| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
frecklypeach
Obsessive
Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 861
Location: humming this little tune and--and, uh, it kind of goes like this, it's kinda:
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 15:54 Post subject: |
 |
|
| Sid wrote: |
Because film makers cashcowing things without remaining faithful to them isn't something desirable? |
Well put.
If we go to see a Harry Potter movie, we expect it to remain faithful to the story or else it wouldn't be a Harry Potter movie, would it.
The directors just seem to cut and paste the details though, which is quite a shame. For example, the fact they've cut out the character of Bill altogether.
So say if they missed out someone like Sam or Pippin when they made Lord Of The Rings, there'd be a ridiculous amount of fuss.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
angered_lutraphobic
Wants to be Jesus
Joined: 14 Jul 2002
Posts: 11503
Location: BEERWAUKEE
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 16:18 Post subject: |
|
|
the thing is, people go apeshit over how faithful the movie is to the book. the harry potter movies ARE faithful to the books. LOTR was faithful to the books. it's not like the film makers are going "hey guys, let's make a movie based on this book but totally not follow the book at all!" they're cutting insignificant, non-necessary details. if they were to make a movie 100% faithful to the book in every single detail, the movie would end up way longer than acceptable, and the kicker is that people would still bitch about it not being what they wanted to see out of the book adaption.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pixiebean.
Flaming liberal
Joined: 31 Mar 2002
Posts: 8016
Location: NotCanada
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 16:23 Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Wouldn't bank on it, they are a phenomenon.
The music of neither Elvis or the Beetles was stunningly well put together. Radio friendly and fun, sure, but not the height of musical art. You don't have to be good to be remembered, you just have to be popular and it could be argued that these books are the most popular in living memory. |
Gail covered innovation, but I would argue that the Lord of the Rings are the most popular in living memory, Harry Potter the most popular in recent memory.
| Quote: | | *rasp*. Yeh, I think that about covers it. |
Oh, grow up, I didn't specify you, it was general, and mud is quite cooling and good for the skin, you big baby. 
Also, while I see the point about not being all uptight about book-to-movies adaptations, nobody would to go book-to-movie adaptations if they weren't interested in seeing their favorite books brought to life on screen. Also, particularly with the Harry Potter books, the filmmakers have left out of earlier movies details that we now know to be pretty important to the larger story, so when we whine about it not being faithful, sometimes it's because we're not really sure how they're going to have to change the story in the future to make up for what they've missed in the past. (see: Bill Weasley.)
| Quote: | | So say if they missed out someone like Sam or Pippin when they made Lord Of The Rings, there'd be a ridiculous amount of fuss. |
Loved the movies, thought they were beautiful and fantastic, do NOT get me started on Faramir or the elves at Helm's Deep.
_________________
| Agnes de Mille wrote: | | How do you feel? You feel fine, you're dead. |
It's only forever. That's not long at all.
still mesmerised by the FACE  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mim
Hannah says Potato in various ways
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 15064
Location: pancake on a spoooooooon
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 16:26 Post subject: |
|
|
| Sid wrote: | | My main point on beetles not all they're made up to be is that narrations of LSD trips =/= good music by default. |
Once more: Beatles. B-E-A-T-L-E-S. Being a bad speller is only a good excuse if you don't have numerous examples of the correct spelling in front of your face. 
That said, it =/= bad music by default either. The music is good because it's good, not because it's an alleged narration of an LSD trip.
_________________
****Encyclopedia Bowica****
ChupaChups: it's cheap AND it kills you. I mean, it's virtually gail, only in powder form.
Industrial Waffle: Gail is original sin.
#77: Spaceface |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
angered_lutraphobic
Wants to be Jesus
Joined: 14 Jul 2002
Posts: 11503
Location: BEERWAUKEE
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 16:29 Post subject: |
|
|
JK Rowling worked closely with the directors of the HP movies to ensure that they were not leaving anything essential out of the movie adaptations. At least, she did with the first few movies (Columbus and etc... not sure about the latter movies). As for her leaving Bill Weasley out, so what? Fans of the books know him as a Weasley brother, so him being introduced in the next movie won't be a huge deal. As for people who haven't read the books, they can still bring him in easily because people can accept that the Weasley family is huge and has more siblings than accounted for in the previous movies.
It's not like they go around cutting major characters because they don't like them. I'm sure film makers have a good idea of what is and isn't required to keep the movie faithful to the writer's intent.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pixiebean.
Flaming liberal
Joined: 31 Mar 2002
Posts: 8016
Location: NotCanada
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 16:40 Post subject: |
|
|
I know they wanted to cut a character out of OotP movie but JK told them if they did they'd have a really hard time making movie 7. I'm guessing the character was Kingsley. Or Kreacher.
Honestly, Bill doesn't concern me as much as Kreacher. They did almost nothing with him in the movie, and considering his role in the books, I think they're going to have to shoe-horn really hard to make it work.
_________________
| Agnes de Mille wrote: | | How do you feel? You feel fine, you're dead. |
It's only forever. That's not long at all.
still mesmerised by the FACE |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MeriPie
Pig. Want?
Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 4575
Location: frozen Arctic wasteland.
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 20:59 Post subject: |
|
|
It was Kreacher.
what annoys me most about the films is when you mention Harry Potter and people haven't read the books at all, in fact they're barely aware that they were books before they were films. Mind you there's a lot of idiots around.
However I read LotR even if I didn't love the books, and the films were perfect as far as I was concerned. what cheers me about the His Dark Materials films is that they're being made by NewLine too, so there's a chance they'll be as good as the LotR ones. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Murphy
In favour of the death penalty
Joined: 27 Apr 2002
Posts: 7515
Location: Stop finding out where Murphy lives. He thinks you're creepy.
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 21:04 Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | what annoys me most about the films is when you mention Harry Potter and people haven't read the books at all, in fact they're barely aware that they were books before they were films. Mind you there's a lot of idiots around. |
To be fair, there was only a four year lag between the first book and the first movie. It's not as though they'd been around for decades before they started to be made into films.
_________________
Du bist nicht der Mittelpunkt des Universums.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pixiebean.
Flaming liberal
Joined: 31 Mar 2002
Posts: 8016
Location: NotCanada
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 21:16 Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think New Line is a guarantee of quality filmmaking; for LotR I think it was more the WETA workshop and the relationship Jackson had to it that helped make it what it was.
I could argue for days about how, good as they were, the movies were far from perfect, but that's a different day's thread.
I agree with Murphy about the very short time-lapse between the books and the films, which i think can also account for some of the discrepancies between the books and the movies. Loved though the books are, they aren't loved by generations, and the books haven't yet passed into that realm of Do Not Fuck With The Plot that books like the Chronicles of Narnia and LotR have (although that didn't necessarily stop them, it certainly was deterring).
_________________
| Agnes de Mille wrote: | | How do you feel? You feel fine, you're dead. |
It's only forever. That's not long at all.
still mesmerised by the FACE |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Der_Kommissar
Flaming liberal
Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 8008
Location: out and about, heckling
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 22:44 Post subject: |
|
|
WETA workshop is amazing.
Also, I didn't read the books until after the movie came out. I thought it was childish lameness. But I was aware that the books existed. So obviously I didn't care what they cut out of the first movie. It was complete enough to get me to read the books, so meh to the minor details.
_________________
[09:17] arailt: you are a smaller than average lame |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pixiebean.
Flaming liberal
Joined: 31 Mar 2002
Posts: 8016
Location: NotCanada
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 23:25 Post subject: |
|
|
There's a lot of it that you also have to have read the Silmarillion to get really pissed about. The only thing that to this day gripes me is the way they changed Faramir's character and the elves at Helm's Deep. Everything else I have entirely come to grips with and gloss right over upon repeat viewings. But Faramir and the elves make me want to cry.
_________________
| Agnes de Mille wrote: | | How do you feel? You feel fine, you're dead. |
It's only forever. That's not long at all.
still mesmerised by the FACE |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Der_Kommissar
Flaming liberal
Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 8008
Location: out and about, heckling
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 23:29 Post subject: |
|
|
Oh dear I realized there might have been some ambiguity about my previous post: I meant HP not LotR.
_________________
[09:17] arailt: you are a smaller than average lame |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pixiebean.
Flaming liberal
Joined: 31 Mar 2002
Posts: 8016
Location: NotCanada
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 23:30 Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, it was a little vague. oops.
_________________
| Agnes de Mille wrote: | | How do you feel? You feel fine, you're dead. |
It's only forever. That's not long at all.
still mesmerised by the FACE |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kyndig
Obsessive
Joined: 19 Mar 2004
Posts: 998
Location: almost there
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 04:29 Post subject: |
|
|
The way they "adapted" Faramir really did piss me off, it was the only change that i didn't shrug off immediately. I can see why they left out Tom Bombadil but he was such a great character i wish they would have left him in as well.
on topic...Doloris Umbridge eaten by werewolves = priceless and did any of this read like kiddy porn to anyone else...how are they going to put all that snogging and heavy petting into a movie and make it acceptable to general audiences?
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Q
House of Pain
Joined: 12 May 2003
Posts: 6210
Location: Stalk Owen
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 05:57 Post subject: |
|
|
It wasn't kiddy porn. They were 17 and 18.
_________________
| cash12345 wrote: | hey Q, i almost love you.
but just need more smile to me, thanks! |
 to Cash forever and ever.
#107: Ombudsman of the Face |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kyndig
Obsessive
Joined: 19 Mar 2004
Posts: 998
Location: almost there
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 06:52 Post subject: |
|
|
i believe that Jenny is 16 and Harry just turned 17 as he just became of age in the wizarding world. Doesn't matter really anyway it just seemed excessive in comparison. I know she is trying to encapsulate the hormones of teenagers in print but from age 13-15 this is all going on as well and she didn't seem to mention it in every single chapter in the previous books.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sid
Rated Gut
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 4333
Location: Napier University, Edinburgh, Scotland
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 09:42 Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | the thing is, people go apeshit over how faithful the movie is to the book. the harry potter movies ARE faithful to the books. LOTR was faithful to the books. it's not like the film makers are going "hey guys, let's make a movie based on this book but totally not follow the book at all!" they're cutting insignificant, non-necessary details. if they were to make a movie 100% faithful to the book in every single detail, the movie would end up way longer than acceptable, and the kicker is that people would still bitch about it not being what they wanted to see out of the book adaption. |
There are degrees. There are also different motivations. Cutting some crap to make the film flow better is one thing. Adding elements to play to the lowest film going denominator as a blatant attempt to cash cow (the bigging up of love interests in LOTR's Boy's Own adventure story, for example) is quite another. There are practical considerations and there is blatant shitting on the source material to make money.
| Quote: | | nobody would to go book-to-movie adaptations if they weren't interested in seeing their favorite books brought to life on screen. |
Bull. Films are easier to consume than books, ergo (as observed) they draw bigger crowds.
| Quote: | | I would argue that the Lord of the Rings are the most popular in living memory, Harry Potter the most popular in recent memory. |
It's arguable.
| Quote: | | That said, it =/= bad music by default either. The music is good because it's good, not because it's an alleged narration of an LSD trip. |
Whatever. I bow down to your superior knowledge of the Beatles, however given that it's the throw away radio friendly stuff that always gets played and is remembered, the point still stands. something's status in history is determined by it's popularity not it's quality.
| Quote: | | they aren't loved by generations, and the books haven't yet passed into that realm of Do Not Fuck With The Plot that books like the Chronicles of Narnia and LotR have (although that didn't necessarily stop them, it certainly was deterring). |
Ah, ha ha ha ha ha ha. No.
_________________
Worst spelling and champion of SD 2007
what can I say, my mind is occupied by more important matters than semantics |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MeriPie
Pig. Want?
Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 4575
Location: frozen Arctic wasteland.
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 10:25 Post subject: |
|
|
| Really, I think they should have waited till all the books were out before making the Harry Potter films, but hey. They're greedy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sid
Rated Gut
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 4333
Location: Napier University, Edinburgh, Scotland
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 10:40 Post subject: |
|
|
Nah. once something is out it's fair game.
Usually you wait to see if it makes a name for itself and it did so it's all good.
_________________
Worst spelling and champion of SD 2007
what can I say, my mind is occupied by more important matters than semantics |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pixiebean.
Flaming liberal
Joined: 31 Mar 2002
Posts: 8016
Location: NotCanada
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 16:53 Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Bull. Films are easier to consume than books, ergo (as observed) they draw bigger crowds.
|
I don't disagree with that, entirely (see: vast amounts of people who think they know LotR because they've seen the movies) but if the books hadn't been that popular, they a) wouldn't be movies and b) wouldn't have had nearly the audience numbers and financial success they've enjoyed.
| Quote: |
Ah, ha ha ha ha ha ha. No. |
 WTF mate?
| Quote: |
I know she is trying to encapsulate the hormones of teenagers in print but from age 13-15 this is all going on as well and she didn't seem to mention it in every single chapter in the previous books. |
Did you read the parts in the sixth book where they go on and on about Ginny snogging multiple guys?
| Quote: | | Really, I think they should have waited till all the books were out before making the Harry Potter films, but hey. They're greedy. |
QFT. And Sid, usually the wishing for them to have held back is not out of hating the greed, it's that they started out on an extended, multi-movie plotline without knowing where it would end up. It just seems like lack or foresight and bad planning.
_________________
| Agnes de Mille wrote: | | How do you feel? You feel fine, you're dead. |
It's only forever. That's not long at all.
still mesmerised by the FACE |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sid
Rated Gut
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 4333
Location: Napier University, Edinburgh, Scotland
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 17:00 Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry that was just my initial reaction to the idea that film makers hold anything sacred at all ever.
_________________
Worst spelling and champion of SD 2007
what can I say, my mind is occupied by more important matters than semantics |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pixiebean.
Flaming liberal
Joined: 31 Mar 2002
Posts: 8016
Location: NotCanada
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 17:02 Post subject: |
|
|
Oh. I see.
_________________
| Agnes de Mille wrote: | | How do you feel? You feel fine, you're dead. |
It's only forever. That's not long at all.
still mesmerised by the FACE |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Murphy
In favour of the death penalty
Joined: 27 Apr 2002
Posts: 7515
Location: Stop finding out where Murphy lives. He thinks you're creepy.
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 21:18 Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
If we go to see a Harry Potter movie, we expect it to remain faithful to the story or else it wouldn't be a Harry Potter movie, would it. |
Depends on how strict your definition of "faithful" is. For the most part, the Harry Potter movies I've seen so far have been more or less along the storyline of the book. If minor, inconsequential changes are going to bother you that much, you're missing the point of a movie.
| Quote: |
Honestly, Bill doesn't concern me as much as Kreacher. They did almost nothing with him in the movie, and considering his role in the books, I think they're going to have to shoe-horn really hard to make it work. |
They established him as a nasty little house-elf who mutters insults under his breath. That's really all he is until book 7.
| Quote: |
It frustrates me that even though there are many glaring holes in the book, the WHOLE FREAKING WORLD still goes crackers for that book and all the movies, games and other merchandise |
You'd think this has never happened before. With, say, Star Wars (which, incidentally, has much more significant plotholes).
| Quote: | | I know she is trying to encapsulate the hormones of teenagers in print but from age 13-15 this is all going on as well and she didn't seem to mention it in every single chapter in the previous books. |
If you ignore the entirety of Half-Blood Prince, sure. Also, I'm holding out hope that we as a society are not so incredibly prudish and reactionary as to flip out whenever someone who's sixteen kisses someone who's seventeen. It's not "kiddy porn" in any sense of the term.
Also, hello. I just finished this. Given that I didn't buy the first book until the seventh came out, I consider my late entry to be acceptable.
| Quote: | Why didn't they put the horcrux into the bag of holding or moleskin bag the whole time.
|
My only guess is that they were so frightened of losing it after what they had to do to actually acquire the thing that they wanted to make sure it was in constant contact with someone in the party.
| Quote: | | Albus Severus Potter? what a horrible name. |
I'm willing to give "Albus" a pass, because it's not as though the names of most of the characters are standard anyway (Kingsley Shacklebolt? Really?)
Plus the thing where the kid's uncle is named "Ronald Bilius", I don't think "Albus Severus" would stick out too much.
I had a slight issue with how much Snape was built up in the end (and during the epilogue), mostly because it seems like he would have been content to keep working with Voldemort so long as he didn't go after Lily, and it wasn't until the whole "evil-all-the-time" thing inconvenienced him that he snapped out of it. And he bitched about having to help, though considering that he remained loyal and his reluctance was part of what made him a decent anti-hero, I could give him a pass on that. I suppose you could say the same for the death of Ariana impacting Dumbledore.
Very happy with Neville's progression from the quiet kid that couldn't do anything and didn't talk about his parents to chopping up snakes and kicking ass.
Disappointed that Harry/Ginny worked out, mostly because it was based on Ginny having a schoolgirl crush on Mr. Famous. Lame.
Disappointed that Tonks was killed, mostly because she wasn't ever really explained as well as, say, Fred or Lupin. Also disappointed that the epilogue focused on people we don't know, rather than explaining what the hell's going on. Sure, she cleared up her opinion in that question and answer session that gets floated around, but that's a weak way to go about things.
King's Cross and The Prince's Tale are tied, I think, for the best chapter.
| Quote: | | Surely, that indicates that it would have already had loads of stuff in it when Riddle found it, and THAT indicates that people already used it before him and so are bound to use it again. He's not an idiot; that whole Horcrux seemed rushed and contrived to me. I want to know where he found it in the first place, seeing as we had so much backstory on every single other Horcrux, and at least the snake's been around for several books. Just 'Oh yeah btw there's a tiara, it's hidden somewhere really obvious, and it gets destroyed by accident!' kind of made me cringe. |
The only horcrux he really went to any trouble to hide was the locket. He apparently just left the Resurrection Stone, entrusted the cup to Bellatrix, who did eventually put it in Gringotts, and actively threw the snake at people, along with the diary. He was likely banking on the idea that if anyone found the diadem, they wouldn't realize it was a Horcrux.
And he found it in Albania.
Also, is it just me or does Rowling kind of skip over Helga Hufflepuff entirely?
Also, yeah, the whole "Oh, sure, Crabbe's this big evil fucker" seemed to come out of nowhere to me.
_________________
Du bist nicht der Mittelpunkt des Universums.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MeriPie
Pig. Want?
Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 4575
Location: frozen Arctic wasteland.
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 21:38 Post subject: |
|
|
I know it was Albania, but again that was all within a chapter of finding it.
I do agree that most of them didn't seem too well hidden, and that would be alright if she'd sort of... said that, but in his thoughts about the horcruxes, he kept saying that the one at Hogwarts was amazingly hidden and no one would ever, ever find it because it was so well hidden. Which it really, really wasn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pixiebean.
Flaming liberal
Joined: 31 Mar 2002
Posts: 8016
Location: NotCanada
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 21:38 Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | They established him as a nasty little house-elf who mutters insults under his breath. That's really all he is until book 7. |
They also left quite a bit out of movie 4 about SPEW, the goals of which become rather important, and one of the biggest things that was left out of the fifth movie was Kreacher hiding all the Black family possessions that they kept trying to clean up, hoarding them in his little nest. One of those things was the locket, which the film completely glossed over, and while I think they'll be able to get around it, I think it'll take some doing.
| Quote: |
If you ignore the entirety of Half-Blood Prince, sure. Also, I'm holding out hope that we as a society are not so incredibly prudish and reactionary as to flip out whenever someone who's sixteen kisses someone who's seventeen. It's not "kiddy porn" in any sense of the term. |
QFT. Also, both the actors will be over the age of sixteen at the time (Dan Radcliffe will be twenty or so, don't know about the girl playing Ginny) and regardless, the filmmakers can always chose to play the moment down. I think they did fine with the kissing in the fifth movie.
| Quote: | | Also, hello. I just finished this. Given that I didn't buy the first book until the seventh came out, I consider my late entry to be acceptable. |
Better late than never.
I agree. While the flashbacks explained a lot, I'm still not totally convinced that JK Rowling "earned" the turn-around.
| Quote: | | Disappointed that Tonks was killed, mostly because she wasn't ever really explained as well as, say, Fred or Lupin. |
Read a review once, I think it was on Slate.com where the reviewer said she felt like Tonks was a character that had wandered into Harry Potter almost by accident from another, significantly cooler/more exciting story wherein she was the main character. I thought that was a pretty accurate assessment.
| Quote: |
Also disappointed that the epilogue focused on people we don't know, rather than explaining what the hell's going on. Sure, she cleared up her opinion in that question and answer session that gets floated around, but that's a weak way to go about things. |
I just had a conversation with my dad where we agreed that the epilogue felt as if it diminished the characters in a way. It made it seem like, Oh we've saved the world, now we become soccer moms and dads. Dad said it felt like they almost became Muggles, or like now that Voldemort was dead and the world saved, magic becomes just this fun hobby.
| Quote: |
King's Cross and The Prince's Tale are tied, I think, for the best chapter. |
Retroactive exposition. I think I liked The Battle of Hogwarts the best.
_________________
| Agnes de Mille wrote: | | How do you feel? You feel fine, you're dead. |
It's only forever. That's not long at all.
still mesmerised by the FACE |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Register
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups