Archie vs Arwen. No, seriously.
Mar. 4th, 2003 03:44 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
meteordustOne of the things I've been thinking about is the nature of the Hornblower fandom. I mean, you've got this famous, beloved series of books which has been around for several decades - a series of books which has been very influential and has a significant fanbase. And then you've got this new adaptation - a series of movies with dashing young actors which has brought about a large influx of new fans.
Sounds familiar? Maybe it is. We've recently witnessed something similar happen in another fandom - namely, The Lord of the Rings.
With LOTR, most of the diehard fans like me have been in love with the books for years. You have fond memories of the characters and certain views about the story. And then - and then people come along and make movies out of them. Sure, it's wonderful. But you gripe about the changes, and the inaccuracies, and the horde of squealing newbies. And I wonder, is that what it's like for the old school Hornblower fans?
It's an interesting question for me, because I've entered Hornblower fandom via the movies, not the books. So this time, I'm on the other side of the fence. I *have* started reading the books, because I'm intrigued and I want to find out what the original story was like. But I'm expecting that no matter what changes they made in adapting the books - and I know there are some major changes - it won't alter my appreciation of the movies. I don't know - maybe you just fall in love with whatever you encounter first.
I think one of the most interesting points of contention would concern Archie Kennedy. From what I can gather, he is an extremely minor character in Mr Midshipman Hornblower. However, in the movies, he plays a significant role. In fact, I would say he's the third most important character, after Horatio and Pellew.
It makes me wonder how fans of the books feel about what the producers have done with Archie. It's kind of funny to think they've pretty much created this character, fleshing him out from nothing more than a few brief paragraphs. I mean, it's sort of like Haldir in LOTR, who in the books guides the Fellowship through the woods of Lothlorien, and then is never mentioned again. But in the movies, he reappears in The Two Towers, leads a contingent of elves to join the last stand at Helm's Deep, and dies tragically in battle. Some people even think there are hints of sexual tension between him and Aragorn.
The other example that comes to mind is... Arwen. Arwen appears only briefly in the books, although her character is important to understanding where Aragorn is coming from. But in the movies she plays quite a larger role, much to the initial horror of purists, including, yes, myself. When you look at it this way, Hornblower purists would have even more to complain about, since Arwen at least had a deep emotional connection to Aragorn that might therefore justify expanding her role, while the original Archie Kennedy didn't have anything similar.
Now, the other thing this is relevant to is the whole Horatio/Bush dynamic. From what I gather in the books, their relationship is really important, yet in the movies it takes a backseat to the Horatio/Archie relationship. For one thing, Bush doesn't even make his appearance until the fifth movie, and even then the relationship isn't developed much until the seventh movie, when Archie isn't around. So you've got Horatio/Archie pretty much in the foreground for six movies, which is a significant amount of time.
The thing is, if I were a longstanding fan of the the Hornblower books, and had an emotional investment in the Horatio/Bush relationship, I'd probably be a bit peeved to have it shunted aside for this two-bit midshipman. There's another LOTR analogy here, this time with the relationship between Legolas and Gimli. In the books, the development of their friendship is a significant subplot, but onscreen, it's hardly touched on. And Gimli's own role has been watered down, his main purpose now seeming to be comic relief. What you *do* see onscreen is a noticeable Aragorn/Legolas dynamic. I mean, they share a fair number of scenes which look incredibly slashy, even to a Legolas/Gimli supporter like me.
All these parallels are quite interesting, although somewhat unsettling. I'm not sure what conclusions I should draw, except that in future I think I'll be a bit more open-minded about book-to-movie adaptations. Now that I've walked a mile and all that.
Sounds familiar? Maybe it is. We've recently witnessed something similar happen in another fandom - namely, The Lord of the Rings.
With LOTR, most of the diehard fans like me have been in love with the books for years. You have fond memories of the characters and certain views about the story. And then - and then people come along and make movies out of them. Sure, it's wonderful. But you gripe about the changes, and the inaccuracies, and the horde of squealing newbies. And I wonder, is that what it's like for the old school Hornblower fans?
It's an interesting question for me, because I've entered Hornblower fandom via the movies, not the books. So this time, I'm on the other side of the fence. I *have* started reading the books, because I'm intrigued and I want to find out what the original story was like. But I'm expecting that no matter what changes they made in adapting the books - and I know there are some major changes - it won't alter my appreciation of the movies. I don't know - maybe you just fall in love with whatever you encounter first.
I think one of the most interesting points of contention would concern Archie Kennedy. From what I can gather, he is an extremely minor character in Mr Midshipman Hornblower. However, in the movies, he plays a significant role. In fact, I would say he's the third most important character, after Horatio and Pellew.
It makes me wonder how fans of the books feel about what the producers have done with Archie. It's kind of funny to think they've pretty much created this character, fleshing him out from nothing more than a few brief paragraphs. I mean, it's sort of like Haldir in LOTR, who in the books guides the Fellowship through the woods of Lothlorien, and then is never mentioned again. But in the movies, he reappears in The Two Towers, leads a contingent of elves to join the last stand at Helm's Deep, and dies tragically in battle. Some people even think there are hints of sexual tension between him and Aragorn.
The other example that comes to mind is... Arwen. Arwen appears only briefly in the books, although her character is important to understanding where Aragorn is coming from. But in the movies she plays quite a larger role, much to the initial horror of purists, including, yes, myself. When you look at it this way, Hornblower purists would have even more to complain about, since Arwen at least had a deep emotional connection to Aragorn that might therefore justify expanding her role, while the original Archie Kennedy didn't have anything similar.
Now, the other thing this is relevant to is the whole Horatio/Bush dynamic. From what I gather in the books, their relationship is really important, yet in the movies it takes a backseat to the Horatio/Archie relationship. For one thing, Bush doesn't even make his appearance until the fifth movie, and even then the relationship isn't developed much until the seventh movie, when Archie isn't around. So you've got Horatio/Archie pretty much in the foreground for six movies, which is a significant amount of time.
The thing is, if I were a longstanding fan of the the Hornblower books, and had an emotional investment in the Horatio/Bush relationship, I'd probably be a bit peeved to have it shunted aside for this two-bit midshipman. There's another LOTR analogy here, this time with the relationship between Legolas and Gimli. In the books, the development of their friendship is a significant subplot, but onscreen, it's hardly touched on. And Gimli's own role has been watered down, his main purpose now seeming to be comic relief. What you *do* see onscreen is a noticeable Aragorn/Legolas dynamic. I mean, they share a fair number of scenes which look incredibly slashy, even to a Legolas/Gimli supporter like me.
All these parallels are quite interesting, although somewhat unsettling. I'm not sure what conclusions I should draw, except that in future I think I'll be a bit more open-minded about book-to-movie adaptations. Now that I've walked a mile and all that.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-03-10 09:02 pm (UTC)And yeah, the thought of hte research is quite terrifying.
I'm all for relationship-focused gen - particularly for this pairing. I think that's because we saw so little of their relationship - bits here and there over several years.