Posts Tagged ‘Neil Gaiman’

Picture/Data Dump

Sonntag, Februar 12th, 2012

Ich bin jetzt seit über vier Monaten in Melbourne und habe praktisch nichts über das Leben in dieser Stadt geschrieben. Und weil es mir gerade etwas an Ideen für durchdachte Einträge fehlt, folgt nun hier einen Sammlung von Fotos und Anekdoten aus meiner Zeit in Melbourne. Keine richtigen Geschichten, keine tiefen Betrachtungen, nur ein Überblick über das Oberflächliche, was dann vielleicht zusammengenommen einen kleinen Eindruck von meinem Leben hier vermittelt.

(weiterlesen …)

Weihnachten in Melbourne, Teil 2

Freitag, Dezember 30th, 2011

Weil ich gestern Abend zu müde war, um es noch fertig zu schreiben, folgt jetzt hier der zweite und voraussichtlich letzte Teil des Berichtes wie ich die Weihnachtstage in Melbourne verbracht habe. Gestern habe ich vom 23. berichtet, jetzt folgt der 24. und auch die nächsten Tage.

(weiterlesen …)

Minute Movie Review – Stardust

Dienstag, April 29th, 2008


Based on the book by Neil Gaiman, Stardust tells the story of Tristan Thorn who ventures into the magical kingdom of Stormhold to retrieve a fallen star for his beloved. But things turn out different than expected when the star turns out to be alive – and a beautiful woman at that. Stardust is essentially a fairy tale for grown-ups – and that is not a bad thing. Fantasy movies have flooded the cinemas in recent years and it is refreshing to see one that doesn’t take itself too seriously, as shown by great supporting performances by Michelle Pfeiffer and Robert De Niro. A bit predictable, the film is nevertheless a lot of fun.

Random Observations:

Stardust at

Don’t be put off by the bad special effect shots in the beginning – you will hardly notice them later on.

Charlie Cox in the lead role is a relative unknown, but easily stands his grounds opposite Claire Danes and other renown actresses and actors.

There are actually quite a few changes to the book, from the beginning to the middle to the end. Most of them actually made for a better story though, so they are forgiveable.

Thoughts on “Good Omens”

Samstag, November 17th, 2007

In the late 1980s, Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett wrote a book called “Good Omens”. In 1990, it was first published. In 2006, a new edition was published with some information from the two authors about the book, how it came to exist and about each other. Yesterday, I read the book. Today, I write down my thoughts on it, or rather on how it came to be.

“Good Omens” is entertaining enough to warrant the million of copies it sold to some less millions of people. Reviews of it can be found almost anywhere, so if you simply want to know whether you might enjoy reading the book, look for them instead of looking here. Here I will talk more about the process of writing a book or rather how to write this book.

Apparently, Pratchett and Gaiman have a vastly different approach to writing. It is said that Pratchett wrote 400 words every evening when he still had a “real” job. When he finished a novel and still had 100 words to go, he just start the next one. Gaiman is or at least was the more chaotic of the two. By the time they wrote “Good Omens”, they both were making a living with what they were writing, but instead of writing together, they would each write at home. Gaiman would write at night and wake up at midday to find his answering machine filled with messages from Pratchett to finally get up, because he had been writing all morning. Then, in the afternoon, they would share what each had written, talk about what they were doing and sketch out where the book was headed. They would send their drafts to each other through snail mail since this was a long time before e-mail was readily available. An attempt to use a modem to share the data was abandoned after they realized that the postal service was faster. At the end they got together to do the final edit and congratulate each other on their good work, only to realize that there were some things in the book they were both sure not to have written.

Apart from these anecdotes being rather amusing (more so when told by them then when amateurishly retold by me) they give some insight into the creative process that is writing. There are many writers who need the strict discipline that Pratchett enforced on himself, while others work best at night, possibly being slightly drunk and very chaotic. In general, the more chaotic the work of a writer seems, the more organized he is. Most writers are highly individual people, selfish, arrogant and always right. They are hard to tolerate at the best of times and nearly impossible to work with. Yet when they do, they create something that is somehow bigger than they themselves are. Of course this can be said for a lot of artistic work, but with collaborations these is even more true (just think of movies).

I guess what I am really trying to say here is: Does anybody want to be the Terry Pratchett to my Neil Gaiman?

Stray Thoughts I

Dienstag, November 6th, 2007

I think that Neil Gaiman’s hair was the inspiration for Harry Potter’s.

Minute Movie Review – Stardust

Montag, November 5th, 2007


Stardust is a strange movie in that I can hardly find fault with it, yet it is not perfect. It is a nice fantasy tale of, who’d have guessed, love; well made in every aspect and with decent, though not outstanding, acting. Tristan sets out to bring back a fallen star to show his love for a girl wanting to marry another man, but when he discovers that the star is in fact alive (and a good-looking woman…), his journey back gets much more difficult. Witches want the star’s heart to be forever young and the princes of the kingdom seek the jewel that caused her to fall to earth. The story is well-developed and keeps the movie from falling into the trap of becoming just yet another love story. It is not a great movie, but it is a nice one in its own right.

Random Observations:

Stardust at

Before seeing the movie today, the only chance to see it in English until the DVD release, I read this article about good books that have been made into not quite so good movies. Of course, Stardust was on it. I haven’t read the book (yet), but I am curious to know what makes the book that much better.

Robert De Niro’s performance was actually a lot better than I expected. Maybe he is getting his old drive to actually try back.

I noticed today that the larger the budget of a movie is, the more people look at you funny when you go to see it alone. I’ve done it often and the last time I got that many incredulous looks was with Crash, even though it was some obscure and small cinema in New York.