAN
> AN UNINFORMED OPINION?
The only Harry Potter books that have not been extensively edited for the
Scholastic editions are the Charity books, where only the forward by
Dumbledore was changed. I will hypothosise the only reason for this is
as a charity book Levine would not have been payed for the editing. This
perhaps gives some clue as to why they where editied in the first place.
Jonathan Buzzard
guy_ro...@my-deja.com (Guy Robinson) writes:
[SNIP]
>
> J.K. Rowling topped the UK adult bestseller charts with the
> Philosopher's Stone in 1997 before the decision was made to release
> the book in America. By that time she had proved herself by making a
> children's book that sold well, something that had broke all
> expectations. The US publisher wanted the book.
>
Which makes the title change initiated by Levine look even more like
the actions of an ignorant fool.
Igenlode
> Someone on this group said:
>
> An American is someone to whom a hundred years is a long time, a Briton is
> someone to whom a hundred miles is a long way.
Me :-)
Though you must have a jolly good memory... I hadn't used that sig since
I finished dealing with the website...
--
Igenlode <Igen...@nym.alias.net>
In Europe 100 miles is a long way; in America 100 years is a long time.
The Fabulous Disney Babe
>the Department of Wizardry?
The Witches would be upset. Magick. With a "k" at the end to be Politically
Correct, and to differentiate it from the Magicians' stage/parlor magic.
And what about Quod?
The Fabulous Disney Babe
>the actions of an ignorant fool.
>
>JAB.
Well, JKR changed the title. I think you should apologize for insinuating that
she's ignorant.
Fab (who saw Levine on TV, he's a hottie)
Guy Robinson
> In article <f310f0e8.01112...@posting.google.com>,
> guy_ro...@my-deja.com (Guy Robinson) writes:
>
> [SNIP]
> >
> > J.K. Rowling topped the UK adult bestseller charts with the
> > Philosopher's Stone in 1997 before the decision was made to release
> > the book in America. By that time she had proved herself by making a
> > children's book that sold well, something that had broke all
> > expectations. The US publisher wanted the book.
> >
>
> Which makes the title change initiated by Levine look even more like
> the actions of an ignorant fool.
One thing we should be clear about is the strength of JKR's control
over the Harry Potter line. She said no to Spielburg (sp), for
example. If she was told that the American market needed this change
for cultural or eductional reasons she would have had to consent.
Caen Sul
>over the Harry Potter line. She said no to Spielburg (sp), for
>example. If she was told that the American market needed this change
>for cultural or eductional reasons she would have had to consent.
According to several different sources, JKR never "said no" to Spielburg --
A.I. was ready first, which was why he took that project instead. I don't
doubt that JK would've refused Spielburg's involvement if it had come to that
(assuming she had the authority to do so), but let's not twist facts. Here's
an excerpt from an interview with Harry Potter producer David Heyman:
"Warners wanted to make the film quickly," Heyman states. "We got a draft of
the script in from Steve Kloves, and it was a really good draft. The first
person we talked about the film with was Spielburg. When we first met,
Spielburg was very up front and said that he was considering three other
projects: Minority Report, A.I., and Memoirs of a Geisha. He said, 'Listen,
whichever one comes together first, I'm going to do.' And so Kloves was
writing and Spielburg was mulling and working on his various things and it just
happened that A.I. came together first. So that's what happened with him."
(That's from a copy of Starlog: Fantasy Worlds that my mother picked up; she
saw the Harry Potter/Lord of the Rings cover and couldn't resist.)
Personally, and I hate to say it .... I think Columbus was the wrong choice.
He has a reputation as a hack -- (Home Alone and Bicentennial Man, for
instance; two examples of smarmy, overly-sentimentalized 'Hollywood' fare that
I assumed JK was so intent on avoiding) -- and I think the movie suffered for
it.
Don't get me wrong: I adore the novels, and I greatly enjoyed the movie ....
the actors were wonderful, the "vision" of Hogwarts and Diagon Alley superb,
but it left me feeling vaguely dissatisfied. I thought better editing and less
clumsy direction would've turned what was obviously a good story and a worthy
effort into something truly spectacular.
___________________________________________
Higher beings from outer space may not want to tell
us the secrets of life because we're not ready. But
maybe they'll change their tune after a little torture.
Pluto (M)
"Caen Sul" <cae...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20011123183349...@mb-ma.aol.com...
I dunno. I'd say he did rather well. When I saw the movie, 80% of the theatre
applauded... And frankly, I enjoyed the flick. It doesn't have to be cinematic
brilliance... Just a good, fun movie. This is the problem the Phantom Menace met
with... Everyone wanted Cinematic brilliance while Lucas just wanted a fun
movie. I say just go in and have fun. Worry about brilliance later :D
Jonathan Buzzard
guy_ro...@my-deja.com (Guy Robinson) writes:
> jona...@buzzard.org.uk (Jonathan Buzzard) wrote in message news:<5q6jt9...@192.168.42.254>...
>> In article <f310f0e8.01112...@posting.google.com>,
>> guy_ro...@my-deja.com (Guy Robinson) writes:
>>
>> [SNIP]
>> >
>> > J.K. Rowling topped the UK adult bestseller charts with the
>> > Philosopher's Stone in 1997 before the decision was made to release
>> > the book in America. By that time she had proved herself by making a
>> > children's book that sold well, something that had broke all
>> > expectations. The US publisher wanted the book.
>> >
>>
>> Which makes the title change initiated by Levine look even more like
>> the actions of an ignorant fool.
>
> One thing we should be clear about is the strength of JKR's control
> over the Harry Potter line. She said no to Spielburg (sp), for
> example. If she was told that the American market needed this change
> for cultural or eductional reasons she would have had to consent.
>
I would bet large sums of money if had been the title of book two or
latter it would not have been changed.
Rugrat
> words and put a glossary at the back of the US edition, which would
> probably have been better all the way around.
That's something I hadn't considered. Seems like a good idea. I'm not
totally against changing anything at all - as JKR says, putting Harry in a
dress would have seriously confused people! In my opinion, words should
have been changed when the same word meant something utterly different in
the US, to avoid confusion, but where a word exists only in British English
it should have been left in. I would imagine that you can work these out
from context; if not, they're probably unimportant anyway. A glossary at
the back would go really well with this approach; if a word is really
bugging you and you can't see what it means, flick to the back to find out.
It's not really necessary to know what /every/ word means anyway, otherwise
I would never have read anything as a child, or anything in a foreign
language.
Mind you, "bangs" for "fringe" really threw me for a moment. Why on earth
is the American word "bangs"? SleepyTurtle implied you were all in favour
of logic in language!:-)
Rugrat
Andy Platt
> Over the Thanksgiving holiday I'm planning to peruse The Great Gatsby.
I've
> picked that one because it's one of the few books that I brought across
from
> the UK that my wife also owns so I'll see if I can spot any changes
between
> them. Just for grins!
I did this. As far as I could tell, no language changes had been made (just
as well - F. Scott Fitzgerald's writing has a unique poetry all of it's own
and changing the language would break this) but the spelling had been - I
found colour instead of color for example.
Not that this really adds anything to the discussion. Personally I don't
care too much. I would prefer it if they could stick to just changing those
words where the word meant something totally different in the US - like
jumper or trainers (though I don't think those are mentioned anywhere) and
leaving it as the English word would be confusing. They could provide a
glossary if necessary. I noticed during the movie where they first mentioned
bogie (on the train, referring to flavors of Every-Flavor sweets) there was
scattered reaction in the theater but when they mentioned it again with
troll bogies hanging off the end of the wand, everyone understood.
Karen
<sco...@noway.com> wrote:
> So where is the token British child in every American childrens' movie?
> Ah, I thought so.
Uh, there was a token American child in the movie, CC's daughter, but
she didn't open her mouth so I guess she was playing a Brit. And it
doesn't bother me, she wasn't running around with an "I'm American"
label on her. There was no way to pick her out of the crowd if you
didn't know what whe looks like.
--
Karen
"But let's also remember that there was a moment, way back in the mists
of the late last century, when Harry Potter was a cool club you could
join only by reading." Tracy Mayor, Salon.com
Karen
wrote:
> I actually read the English version, and for the life
> of me I couldn't figure out what "trainers" were or why Ron's were showing.
> I eventually had to compare it to the American version to figure it out.
Welcome to the board, enjoy a Butterbeer and some biscuits...
I had the same thoughts about "trainers", sounds like a diaper or maybe
a bra, but then I went to the shoe store and saw the crosstrainers and
figured it out. It is strange how these mutant forms of British
English do show up in the US sometimes.
Richard Eney
Rugrat <sorrytoo...@myaddress.com> wrote:
>
>Mind you, "bangs" for "fringe" really threw me for a moment. Why on earth
>is the American word "bangs"? SleepyTurtle implied you were all in favour
>of logic in language!:-)
It goes back to 1880, and was slang derived from "bangtail" meaning
"docked horse's tail".
=Tamar
Michael Wilcox
> > So where is the token British child in every American childrens' movie?
> > Ah, I thought so.
>
> Uh, there was a token American child in the movie, CC's daughter, but
> she didn't open her mouth so I guess she was playing a Brit. And it
> doesn't bother me, she wasn't running around with an "I'm American"
> label on her. There was no way to pick her out of the crowd if you
> didn't know what whe looks like.
Do you know what part she played?
--
Michael Wilcox
mjw...@yahoo.com
Joseph Romagnano
Susan Bones.
Joe :-)>
Karen
Michael Wilcox <mjw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
A random Gryffindor girl, I think. It is in an interview with
Columbus, a very recent one. This is the Elinear that kept him on
track or something like that.
Highway of Death
Because American actors are generally very bad at doing accents.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The Fabulous Disney Babe
>> she didn't open her mouth so I guess she was playing a Brit. And it
>> doesn't bother me, she wasn't running around with an "I'm American"
>> label on her. There was no way to pick her out of the crowd if you
>> didn't know what whe looks like.
>Do you know what part she played?
Susan Bones.
Fab
Pluto (M)
"Karen" <Ka...@infobreak.net> wrote in message
news:261120012236225269%Ka...@infobreak.net...
> In article <zSCM7.7879$WC1.9...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> Michael Wilcox <mjw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "Karen" <Ka...@infobreak.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > So where is the token British child in every American childrens' movie?
> > > > Ah, I thought so.
> > >
> > > Uh, there was a token American child in the movie, CC's daughter, but
> > > she didn't open her mouth so I guess she was playing a Brit. And it
> > > doesn't bother me, she wasn't running around with an "I'm American"
> > > label on her. There was no way to pick her out of the crowd if you
> > > didn't know what whe looks like.
> >
> > Do you know what part she played?
> > --
> > Michael Wilcox
> > mjw...@yahoo.com
>
> A random Gryffindor girl, I think. It is in an interview with
> Columbus, a very recent one. This is the Elinear that kept him on
> track or something like that.
Nope. She was the little girl at the Sorting ceremony who was sorted into
Hufflepuff. Susan Bones.
Philip Lewis
>Because American actors are generally very bad at doing accents.
Actually, my opera loving wife claims that american singers are in
high demand because they *can* do accents very well. Mind you the
languages are not english, which most americans wouldn't bother taking
the time to learn because of the only subtle difference to american.
Now you said actors, and i'm talking singers... but i thought i'd
bring it up anyway.
Worst thing i've heard is Lucian(n?)o P. singing Memories from "Cats"
"Touch-a me! It's soa eeeeeasy to leave-a me!"
I imagine it's probable that americans sound similarly ridiculous if
they havn't studied the accent properly...
--
be safe,
flip
^___^
\^.^/
==u==
Andy Platt
> Mind you, "bangs" for "fringe" really threw me for a moment. Why on earth
> is the American word "bangs"? SleepyTurtle implied you were all in favour
> of logic in language!:-)
Back when I lived in the UK we had a lot of Americans come over to work with
us on an air traffic control product. One of the funniest blunders one of
them made was going to a hairdressers and trying to explain exactly what she
wanted done to her bangs and how she'd like a shag!
unterhund
news:fl440ucp8k01rukhs...@4ax.com...
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>
>
> Because American actors are generally very bad at doing accents.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that's a lousy excuse for
posting from the above address? I mean, accents don't come across in
text very well.
--
Patrick Clark
unte...@lycos.com
http://unterhund.8m.com
Karen
Disney Babe <dscve...@aol.comFabulous> wrote:
> >Do you know what part she played?
>
> Susan Bones.
Ugh, that screws up my thinking. Hope CC didn't goof. Since Susan is
the only character we don't know who was mentioned by name when sorted
and Hagrid said what he did about her family, I've been expecting her
to become an important character some day. Jo approved the script, but
did she approve all script changes that were made later? I suppose it
wouldn't be too hard to cast a similar looking girl if necessary in the
future. Is a complete credits list available anywhere on the internet?
Andy Platt
> In article <20011127004102...@mb-ch.aol.com>, The Fabulous
> Disney Babe <dscve...@aol.comFabulous> wrote:
>
> > >Do you know what part she played?
> >
> > Susan Bones.
>
>
> Ugh, that screws up my thinking. Hope CC didn't goof. Since Susan is
> the only character we don't know who was mentioned by name when sorted
> and Hagrid said what he did about her family, I've been expecting her
> to become an important character some day. Jo approved the script, but
I don't think that would change anything. Susan can't become a major
character until at least book 5 which is a long time away. We might not have
the same big three by then so Susan Bones could be played by almost anyone
without any trouble at all.
Karen
<Aiken...@aiken-drum.net> wrote:
>
> Is it possible that everyone could have a choice as to what version of
> the book they can read and should be able to buy either version easily?
We already do. You can order from a bookseller that sells in both the
UK and US markets. If they have a website, just change the the .com to
.co.uk or viceversa. The isbn and sku or whatever will be different, so
you will need to start at the root page.
Would be nice if the same publisher sold both books, then they could be
sold side by side in the bookstore. Could have happened, Scholastic
publishes in the British market, but Bloomsbury doesn't publish to the
US market. But, remember how Rowling sent her manuscript to several of
the big publishers and was rejected before finally sending it to
Bloomsbury? To have Scholastic publish in both markets would require
her to break relations with the people who gave her her big break.
Karen
Houle <shi...@my-Deja.com> wrote:
> Same basic story, and I have to admit, the title change doesn't bother
> me all that much. Yes, the Philosopher's stone is real, and has a
> long history in Europe. Yeah, they could have left in the English
> words and put a glossary at the back of the US edition, which would
> probably have been better all the way around. But the US edition,
> changed title and changed words and all, was enough to make a Potter
> fan out of me. These are great books no matter WHAT title is printed
> on the cover. Worrying about these minor discrepancies just begins to
> feel like hair-splitting, after a while.
I read the Sorcerer's Stone and liked it enough to read the rest. I
didn't feel talked down to. She was able to make the changes without
making it sound stupid. Even when I found out that the UK version is
different, it still didn't bother me. The big reasons why the books
are so popular is that they are easy to read, but tell a real story.
If they hadn't been "translated", they would be relegated to the same
corner of the library as "The Secret Garden" and "Narnia" which take a
little more effort for an American child (and me, too). These books
are very popular, but they don't attract the kids who would rather read
Stine or play vidiogames than figure out British English. Scholastic
knows this, they are the publisher responsible for bringing us the
Stine books and quite a few other series that are popular with kids,
despite being stupid (IMO, not the kids'). Scholastic knows a lot more
about what kids like to read than some people here give them credit.
They didn't become the world's biggest publisher of childrens' books by
forcing kids to read books that are educational, but not entertaining.
British people and other angliophiles must face the fact that most
American kids aren't very interested in the UK. They read HP because
they like Harry and the story, not because Harry and the setting are
British. Anything that Americans learn about the UK is a side benefit.
Many people have gone on to read the UK versions. I haven't, don't see
the need. After being forced to rework so much of the first book, Jo
has written the later books with a realization that it will be sold in
both markets and has done much less rework. She has avoided confusing
words that have different meanings, but still uses words that don't
exist in the US, but can be figured out from context. This is adding
some interesting words to kids vocabularies.
All in all, what happened happened, and it doesn't bother me at all.
It was just as big of an accident of birth as the ones that created
most of us.
unterhund
> Would be nice if the same publisher sold both books, then they could
be
> sold side by side in the bookstore.
And if Scholastic and Bloomsbury can strike the right deal, Scholastic
can release Yet Another Edition with all the original text. They could
call it the "Original Collector's Edition" or something equally
stupid.