posted
And I figured one topic for the movie angle, since this book was made into one. For those who haven't seen the movie, it takes three hours. Anyway, did it translate well to film? Could it have been translated better? Which did you see/read first and how did it influence your enjoyment of the other?
Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003
|
posted
It's been a while since I've seen the movie, but I'll give it a go anyway.
First, on its own, I liked the movie. If I'd never read the book, I'm sure I would've liked the movie even more. It was entertaining, the actors were excellent (especially the kids, and Alan Rickman, who played Snape), and the graphics were mind-blowing.
Second, translating. I don't think it did translate well into film, but that's true of any movie. 99.99999-(and into infinity)% of the time, the book will be better than the movie. No doubts about it. Because there are limits to film that simply don't exist in literature. Time limit. Cast. Cost. And more.
I read the book first, but I still liked the movie. I didn't like that they left out parts of the book, but rationally, they had to. The eight-year-old in me, however (a pretty prominent part ), thought the movie suffered. Oh well.
CVG
"You can't change the world, but you can make a dent." DEATH TO SMOOCHIE
posted
Let me start by saying that I liked the movie.
I did not LOVE the movie.
I LOVED the books.
The reasons are simple. I actually think that they tried to use *too* much of the book in the movie. What? Too much? But I wanted more! Yes, I did. I wanted more of different things, and less of the things that were trying to be just like the book.
I think, when translating this book onto screen, they should have looked at the basic premise: Orphan boy who has been raised by mean and and uncle finds out that he is a wizard who was almost killed by the most evil wizard ever to live, an evil wizard who is trying to return to power by stealing the sorcerer's stone.
That's a long, slightly run-on sentence, but from that you can make a movie. The plot might vary a little, he might hav to discover his clues in different ways, but there it is. (Actually, the second movie was much worse than the first.)
A couple of things that did not make sense in the movie: 1. They found "Fluffy" after the staircase moves with them on it, which made very little sense, to be honest. Afterward, Hermoine claims that she's going before they come up with another bright idea to get them all killed -- or worse, expelled. I think that Rowling just liked that line, which admittedly is a good line, but it didn't work in this case because all that had happened was they were on their way back to the dorm and the staircase moved. In the book, they snuck out past their bedtime to go fight Malfoy, in which context the quote made perfect sense. 2. Neville standing up for them at the end in the movie had absolutely no context.
I missed the poltergeist too, although I see why they cut that character.
I did think that, overall, the casting was excellent. They found some great actors that fit the parts remarkably well. The worst pick, in my opinion, was Harry himself, who came accross a little too brave right from the start.
posted
The movie was nice to watch, but it took the second time watching it on dvd to realize that it wasn't a bad movie.
I liked the action...the Quidich game was very cool. So for an action film, it was good.
I was almost furious that they dropped so much of the character interaction the book had. I agree that it might not have been possible, but they made Harry and Snape's hatered of each other almost minor. The interaction between the different characters was what I loved about the book, and the movie lacked most of it.
posted
Phew, it's been a long time since I've seen the movie... let me think.
Visually, they captured it quite well. Almost everything fit in with my imaginings.
However, the movie was much too long, and written too much like a novel and not enough like a screenplay. It seemed to wander a lot as they tried to capture all of the little things kids would point out and say "Ooh! That was my favorite part of the book!" about. The screenplay wasn't tightly written at all, in my opinion.
Still, it was entertaining, for what it was. Did it translate well to the screen--in other words, did it make a great movie? Not particularly. Did it feel like Harry Potter? Oh yes.
[This message has been edited by AeroB1033 (edited April 26, 2004).]
posted
I reread the book right before going to see the first movie, then sat through the whole thing having a coniption about what wasn't "quite right." Reviewing after forgetting the finer book details did wonders for the movie experience.
Part of the charm of the books was the light-hearted out-thereness of the presentation. My mind built something more like the Scolastic cover art -- a bit silly. The movie seemed gritty in comparison with its very realistic sets. Not that I think it would have worked to do it any other way -- cartoon concepts are visually atroious as live action films.
posted
Once again, a good read isn't necessarily a good movie. I was dissatisfied, though, it did have the same light-fantasy feel to it, to its credit.
Posts: 295 | Registered: May 2003
|
posted
Like GZ, I reread the book before seeing the movie, and had issues with what was left out. When I considered how long it would have been had they kept things... well, I know they had to make choices. On the other hand, I felt that LOTR was well done - three books, three movies that, other than the Arwen thing, were pretty close to the books (not counting appendices), so why not HP?
The more I have watched the movie, the more I like it. The did a good job restructuring the parts they did. I wish they had shown a bit more from classes (Potions was definitely underdone). I do think the casting was brilliant - from what I've read, the new Dumbledore should be good.
They also have to think about people going to the movie who have not read the books - had I never read the books (I'm sure there are still a few people who haven't) I might not have any issues with the movie at all. Maybe a Peter Jackson could have figured out how to keep it all...
posted
For me I didn't like the movie at first, I was watching to see the book. Then I read Tracy Hickman's review of it and I realized I was watching it the wrong way. He said that expecting a movie to be just like the book, is like expecting a painting of a symphony to sound like one. It's a different medium. The Movie was just a photograph of the book. Now I love it. (although I think they could have worked with more ghosts. I was quite disapointed by the lack of Peves.) A major part of the book was Harry's inner thoughts and feelings. you need a good experienced actor to portray those feelings and children haven't lived long enough. (ALthough I suspect that Halie(sp) Joel Osmet is a 100 years old.)
Posts: 1895 | Registered: Mar 2004
|
posted
I never expected the mobie to be like the book, as many did. I expected it to be tsand alone, but that's exactly where I thnk it failed. Talking to people who watched the movie without reading the book, I found there were parts they did not understand and most importantly, characters they did not understand. Charaacterization in the movie was done horribly, it's as if they didn' thave time for it so they just assume dyou'd know it from the books. Sure, you got Harry, but none of the rest, the ones that bring the story to life.
I own the movie, and when I decided to rewatch it I fast forwarded through the quiddich match. It was overdone...it's like they had just seen the popularity of that stupid pod race in Star Wars episode 1 and tried ot do the exact same thing except I didn't like either one...there was serious false drama there. Also, if they had cut the quiddich match down to size they might have had time for something else.
posted
Haha! I thought the same thing Christine! Maybe the pod race/quidditch match is for 'the boys' (not meaning to offend males - some just want more action included, and I admit to being a girl and also loving action - witness the changes to the 'car scene' in the second movie) or for video-game players - both went on too long. Visually I liked the match, and I know it was important for misdirecting us on Snape/Quirrel, but perhaps it could have been trimmed. It did not seem so long in the book.
I too missed out on Peeves and the other ghosts. Heck, they have John Cleese to play NH Nick - I wanted more!
They gave all of Neville's part to Seamus. I think Neville is a much more important char that Seamus. I can't remember one instance of Seamus blowing something up, yet he does it twice in the movie.
posted
I don't like Neville. In juvenile tongue, "I think he sucks," so, Pyre, understandably that didn't bother me. But you are correct they did do that. And I don't see any immediate reason why.
Posts: 295 | Registered: May 2003
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
Anyway, did it translate well to film? Could it have been translated better? Which did you see/read first and how did it influence your enjoyment of the other?
