withinfocus wrote:See, you have it backwards because you think that the knowledge you have somehow makes your opinion that the first film was "right" in its setting and the second "wrong" correct. Your quoting of an interview proves my point exactly since it's likely that a statistically insignificant amount of the book's readers saw that interview, and it's even less significant assuming that almost no one who saw the American movie read the book or knows beyond the basics what it's about or more importantly cares about the author. It's offensive to viewers of the American film that you label them "ignorant" just because you know the author's backstory which is something that has no actual effect on a scene-by-scene understanding of the film from the audience's point of view. A story is what it is and if the author needed something in there then he / she should have included it which in this case he satisfactorily did. It's nice to know about him but it absolutely should not affect your interpretation of the story in the context of this or many other book- or movie-specific analysis threads. It's like saying "The Exorcist" has to be set in Georgetown and not London; it's not hurting the story to have it in a different setting that provides the same atmosphere. You've got a very dangerous bias going if you're going to analyze a story as it is yet bring in a bunch of external information.
I don't agree that people who've read the book, read others written by this same author, read, listened to or watched the interviews and seen the original movie have any kind of authority or superiority to those who haven't when it comes to appreciating LMI in its own right. In particular, I don't find that American audiences are necessarily "ignorant" for not having sought out these other resources; Reeves either succeeded in telling the tale entirely within the movie itself, or he didn't.
At the same time, many of us
have sought out and consumed these resources, mostly in an effort to understand the original story better. We even refer to the novel as "canon" when trying to assess the probability of various assertions concerning Eli's nature, Oskar's, their relationship and anything that might have impacted them or it, however tangentially or at whatever order of remove.
There won't likely be a great deal more new discussion about LMI or its adherents until the DVD comes out - but when that happens, we
may see more discussion of
this nature, and some of it is prone to be a bit heated as people find themselves feeling challenged by differing points of view. My suggestion is that these differing views be examined and,
if necessary, counterchallenged politely. Today's enemy may wind up being tomorrow's uneasy ally.
Those of us, the Infected, who view the novel, the LTROI movie and the various interviews as a body of "canon" have generally found that these enhanced our enjoyment (if not understanding) greatly. I, for one, do not find that it bolsters my personal authority in quoting any such source when disagreeing with something found in LMI; quite the opposite, I
look for these differences for the purpose of differential analysis: maybe something in LMI will foster greater understanding in LTROI by seeming to contradict it in some particular.
With two notable exceptions, my disagreements with other board members have sought to be unaggressive and polite, if not actually respectful. Some of the language we're seeing in this dialog is drifting away from "respectful" and poaching on bristling tribalism. I would counsel retreat.
