I certainly don't count myself as a over-obsessed hardcore Harry Potter fan, I just have an expectation that if someone is going to make a movie out of a book, they ought to at least try to be faithful.
And no. Before anyone says anything, the movies are anything but faithful to the story.
Now, i LIKED the movies.. Never loved them because there are alot that is left out of different from the books which i LOVE.
Although, we can't really blame too much on the directors, yes they cut out alot but that is do to the time limit that they were under and had no chance of changing. They couldn't very well fit it all in and had to make some drastic cuts. Did this upset alot of people? Of course, because there were parts that people were expecting to see and they didn't.
For example...The Quidditch Cup.. That was not nessicary to have in the movie, but i really REALLY wanted to see it.
And all i have to say to the people that can do nothing but whine and complain about the movies, is do not go see them. If you don't liek them, don't waste your money. Its very simple. =)
let me say "who cares".. everybody's got his own opinion on that shit, and nobody gives a damn about others'.
and just the fact that the movies can't keep up with the books is so obvious it doesn't even need discussion anymore. and for those who liked them, you can't convince them anyway.. opinions don't really say anything anyway
Indeed.
They canīt be as good as the book, because they are movies.
Almost Any movie can be better than the book.
I can say oinly Narnia movie is as good as the book.
But anyway I can enjoy the movies, at least, movies (In general, it can be HP, or LOTR, or Troy, or The Godfather, or S Kingīs ones) are like a resume of books, for the meanwhile.
The Order of the Phoenix was an awful movie (when compared with the book). The longest book, but the shortest film? That spells disaster right there. But there were so many things in book, important things, that they just glossed over, if they mentioned them at all. It still hasn't been mentioned who the Marauders are! And without that knowledge, how the hell is the movie going audience going to understand the line "They've taken Padfoot to the place where it's hidden?"
I know people are going to say "The people who read the books already know it, why explain it, blah blah blah." That's not the POINT. If you're going to make a film out of a book, you can't just slip in unexplained references and think that that will placate the fans. It's not right.
I don't know. My friend doesn't read Harry Potter and she's able to figure things out quite well on her own, or with a tiny bit of help for me.
She asked me flat-out if the Marauders had Lupin in them, and it didn't take her long to figure out who the others were.
Just because it's not flat-out stated doesn't mean that it wasn't hinted at in the films. I know it's the anti-thread, but the idea that a small detail like who the Maruaders were being left out ruins the entire film seems silly.
__________________
~Banner made by JES, avatar made by Veronica_Rich. Thanks, girls!!~
I'm not saying that the omitting of that small fact "ruins" the film, but it's indicative of the movie studio's willingness to sacrifice plot for a shorter, more economically appealing film. It's selling out.
I agree that alot of the movies DO suck, but probably because i read the books FIRST. The movies are also really confusing at times, and when i did read the books they did make more sense, but i just wish they were done better. I also agree with an earlier post on how only the 1st and 2nd movie were the best out of all. the first movie was done the best because if there WAS a cut out scene from the book, it didn't have so much of a drastic effect on the over-all experience of watching the movie. Also, in the book, harry always felt more comfortable and at-home at hogwarts rather than being at the dursleys. because of this, i always thought hogwarts was a wonderfull warm bright clastle. and it DOES portray this in the first movie, but in every single other movie, it looks so depressing. i guess the reason why the books are better than the movies in general is because the books can be as long as they want to be, where-as a movie is averagely going to be roughly 2 hours. and because the movies are only roughly 2 hours each, they have to split every plot line in the book short so that the movies are not 6 hours long. the result, is a movie that feels incomplete in every single way. one of my favorite scenes from the first movie is when harry and ron are playing wizards chest at the table during christmas (or before christmas). the whole setting just made me feel warm, making me wish i was there, at hogwarts, playing wizards chest with my best bud. even though there acting wasnt that great, i feel as though it was better than how they act nowadays, for example, in the latest movie, i felt as though they drag every word out of there mouths, and make everything seem way to dramatic. like the scene when harry is zipping up ginny's dress. it takes him like 10 hours, and is it really neccissary to take ten hours? whats so dramatic about it?
KMC Community Forums
Jan 16th, 2007 06:19 AM
