So who's Pan, exactly ?
Is it the creature with the horns that lived in the labyrinth? because "pan" was actually never said, the creature was just referred as a "faun"
shareIf you had read the other threads on the board, you would find that this topic has been discussed at great length.
The horned character from the labyrinth is a faun. It is never given another name in the film. The original Spanish title of the film translates to The Labyrinth of the Faun. The distributers of the film thought that the word "faun" might be confusing to an English speaking audience, particularly in America where fauns are not as widely known as other mythological creatures such as unicorns or mermaids. And because the name "faun" sounds like "fawn", they decided to go with the name of the Greek god Pan, who is usually depicted in the same form as a faun.
Unfortunately, using the name of a god in your title when the god never appears in the work creates its own confusion, so perhaps it wasn't the best choice. Especially with the recent high-profile movies made from The Chronicles of Narnia which probably led to new awareness of fauns. But there you have it.
_____
Strip away the phony tinsel of Hollywood and you find the real tinsel underneath.
[deleted]
Agreed, considering the "average" American won't be interested in anything that requires reading subtitles anyway.
shareOh, Yes. Let's do some more America bashing because there's such a shortage of trolls already doing that on IMDB. And when you speak of the average American, are you including South and Central America or just North America? And if it's only North America, are you including Canada and Mexico or just the U.S.? And of course you have a study that backs up this claim. I'm sure you wouldn't be saying such things just on the basis of a few posts on IMDB. </sarcasm>
_____
Strip away the phony tinsel of Hollywood and you find the real tinsel underneath.
Oh, not this crap again. Will someone please tell me, once-and-for-all, what nationality someone from New Jersey is? Because suddenly I am breaking a law if I call them American. Maybe they are United Statesman? Or Coitus (Citizen or inhabiting the US)?
Give it a bloody rest with the "We Peruvians are American too!", no you are not, you are damn well Peruvian, you come from a country called Peru. Your nation does not have the word 'America' anywhere in it...
Ya Kirk-loving Spocksucker!
If any country out there has a law against calling U.S. citizens Americans, I've never heard of it.
Someone from New Jersey is a U.S. citizen. That's his nationality. It's mine too. I'm not from Peru. Someone from New Jersey is also American, because he lives on the continent of North America. But that's a regional designation like European or Asian, not a nationality, which is why Mexicans and Canadians also qualify as North Americans.
I realize that people often use "American" to mean U.S. citizen. This usage has gained considerable currency because there is no corresponding term such as "United Statesian".
Generally speaking, I don't make an issue of people using the term "American" to mean U.S. citizen, but the person to whom I was replying was a troll trying to stir up trouble with one of the standard IMDB trollisms directed at U.S. citizens. He deserved a dressing down, even over a potentially pedantic technicality.
_____
Strip away the phony tinsel of Hollywood and you find the real tinsel underneath.
The Greek goddess of witchcraft, ghosts and necromancy has dressing me down. Guess I'll have to go back to my corner and cry now.
For the record, I'm a hyphenated American too, and I don't mind reading subtitles (I love them in fact, as they have helped me learn other languages too.)
For the record, you are also an imbecile.
shareI wasn't trying to say that they should have retitled the film. In fact, I went to some trouble to point out how retitling the film created problems. So why are you asking me to justify a decision that I never said I agree with? And no one here can give any further explanation for why it was retitled. If you're really serious about getting a more detailed answer than has already been provided, contact the people who actually made the decision. Because I don't see the point of your post.
_____
Strip away the phony tinsel of Hollywood and you find the real tinsel underneath.
The distributers of the film thought that the word "faun" might be confusing to an English speaking audience, particularly in America ...The same reason the first Harry Potter movie was retitled for American audiences. The producers were worried that the word "Philosopher's" might seem to highbrow for the multiplex crowd.🐭 share
No it's the book title that was changed. Since the publisher was affraid that the lowest common denominator US children wouldn't know what a philosopher is, and neither would their parents.
If you save the world, We can do it in the *beep*
My top 100 http://www.imdb.com/li
True, but the American film distributors followed the same pattern.
Since the publisher was affraid that the lowest common denominator US children wouldn't know what a philosopher is, and neither would their parents.LOL! Unfortunately there may have been more than an element of truth in the thinking behind the decision.🐭 share
I doubt that they were concerned about whether the U.S. audience would know what a philosopher is and more concerned about how many people would be familiar with the legends of the Philosopher's Stone. Especially considering that Rowland's version seems to depart considerably from original stories.
_____
Strip away the phony tinsel of Hollywood and you find the real tinsel underneath.