Jump to content
John Crichton

Potterdom Film/Score Series Thread

Recommended Posts

Deathly Hallows Part I was my favorite Potter film so far. The book is my second favorite, after Prisoner of Azkaban, but the 7th movie beats the 3rd in my opinion, because:

- acting was spot on - the trio especially have matured greatly in their abilities

- excellent screen writing - Steve Kloves (who I previously would have identified as a marginal weakness to the franchise) expertly utilizes the actors' weaknesses, such as Radcliffe's poor motor skills (the dancing scene and the way Albert walks at the Ministry), and avoids the awkwardness of certain scenes like the Harry/Ginny kissing scene by adding the humor element

- good editing - in contrast to Chamber of Secrets, for instance, where the pacing was labored and most of the previous films where the comedic timing was off, Part I flows very smoothly and there are no unintentionally awkward moments that I noticed

- fidelity to book - everything that I really wanted to see was there, but the story moved along quickly enough to keep me interested. It helped me remember how brilliant the book is.

- the score, while not my cup of tea for standalone listening, meshed perfectly with the film - I especially like the Snape/Death Eater motif

Lastly, the film captured all the emotions perfectly -

the weight of Hermione wiping her parents' memory, the fear of Lucius Malfoy around the table with Voldemort, the emptiness of being alone at Grimmauld Place, the anger between Harry and Ron, Ron's jealousy of Harry, the romantic tension between Ron and Hermione, Harry's mourning in Godric's Hollow, the quiet peace of the silver Doe, the horror of Hermione's torture, the poignance of Dobby's death, the foreboding as Voldemort gets closer to obtaining the Elder Wand

- it all went exactly as I felt it or wished I had felt it while reading the book for the first time.

I couldn't have received a greater present from Yates. I have high hopes for Part II.

I can sympathize with those who were often lost because they didn't read the book, but despite the seeming complexity, it's really quite simple: avoid Voldemort, find the Horcruxes. If you really need to know why, you've just got to read the book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The dancing scene did nothing for me, that should have ended up on the cutting room floor...er, in the recycle bin.

Hermione wiping her parents' memory was probably the most emotionally powerful moment in the film, nothing after really topped it. That was a good choice to actually show that, in the book we only hear Hermione tell Harry and Ron about doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw the film last night.

Overlong and the whole middle seemed rather uneconomical storytelling with several parts terribly drawn out without actually adding something to the story(the Weasley wedding, Godric's Hollow, the whole Ron leaves/comes back shenanigans). But that's the way it is if you want to earn the same $ twice.

I'll give Yates the 'Obliviate' opening, which was solved in a nice, visual way. Some of the interaction between the 3 leads was very good, lots was just 'drama coach recommends you now to press lips together to signal emotional distress'-stuff, especially on Radcliffe's part. Snape was barely in, which is a shame because he's my single favourite character. The animated 3 brothers sequence was a good moodbreaker (but again, all the hassle to reach it seemed not worth the screentime).

As for Desplat, the score had two or three moments in the sun, the most operatic being the 'Destroying the Locket' sequence, although sadly very short. The rest often was kind of mousy, but Williams wouldn't have had a field day, either. It's just not this kind of movie (or it would have stood out like a sore thumb).

Overall: B minus

I think Ron should have just sat back and enjoyed the show. Probably would have frustrated the locket and it would have turned into a spider.

It did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw Deathly Hallows part 1. Great stuff! Much better than any of the last three films IMO. Anyway, I spotted what I take to be an error in the script. Having destroyed the locket-horcrux, Harry or Ron (I forget who delivers the line) says "One down, three to go" (or something like that). Surely there are still FOUR horcruxes to go, not three. In the sixth book/film Harry Potter sees young Tom Riddle asking if it would be possible to split the soul into seven horcruxes. Dumbledore has destroyed two, then Ron destroys the locket. Unless my math is off, that leaves 4 to go. So, why the line about there being "three to go"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is anyone else concerned with how little of the book is left to cover in Deathly Hallows Part 2? Part 1 covers the first 400 pages (24 chapters). There are only 200 pages left (11 chapters). I hope the last movie won't be too short to make a fitting conclusion to the series, or have lots of unnecessary padding included to flesh out the action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For so much material that was included in part 1, the movie surely dragged as hell.

Yeah, a lot of small incidents were artificially blown up and felt like concrete boots (as i said, the woods, Godric's Hollow). If the swift pace of the ministry-of-magic sequence would've lasted, the movie could've been 105 minutes instead of 150.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or one 3 hour movie. That would probably solve all the problem. But then again HP fans don't care for pacing, do they?

For so much material that was included in part 1, the movie surely dragged as hell.

As I said on the other thread. It's pretty much like The Two Towers but with no Rohan material. Just camping, transitional shots and dialogue. That's also why the score sounds like it sounds.

Karol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, and why did Harry start calling Voldemort "Youknowwho", after all the statements he made that they should call him by his name?

Maybe Fiennes' new make-up with the swelling veins earned him some more respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is anyone else concerned with how little of the book is left to cover in Deathly Hallows Part 2? Part 1 covers the first 400 pages (24 chapters). There are only 200 pages left (11 chapters). I hope the last movie won't be too short to make a fitting conclusion to the series, or have lots of unnecessary padding included to flesh out the action.

Well, there will be two MAJOR action sequences (Gringotts breakin, Battle of Hogwarts (and look how the one chapter of Helm's deep took up a lot of time in TTT, the film)), with respective setup, and the story isn't exactly over when the battle is over (unlike TTT, the film).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, and why did Harry start calling Voldemort "Youknowwho", after all the statements he made that they should call him by his name?

It's a major plot point in the book that Voldemort's name is "jinxed" after the Death Eaters take over the ministry, that's how the trio were found in the cafe after escaping the wedding. From that point on they literally can't say Voldemort's name. I think that explanation was cut from the movie, I never heard it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that they make a big damn point of when Lovegood says *dramatic pause* Voldemort and all hell breaks loose.

Definitely screenwriter fail. ;)

Seriously I'm becoming disturbed by some of the trends in lack of mental processing of subtlety arising on these forums. You guys would not last through a single movie pre-2000s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has nothing to do whatsoever with subtlety. As I said before, I want films to be as subtle as possible, but they need to make sense. I totally missed that point, having forgotten about it completely despite having read the book. I thought Lovegood had summoned the Deatheaters before and was stalling them with the Hallows story. So yes, it is a big fail.

Films need to stand on their own. This one clearly doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can really say about the new movie is that it's easily my favorite, and that if you aren’t a die-hard fan of this series, or you are but haven’t read the books, then the film just wasn’t made for you. I have my gripes, but it's hard for me to watch this objectively and it's the first time that I felt every character and location had been ripped directly from the page, but with far more style and humor than, say, the first two Chris Columbus efforts. I had the most fun in this movie than any of the others for that reason, and I don't think they could have found a better person than David Yates for the job. Can't wait for Part II.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that they make a big damn point of when Lovegood says *dramatic pause* Voldemort and all hell breaks loose.

I liked it when he explains about the Elder Wand symbol and the music goes "DUN DUN DUNNNN!!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is anyone else concerned with how little of the book is left to cover in Deathly Hallows Part 2? Part 1 covers the first 400 pages (24 chapters). There are only 200 pages left (11 chapters). I hope the last movie won't be too short to make a fitting conclusion to the series, or have lots of unnecessary padding included to flesh out the action.

Well, there will be two MAJOR action sequences (Gringotts breakin, Battle of Hogwarts (and look how the one chapter of Helm's deep took up a lot of time in TTT, the film)), with respective setup, and the story isn't exactly over when the battle is over (unlike TTT, the film).

To be honest, I'm glad they got most of the leg work (literally) out of the way in Part 1. The second half of the book is easily the best anyway, once all that dreary walking around forests and such is done with.

I just want to enjoy 2 hours of epic fantasy action/adventure. After 7 films, I think the series has earned its right to indulge. I just hope it's fun. That's what I miss most about the first three movies; each subsequent film has tried to become more and more serious and less fun. I wasn't reading the books for eloquent and insightful literary developments. I read them to escape and enjoy the adventure, because I enjoy Rowling's storytelling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely agree. I loved the fact that we were able to sit and feel the characters in this one. I loved this movie so so much. So many scenes were able to breath in a way that the series has never seen before. Possibly my favourite in the series atm.

Also about Part 2; remember there is still all of Snape's backstory to be told, and hopefully with so much of the book already covered in part 1 that will be given the time it deserves on film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has nothing to do whatsoever with subtlety. As I said before, I want films to be as subtle as possible, but they need to make sense. I totally missed that point, having forgotten about it completely despite having read the book. I thought Lovegood had summoned the Deatheaters before and was stalling them with the Hallows story.

They actually excised the whole "Voldemort's name is cursed" subplot, which actually worked better in the film. It explains why after the Trio apparated back to the same spot after escaping Lovegood's home, the Snatchers find them since Scabior recognized Hermione's scent and lingered around (which makes more sense movie-wise). Not to mention they're attacked by the Death Eaters at the cafe without saying his name.

If Kloves and Yates did include the bit, it was probably excised during editing. The thing that irritated me in Part 1 was having all these character beats and scenes retained in the film, but the film doesn't take the time to address or explain them all (like the mirror shard). Not to mention that some characters haven't appeared in the previous movies since 2001 and 2002 (Ollivander and Dobby).

Pacing-wise, the film works fine. It really sets the tone and for the first time in a Potter film, you can feel the passage of time like in the book. Granted, that might not be a good thing for everyone but I felt it worked. And despite my gripes about characters re-appearing so late in the game, Dobby's final scene was even more devastating than in the book. I was tearing up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw Deathly Hallows part 1. Great stuff! Much better than any of the last three films IMO. Anyway, I spotted what I take to be an error in the script. Having destroyed the locket-horcrux, Harry or Ron (I forget who delivers the line) says "One down, three to go" (or something like that). Surely there are still FOUR horcruxes to go, not three. In the sixth book/film Harry Potter sees young Tom Riddle asking if it would be possible to split the soul into seven horcruxes. Dumbledore has destroyed two, then Ron destroys the locket. Unless my math is off, that leaves 4 to go. So, why the line about there being "three to go"?

It's called "dramatic irony:" we know something that the characters don't.

Harry destroyed the first horcrux, TR's diary, in the Chamber of Secrets without realizing what it was. Dumbledore only destroyed the second, the ring, and Ron destroyed the third. The point of the comment "three to go" demonstrates that they believe Voldemort wanted to split his soul into seven pieces, which is correct as far as intentions go. As Marian explained, this does not mean seven horcruxes: seven pieces of soul require six horcruxes, with the original piece of soul in his living body as number seven.

When Voldemort's attack on baby Harry backfired, he embedded a piece of soul in Harry as the sixth horcrux before fading. Voldemort and (a living) Dumbledore would never learn of this, and Harry figures it out only at the end.

Voldemort turned Nagini into what he believed was horcrux #6 in 1994. He would not learn of the diary's 1993 destruction until 1995 when he pries it out of Lucius. While Nagini was the seventh horcrux overall, Voldemort believed he was left with five working horcruxes -- locket, ring, cup, diadem, and Nagini -- because he did not realize that Harry was active horcrux #6. That in conjunction with being the true master of the Elder Wand is what enable him to survive and face a mortal Voldemort.

It's a good thing that Rowling was in the home stretch as far as ending the tale that she did not write for Voldemort to actively seek another horcrux after Nagini.

I enjoyed the movie, but have some comments.

As Harry released Hedwig to fly away free, I wondered if the filmmakers were changing the story so she would survive. Nope, it was so that Hedwig would home in on the "real" Harry during the battle, which let the Death Eaters do the same. This small change allowed the filmmakers to completely drop the idea of Harry sparing an Imperius-ed Stan Shunpike by using his trademark Expelliarmus instead of Stupefy, which would have killed anyone from such an altitude. This is a good change since Hedwig had to die there anyways, and it avoids the Order telling Harry "it's ok to kill those who want to kill you," which is bad to say in a movie.

I can live with a lot of the omissions. Tonks' parents make the story longer and add an unnecessary stop en route to the Burrow. But why is Cho Chang on the Hogwarts Express, headed back to school a year after she should have graduated? Are parents sending their children to Hogwarts to be safe?

My sister pointed out that isn't Harry supposed to be in disguise during the wedding as a Weasley cousin, so nobody recognizes him as Harry?

It is remarkable how much of the Dumbledore intrigue is present, with Rita Skeeter's book, the conversation at the wedding, and the stuff with Grindelwald and the thief. It'll pay off in Part II.

How did Dobby knock out Pettigrew? Neither Harry nor Ron would have had a wand. I think he's just stunned and will return for Part II.

How did Harry disarm Draco? Did he use a spell or did he just pluck the wand from his hand? Ok...

I would have liked to see more moments spent in Grimmauld Place bonding with Kreacher, in order to justify their use in the final battle.

It's a shame that any mention of Voldemort's name being jinxed was cut from the movie. That is a major point because it explains why even Harry refers to him as "You Know Who," and Harry is not afraid of the name. If Hermione spoke it, maybe that's how the two Death Eaters dressed simply as plumbers found the trio in the cafe, and the Death Eaters only increased their theatrics (black swirling smoke at Lovegood's) as they became frustrated over the number of escapes.

I thought that the messenger crow was how Xeno Lovegood contacted the Death Eaters about capturing Harry, rather than just a lead-in and lead-out for the animated story. Maybe they didn't believe a such a tale tale coming from the editor of the Quibbler, but speaking the jinxed name would be the fail-safe way to lure them since the trio was threatening to leave. I know that conjecture doesn't forgive bad moviemaking, but let's face it, these movies are not meant to be understood 100% by those who haven't read the books.

People complain that there wasn't enough Snape in this movie. His absence in this movie lines up with his diminished presence in the corresponding chapters of the book, during which he is at Hogwarts after the intro, and the book is from Harry, Ron, and Hermione's perspective, not Hogwarts.

All in all, I enjoyed it. There was plenty of humor amongst the lead trio -- even as polyjuiced adults -- and even moments when a stray glance or dirty look got the point across. Looking forward to Part II.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention they're attacked by the Death Eaters at the cafe without saying his name.

Hermione mentioned Voldemort's name just before the Death Eaters entered. ;)

I wasn't paying attention to that. I noticed they dropped the part where the Snatchers find the Trio because Harry says Voldemort, and instead having the Snatchers find the trio because Scabior noticed Hermione's scent and probably stayed around to see if they returned.

How did Dobby knock out Pettigrew? Neither Harry nor Ron would have had a wand. I think he's just stunned and will return for Part II.

How did Harry disarm Draco? Did he use a spell or did he just pluck the wand from his hand? Ok...

Well, as shown in the second movie, house elves can knock out humans. I wonder how this change will affect Pettigrew's fate in Part 2, since originally

Harry and Ron overtook Pettigrew. As they struggle Harry reminds Pettigrew about his debt where Harry spared him from death (in the third film), and Wormtail's silver hand strangles its owner to death.

And it's clearly seen that Harry wrenches the wands free from Draco's grip. In the book, he disarmed Draco with a spell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
these movies are not meant to be understood 100% by those who haven't read the books.

And that is exactly why, like the previous few films, it is not a very good film and adaptation. There is no reason why it would not be able to stand alone as film; now it just functions as illustration for the book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a shame that any mention of Voldemort's name being jinxed was cut from the movie. That is a major point because it explains why even Harry refers to him as "You Know Who,"

Even more so, it explains why the entire wizarding community has always referred to Voldemort as YouKnowWho.

these movies are not meant to be understood 100% by those who haven't read the books.

And that is exactly why, like the previous few films, it is not a very good film and adaptation. There is no reason why it would not be able to stand alone as film; now it just functions as illustration for the book.

This is my gripe with Steve Kloves' screenplays for the series: they're translations, not adaptations. The only movie that really manages to get the core ideas of the series across in a cinematic way is Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix: the only film in the series not to be penned by Kloves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a shame that any mention of Voldemort's name being jinxed was cut from the movie. That is a major point because it explains why even Harry refers to him as "You Know Who,"

Even more so, it explains why the entire wizarding community has always referred to Voldemort as YouKnowWho.

Actually, Voldemort jinxed his name just before the 7th book begins because he knows that the few people who don't fear saying his name are his greatest enemies. The people didn't say his name before that because they feared him.

these movies are not meant to be understood 100% by those who haven't read the books.

And that is exactly why, like the previous few films, it is not a very good film and adaptation. There is no reason why it would not be able to stand alone as film; now it just functions as illustration for the book.

This is my gripe with Steve Kloves' screenplays for the series: they're translations, not adaptations. The only movie that really manages to get the core ideas of the series across in a cinematic way is Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix: the only film in the series not to be penned by Kloves.

This series is unique among film adaptations - it is made for the readers, and rightly so. Why should they cater the films to those who are so lazy or care for the characters so little that they are unwilling to pick up the extremely entertaining and successful books and read them? This isn't an adaptation of Hugo's Les Miserables - the average Joe will have no problem comprehending the books.

Saying the films are mere "illustrations" is the pessimistic way of looking at it. I would say the films, "bring the books to life." Conceptually, I agree with you, but in my opinion Kloves' approach was exactly the right one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This series is unique among film adaptations - it is made for the readers, and rightly so. Why should they cater the films to those who are so lazy or care for the characters so little that they are unwilling to pick up the extremely entertaining and successful books and read them? This isn't an adaptation of Hugo's Les Miserables - the average Joe will have no problem comprehending the books.

That's ridiculous. Who the hell makes a movie that expects the viewer to have read and be familiar with, the source material?

I hate Kloves' approach to the first two movies. So much cheesy, stating-the-obvious dialogue which tells the audience what they're perfectly capable of figuring out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a shame that any mention of Voldemort's name being jinxed was cut from the movie. That is a major point because it explains why even Harry refers to him as "You Know Who,"

Even more so, it explains why the entire wizarding community has always referred to Voldemort as YouKnowWho.

Actually, Voldemort jinxed his name just before the 7th book begins because he knows that the few people who don't fear saying his name are his greatest enemies. The people didn't say his name before that because they feared him.

I know. I don't know how if it was mentioned in the books, but I always figured the name jinx was something that had previously been in effect as well, only to be broken by Voldemort's downfall and then later restored. Made sense to me at the time.

these movies are not meant to be understood 100% by those who haven't read the books.

And that is exactly why, like the previous few films, it is not a very good film and adaptation. There is no reason why it would not be able to stand alone as film; now it just functions as illustration for the book.

This is my gripe with Steve Kloves' screenplays for the series: they're translations, not adaptations. The only movie that really manages to get the core ideas of the series across in a cinematic way is Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix: the only film in the series not to be penned by Kloves.

This series is unique among film adaptations - it is made for the readers, and rightly so. Why should they cater the films to those who are so lazy or care for the characters so little that they are unwilling to pick up the extremely entertaining and successful books and read them? This isn't an adaptation of Hugo's Les Miserables - the average Joe will have no problem comprehending the books.

Saying the films are mere "illustrations" is the pessimistic way of looking at it. I would say the films, "bring the books to life." Conceptually, I agree with you, but in my opinion Kloves' approach was exactly the right one.

I think it comes down to what you prefer as a viewer. I like seeing scenes from the book put onto the screen, but not at the expense of coherence. Chamber of Secrets really suffers from this for example. The movie feels like they tried to put in as many scenes from the book as possible, ended up with a film far too long and had to cut material from the film that would have explained things a bit better or give the movie a better flow. It just feels like things could have been told more effectively had they taken some liberty with the material.

The presence of Rufus Scrimgeour in Deathly Hallows is another example of this. I love Bill Nighy, and I was glad to see him in a Potter film. But with him appearing for only a few scenes and then dying offscreen, it seems sort of pointless to introduce this whole new character when it was never really made clear Fudge resigned (yes, there's a tiny newspaper article in the opening scene of Half-Blood Prince - blink and you'll miss it). I don't particularly care for this new and frankly rather thin character who dies offscreen after being in the movie for all of two scenes. It just seems like a bit of a waste, all because "it was in the book."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Death Eaters only decided to jinx Voldemort's name in the last book, influenced by the fear the wizarding world had in even saying his name. It was a way to track down his most dangerous enemies, only they would have the guts to even say Voldemort's name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This series is unique among film adaptations - it is made for the readers, and rightly so. Why should they cater the films to those who are so lazy or care for the characters so little that they are unwilling to pick up the extremely entertaining and successful books and read them? This isn't an adaptation of Hugo's Les Miserables - the average Joe will have no problem comprehending the books.

It may be baffling to Potter fanboy bookworms who think J.K. Rowling's doorstops are the Second Coming, but many people would rather not have to read a series of 500-page (give or take) novels as if it were an assigned reading before a university lecture in order to understand the films that they just want to chill out with and watch. A successful adaptation needs to exist on its own, although I think Kloves and Goldenberg rightfully deleted a lot of redundant bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This series is unique among film adaptations - it is made for the readers, and rightly so. Why should they cater the films to those who are so lazy or care for the characters so little that they are unwilling to pick up the extremely entertaining and successful books and read them? This isn't an adaptation of Hugo's Les Miserables - the average Joe will have no problem comprehending the books.

It may be baffling to Potter fanboy bookworms who think J.K. Rowling's doorstops are the Second Coming, but many people would rather not have to read a series of 500-page (give or take) novels as if it were an assigned reading before a university lecture in order to understand the films that they just want to chill out with and watch. A successful adaptation needs to exist on its own, although I think Kloves and Goldenberg rightfully deleted a lot of redundant bullshit.

I can't see a good reason, or any reason at all, why it would be omitted that Voldemort jinxed his name. On the contrary, it would have added some direly needed tension.

Or why Ron and Hermione holding hands at Grimmauld Place was cut, even though the filming clearly indicates it most likely was there.

I mean, come on, you're splitting one book into two movies already, and you can't be bothered to illustrate some more plot points than usual?

In fact, this feels like they may be two films, but contain the plot information for one.

And I feel the Elder Wand backstory came off as rather rushed.

What are they going to do? Expand the "King's Cross" chapter to 15 minutes of pure dialogue, in front of a white background?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I feel the Elder Wand backstory came off as rather rushed.

What are they going to do? Expand the "King's Cross" chapter to 15 minutes of pure dialogue, in front of a white background?

;)

I believe they are going to give some information through Ollivander.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This series is unique among film adaptations - it is made for the readers, and rightly so. Why should they cater the films to those who are so lazy or care for the characters so little that they are unwilling to pick up the extremely entertaining and successful books and read them? This isn't an adaptation of Hugo's Les Miserables - the average Joe will have no problem comprehending the books.

That's ridiculous. Who the hell makes a movie that expects the viewer to have read and be familiar with, the source material?

I hate Kloves' approach to the first two movies. So much cheesy, stating-the-obvious dialogue which tells the audience what they're perfectly capable of figuring out.

I agree with you about the first two movies. But I think Kloves finally got it right this time.

I truly think the Potter series is unique - the books were far more popular and accessible than any other book adaptation since The Ten Commandments. For instance, when "Jurassic Park" was made, the book was popular, but not so much that a direct adaptation was necessary. The concept alone of cloning dinosaurs was enough to make a thrilling standalone movie. Other adaptations are made to make a literary work more accessible, and perhaps attract interest to the book on which it was based, like my example of Les Miserables - in this case, it is not necessary to be faithful to the book necessarily, but it helps to be true to the principles of the book.

Potter, however, already had a huge base and there are enough of us that the producers didn't really need a wider audience to make the films profitable - therefore it was smart to cater mostly to the fans, who care the most whether the films are good anyway. For the vast majority of the population, if you don't bother to read the books, you probably wouldn't like the movies anyway, so why cater to that small segment that for some reason like the movies but haven't read the books?

My arguments above aside, though there is a lot of "insider" information in the films, it really isn't that hard to follow the major plot line. The tidbits are left in there to make it more interesting for fans of the books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the vast majority of the population, if you don't bother to read the books, you probably wouldn't like the movies anyway

That's an unfair generalisation. I know plenty of people who have never touched the books, but are fans of the movies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOTR is a perfect example. That book already had a huge fanbase, but still knew that it needed to be looked at from a filmic point of view to be truly successful and realised that if you're going to be making films for wide audiences, you're going to have to assume people haven't read the books. Then they can put the extra bits in for the extended edition.

Although it's funny that my one enduring memory of Potter in theatres is down to LOTR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I concede that I probably misjudged the proportion of viewers who have read the books. I agree that the movies should be able to be enjoyed and comprehended without having to read the source material (I think they can). However, I don't think it's a bad thing to have some inside jokes or allusions to details in the book when there is not enough time to explicitly explain them in the film.

Using the LOTR example, I have not read the books and had a hard time following everything that was going on because all of the characters and places have strange and unfamiliar names. However, I was able to follow the main plot line and enjoyed the movies for what they were. I'm not a diehard LOTR fan, so I don't really care what they put in or left out. It seems natural to me then that the producers probably tried to deliver what LOTR fans wanted to see.

Being a fan of Harry Potter, I agree with Rowling that the movies can't be the books but they should be true to the characters. I think the movies have done that, especially this latest installment. The movies are entertaining and coherent on their own. The complaints I've seen on this board are generally valid but not vital.

For instance, perhaps the Voldemort jinx will be explained in Part II, but if it isn't, does it really matter? Everyone in the theater knows that Voldemort and his followers are looking for Harry. Is it such a surprise that they tend to track the trio down from time to time? The plot is fairly intricate but it is a children's book after all - is it that hard to follow without an explicit explanation of every detail? Keep in mind that we haven't seen Part II yet so some of these complaints may be addressed later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are they going to do? Expand the "King's Cross" chapter to 15 minutes of pure dialogue, in front of a white background?

"You know, I set fire to this train station in my fourth year. Accidentally of course."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×