If you could change ONE thing...

[Nightrider]

Too many things i want to change about that film...

[TigerEyes]

One thing you say???

Does EVERYTHING count as One thing???

Cause if so...I would have just went back to a blank page, read the book and started fresh in writing a NEW script as opposed to slightly altering the original script.

Honestly that's the thing I would want...I would want just a completely brand new take other than getting a slightly altered remake.

what's what i feel there too. Damn, the film was just... bitter and doesn't seem right.

[DavidZahir]

The simultaneous whining complaint I get from people who didn't like LMI is that they changed too much and they didn't change enough. Nine times out of ten. It is...tedious.

[PeteMork]

On giving it a bit more thought, I would like to have seen Reeves interpretation of the zombie Håkan scene dropped squarely in the middle of the film. I know others have suggested it, but I really think it would have worked here. The comparatively higher level of explicit violence in LMI would have allowed it to fit in better, and frankly, it was a very powerful part of the novel, beginning with his attempt to rape Eli all the way to the point where poor Tommy is pounding a bloody mass of skin and bones with Staffan's trophy. Some have complained that Abby isn't as sympathetic as Eli. That scene alone would have changed that in an instant. And it would have gone a long way towards dampening the somewhat pervasive idea that Abby is manipulating Owen, rather than just trying to find happiness while being a lonely 12-year-old vampire. Nothing lays the groundwork for sympathy faster than perceived vulnerability. And he could have easily done it without the sexual or pedophelic aspects.

After rewatching the film many times now, and reading many of the thoughtful posts in the LMI section, I have actually grown to respect the film and what I believe Reeves was trying to do. My biggest handicap to overcome, of course, is my great love, bordering on obsession, for the perfection of the original film and novel, and the beautiful performances of the child actors. And my expectation that Reeves would tell the same story. He didn't. And that's okay. There's a great deal to be found in the story he did tell.

[DavidZahir]

Mr. Mork, I found your post very intriguing...!

[sauvin]

I've also said that Abby ain't Eli, but Eli ain't Abby, either. They're different girls, and while the stories they figure in are mostly the same, each has her own particular [deleted] to live in. Owen ain't Oskar, either, but by the very same Eli/Abby coin, Oskar ain't Owen, and each boy also has his own particular [deleted] to live in.

Yes, the stories are different, and they're presented differently, and they target different audiences (the American movie might haved worked OK for a Swedish audience if the LTROI movie hadn't preceded it, but Americans in general tended to snooze through the LTROI movie, and not just because of the idiotic dubs or having to read the subtitles, and, well, the movie was too [deleted] SLOW).

Reeves ain't Alfredson, but what I've never said before is that Alfredson ain't Reeves. I actually applaud the whole Thomas angle for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that Hakan and his ilk push a very large red button for me. Alfredson did a good thing sidestepping the whole issue; I might never have become infected otherwise, and might have been one of the movie's biggest detractors on IMDB.

I'll disagree that allowing Thomas to go on to being what Hakan turned into after having failed to die would (necessarily) have had any effect on Abby's "sympathetic" value. I found that whole episode in the novel dreary, distasteful and almost pointless, and fear that including it in the movie would have completely eclipsed the love between the two kids and turned the whole movie into true American horror (which is to say, simple mindless gore and pandering grossness).

Take me with a grain, though - if LTROI hadn't come first, I think I'd have run around this past year or so being hung up on Abby instead of Eli.

Edit: 5 Novembre 2011, replaced a "bad word" with [deleted] to comply with renewed restrictions on language.

Edit: 5 Novembre 2011, replaced a "bad word" with [deleted] to comply with renewed restrictions on language.

Edit: 5 Novembre 2011, replaced a "bad word" with [deleted] to comply with renewed restrictions on language.

[PeteMork]

I'll disagree that allowing Thomas to go on to being what Hakan turned into after having failed to die would (necessarily) have had any effect on Abby's "sympathetic" value. I found that whole episode in the novel dreary, distasteful and almost pointless, and fear that including it in the movie would have completely eclipsed the love between the two kids and turned the whole movie into true American horror (which is to say, simple mindless gore and pandering grossness).

I certainly agree with this, if the grossness of the scene in the novel were played out as written, but the idea that Abby would sometimes, perhaps often in her long life, have to confront something from her own dark, lonely world that was more terrible and more formidable than herself, ironically created by her own hand, would underscore her vulnerability to that same darkness. It would at the same time, emphasize the fact that, no matter what else she is, she is a child, first and foremost. And that the mistakes she makes and the foresight she lacks, are because she’s a child; not because she’s a dark manipulator. Owen is indeed more of a victim than Oskar. But he’s a victim of circumstance, not of Abby. Abby needs him as desperately as he needs her. Just because Oskar had a bit more freedom, or potentially more to loose in the choice he made, doesn’t necessarily mean that the love is any less real or unselfish. He made a conscious decision to go with her and is quite pleased with himself at the end of the film. Reeves made sure we knew that by allowing us to hear him singing happily to himself. Indeed it may have been the only real decision he had ever made in his life.

If handled delicately, and kept brief, a confrontation with zombie Thomas would be quite effective in getting these points across to a cynical audience IMO.

[sauvin]

I'll disagree that allowing Thomas to go on to being what Hakan turned into after having failed to die would (necessarily) have had any effect on Abby's "sympathetic" value. I found that whole episode in the novel dreary, distasteful and almost pointless, and fear that including it in the movie would have completely eclipsed the love between the two kids and turned the whole movie into true American horror (which is to say, simple mindless gore and pandering grossness).

I certainly agree with this, if the grossness of the scene in the novel were played out as written, but the idea that Abby would sometimes, perhaps often in her long life, have to confront something from her own dark, lonely world that was more terrible and more formidable than herself, ironically created by her own hand, would underscore her vulnerability to that same darkness.

Tough to imagine communicating that clearly enough.

It would at the same time, emphasize the fact that, no matter what else she is, she is a child, first and foremost. And that the mistakes she makes and the foresight she lacks, are because she’s a child; not because she’s a dark manipulator. Owen is indeed more of a victim than Oskar. But he’s a victim of circumstance, not of Abby. Abby needs him as desperately as he needs her. Just because Oskar had a bit more freedom, or potentially more to loose in the choice he made, doesn’t necessarily mean that the love is any less real or unselfish. He made a conscious decision to go with her and is quite pleased with himself at the end of the film. Reeves made sure we knew that by allowing us to hear him singing happily to himself. Indeed it may have been the only real decision he had ever made in his life.

If handled delicately, and kept brief, a confrontation with zombie Thomas would be quite effective in getting these points across to a cynical audience IMO.

And still I don't get that Owen was overwhelmed with unalloyed joy at seeing Abby at the pool, in spite of her having just saved his life. Check out his expression as he looks up at her - I saw all KINDS of fleeting emotions Owen loved her? Maybe - but wasn't he maybe also busy adding some ammonia to the pool's chlorine with fear?

[DavidZahir]

It isn't the moment at the pool that is proof Owen loves Abby--but everything we have seen happen between them before. Just the sight of her made him smile, more than once. Even when terrified, believing (correctly) she's a vampire, he's drawn to her. He lets her into his home, and his instant reaction to any threat towards her is the same as hers towards any threat to him--instant! And when she had to leave, they both looked almost too sad for works. Owen wept.

When he looks up into her face from the pool--I see awe, which no doubt includes some fear, but also love, and he doesn't look terrified at all. We know because we've seen him terrified, just minutes before.

And still I don't get that Owen was overwhelmed with unalloyed joy at seeing Abby at the pool...

And this would be a much more cogent criticism if someone somewhere ever suggested such a thing, even once.

[sauvin]

It isn't the moment at the pool that is proof Owen loves Abby--but everything we have seen happen between them before. Just the sight of her made him smile, more than once. Even when terrified, believing (correctly) she's a vampire, he's drawn to her. He lets her into his home, and his instant reaction to any threat towards her is the same as hers towards any threat to him--instant! And when she had to leave, they both looked almost too sad for works. Owen wept.

When he looks up into her face from the pool--I see awe, which no doubt includes some fear, but also love, and he doesn't look terrified at all. We know because we've seen him terrified, just minutes before.

And still I don't get that Owen was overwhelmed with unalloyed joy at seeing Abby at the pool...

And this would be a much more cogent criticism if someone somewhere ever suggested such a thing, even once.

I didn't understand that last sentence.

Have fun "proving" much of anything. We've been trying to "prove" stuff in this forum for the entire two years I've been here, and it seems we often enough have trouble just deciding what the logical succssor to unity might be. Yes, I saw awe, too, in Owen's look at the pool, and love, and fear, and joy, and a few other things besides. Sympathy, too, maybe. Mostly, though, what I got was "Oh, [deleted], what have I gotten myself into?"

LTROI and LMI both show a progression, of learning and acceptance, and of deciding what's tolerable and what isn't. Without this progression, the whole story and therefore the conclusion is bogus, but its culmination doesn't necessarily have to be spotlessly elemental. LTROI's conclusion is superficially a [deleted] happy one until the thought occurs "but, what about tomorrow...?", whereas LMI's is more immediately reachable and realistic. Owen knows he's somehow wound up paddling around on [deleted] Creek, and he's praying his paddle is up for the job. Happy, is he? Maybe so, but it's clearly an overcast happiness.

Life was SO good until the basement clubhouse scene in both movies! I wonder if maybe Owen and/or Oskar might have relfected on this, and wished for a longer preamble...

Edit: 29 Octobre 2011, replaced a "bad word" with [deleted] to comply with renewed restrictions on language.

Edit: 5 Novembre 2011, replaced a "bad word" with [deleted] to comply with renewed restrictions on language.