因為 active x control 的 setting，我白打了百多字！
換了新裝，寫了一篇文章解釋一下，也順道抒發一下當下的情感。用詞遣句雖不至很講究，但也用過心，居然在臨門一腳給那個可惡的 active x control 搞砸了。
興致也沒了，可還是要交代一下 :p
嚴冬雖然肯定過去了，但乍暖還寒的三月天卻遲遲不走，留連到五月天。
春天就是這樣可惡，天氣陰晴不定，令人（我）的心情也隨之飄忽。
春天總是生氣勃勃，處處顯露生機，綠葉也慢慢取代了枯枝。但這樣的景象，從小就令我很不安。隆冬剛過，一切還來不及準備，萬物卻換上了新裝，人的步伐總是這樣慢了幾拍。為了釋懷，我通常會重新佈置房間，像是重新出發一樣，調整一下心情。不過這已經是很久以前的習慣了，搬家之前，在大學宿舍也會，sars 肆虐期間也有，回家以後也堅持了一陣子。
前年的這個時候，選擇了換公司，筆記書本一概搬回家，把書架擴建了一下來安置。之後的秋天就開始了兩年漫長的「半工讀」生涯，由此以來就沒「辦法」好好幫房間換佈置了。筆記書本堆滿一桌，去年夏天的時候有換一下，現在畢業了，是時候好好整理一下！
可是由於廢物實在太多，費時失事，還是先把這裡換上新裝，來個「急救」吧！
黃色是今個春夏最矚目的顏色，很清新快樂的感覺。
背景圖片是我現在同步追看的韓劇桌面桌布。雖然我常常同步追看日劇台劇 (上一季只有一套日劇，一套台劇也沒有)，但其實從來沒有同步追看過韓劇。這一次之所以會看 On Air，跟它的劇情卡士輿論主題完成連不上關係，理由只有一個：太久太久沒看過朴先生出現在螢光幕前了！(cd 封套除外) 簡直可以用望穿秋水來形容。為了支持一下回歸韓國電視的朴先生，決定要看！
本來打算放只有朴先生的桌布，但也很喜歡同劇美女，又找不到方法適當地 (appropriately；因為這是 obtained from somebody, 不能隨意更改) 除去「老人」(relatively) ，只好放一個「完全版」。
回家後會加上朴先生的 ost 當背景音樂 :p
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Change a Spring template!
wanna change the background long before Winter comes!!!
been working on the codes for the background other than the template available here... but the progress is extraordinary slow probably 'coz i WAS addicted to blogging but not now :P
Spring's come and it's time to change a more lively background! So let's do it first! ^_^
been working on the codes for the background other than the template available here... but the progress is extraordinary slow probably 'coz i WAS addicted to blogging but not now :P
Spring's come and it's time to change a more lively background! So let's do it first! ^_^
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
The Other Boleyn Girl
I've asked Tim to book the ticket once I got the CM from cinema.com.hk; went to watch it on Thursday the public holiday. It was quite a full house, surprisingly, though the house in fact is very small. Almost all audiences are English-speaking-people with exception of a middle-aged couple and two school girls, and of 'coz the two of us.
Not sure what moved them to the cinema but probably the history of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn.
It's always hard to adapt a novel into playscript especially when it is a piece of 'history-related' work that you cannot omit certain historical reference, e.g. the fate of Mary Boleyn and William Stafford. The appearance of William Stafford is neither faithful to the novel nor the history (so far as I remembered, I didn't verify this). However, as the film has to have the role of Mr. Stafford for telling Mary's ending, it can only be created like this or it will introduce another branch of the story.
After watching the film, I had to admire even more the scriptwriter of Harry Potter and LOR. You will have no problem in following the story if you haven't read the book before; even if you have, you can still follow the adapted story and will not found uncomfortable.
However for this film, I found it quite difficult to trace and the texture and tension is not fully developed. Tim said he was totally confused and didn't really understand the "sudden" changes of the King or the sisters. :P
To treat it as a pure imaginery story, it is still hard to comprehend why the King will rather risk his reputation by pulling down the Queen and to marry Anne. The relationship between the two seemed not well developed and it is NOT persuasive enough. Oppositely the line between Stafford and Mary seemed better though it was totally different from the book. Maybe just like what I've done for my Translation course, it may be a better approach to rewrite the dubbing script when it is hardly self-explanatory in the target langauge. Here, the target language is "visual film within 2 hours" and the source langauge is "written book of 2 inches", this 'vertical' translation may best be done by "Rewrite in an acceptable sense" than "Omission". Omission will leave blanks to the story.
About the casting, Tim said he couldn't recognise Natalie Portman, dunno if this is a sign of good performance but at least it is a good try I would say.
For Scarlett Johansson, I really can't see Mary in her. Maybe the Scarlett in "Lost in Translation" fits more but not today's Scarlett.
George and Jane Parker's roles are quite eye-catching to me. Jane Parker is vivid!! And I love George's crying scene in prison and the scene he said NO to his marriage to Jane Parker; watch out his eyes. :P
One remaining eye-catching role to me is Stafford. I've never imagined Stafford like this but I like the way he looked at Mary, not really staring but looking into hers with his own deep thought and heart. Excellent! And only a simple look or glimpse, their line is vividly described :P
I really can't relate this Henry VIII to Eric Bana. This Henry looks more charming and younger than the actual Bana. This is my opinion.
So far it is a bit disappointed to be honest but I know it is hard to transform 2 inches to 2 hours. And now, I'd like to have a look at the BBC TV version and see if it's worth to buying it.
Not sure what moved them to the cinema but probably the history of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn.
It's always hard to adapt a novel into playscript especially when it is a piece of 'history-related' work that you cannot omit certain historical reference, e.g. the fate of Mary Boleyn and William Stafford. The appearance of William Stafford is neither faithful to the novel nor the history (so far as I remembered, I didn't verify this). However, as the film has to have the role of Mr. Stafford for telling Mary's ending, it can only be created like this or it will introduce another branch of the story.
After watching the film, I had to admire even more the scriptwriter of Harry Potter and LOR. You will have no problem in following the story if you haven't read the book before; even if you have, you can still follow the adapted story and will not found uncomfortable.
However for this film, I found it quite difficult to trace and the texture and tension is not fully developed. Tim said he was totally confused and didn't really understand the "sudden" changes of the King or the sisters. :P
To treat it as a pure imaginery story, it is still hard to comprehend why the King will rather risk his reputation by pulling down the Queen and to marry Anne. The relationship between the two seemed not well developed and it is NOT persuasive enough. Oppositely the line between Stafford and Mary seemed better though it was totally different from the book. Maybe just like what I've done for my Translation course, it may be a better approach to rewrite the dubbing script when it is hardly self-explanatory in the target langauge. Here, the target language is "visual film within 2 hours" and the source langauge is "written book of 2 inches", this 'vertical' translation may best be done by "Rewrite in an acceptable sense" than "Omission". Omission will leave blanks to the story.
About the casting, Tim said he couldn't recognise Natalie Portman, dunno if this is a sign of good performance but at least it is a good try I would say.
For Scarlett Johansson, I really can't see Mary in her. Maybe the Scarlett in "Lost in Translation" fits more but not today's Scarlett.
George and Jane Parker's roles are quite eye-catching to me. Jane Parker is vivid!! And I love George's crying scene in prison and the scene he said NO to his marriage to Jane Parker; watch out his eyes. :P
One remaining eye-catching role to me is Stafford. I've never imagined Stafford like this but I like the way he looked at Mary, not really staring but looking into hers with his own deep thought and heart. Excellent! And only a simple look or glimpse, their line is vividly described :P
I really can't relate this Henry VIII to Eric Bana. This Henry looks more charming and younger than the actual Bana. This is my opinion.
So far it is a bit disappointed to be honest but I know it is hard to transform 2 inches to 2 hours. And now, I'd like to have a look at the BBC TV version and see if it's worth to buying it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)