LTROI on tvtropes

[Hume]

The book and both films are combined on this page. Fun.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... RightOneIn

[Wolfchild]

At least they had a link back to a post here. I also think they lifted some of their terminology directly from this site:

Jossed: The US remake keeps the hints that Abby was a boy but a deleted scene shows Abby's vampirization, confirming that's not the case.

• Though being a deleted scene its canonicity is in question.
• Word Of God (for the movie, at least) says that Abby was a girl.

"Canonicity"? Do you think we can claim credit for the term "canon" referring how close something to JAL's original novel? After coming across this, I started looking at their article with a different set of eyes - critical ones. I then had a lot fun critiquing their article from the viewpoint of what I think was going on in the story. The following are some the areas that I had issues with, where they fond tropes because they were looking for tropes:

Fan Disservice: Eli's crotch. Physically twelve years old, and she didn't start off as a girl.

• I dunno, some viewers might respectfully disagree. However, they're well advised to keep it to themselves.

This one I suppose is almost understandable. A lot of people miss how the Peek Scene serves the story, IMHO. It illustrates how Oskar is not pursuing Eli out of prepubescent lust. Oskar sees what he sees, is shocked by it, and then pursues his relationship with Eli as if nothing has ever happened. He knows that Eli is asexual, but it makes no difference to him. So if the point being made is too subtle, or if the subtlety is masked by a shock, is it a fan disservice? Or to put it another way: Is it a fan disservice if the director over-estimates your intelligence?

Lampshade Hanging: In the book, a policeman muses on the religious symbolism of the name Eli. The other policeman responds "Should I include that in the report?"

Where they define Lampshade Hanging as:

Lampshade Hanging is the writers' trick of dealing with any element of the story that threatens the audience's willing suspension of disbelief — whether a very implausible plot development, or a particularly blatant use of a trope — by calling attention to it... and then moving on.

In simple terms - the author points out the improbable subject through some medium (character, passerby, narration, etc.) and says it exists regardless of logic.

This is an unfair criticism really, and I think it comes about simply because they missed the point. The novel portrays the Stockholm police as relentlessly ineffectual. In the scene they mentioned above, my interpretation is that JAL is showing both Staffan and Holmberg missing the point. A huge clue as to the real cause of all of the violence has fallen into their laps, but each insists on misinterpreting it according to their own foibles. Staffan sees it only in terms of his own religious beliefs, while Holmberg only considers how it may or may not relate to is paperwork.

Padding: Tommy's subplot is given far more time than it needed.

Bah. A whole layer of the novel went right by them. Whiz! There it goes!

Queer Romance: Not in Let Me In, though.

This again. I'm kind of amazed at how many people cannot fathom the concept of non-romantic love. I believe JAL did not intend to depict Oskar and Eli's relationship as romantic in either the novel or his screenplay. I think this was Tomas' intention as well in his film. In fact, Let Me In comes closer to portraying the relationship as having a romantic component than either the novel or Tomas' film. If anything, what Oskar and Eli have is a bromance.

But in the end, I have to admit that their closer gets it right:

Your Vampires Suck: Amazingly averted. There are virtually no references to any vampire tropes not used in the movie. In many ways, this helps to create a greater sense of realism. The character's are smart enough to know that what works in the movies won't work in real life, and that discussing things in terms of what movies they are or aren't like is totally pointless.