They’d have to royally fuck up the story again for that to happen.
I’m not necessarily happy with their casting of Annabeth but the only thing I want out of the show is for it to do the story faithfully for once, so if the tradeoff is a blond Percy and a black Annabeth I’ll take it.
They’d have to royally fuck up the story again for that to happen.
I’m not necessarily happy with their casting of Annabeth but the only thing I want out of the show is for it to do the story faithfully for once, so if the tradeoff is a blond Percy and a black Annabeth I’ll take it.
Fans begged for Disney to make a PJO movie or series, too. They literally asked for this. After what Disney did to Artemis Fowl I'd never trust them with a kids/YA series.
Even if most of the fanbase doesn't have a problem with it, you just know there will still be a manufactured outrage over it. At this point the articles about problematic fans are a marketing strategy.
Fans begged for Disney to make a PJO movie or series, too. They literally asked for this. After what Disney did to Artemis Fowl I'd never trust them with a kids/YA series.
Even if most of the fanbase doesn't have a problem with it, you just know there will still be a manufactured outrage over it. At this point when the articles about problematic fans are a marketing strategy.
Oh indeed, I have seen this happen over and over again in the last fucking decade and it always happens like god damn clockwork. Suddenly there will be a shit ton of Percy Jackason "experts" (who have never read the books, probably only watched the movies and spend sometime reading the wiki) who will say that this change is "somehow" accurate to the source material or at least "loyal" to its intention or some garbage like that
We all know its eventually going to end with "yes, this horrible thing is happening but here is why its actually a good thing!"
Oh indeed, I have seen this happen over and over again in the last fucking decade and it always happens like god damn clockwork. Suddenly there will be a shit ton of Percy Jackason "experts" (who have never read the books, probably only watched the movies and spend sometime reading the wiki) who will say that this change is "somehow" accurate to the source material or at least "loyal" to its intention or some garbage like that
Well in his announcement, Riordan himself claimed that the actress is "exactly how he pictured her in the book". It honestly reminds me of black Hermione, which is funny considering how much the Percy Jackson and Harry Potter series already mirror each other.
Well in his announcement, Riordan himself claimed that the actress is "exactly how he pictured her in the book". It honestly reminds me of black Hermione, which is funny considering how much the Percy Jackson and Harry Potter series already mirror each other.
*slooowly pulls out my copy of the very first book, opens the chapter where Annabeth is introduced and read her description*..... *closes it and puts the book back on its place*
It was stupid when Harry Potter did it and the "oh its just like how she was in the book" talk is bullshit because you bet that fans will look into the pages and post the quotes online proving that, no, Annebeth didnt look like a nigger. And these fans are the same ones that raised a fuzz over the character lacking her blond hair and gray eyes from the original movies. All they want is some ATTEMPTS at making the actors resemble the characters.
Well in his announcement, Riordan himself claimed that the actress is "exactly how he pictured her in the book". It honestly reminds me of black Hermione, which is funny considering how much the Percy Jackson and Harry Potter series already mirror each other.
Yeah I won’t hide the fact that I’m huffing a metric fuckton of copium hoping this series will turn out good, but I’m also trying not to be a doomer about it even with the inevitable tokenism that will happen. The books have their fair share of cringy messaging (the entire Pan/pollution subplot for example) so if I can get through the book’s preaching I can do the same with whatever messages they decide to add into the adaptation.
Yeah but it just makes things awfully confusing when you consider the grand scheme. For example, are there multiple afterlives/underworlds? (There are a version of it for each pantheos). Are there multiple gods of certain things? Like Thor and Zeus being the thunder gods (I know Zeus is the "sky" god but thunder is his weapon of choice). Dont even get me started on what prevents these extremely arrogant deities from clashing against each other in a out war scenario.
I thought the casting in the Percy Jackson movies was already fine. People keep bitching about "OMG, they are supposed to be like 12" but I'm in complete agreement with Chris Columbus when he said that 12 year olds doing backflips and swinging swords like they're Jedi would look comical and also difficult to pull off with kid actors. Harry Potter worked because no one expected Harry to fight like Conan the Barbarian. Even the blackening of Grover was sorta understandable in that they wanted to step away from the blatant Ron Weasley rip-off he was in the books plus it was before Hollywood decided to go all in on the redhead erasure.
Also, people forget that the Percy Jackson books are actually pretty freaking terrible. Like, they are legitimately horribly written even as a not-so-subtle Harry Potter knock-off. I thought Rowling's prose was hackneyed and cliche, Riordan's is miles worse. And unlike Rowling, he has absolutely no sense of pacing, The Lightning Thief reads like something written by a teenage girl on FanFiction.net at times. The first-person perspective doesn't help either.
Also, people forget that the Percy Jackson books are actually pretty freaking terrible. Like, they are legitimately horribly written even as a not-so-subtle Harry Potter knock-off. I thought Rowling's prose was hackneyed and cliche, Riordan's is miles worse. And unlike Rowling, he has absolutely no sense of pacing, The Lightning Thief reads like something written by a teenage girl on FanFiction.net at times. The first-person perspective doesn't help either.
I went to re-read the series after the casting announcement for Percy and I kind of regret it because I didn’t realize how shit the first few books are. The first book is awful writing-style wise, and its not the first-person perspective on its own that makes it bad, its how the book is written like a diary where Percy is constantly talking to/explaining things to the reader. The Hunger Games is a good series despite being in 1st person because Katniss isn’t breaking the fourth wall every other page warning the reader not to become a dystopian YA heroine like her.
I will say though, I’m on the third book now and I think it does get marginally better as the series goes on.
I went to re-read the series after the casting announcement for Percy and I kind of regret it because I didn’t realize how shit the first few books are. The first book is awful writing-style wise, and its not the first-person perspective on its own that makes it bad, its how the book is written like a diary where Percy is constantly talking to/explaining things to the reader. The Hunger Games is a good series despite being in 1st person because Katniss isn’t breaking the fourth wall every other page warning the reader not to become a dystopian YA heroine like her.
I will say though, I’m on the third book now and I think it does get marginally better as the series goes on.
Oh, The Hunger Games is pretty terrible too though for very different reasons (though Katniss' inner monologues are kinda part of it). I also recall PJ books getting slightly better in terms of writing as it went on but the problem is that after The Last Olympian, Riordan went full soy which made his books still unreadable garbage no matter how much he improved in other ways.
Oh, The Hunger Games is pretty terrible too though for very different reasons (though Katniss' inner monologues are kinda part of it). I also recall PJ books getting slightly better in terms of writing as it went on but the problem is that after The Last Olympian, Riordan went full soy which made his books still unreadable garbage no matter how much he improved in other ways.
My problem with everything that came after the first series stemmed from Riordan switching from 1st to 3rd person narration. With the originals, most of the humor came from Percy's inner voice- you could imagine that it was his own snarkiness, like the character was making dumb jokes while telling his story.
When the second series was done in 3rd person, it became really obvious that no, that's just Riordan's writing style and is nothing unique to Percy himself. It's a small gripe, but for some reason it's always stuck with me.
I went to re-read the series after the casting announcement for Percy and I kind of regret it because I didn’t realize how shit the first few books are. The first book is awful writing-style wise, and its not the first-person perspective on its own that makes it bad, its how the book is written like a diary where Percy is constantly talking to/explaining things to the reader. The Hunger Games is a good series despite being in 1st person because Katniss isn’t breaking the fourth wall every other page warning the reader not to become a dystopian YA heroine like her.
I will say though, I’m on the third book now and I think it does get marginally better as the series goes on.
To be fair, you gotta remind yourself that these are meant for middle schoolers. So of course the writing isnt going to be the most complex and mature shit that there is, especially from the POV of one.
I feel like you can ignore most of these issues as a kid/teen because, hey, you identify with it. As an adult, you notice much of these because you arent in that phase anymore, your mind has developted and is sharper.
I can excuse it, at least on the first 2-3 books, because Im not the target audience for these. Besides, it helped that this POV excused some of these writing styles as simply Percy being an ADHD riddled kid describing the whole thing.
I thought the casting in the Percy Jackson movies was already fine. People keep bitching about "OMG, they are supposed to be like 12" but I'm in complete agreement with Chris Columbus when he said that 12 year olds doing backflips and swinging swords like they're Jedi would look comical and also difficult to pull off with kid actors. Harry Potter worked because no one expected Harry to fight like Conan the Barbarian. Even the blackening of Grover was sorta understandable in that they wanted to step away from the blatant Ron Weasley rip-off he was in the books plus it was before Hollywood decided to go all in on the redhead erasure.
Also, people forget that the Percy Jackson books are actually pretty freaking terrible. Like, they are legitimately horribly written even as a not-so-subtle Harry Potter knock-off. I thought Rowling's prose was hackneyed and cliche, Riordan's is miles worse. And unlike Rowling, he has absolutely no sense of pacing, The Lightning Thief reads like something written by a teenage girl on FanFiction.net at times. The first-person perspective doesn't help either.
I was an avid fan of the Percy Jackson books in highschool so when I saw the films I wasn't fazed at the changes because the books themselves already had the same tone. My sisters and I saw them in theaters and they were a blast. They never read the books and they still enjoyed the movies.
I get why people disliked the films, but they weren't as bad as Eragon and Artemis Fowl to me. The movies only felt like an extension of the books. The plot didn't need to be 1:1 as the book because Percy Jackson books were never about the plot. Percy Jackson was never trying to be thunk-provoking creative genius. Just absurd, meta humor and light drama involving greco-roman mythology. Lots of parent-child relationship building. Not to say childrens books should be low brow, but kids deserve guilty pleasures too.
As an aside, a lot of time spent reading the Percy Jackson books are in the little tangents the characters have. To someone who just wants to see what happens next, it must be so infuriating... but I personally loved everyone's rambling about goings on. Most character building occurs from their own perspectives. The writing sorta differs character to character too, for instance I recall Percy makes a lot of pop culture references while Annabeth sections were more stoic (at first), experienced in mythos, and calculating. Niko's sections had lots of critical, self awareness. Jason was always boring as fuck to me while Leo was a more interesting character with a similar sense of humor to Percy (and they even have a conversation about it at some point). Perspective changes and seeing the thoughts of other characters is why I enjoyed the books.
I can't recall if it was (Aphorodite or Eros), but Niko has a conversstion with a love god and criticizes them for making him gay. They admit they made him gay for the sake of drama (seriously). Niko eventually accepts the gods being assholes and his homosexuality. Niko is a very defeatist character who only becomes emboldened after he leaves Camp Halfblood and does his own thing.
I was an avid fan of the Percy Jackson books in highschool so when I saw the films I wasn't fazed at the changes because the books themselves already had the same tone. My sisters and I saw them in theaters and they were a blast. They never read the books and they still enjoyed the movies.
I get why people disliked the films, but they weren't as bad as Eragon and Artemis Fowl to me. The movies only felt like an extension of the books. The plot didn't need to be 1:1 as the book because Percy Jackson books were never about the plot. Percy Jackson was never trying to be thunk-provoking creative genius. Just absurd, meta humor and light drama involving greco-roman mythology. Lots of parent-child relationship building. Not to say childrens books should be low brow, but kids deserve guilty pleasures too.
As an aside, a lot of time spent reading the Percy Jackson books are in the little tangents the characters have. To someone who just wants to see what happens next, it must be so infuriating... but I personally loved everyone's rambling about goings on. Most character building occurs from their own perspectives. The writing sorta differs character to character too, for instance I recall Percy makes a lot of pop culture references while Annabeth sections were more stoic (at first), experienced in mythos, and calculating. Niko's sections had lots of critical, self awareness. Jason was always boring as fuck to me while Leo was a more interesting character with a similar sense of humor to Percy (and they even have a conversation about it at some point). Perspective changes and seeing the thoughts of other characters is why I enjoyed the books.
I can't recall if it was (Aphorodite or Eros), but Niko has a conversstion with a love god and criticizes them for making him gay. They admit they made him gay for the sake of drama (seriously). Niko eventually accepts the gods being assholes and his homosexuality. Niko is a very defeatist character who only becomes emboldened after he leaves Camp Halfblood and does his own thing.
Oh Jesus, Artemis Fowl...now THAT was a fucking travesty.
Eragon, I wasn't really too bothered about because the source material was already a clownshow so it wasn't like they could make it good.
Percy Jackson movies were honestly fine compared to those two, especially if you forget the books and take them as their own thing. Only the second one kinda had bad pacing and tried to cram several books into one.
