Printable View
Who gives a toss whether the film follows the books to the letter? During the whole Grimmauld Place segment (a large chunk of the book) of OotP hardly anything happens, and huge parts of book 7 (I'm looking at you, camping chapters) are particularly yawn-worthy. The films are good films in their own right.
A good adaptation isn't about whether a film follows its source book to the letter, and I don't think that is the main complaint that people have about the Harry Potter films. I just find that they feel flat, like we're getting a whistle stop tour of some of the main events in the book but there's no depth to it all. A good adaptation can distil the elements of a book to create a great film like the LOTR films or LA Confidential or One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest (which is very different to the book but that's irrelevant as it's a great film in its own right). I just don't think the HP films do this. There's far worse out there, but it doesn't quite gel for me.
It's not about following the book perfectly, but about what's recognizing important and what's filler--something they consistently fail to do effectively. The locket? Never mentioned. Kreacher? Almost completely ignored after Rowling told them to put him in. Dobby? Nowhere to be seen since the second movie despite his role a frequently returning character. These all have negative consequences which will be difficult to explain away, but because they're all related to central plot events, it's something they will have to address in some manner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Manus
I don't mind them adding in extra scenes. Focusing on the action is perfectly fine, and, I agree, necessary to making an entertaining movie. The fact is, however, that they haven't done it very well. I'm not quite sure why they're resistant to making these movies longer. Movies exceeding two hours in length aren't as uncommon as they once were, and it's been proven that as long as the material is there to keep it going, they still do well. Given that we've already established that important things have been cut from the movies, I think it's clear that there'd be enough of interest left to put into the movie.
I just have to question someone who decides that the longest book she's written (and granted, tOotP is absolutely riddled with unnecessary content) should be the shortest movie, especially when they ended up cutting some things that really, really shouldn't have. It's just poor screenwriting.
I think that in the films (when comparing them to the books) are ok but not Rowling. The films as in films are fantastic! every one of em!! the problem is that the films missed out on some important aspects of the books. which i feel needed to be included! but the reason why i feel that way is because i'v read the books so many times i can tell you every chapter written in order. we have to look at this in perspective, if they added everything the die hard fans want to see, they would never be able to appeal to the other fan base. (those who only watch the films)
When i first saw PS i had never read the books. when i did read the books is when i wanted to find out what happens in OOTP after i watched GOF. that was the first potter book i read. then i read the series (not in order) and became a die hard fan. If i read HBP after i saw OOTP, i would have probably not had a big issue with it.
what Ouch says is completely true! but you have to remember dude, that your a massive fan!(i know this because you have posted on every potter thread i have made lol) and that makes you hate the fact that they left out dobby, kreature, etc. I feel the same way, but they will have to come up with a plan in the end, even if its random! I guess that's why DH is being split up! well...i hoping that's the reason anyway!
After watching the 5th film, I was hoping so hard that Sirius would somehow (almost by magic! :eek:) return. That'd totally screw them over for unnecessarily changing the spell to an Avada Kedavra. And this point highlights why I hate these movies: pointless changes. They cut out things that should be in, change things that don't need changing or simply shouldn't be changed due to the plot importance, and often just add pointless things for the hell of it. I've got £20 saying Hermione gets a nude scene in the last film*.
*This totally needs to happen actually.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lekana
Howcome every time I express my dislike for the movies someone thinks that I want absolutely everything in it. Those words did not come out of my mouth. Also it would most definitely not be 12hrs long even if they did put in everything.
Having your work of art being adapted to the most acquainted form of media creates great opportunities. It is an opportunity to change something that you might not have liked improve on something or explain something that wasn't explained. In addition to that it is also an opportunity to have newcomers enjoy your movie and allow them to share the same or similar experience as the readers. Goblet of Fire for one was like a mystery book. They ruined the entire mystery from the jump by showing you the culprit in the begginning and eliminating almost all those characters that were involved. I was going for low expectations for OOp and it still dissappointed me. Some say people don't watch two and a half hour long movies, but a good number of best selling movies are that long. Transformers, Dark Knight, Pirates of the Carribbean 2, Titanic, Transformers 2, etc.
It really should be about providing a similar experience for those newcomers, but they failed and turn them into something else.
I am soooo excited for this!!! =D
(SPOILER)
Harry's not bad looking in this one. /:
Completely unlikely considering Emma Watson and her opinion on nudity and proper dress. She feels that more clothes are sexier as it adds more mystery and lets your own imagination do the workQuote:
Originally Posted by Quin
On another issue entirely, I look forward to the movie as a movie. That's really the only way to enjoy movies nowadays. I mean, if you try to actually follow the story of say, Transformers 2, you realize how stupid it was, on so many different levels.
And on a final note, we all know the real reason the 7th book is being two movies is for more money. And probably to have more time to fill in all the things they missed in previous books that are important. The first "half" will basically be all flashbacks, and the second "half" will be the actual book lol
THE JACKEL
Nothing that a kilo of coke can't fix.Quote:
Originally Posted by ljkkjlcm9Completely unlikely considering Emma Watson and her opinion on nudity and proper dress. She feels that more clothes are sexier as it adds more mystery and lets your own imagination do the workQuote:
Originally Posted by Quin
hahahahahahaQuote:
Originally Posted by ljkkjlcm9
Another thing that I don't like about the movies is the actor for Dumbledore. Every time the man speaks he sounds like he has an attitude and the whole way he carries himself is like the opposite of Dumbledore. I think it was a different guy in the first film and he seemed to represent the character better than the current actor. For whatever reason that he couldn't have continued I would've liked for them to pick someone who could grasp the same character as well, but shame.
Also what was up with that stupid talking head in the third movie and the candy that made people make animal noises?
The first guy was better but he kinda died, so they figured they'd get someone that people'd be all "Hey it's got Gambon in it, it must be good!" in order to get people to watch it.
Gambon?
I presume he means Michael Gambon, the actor who took over as Dumbledore after Richard Harris (the original actor) died.
So did cancer kill Dumbledore or what? :-/