Stardust

[ShannonA]

The wife and I saw Neil Gaiman's Stardust movie this afternoon, and I gotta say, I thought it was brilliant. Great acting, beautiful directing, great imagery, a fun story. It kept moving and it was alternatively funny and exciting.

It's generally a pretty standard fairy tale, a literal Hero's Journey as our protagonist goes over "The Wall" into a fairy land, but it's very cleverly written with lots of different characters who have two different goals in mind and how they all come together.

I've seen comparisons to The Princess Bride and Dark Crystal and generally think they're apt. This will be a new classic of the genre.

[Old Scratch]

I enjoyed it as well. I definitely saw it more as a nod to Mirlees' Lud-in-the-Mist, and that's where I make the comparison. I don't really see The Princess Bride comparison, mainly because there were some significant differences in the narrative style between the two. I think where the Princess Bride shines is in the conceit of the grandfather reading to his grandson. I found TPB to be a lot more playful and whimsical as a result, while Stardust was a classic fairy tale. Strangely, the things I loved most about the book were absent in the movie but I don't think it impacted my enjoyment much.

Shannon, have you read the graphic novel or the book? They were sustantially different, and Gaiman's been on record saying that film adapatations of books should take into account the differences and strengths of the mediums, and that films should be different than books and vice versa.

[ShannonA]

Like The Princess Bride, Stardust is a well-written hero's journey fantasy story that mixes strong characters, action, and comedy. Like The Princess Bride, I also think it's destined to become a genre classic.

They're definitely not exactly the same movie. As you note, The Princess Bride had a different narrative structure. It also had more in-your-face humor, while Stardust was more subtle. I also think The Princess Bride was ultimately more quotable. But they fill the same niche and I think they'll have the same renown long after the fact.

I have not read the original story; it's the one lengthier Gaiman work that I haven't, I think because I was always turned off by its initial distribution as neither novel nor comic.

However, I strongly agree with Gaiman's viewpoint that adaptations almost always have to be different from what they're adapting, if they're going to be any good. High Fidelity is the only movie that I can think of that was a good movie despite being a precise adaptation of its book. I've heard that Stardust differed, and that has me eager to read the book too, but I just don't give any truck to people that complain because a movie isn't the same as a book.

It misses the point. If they want the book, they should read the book.

[Anaka]

I've read the book. It's quite good, but by no means his best work. I believe Gaiman's on record as saying there were definitely changes that he'd make (and did have a hand in making in the film). I don't expect the two to have more than some basic facts in common, but I expect that I shall enjoy them both immensely.

[Firelight]

I have not read the book, but I saw it with someone who had, and we both enjoyed it. I take that as a good sign.

On the other hand, I'm not sure it's going to ever reach the level of cache of the Princess Bride. While it was consistently good, no one part of the movie ever really stood out in a way to distinguish it.