board77

So, I'm reading through the HP books again in anticipation of Book 6. I'm currently on GoF, and was therefore looking up the movie, which comes out in November if you didn't know...

There's a teaser trailer out, which looks awesome.

There's lots of rumors about all kinds of stuff that is being left out, which was the case with PoA. The book is the longest of the ones so far, and has LOTS of stuff that simply won't make it onscreen.

I'm interested to know what people think is essential, and if you think the film will adequately capture the book.

We can, of course, also discuss the previous films. I personally like PoA the best, and the purist in me thinks it actually captured the book better than the first two films... which just goes to show that purism isn't about direct translation from book to film...

Quote:

There's a teaser trailer out, which looks awesome.

*ahem*

Link, please?

hal - I'm interested in your thoughts on how PoA captured the book better than either of the first two. I felt that both of the first two did a far better job with capturing the feel of the book, and I was actually quite displeased with the third. Definitely would like to hear further.
- TP

Another displeased with PoA. It didn't feel right and screwed too much up. The Shrieking Shack was a disaster. Sorry hal, but you're not a purist for this film.

As for the trailer, I can't see it! Windows Media player is playing, but only the WB symbol is in the bottom right corner....no sound. Any other format makes my browser crash.

And I thought that I was the only one that has terrible problems viewing online trailers.....

But, this one worked for me just fine.

I cannot say I have any vested inerest in HP films, I really only go see them because of son #2, who just loves HP, and, we read all of the books together (he is only now eight, so this was a bit beyond him when it all first started.)

I will say that I liked HP 3 (PoA) quite a bit, we do not yet own it on DVD, but saw it both in theatre and on DVD rental. But, IMO only, there were some bits of the movie that glossed over some major events that would have made it hard to follow from a purist's standpoint, and the other thing I noticed was how seemingly the setting had changed. Minor gripe, but Hagrid's cottage seemed like an entirely different setting this time around, as well as the Whomping Willow. Also, the whole set up of the Marauder's Map was glossed over completely, which would have led to so much insight about the backgrounds of HP's father and his friends.

So, GoF might be good, but I do think that they need to try and bring in more background things as well. And, for the love of whatever, at least keep the locales within Hogwarts consistent.

The first two films definitely take what many would consider a "purist" approach to adapting them to film. Most of the dialog is taken straight from the book, and very fiew important details are left out. However, they lack a lot of the emotion of the books.

I actually get a lot more out of the audio version of the books read by Jim Dale than I do the first two films. Part of it is all the young actors, who are just starting to get the feel of their characters and their acting by the time the third film roles around, but it's mostly the fact that it seems they're just reading the book on screen.

I've always said that this is not at all what makes up a purist adaptation.

The first two films were Chris Columbus trying to directly translate the books to film, getting every detail he could in there. The third film, was Alfonso Cuarón taking the parts of PoA that he thought were most important, and making an excellent film out of them.

Yes, I missed the Quidditch, as I think that element of PoA was probably the happiest Harry is going to be at any point in the series. However, if it wasn't going to be the focus of the film, it simply couldn't be done justice, so I'm fine with the way it was done.

Yes, I missed the exposition on the Marauder's Map, as that's just cool backstory, and yes I missed the discussion of James being Prongs, and Harry's Patronus being a stag similarly.

However, what Cuarón picked as his story was Harry's relationship with Lupin and Sirius, his fight with his own fears and the dementors, and also the enjoyable bit of plot with the Time Turner. He took those elements, pretty much threw the rest out, and made HIS movie, but with full respect and no contradictions to JKR's Hogwarts.

Is it the whole story of PoA? No, but that's what the book's for. It's a wonderful movie though. Harry, Ron, Hermione, and their friends all seemed "real" for the first time. I particularly like the scene when they first arrive at Hogwarts and their eating the candy, and Harry's joking with Ron as he's having nightmares... pure teenager moments.

I hope Cuarón comes back for OOtP (he only didn't come back for GoF because PoA wasn't finished), as that book will need rampant cuts to make a reasonable film.

Does all this make me a revisionist for PoA? I don't think so. It's my favorite of the books so far, and also my favorite of the films. The film didn't take my favorite bits of the book, but it did take just bits of the book, not bits of the screewriter's and director's imaginations... It didn't interpret the magical world or all its creatures the same way I did, but it didn't interpret them in a way I could call incorrect.

This is where I disagree with the revisionists for LOTR so much. They say that's what PJ's films were... his interpretation and adaptation. I say that's true, but he got parts of it just wrong. They don't match up with the Middle Earth that already exists. Cuarón's film is his interpretation and adaptation, which I think is fine, he just didn't screw up any of JKR's creation to make it.

Edit: Try some of these links: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0330373/trailers

tolkienpurist wrote:

hal - I'm interested in your thoughts on how PoA captured the book better than either of the first two. I felt that both of the first two did a far better job with capturing the feel of the book, and I was actually quite displeased with the third. Definitely would like to hear further.
- TP

Interesting. Here's what this non-HP fan thinks of the franchise so far:

I thought the first two films were charming (particularly the first one) but lacked something - as Hal said, something of the emotion was missing. And Harry's first encounter with Voldemort at the end of the first film was an anti-climax. As was his second showdown with Tom Riddle in the second film - very anti-climactic when compared to the book.

I much preferred Cuaron's direction to that of Columbus and I thought the third film was excellent - far more stylish and gripping. I think Azkaban is far and away the best story in the series so far anyway.

The Dementors in the third film were FANTASTIC. I wish PJ had portrayed the Nazgul more like that! (Ironic when you think that Rowling borrowed the idea from Tolkien in the first place!)

And I liked moody teenage Harry in the third film too.

-edit-

Excellent post, Hal, and I agree with you (except about PJ's LOTR, but we won't go there).

And no: you are NOT an HP revisionist. No way. I agree with you completely about the Azkaban film. It's much the best.

The only thing I really missed was Sirius saying to Harry, before the Hippogriff bore him away, was: 'Harry, you are truly your father's son.' Awww. Cuaron should have included that ...

Looking forward to Newell's treatment.

I don't think I've ever hated any book based movies as much as I hate the HP movies, so *cough* I'm not exactly getting my hopes up for this one either...

One thing I wonder how they will handle, is the subjects of murder, torture and all the other dark and (at least to kids) scary stuff that is coming up, not only in GoF, but in all the books and movies we have left (I suspect). They are childrens' movies, and they won't change that, but I think they will have a problem with keeping it as creepy and dark as it was in the book, without making it too scary and... "non-childish".

(And yes, the books are read by small children, but most kids react much more on things they see, than on things they read.)

Of course, I think they've had some serious problems ever since the first minute of the first movie, and I'm not really objective in this case, but still...

I was lukewarm about the first two films, but IMHO PoA is quite possibly the best example of a book-to-film adaptation that I’ve ever seen. As a tight and complex thriller/mystery story that leans, like all HP books, heavily on JKR’s style, it wasn’t particularly well suited to film. However, my only real gripe with Cuaron was the way he portrayed the patronus; I thought the stag was a better image. Other than that, he found the feel of the Potterverse exceptionally well; his darker, murkier, icier story with more humour and emotion is far more interesting to me than Columbus’ bright, golden and by-the-page one.

GoF is a big book that wastes very few pages. I am a bit worried about how much Newell is trying to cram in; the Yule Ball and Rita Skeeter are unnecessary IMHO. Still, he has said that he intends to play GoF as a fast mystery/thriller, which is how it should be. Despite the problems with it, I think that GoF is the most cinematic of the HP books. It has the most spectacular visual imagery; the Quidditch World Cup, the Triwizard tasks; and a plot that has the speed and weight of an express train. If Newell knows his stuff (and continues with Cuaron’s style, which based on the trailers he seems to be doing) then it could come out as a really good film.

I agree with halplm that Cuaron is the best bet for OotP. I think that JKR stumbled with that book; it finished where it started, the battle in the Department of Mysteries is silly and unbelievable, prophecies are terribly overused devices in fantasy and it doesn’t have the same twists and suspense as PoA and GoF in a good deal more pages. As a mostly internal story, it’ll need an excellent actor’s director.

Interesting comments on Sci-Fi Weekly about this:

Quote:

Newell: Potter IV Is Condensed

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire director Mike Newell told Update magazine, the official magazine of Comic-Con International, that the fourth book in J.K. Rowling's popular series had to be significantly cut down for the purposes of the film. "This is a very difficult matter, and is worked out in huge discussions between representatives of Warner Brothers, the scriptwriter, the producer, the director, and sometimes J.K. Rowling," Newell said in an interview with 14-year-old Harry Potter fan Brianne Cisneros. "It takes a long time, and while it's happening you constantly seesaw back and forth on certain things—Dobby should be in, Dobby should be out, Dobby should be in, Dobby should be out, and so forth. After a while, everybody gets a feel for what would work in a movie as opposed to what works in a novel."

Newell confirmed that the filmmakers had considered splitting the book into two films, but eventually decided that it was possible to eliminate enough extraneous material to tell the story in a single film. Among the missing elements, Newell said, were scenes with Harry's foster family, the Dursleys. "Because we were making one, not two films, and something had to be let go, we decided the Dursleys were one of those things," he said. "We were sad about it. What's good about it being one movie is that the Tri-Wizard Tournament and Voldemort's plot to get Harry become very taut and very exciting because a lot of the purely descriptive stuff in the novel must be let go. That means the main story becomes a very tight, exciting, fast-paced thriller. Of course, what you miss are the fascinating little details which, in some cases, there just isn't room for. So it's swings and roundabouts. What can I tell you?"

Warner Brothers will be promoting Goblet of Fire at the 2005 Comic-Con International convention in San Diego July 14 through 17. The same weekend will see the release of the sixth Harry Potter book, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, which goes on sale July 16.

Well, I'm going to be at the San Diego Con, so I will definitely be checking out whatever they've got.

halplm wrote:

Cuarón's film is his interpretation and adaptation, which I think is fine, he just didn't screw up any of JKR's creation to make it.

Oh yes he did!

More later if I have time...

Eruname wrote:

halplm wrote:

Cuarón's film is his interpretation and adaptation, which I think is fine, he just didn't screw up any of JKR's creation to make it.

Oh yes he did!

More later if I have time...

I would hope so, I was trying very hard to think up areas where he would have messed things up, but couldn't come up with anything...

Quote:

I would hope so, I was trying very hard to think up areas where he would have messed things up, but couldn't come up with anything...

The Knight Bus is probably the worst thing in all 3 films.. seriously, that talking head is on a par with Jar Jar..

I'm not a fan of the talking head, but it doesn't really take anything away from the scene. It's supposed to be a humorous scene, and while I don't think it's terribly funny, it's not ANNOYING like Jar Jar is.

The scene itself is also very much like its described in the book...

On the contrary, I found the talking heads to be quite annoying... and here's why:

Even though it doesn't look like it at first glance, JKR seemed to redefine the definition of witchcraft when she wrote the Harry Potter books. In fact, you can see it in the books when Harry plays off stereotypical nonsense to tease the Dursleys. The spellwork is, for the majority, straight from Latin, and there are several areas of study at Hogwarts that are almost mundane in themselves (History of Magic, Arithmancy, Astrology, etc.)

The talking heads seemed to bring a rougher, more primitive image of the magical world that clashed horribly with what JKR set up in the books. It would've be fine if the talking heads had been used for something more mysterious or dangerous or more powerful, but they were reduced to comic relief... and the points in the books where rougher magic is displayed are usually places where comic relief is very inapporpriate.

As for authenticity of PoA vs. the others... it wasn't consistent with the first two movies, so I had to get used to it and watch it a few times. But I'm inclined to like any movie that has a good film score, and John Williams definitely hit that one on the head.
(Speaking of which the GoF trailer has great music in the background. I'm getting my hopes up.)

Quote:

I'm not a fan of the talking head, but it doesn't really take anything away from the scene.

Well, there's not that much to take away.. it's a bad scene as it is. The talking head turns it from bad to cringeworthy.

I think the whole thing should have been cut - it's too childish in tone and eats up valuable screentime.

I don't disagree, it could have easily been cut, as could the entire scene with the dursleys.

That's not my point though. My point is that it doesn't prevent the movie from being seen as "purist."

My first thought of the talking heads was exactly the same. That's too dark, it doesn't match JKR's world. However, the whole movie presents a much darker look at the world. This is not at odds with JKR's world, just interpreted differently... and it's consistant THROUGHOUT the movie... even in Hogsmeade.

This is what I've always stated about what I wanted to see in a purist adaptation of LOTR. Internally consistant, without contradicting the consistancy of the source.

The shrunken heads are mentioned in CoS when harry goes down Knockturn Alley. They are clearly tied to dark magic, and PoA showed everything in a darker light. This could also be seen as Harry getting more accustomed to the magical world... things don't seem as "magical" any more. Also, JKR herself thought they were "funny," and said she wished she had thought of something like that herself... so it can't be too far out of her view of her world.

Both the Knightbus and the Leaky Cauldron are given the impression of being slightly "seedier" than say mainstream Diagon Alley. They're used by the lower rungs of Wizard society. You'd never catch Malfoy on the nightbus or in the Leaky Cauldron, but the Weasley's have to make use of them. It makes sense that in those areas the "Darker magic" elements would be more commonplace... like shrunken heads.

Now, when they're shown at the Three Broomsticks, that doesn't make as much sense, as it's clearly acceptable for kids to show up there in the book. That would seem to be more appropriate at the Hog's Head.

It's strange making these arguments again trying to defend what I would consider "purist" instead of trying to explain what a "purist" LOTR would mean.

This is Couron's film, there's no doubt, but it is a good film because it is the film he made to be a film. It is not the book put on film, as the first two seem to be, with no regard to pacing or movie management.

The Hippogriff scene is one of the greatest in the whole series, and it's almost an invention of the film. However, it captures the joy and thrill Harry gets from the magical world and how he truly belongs there. No other moment captures that as well.

My "purist" pov, has always been one of capturing what the book was trying to get at, rather than translating the book to film. This film is a perfect example of that, while it is NOT even remotely a good example of translating the book to film.

If you get cought up in the details, there can never be a good purist adaptation, becuase the details will always have to change. It's a matter of recognizing the core of something, taking parts of it, and building up a new film around those pieces of the core and making it a good film. That's what PoA is.

I don't like the shrunken heads, I don't like the Leaky Cauldron, I don't like the lack of Quidditch, I don't like the lack of discussing Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs, and I don't like the way the patronus was done, or that the dementors could fly... but NONE of that matters. It's entirely possible all of that is a valid interpretation of JKR's book, and it doesn't contradict the core point of the story, which was to reunite Harry with his Godfather and help him come to certain understandings about himself and how like his father he is.

Is the movie how I would have made a movie of PoA? No. But that doesn't make it a revisionist film.

Quote:

Also, JKR herself thought they were "funny," and said she wished she had thought of something like that herself...

I can only assume she was smoking something potent when she said that. (or more likely was lieing to cover up how much the scene embarrased her)

As for the rest of your post, all I can say is, PJ did exactly what you think Cuaron did - capture what the book was about without getting bogged down in the details.

Also, I don't see how things like the dementors being able to fly are a valid interpretation when JKR never described them as having that ability. And the talking heads definitely violate the tone and spirit of the book - JKRs humour is never cheap. It seems you're much more forgiving over HP than LOTR!