movie colonization

[calimac]

is what I call it when people start attributing to the book things that were only in the movie. Oz is full of this. Here's an example, a background paragraph from an article about a local theater group that does a stage adaptation of The Princess Bride:

Though "The Princess Bride" began life as William Goldman's 1973 novel about a grandfather telling his sick grandson a story involving, to quote Goldman, "Fencing. Fighting. Torture. Revenge. Giants. Monsters. Chases. Escapes. True love. Miracles," most people know it from Rob Reiner's 1987 movie adaptation.

And apparently you're one of them.

Comments

[mneme]

...Apparently. Yow.

I don't know that anyone who has read the book could ever mistake the movie's introduction for the book's.

[supergee.livejournal.com]

My favorite is the legislature that banned Tarzan because he and Jane were living in sin.

[ckd]

Goldman wrote the screenplay, so that quote is correctly quoting Goldman.

[sturgeonslawyer.livejournal.com]

That's really not the point...

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

He did, but if that's your defense of this paragraph, then I have to ask: have you read the book?

[ckd]

I'm not defending the paragraph; it's horribly written. I was trying to be snarky about "at least the reporter did properly attribute the quote, because it was near-impossible not to" but failed horribly because I tossed off a quick comment from a mobile device and didn't take the time to set up the snark properly. *sigh*

ETA: and yes, I've read the book.