Daisy_A wrote:Do you guys remember I said I wrote scripts before? Well I just wrote this characters bio and I think TJ might be good for the role if I ever finish this thing Posted it below, tell me what you think.
Full Name: Paul Christopher Simone
Actor: TJ Thyne
Description: Paul is a very strict man who will work till he drops to achieve his goal- he wants his children to have the best even if it means he doesn't see them or know them. He doesn't like Emilia as it is another child to support and resents her presence. He loves his family dearly but doesn't often say very much and doesn't make it clear. He is very religious.
Key Character Traits: Stiff, strict, uptight, opinionated, caring father, religious.
What is the Principal Function of this Character?: antagonist
What is the principal goal of this character?: To raise his children sufficiently and to get them through their education.
What will they do to achieve it?: By working until he gets enough money, feelings don't come into the equation
Family Background: Paul is an only child who was born into a deprived area- he worked hard his whole life and worked himself up from the gutter. He suffered alcoholism in his early twenties and he had several rebound girlfriends. After this he went back to his work more determined than ever and climbed to the top, he met his wife soon after and when they had their children Paul became determined to give them the best life possible.
Habits/Vices: After recovering from being an alcoholic he became extremely religious so he often reads the bible- he also winds down with a book in their own library.
Education: He went to the local school and was the cleverest student in his class. He went to Harvard to study law and graduated top of the class.
Personality: As stated before he is extremely driven and will do anything to achieve his goal, he has a very obsessive personality. He doesn't tend to show his feelings as he believes they over complicate things.
Likes: Reading, Church, Work, his luxurious lifestyle, his children succeeding, time with his wife.
Dislikes: Emilia, amateurs, trashy novels, junkies, people coming to the door asking for money.
Oh yes, I adored all that too, know all the songs by heart. But because I had so much more knowledge of her in the long run, the book Poppins was the one I loved. It's actually quite salutary to see a character with all those human foibles who is still likeable. She is a dyed-in-the-wool snob and is given to snorting and sniffing her disapproval. She quite obviously views herself as superior to all the other females, both servants and mistress, of the disorganised Banks household. She gazes at herself with a self-satisfied smirk when she passes shop windows or any reflective surface and is a sucker for compliments, so the children discover. She never talks about her own secret life and never explains anything of the mysteries and magic which accompany her everywhere. But she has a well-concealed soft side and becomes very attached to those she trusts and cares for - and that includes the chaotic family that she looks after. I do recommend the books, Sherry. The characters are wonderfully depicted - the Banks family has some pretty weird neighbours who all have their moments in the spotlight too. The film leaves an awful lot out, charming though it is.Sinkwriter72 wrote:Interesting points about the differences between the book and film versions of Mary Poppins. You make me want to check out the original book(s)....a month or two ago there was an article in the Chicago Trib about that very topic -- they were discussing the evolution of the writing of the stage show and how it's not quite the same as the Disney movie and that people might take issue with that because it's not the sweet Mary Poppins they know (especially if they're bringing their kids, who might not be old enough to understand the intricacies of a more nuanced character). Also, the article discussed how the author of the books was initially very unhappy with the Disney film interpretation, which I found interesting. I've never read the book (or is it books?) but that article made me very curious to see what they were all about. It certainly sounded like it was a much more in-depth characterization. (Though I do have a childhood love of that Disney movie, all those songs, and of course Julie Andrews. "I love to laugh..." Heeeheee.)
Indeed. As you rightly say, if you are invested in certain subplots and even people who get left out, it is a personal disappointment (personal because there are as many interpretations of a book as there are readers!). It sometimes, therefore, makes a difference which you experience first. Not always, though. I read HP before I saw the films. In fact I sat in my bedroom one Christmas and consumed 2 or 3 of the books in one lump. And when I saw the first film I was amazed at how much was as I imagined it. The castle was definitely the same, and the image of the boats moving along the glinting lake by moonlight, and the banquet hall. It was unusual for something to reflect my personal picture so well. Not just unusual. Very, very rare!Sinkwriter72 wrote:About the Harry Potter books versus the films.... I loved the films, especially the first one. It just seemed so magical and I thought the kids were funny and I liked Harry's story and really felt for him as a character, and I loved all the fun touches and the gorgeous Hogwarts castle and all of it just pulled me into that world. I felt like a kid again.
After watching those two films, I ... ended up borrowing the first five novels from my sister-in-law. The first book felt to me just like the movie; I expected there would be things they couldn't get to, but I thought they covered enough of the important elements and really captured Harry's story as well as the magic of Hogwarts and why/how it becomes more of a home to him than his actual home with the Dursleys. The extra details in that book simply felt like an additional treat. In contrast, I found I liked the second book better than the second film, because there was so much more detail and parts I found I wished they had included in the film that they didn't. What was most interesting to me, though, was that I read the next three books before I saw the next three films, and I found I liked the books better than the films. I've always wondered if I would have enjoyed the third, fourth, and fifth films better if I had not read the books first. With the first two films, I had no prior knowledge and no expectations, so I was simply there to watch the movies and get sucked into the world, which I thought both films managed to do for me wonderfully well. But with the next three films, I had by then read the books first, so there were certain parts of the books that I felt were important and that I really wanted to see portrayed in the films; therefore, when they didn't always capture my vision of the books I found myself disappointed because things got skipped. Interesting difference, isn't it?
Harry Potter for me reached a peak at the fourth novel. I loved the story - which, like you, I found imperfectly depicted on film - but that was where the books began to fall prey to self-indulgent ramblings and become rather too long. I don't know what Half Blood Prince will be like when it comes out, but as a reader I enjoyed it least of all. Not just overly long, but overly complicated, with endless flashbacks in a rush to get all the necessary information to the reader at once. And actually, Phoenix had a problem which became more obvious in the film, which was simply Why? That prophecy story went nowhere, why would Voldemort have wanted it? Such a slender and feather-light premise on which to build such a tome.Sinkwriter72 wrote:Another interesting thing: I LOVED the fourth novel, but did not like the pacing or interpretation of that film (there were several key elements that I was extraordinarily disappointed that they skipped in the film). In contrast, though I understood why Harry felt the way he did, I found myself frustrated by his constant teenagery subbornness in the fifth book, which made it less of an enjoyable read, which in turn made me wary of the upcoming film... until I actually saw it, and found that I really enjoyed watching it. So my book vs. film view got flip-flopped! I thought for sure I'd love the fourth film because I sooo loved that book, and thought for sure I'd find the fifth film annoying because I found the fifth book more than a bit frustrating (not to mention in need of some more editing, whoo, was that one ever long!), but in actuality I was wrong about both of those films. I found that very curious.
Yeah, really disturbing role he played in it! Unusual, but brilliant as ever! It was great to see him in a different part. As a really bad guy. Guess it is interesting for actors to play the "bad guy" once in a while. Challenging!Sinkwriter72 wrote:Simone, I have seen a few scenes from "Secret Smile" but not the entire thing. I want to see it, though, because I'd heard it was quite a different role than what I'm used to seeing David Tennant play. I like it when my favorite actors take chances and try new things, even if it may surprise me or freak me out a bit. David was certainly disturbing in the clips I'd seen, but I'd really love to watch them within the context of the entire film. It seemed like an unusual film, for sure.
Oh I love NCIS! Mark Harmon - so hot! I watched it from the start, 'cause I was also a big J.A.G.-fan. The team was introduced in a JAG-episode. And there I thought this might be interesting to watch. And I have watched it ever since! Don't have the DVD's. I want them but you can't have everything. At the moment it's too expensive for me to get them.Sinkwriter72 wrote:
And we have yet another thing in common, I see! NCIS! ... I really love the team camaraderie, and how each character is an interesting and vibrant individual. Not every case they work on interests me, but the main team of characters always do.
Haven't got the time to see it. Need to find it somewhere, because on German TV we are in the middle of season 6/episode 12 - the one in the women prison. Today they show another new episode of season 6. So I'm off in a few minutes. I'll try to find the episode you mentioned and maybe get back to you on that! What season do they show in the USA? Are you at the end of season 6, or has season 7 already started?P.S. Did you see last week's episode?? Talk about exciting!