In Defense of the Harry Potter Film Franchise
Those films do much more than just make scads of money.
Read Full Article
Those films do much more than just make scads of money.
Read Full Article
In Defense of the Harry Potter Film Franchise
- Thread starter Elizabeth Grunewald
- Start date
Finally, someone on the Escapist who doesn't rage and hate Harry Potter for no good reason.
Thank you, Elizabeth.
Thank you, Elizabeth.
Great books, great movies...I usually watch the movies instead of rereading the books. Plenty of cable airings.
It is 4,000+ pages, as you said. Daunting enough to read once, yet alone multiples times.
It is 4,000+ pages, as you said. Daunting enough to read once, yet alone multiples times.
I...don't know anyone who hates the Harry Potter franchise. Seriously, all of my friends are Pottheads who have probably all seen the new movie twice by now. I'm probably the most "negative" one of the lot just because I can't enjoy the movies without needing to rely on the books. Oh, and I like overthinking magical mechanics instead of just taking things on the word of the books, so I get into arguments with other folks about wand cores and magical creature rights from time to time.
Having said that...uh...nice article, I guess? It seems anachronistic in a day where the Harry Potter franchise isn't really under attack the same way it was when the first three books were still new. But it's the thought that counts, so kudos on an otherwise well-crafted defense piece.
Having said that...uh...nice article, I guess? It seems anachronistic in a day where the Harry Potter franchise isn't really under attack the same way it was when the first three books were still new. But it's the thought that counts, so kudos on an otherwise well-crafted defense piece.
I'm not against turning books into films, the movie Going Postal was fantastic. It wasn't as good as the book, but what is?
The reason I outirght refuse to watch all but the Prisoner of Askaban is that they stray so far from the actual story it's insulting to those who actually read the books and know the story. They've basically made their own story with the same names and vaguely accurate locations. I admittedly haven't seen 6, since 5, the Order of the Pheonix, was the point for me where I decided to stop lining JK's pockets with even more money, but I've been told what happens and the main points and they're all wrong, missing massive chunks of story while what little story there is has been portrayed totally wrong. From what I'm told of 6, Harry is no longer living with the Dursleys and Dumbledore finds him in a cantina, apparently trying to chat up the waitress but that was probably jive
. This is well and truly wrong. The whole point of him going to the Dursleys was to attain and uphold the magical protection while he was outside school, and this is a fairly massive thing, as it stems from her mother's love and blood, while the whole overarching love aspect has links across the whole series.
A piece that was in the book, but done horribly wrong, for instance, was when Harry, Ron, Hermione, Luna, Thingy and Neville (Oh yeah, Ginny) enter the area under the Ministry of Magic that I can't remember the name of. That whole section is sort of accurate as far as I remember up untill the Order fly in on beams of light, which never happened in the book. They used a doorway on the side, surprised the Death Eaters and they all instantly started fighting. Sirius never had time for that god awful one liner and a chat with the others. They even screwed up the duel between Dumbledore and Voldemort, which was why I watched the film in the first place. It was short, boring and they just went out on effects that, if they hadn't aimed for, wouldn't have ruined that scene.
As for the people who refuse to read, they quite clearly need an education. Don't get me wrong, my step brother doesn't read, but purely because it doesn't entertain him, not because of some rediculous argument on moral grounds.
However, I find that just classifying most of the people who don't read as just "kids" in general is wrong, since I've read for nearly all my life, I've been 18 for a couple of months now, and know plenty of people who do read and have read for a long time.
Also, I found that Alan Rickman did suit Snape, cos he does the grumpy, slightly villainous character well. I accept that the imagination thing isn't as accurate as people might believe, although personally the people casted aren't a million miles off the appearances I envisioned, but I argue against the "Hollywood have please both book fans and screen fans" line, since I despise the films and the whole thing was about defending the Harry Potter films from the hatred of the readers
The reason I outirght refuse to watch all but the Prisoner of Askaban is that they stray so far from the actual story it's insulting to those who actually read the books and know the story. They've basically made their own story with the same names and vaguely accurate locations. I admittedly haven't seen 6, since 5, the Order of the Pheonix, was the point for me where I decided to stop lining JK's pockets with even more money, but I've been told what happens and the main points and they're all wrong, missing massive chunks of story while what little story there is has been portrayed totally wrong. From what I'm told of 6, Harry is no longer living with the Dursleys and Dumbledore finds him in a cantina, apparently trying to chat up the waitress but that was probably jive
. This is well and truly wrong. The whole point of him going to the Dursleys was to attain and uphold the magical protection while he was outside school, and this is a fairly massive thing, as it stems from her mother's love and blood, while the whole overarching love aspect has links across the whole series.A piece that was in the book, but done horribly wrong, for instance, was when Harry, Ron, Hermione, Luna, Thingy and Neville (Oh yeah, Ginny) enter the area under the Ministry of Magic that I can't remember the name of. That whole section is sort of accurate as far as I remember up untill the Order fly in on beams of light, which never happened in the book. They used a doorway on the side, surprised the Death Eaters and they all instantly started fighting. Sirius never had time for that god awful one liner and a chat with the others. They even screwed up the duel between Dumbledore and Voldemort, which was why I watched the film in the first place. It was short, boring and they just went out on effects that, if they hadn't aimed for, wouldn't have ruined that scene.
As for the people who refuse to read, they quite clearly need an education. Don't get me wrong, my step brother doesn't read, but purely because it doesn't entertain him, not because of some rediculous argument on moral grounds.
However, I find that just classifying most of the people who don't read as just "kids" in general is wrong, since I've read for nearly all my life, I've been 18 for a couple of months now, and know plenty of people who do read and have read for a long time.
Also, I found that Alan Rickman did suit Snape, cos he does the grumpy, slightly villainous character well. I accept that the imagination thing isn't as accurate as people might believe, although personally the people casted aren't a million miles off the appearances I envisioned, but I argue against the "Hollywood have please both book fans and screen fans" line, since I despise the films and the whole thing was about defending the Harry Potter films from the hatred of the readers
You're absolutely right; Rowling didn't intend to write specific children's books, but from the very start, her publishers marketed the books heavily to children. Writing them, she knew that children would be reading them.Hosker said:
Me? Of course. But I honestly have never, ever met someone who watched the movies without reading and decided to then go read the books. Most kids nowadays don't want to read, especially if the book is also a movie. Its highly upsetting. But that is not the reason I hate the movies. Not at all.Elizabeth Grunewald said:
The reason that I hate the movies is because of the way they are adapted. The fourth movie left Winky, and important character, out all-together. The first movie completely left out Peeves. I understand that they were able to push the story along without these characters, but they brought the world to life more. They made sense being there. Especially Winky.
I know that I am of a small minority, but I would rather see a scene by scene adaptation from book to film that watch the director cut some things and make some other shit up so that the story still makes sense. I am willing to sit through a seven hour movie for each and every book.
That is why I hate the movies. They're rubbish compared to the books. Terrible adaptations, in my mind.
Me, my brother and my sister watched Half-Blood Prince recently. I was a little mad because they changed so many details, but I still enjoyed it. On the scene with the Inferi, me and my brother discussed the Horcrux idea; if Rowling had thought of previous items before to be horcruxes, or if she decided they fit the idea. Then He commented that he didn't know any writer to make such a kind a world that was both fantastic and frightening.
I remember when I was a "Hater." I outright refused to read the series, saying that it wasn't enjoyable (although this mostly came because I was forced to read the first book.) I went to the Harry Potter amusement park in Universal Studios, and after that I told my family I'd give it another try. I love it, and am excited for the last movies. I've also done some Harry Potter anime-style art.
I don't know any reason someone would hate this series. It has so many genres: fantasy, supernatural, romance, horror, tragedy, action, adventure, school life, mystery, and a bit of slice of life. It doesn't exactly fall into Sci-fi, but some things are a bit similar. I scorn myself for ever thinking this was a bad series. In fact, I should hit myself for it right now.
*THUMP*
That's better. Now, I think I have a good argument for anyone that doesn't want to read the series. Basically what that article said, along with the fact that it falls under so many genres. Pretty much anyone can find something about Harry Potter that they'll like, whether it's Harry's tragic past, or the romance building between characters, or the action and adventure with the things the trio get into.
...Snape, Snape. Severus Snape(DUMBLEDORE!)
I remember when I was a "Hater." I outright refused to read the series, saying that it wasn't enjoyable (although this mostly came because I was forced to read the first book.) I went to the Harry Potter amusement park in Universal Studios, and after that I told my family I'd give it another try. I love it, and am excited for the last movies. I've also done some Harry Potter anime-style art.
I don't know any reason someone would hate this series. It has so many genres: fantasy, supernatural, romance, horror, tragedy, action, adventure, school life, mystery, and a bit of slice of life. It doesn't exactly fall into Sci-fi, but some things are a bit similar. I scorn myself for ever thinking this was a bad series. In fact, I should hit myself for it right now.
*THUMP*
That's better. Now, I think I have a good argument for anyone that doesn't want to read the series. Basically what that article said, along with the fact that it falls under so many genres. Pretty much anyone can find something about Harry Potter that they'll like, whether it's Harry's tragic past, or the romance building between characters, or the action and adventure with the things the trio get into.
...Snape, Snape. Severus Snape(DUMBLEDORE!)
No kidding. I just finished reading a (barely) six year old the hobbit, She was badgering me to read her "one of your books". I figured the hobbit was a safe bet; she'd either take away some small detail from it or get bored sharpish.Elizabeth Grunewald said:
Well I was wrong, She was absorbed from bedtime one and even pulled herself together a box of props and made a map so she could join in.
By the time she's twelve I don't think a Harry Potter book is going to faze her at all.
So long as people are interested in books then your right an adaptation will make them seek out the superior source material. The problem is that not everyone is introduced to books in a way that engages them for their whole life so they just end up being happy with the mangled film versions of things.
And Gxas, the worst thing you can do when remaking something is to leave it intact. What sort of director would not wan to leave their own flair and touch on something? One that's not engaged with the project, that's who. Book narrative simply doesn't translate to film and the level of detail is impossible to keep without having a really long film. Maybe you want a high quality straight TV series of harry potter (and that would be great) but there's always going to be differences. The films aren't bad at all, sure they could be better but they get the style, tone and story across well.
Eh, I've been into Harry Potter since I was first introduced. I've read all the books through multiple times, and I enjoy the movies. Sure, 5 was kind of meh until the end, and 4 wasn't my favorite (and is probably the one I've rewatched least, but I didn't like the book either), but come on, it's a huge fantasy blockbuster.
I've also met way too many people who "omg love harry pottar lolOQ!' and then go, "Harry Potter's a book too?"
I've also met way too many people who "omg love harry pottar lolOQ!' and then go, "Harry Potter's a book too?"
I'm just not a fan of the movies. I loved the books and I actually thought the first three adaptations were pretty good, but I just don't like turning an 800 page novel into a 2-some hour movie. I know why people love the movies and all that, I just don't fall in that category.
I am quite glad they decided to turn the seventh into two movies, even if it was more for the extra cash than it was to actually make them good.
I am quite glad they decided to turn the seventh into two movies, even if it was more for the extra cash than it was to actually make them good.
And this is where you lose credibility, because for the first four books her writing was absolutely atrocious. Compare it to some legitimately good books like Speaker for the Dead or the Pendragon series, and you'll see my point. Obviously there are some writers significantly worse than her *coughpatrickcarmancough* but she's not nearly as good as people say she is.The Article said:
But no thriller... wait, mystery? Since when?Kuroneko97 said:
I agree that saying that Harry Potter movies should never have been made is silly. However, my position, which hasn't been swayed by your article, is that they shouldn't have been made until the book saga was complete.
In fact, the moment I heard a Harry Potter movie was coming out, and there were still books on the horizon, was the moment I decided I'd never bother with the book. That is because allowing the movies to be made, at that stage, to me meant Rowling hadn't written books. She'd written potential screenplays.
I love books, I love reading and writing, and I think the best writers are those that embrace their media fully. Pratchett and Adams books always end up as a tough nut to adapt because they are two actors that use the medium to its maximum. Many of the jokes and story development in those books really only works if you are reading paragraphs. That is, to me, the sign of a true artist. I chose two 'pop' writers so people know what I'm talking about, but I could very well have said this of Borges, Nabokov or Calvino.
Allowing the Harry Potter movies to be released before the saga was completed, to me, sent a clear message: the fact that these stories are on a book is mere happenstance. They are books because books are easier to write. If Rowling could draw they'd be comic books. If she knew how to program they'd be games. Now it's completely defensable to say that she just wanted to tell a story, and that's true; but to me, one should always weave the story around the media you're working with. If your story is easily adaptable, then I'll just read the Wikipedia article on it. It's just another adaption.
Plus, I felt it sent a clear message. Don't want to read? That's OK - we'll deliver it to the cinemas in a few year! Then you won't have to bother with that hard reading and paying attention thing. Yeah, I know that books released after the movies still sold like hot cakes, but that was a chance lost to get people who would never have otherwise read to start to instead of going 'eh, I'll wait for the movie'.
It's a pretty strong opinion for someone who never read the books or watched the movies, but I'll hold to it anyway.
In fact, the moment I heard a Harry Potter movie was coming out, and there were still books on the horizon, was the moment I decided I'd never bother with the book. That is because allowing the movies to be made, at that stage, to me meant Rowling hadn't written books. She'd written potential screenplays.
I love books, I love reading and writing, and I think the best writers are those that embrace their media fully. Pratchett and Adams books always end up as a tough nut to adapt because they are two actors that use the medium to its maximum. Many of the jokes and story development in those books really only works if you are reading paragraphs. That is, to me, the sign of a true artist. I chose two 'pop' writers so people know what I'm talking about, but I could very well have said this of Borges, Nabokov or Calvino.
Allowing the Harry Potter movies to be released before the saga was completed, to me, sent a clear message: the fact that these stories are on a book is mere happenstance. They are books because books are easier to write. If Rowling could draw they'd be comic books. If she knew how to program they'd be games. Now it's completely defensable to say that she just wanted to tell a story, and that's true; but to me, one should always weave the story around the media you're working with. If your story is easily adaptable, then I'll just read the Wikipedia article on it. It's just another adaption.
Plus, I felt it sent a clear message. Don't want to read? That's OK - we'll deliver it to the cinemas in a few year! Then you won't have to bother with that hard reading and paying attention thing. Yeah, I know that books released after the movies still sold like hot cakes, but that was a chance lost to get people who would never have otherwise read to start to instead of going 'eh, I'll wait for the movie'.
It's a pretty strong opinion for someone who never read the books or watched the movies, but I'll hold to it anyway.
I have to disagree with you on this. If we remove the outrageous cost that a 7 hour+ movie would be, the pacing of such a movie would be atrocious. Imagine a Lord of the Rings movie where the screen was focused on a tree for 5 minutes, because Tolken spent several pages describing it.Gxas said:
Target audiences would be drastically segued. For example, my niece will turn 6 soon and she enjoys going to the movies. Two hours is still stretching her limit of sitting still a bit, but most of the time she makes it. Imagine instead, a parent attempting to make a child sit for 7 hours! Hell even I'm not thinking of doing that with any sort of fondness. All movies would have to be geared only at adults.
Also the show times! One movie at noon and the next at 7pm, and if you go to the late one you'd get out at ...2am.
The fact is that books and cinema are drastically different. What works for one, may not work for the other. Plus, frankly if you don't want your work spliced into pieces then a novel is the way to go. Anyone who has experienced writing a script, knows that the first draft is written by the author and all the other drafts basically by committee.
I liked the movies up until goblet of Fire. After that the movies overtook the books somewhat and some major plot points were FUBAR'ed and even some little things got changed just for shits and giggles. Now, I'm a reasonable guy... I'm not asking you to make a scene-for-scene transition from book to movie, but don't tinker with shit that doesn't need to be tinkered with.
And the greatest offense (and where the movies lost me completely) was in Half-Blood Prince when they completely omitted the battle in Hogwarts. I mean, even in the book it's only showed for 2 seconds as Harry runs THROUGH it! They could have had an awesome moment, true to the book to boot, and it would have taken up the same amount of time and had the same ending as the scene they have! That just shows that they decided to just throw all pretenses of staying true to the books out the window. I have more examples and other qualms but i don't want to ramble.
TL/DR: I would like the movies more if the followed the bloody books closer.
And the greatest offense (and where the movies lost me completely) was in Half-Blood Prince when they completely omitted the battle in Hogwarts. I mean, even in the book it's only showed for 2 seconds as Harry runs THROUGH it! They could have had an awesome moment, true to the book to boot, and it would have taken up the same amount of time and had the same ending as the scene they have! That just shows that they decided to just throw all pretenses of staying true to the books out the window. I have more examples and other qualms but i don't want to ramble.
TL/DR: I would like the movies more if the followed the bloody books closer.
That, my friend, would be your opinion; having read a variety of books from an array of different authors, I can safely and honestly say that Harry Potter was immensely enjoyable. Which would make her storytelling not "absolutely atrocious".PoisonUnagi said:
Nor I will quote the names of books that I would consider to be intellectually superior in order to advertise my perceived higher-quality taste in reading material, in what would seem to be a vain attempt to boost my deluded ego.