Jump to content

Potterdom Film/Score Series Thread


John Crichton

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

 

Oh boy that brings back memories.  I was only 10 when we had that so I wasn’t into “films” but for some reason I remember watching this clip of a Nightmare on Elm Street movie over and over and over.  I don’t remember which one but the clip is of a girl running away up a set of stairs which go all melty and her feet get caught.

 

There weren't many video clips on that CD (about 20?), but boy did they get played a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kaseykockroach said:

At least I have the decency to be infatuated with a lady twelve years older than me!

 

Emma is 28 so that makes you 16. 

 

 

Your posts make more sense now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't speak too objectively about movies 1 and 2, they're my childhood. 3 is probably the best of the bunch in everything but the script. 4 is over-the-top and fun, barely has anything to do with the book. 5 is fun, then Yates slowly devolved it into generic dumb identityless Hollywood so-dark-you-can't-make-out-anything-on-the-screen garbage by the 8th. The biggest problem with 8 is how it turns what should be satisfying character moments into dull action beats. In the process the core themes and important threads of the books were completely lost. I hold 6-8 as unwatchable.

 

The books I love, 7 is my weirdest - the camping part until Ron comes back is not my favourite part at all, but after that, it does become my favourite in wrapping up everything. 4 is a very surprisingly complex and well-planned mystery story. And after a whole book of Harry being angsty about anything, 6 going back to fun slice-of-life things in the main thread (with Voldemort's past having big emphasis being very important!) was refreshing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Holko said:

barely has anything to do with the book.

 

An overrated criterion for adapted screenplays right there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Holko said:

 4 is over-the-top and fun, barely has anything to do with the book.

 

4 is a very surprisingly complex and well-planned mystery story. 

I wouldn't describe it as having 'barely anything' to do with the book, I think it's one of the better examples of how a film adaptation can take from the books and make changes without sacrificing the integrity or the core plot and themes.

 

I think the films, all of them, deserve to be watched as companion pieces to the books and vice versa, where things better left out for time's sake can be answered by the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, kaseykockroach said:

I was referring to Bryce Dallas Howard, you nincompoop.

 

Youre 25 then? Suddenly your posts have stopped making sense again...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Arpy said:

I think the films, all of them, deserve to be watched as companion pieces to the books.

 

No.

 

That's the other thing about adaptations: they need to work, first and foremost, for those who have not and never will read, watch or study the source material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed; and the best in which it stands a chance to encourage a person to seek out the work its based on, is if the film changes the work however it needs, for the sake of being the best film that it can be.

 

That's my issue with the Columbus entries. To call them "faithful adaptations" would be a travesty. They are merely an abridged form of the book which just happened to have been acted and photographed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He wanted to combine books and do them animated. He also thought it would be too easy, not challenging enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Holko said:

He also thought it would be too easy, not challenging enough.

 

I always interpreted that to mean that it was guaranteed to be a hit, that it wouldn't be a challenge to make it a box office sensation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

“Travesty”? Don’t you think you’re overstating your case just a bit? They are, in fact, faithful adaptions. That’s indisputable. Whether you think that’s good or bad is another question.

  

Read what Spielberg  planned to do with Harry Potter and maybe you’ll appreciate what Columbus did a bit more. 

 

Yeah, its fair to say my choice of words was too harsh.

 

But to my mind a "faithful" adaptation is one which captures, as @Arpy put it, "the core plot and themes" in the most cinematic way: in other words, the "faithfulness" of the adaptation cannot be separated from the cinematic verve (or lack thereof) of the finished product.

 

The Columbus entries don't do that well. Its actually not Christopher Columbus fault, for the most part. Its the screenwriter, Steve Kloves. In effect he didn't write a screenplay, he presented an abridged form of the book. That can work in a very specific subset of literature which was written to read like a screenplay. As the entries progressed, Kloves clearly became bolder, and the finished products (for the most part) benefited enormously from that.

 

And while I agree that it was a good commercial decision, artistically its a mixed bag, for me. On the one hand, I can understand Columbus and Kloves being very keen to include every setpiece from the book in the script and edit, since not all of the books have been published and they didn't know what would be important to later entries and what wouldn't. 

 

On the other hand,  I think it damaged the films going forward because it facilitated an anticipation for later films to follow a similar route regarding adaptation; and while I do think those later entries are better films, there are places where I think they, too, could have been more audacious in the treatment of the source material.

 

Although, like I said, I'm willing to cut the first of the two Columbus entries much more slack by virtue of the fact that its the establishing film of the series, so its understandable for it to be fairly slow. Having said that, I do always appreciate it when the establishing film transcends its role and manages to not only establish the characters, world and central conflict, but also to be enrapturing and energetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Holko said:

He wanted to combine books and do them animated. He also thought it would be too easy, not challenging enough.

 

Yep. And he actually said this...that adapting a beloved children's book like Harry Potter wouldn't be a challenge for him.  He got the chance to prove this assertion with BFG (flop).

 

And the less said about the Haley Joel Osment idea the better.

 

As for the awful idea of combining the books and making the film animated, Spielberg realised this dream with Tintin (franchise dead). 

 

BFG and Tintin are both proof that Warners and Rowlings reluctance to have Spielberg involved were very well founded.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

 

Yep. And he actually said this...that adapting a beloved children's book like Harry Potter wouldn't be a challenge for him.  He got the chance to prove this assertion with BFG (flopped).

 

As for the awful idea of combining the books and making the film animated, Spielberg realised this dream with Tintin (franchise dead). 

 

TinTin was very well made and well received (at least in Europe), and further films are coming. They're just not rushing them as they're works of love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless, those specific examples (on which I have to agree with Nick) don't make Spielberg bad at adaptation.

 

Most of his films are adapted works; and some of his best works deviate significantly to the source material (often even on the level of the core plot and themes) and yet still work as films, which is the most important aspect of an adapted film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

TinTin was very well made and well received (at least in Europe), and further films are coming. They're just not rushing them as they're works of love.

 

Whatever the merits of the film, I'll believe there will be more films when I see them.

 

And I'm not knocking Spielberg in general. I just think he was all wrong for Harry Potter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Most of his films are adapted works; and some of his best works deviate significantly to the source material (often even on the level of the core plot and themes) and yet still work as films, which is the most important aspect of an adapted film.

 

I'd say most Spielberg fans or just movie fans have no clue a lot of his movies are adaptations, because the source material didn't remain in the public consiousness at all. Jaws and Jurassic Park were overnight sensations that dies off quickly, but the movies remain as two of the greats. Could the movies have had a role in making people forget the books? Maybe. But HP was the biggest and most popular IP of its era, it's still in people's mind and lives strong with fans, and it deserved much better representation than the garbage that is movies 6-8 the (yes, I agree, maybe in some respects) unimaginative and overly "faithful" 1-2 (even if they'll forever have a special place for me) or the fun but incredibly dumbed down 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think, artistically, the popularity of the source material is of no consequence. As long as you capture the plot, at its most rudimentary form, as well as the basic themes of the work - you're good to go. Everything in the book (or not in it) that surrounds that core, is there for you to mess with, to the end of making the most filmic version possible.

 

Even if you do decide to mess with the core of the film, you can still make a good film; it just won't be an adaptation so much as a re-interpertation. But that doesn't mean anything as to the quality of the film: Most of Kubrick's films fall into the "re-interpertation" category, and yet they're excellent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yates is no Kubrick - he had enough skill and vision to make a masterpiece out of anything.

HP8 goes far enough to completely reverse core themes of the book series in favour of empty, illogical (in-universe) visual spectacle. The previous two Yates films "mess with" the material that "surrounds the core" by throwing the core (like essential plot setup) out at times and filling in pointless shit, then later scrambling to somehow make sense of the mess they created.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole goddamn point of the whole series is how EVERYONE WILL DIE and their corpses will lay next to each other, equal in death, and that's OK! That's what the bastard was afraid of, dying the same way as everyone else, he thought he was special! What do they do? Make him speckle off in a special way! *Smashes fist through table* His death means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING except "whoah look at this mildly impressive but kinda dull effect!"!  And nobody is there to witness it! Did nobody think "Hmm, the Dark Lord is supposedly gone, no body, Potter came out alive, nobody saw anything, haven't we seen this 17 years earlier?" I haven't seen the movie since I got the DVD (only ever got one watch, and never will get any more), but this still gets me so angry I want to shatter the disc into microscopic pieces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Holko said:

Horcrux memories, Voldy flying into ashes, burning the Burrow...

 

And how do these, very specific plot elements undercut the narrative of any of the books, much less the entire series?

 

6 minutes ago, Arpy said:

The Columbus films are great at laying a good solid foundation on which the framework of the series was built.

 

Which is exactly why I'm cutting the first film a lot of slack - the second film, not so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Holko said:

The previous two Yates films "mess with" the material that "surrounds the core" by throwing the core (like essential plot setup) out at times and filling in pointless shit, then later scrambling to somehow make sense of the mess they created.

 

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

Care to elaborate?

 

1 hour ago, Holko said:

Not now, yet again. Horcrux memories, Voldy flying into ashes, burning the Burrow...

 

50 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

And how do these, very specific plot elements undercut the narrative of any of the books, much less the entire series?

 

The first and the last are specific examples for throwing important stuff out to stuff it back with meaningless dumb shit, the middle one is explained in my 5-line outburst 3 goddamn post above this last question of yours.

 

Sorry for being angry impulsively at this, but I thought "not now, yet again" made it clear I don't what to spend this afternoon writing essays about why these garbage movies are garbage yet again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cherry Pie That'll Kill Ya said:

Just a bunch of friggin kids books/movies.

 

Genius is merely childhood recovered at will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Holko said:

The whole goddamn point of the whole series is how EVERYONE WILL DIE and their corpses will lay next to each other, equal in death, and that's OK! That's what the bastard was afraid of, dying the same way as everyone else, he thought he was special! What do they do? Make him speckle off in a special way! *Smashes fist through table* His death means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING except "whoah look at this mildly impressive but kinda dull effect!"!  And nobody is there to witness it! Did nobody think "Hmm, the Dark Lord is supposedly gone, no body, Potter came out alive, nobody saw anything, haven't we seen this 17 years earlier?" I haven't seen the movie since I got the DVD (only ever got one watch, and never will get any more), but this still gets me so angry I want to shatter the disc into microscopic pieces.

Eh...

 

In the book it was a simple duel in the Great Hall, there wasn't anything special about the death other than there was some sense of finality - in the film too. His soul survives in a limbo state, but I felt that could be open to the possibility of his return if other forces or people choose to act on them. I don't think that's lazy writing, I think it's a reaffirmation of the cycle of history repeating itself, but the idea of the effect they used for Voldemort's demise in the film enrages you to the point of wanting to destroy the disc?!

 

...

 

Anywho, as I've probably brought up before, one of the only disappointments with the adaptation in changing something was that Harry broke the Elder Wand in the film. In the book, he returns it to Dumbledore's tomb where its power will eventually fade too (a callback to the theme of death and that Harry had become the 'Master of Death'), but not before he uses it to repair his own wand. It would have been interesting to see the conversation between the Dumbledore portrait and Harry, but it probably didn't work in the context of the film because a few scenes prior we had the King's Cross Heaven scene with Dumbledore which was kind of his send off...

Riddlesolved.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ask this out of pure curiosity:  so like any kid growing up at the time I was a huge fan of Harry Potter, but I came to a realization around the time Half-Blood Prince was coming to theaters: I didn't care about Harry Potter anymore.

 

So for those of you who still enjoy the books and movies (I do like Prisoner of Azkaban), what draws you to them still? In talking about the later films, I notice you guys are pretty upset about how they handled the themes from the books, are there a lot of literary themes in them that you find appealing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Arpy said:

but the idea of the effect they used for Voldemort's demise in the film enrages you to the point of wanting to destroy the disc?!

 

It's more of a culmination of all the horrid memories of what else they fucked up in that movie (hint: everything).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to be a huge Harry Potter fan. After seeing the first film on a whim, I fell in love with it and immediately read all the books that were out at the time, and continued through the series in both mediums with anticipation and excitement like so many others. I remember always trying to see the latest movie set photos that could be found, listen to podcasts to hear fan theories of what was going to happen in the upcoming books, and then hear theories about what would be changed in the film adaptations.... etc etc etc. I would even "dress up" for the movie premieres (and I was certainly NOT alone; they even had contests for it half the time). It as all really incredible, nothing really like it except maybe Star Wars (back in the day, anyway) in terms of sheer excitement around the world for the stories.

 

Then...

 

Deathly Hallows: Part 2 came out. The book it was based on is likely my favorite of the series, and I thought the first half was adapted pretty well. I of course was filled with anticipation with how the second part would turn out. Although I share a lot of resentment for the film in areas people already mentioned, for me there were just as much amazing parts (Snape's Memories, anyone?). Yet, despite being mostly pleased with how it all ended... it was like immediately after that exciting screening, I was DONE. It was so strange; like knowing I had completed the entire thing, finally, it was like I suddenly felt burnt out. I only watched it I think a couple more times in theaters (I can't recall, but it wasn't as much as I had seen some of the others), and only watched it in full at home I think once. I never even did a full run-through of all 8 films once I had them all in my possession. In fact, I haven't seen a single one all the way through since then; just bits and pieces on TV. What had happened?

 

I think it had all been consumed in my life for so long, and so deep, that I think once it was formally done; so was I. Like I had no room for any more. The Pottermore stuff, The Cursed Child, and even Fantastic Beasts... I just couldn't care less. I did read about Cursed Child and it sounds like a bizarre train-wreck, but still have no desire to read it. Fantastic Beasts I saw only once, when it came out in theaters, and I actually enjoyed it MUCH more than I thought I would. I had zero expectations for it, didn't follow any of its production... it was nothing like before, for me. It was all gone. I'll likely still follow the rest of this series, as far as it goes, but I am not excited for it whatsoever. More just "merely curious".

 

I feel like the same will actually happen with me and Jurassic Park/World. I've been following it all for so long, and now that they have put a lid on the island (for me the one aspect of mysticism the series had), and are essentially ending the story with them all over the world in one capacity or another... I'm just kind of done. To me it's not growing up; it's simply just being done with the story. Especially when it feels like "here is the end". Every good story, in my opinion, needs to have one. Unfortunately, in these days in Hollywood, sometimes you have to choose when to end it yourself; because they may not. I think some stories can, and should, only ever go so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, Snape's memories... where they couldn't be bothered to take 5 bleeding minutes in Photoshop to recolor Lily's eyes after that was all Harry ever heard form anyone and Snape's last request was to look into them for the final time... The devil is in the details, but they clearly didn't care about them, because it would be hard and you'd have to read the book you're adapting for that.

I never cared too much for the movies, but always loved the books. Still reread them from time to time. 7 was a very satsfying finale, it wrapped up everything, and that final talkdown of Harry explaining all Voldemort's faults to him in front of the whole school and Order, the final duel being one spell from each and instadeath being one of my favourite scenes in the whole series. Eh, fuck that, we'll have loud noises, a flying smokechase, and a who-can-point-their-wand-harder contest with barely any explanation afterwards, delivered in a tone like nobody, even Harry cares! The movies are mostly hours of missed potential, except when they are actively shitting on the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deathly Hallows Part 1 was the better of the two parts, I think they did well in capturing the 'road trip' vibe of the book.

 

@Holko On the Battle of Hogwarts section: I think one of the decisions they made when it came to adapting that section to the book is the fact that they have certain liberties to add visually to the story that is necessary for a translation into film. Personally, I didn't think the duel went on long enough, and the spectacle of the fight was something that I wanted to see in the film, instead of being locked-in to Harry's perspective, the film can move around and see multiple characters' perspectives at once. Harry's explanation felt deserved by that point as I assume people who had not read the books wouldn't be clued into the changing of the ownership of wands and the significance it had to the final duel.

 

I think it's a bit harsh to claim the films (Deathly Hallows 1&2 or the rest) were 'hours of missed potential'; the burden of having to successfully adapt a book that not only ties into the established storylines from the film series with the book, but to give the film enough gravitas and poignancy to be the send-off that it needed to be must've been an incredibly daunting task, and accounts from the filmmakers and Rowling describe exactly that. To me, as someone who adores the books and the films, it didn't seem like a mistake when for instance, in Half-Blood Prince the Death Eaters set fire to the Burrow - a scene which got fans in a right knot. Or when Lily's eyes weren't the correct colour (I couldn't tell) because in both instances they didn't impact the story. I wanted to see the Death Eaters to be far more untamed and violent and attempting to destroy the Burrow just added to that which wasn't in the books. Now, for Lily's eye colour I think they weren't going for necessarily the significance of eye colour, but the very importance of the similarity of the structure/shape of their eyes, that one family member can share similar eyes in more ways than just colour. After all, the eyes are like windows to the soul, they're the most expressive and familiar features we have.

 

 

Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.