In Defense of the Harry Potter Film Franchise
- Thread starter Elizabeth Grunewald
- Start date
I agree with watching both the movies and reading the books, but I do believe that there are many people that just won't take the time to read after having seen the movies.
I never watch the movies before reading the books. It took a ridiculous amount of effort to read the first harry potter because I had already seen the movie.
I also think people should read the books first because in many cases due to time constraints, things have been edited out and they usually are tiny little clues or keys to understanding the movie better.
I never watch the movies before reading the books. It took a ridiculous amount of effort to read the first harry potter because I had already seen the movie.
I also think people should read the books first because in many cases due to time constraints, things have been edited out and they usually are tiny little clues or keys to understanding the movie better.
Well, I've been an HP fan from the beginning (just a fan, not a fanboy, mind you), went to the cinema today (because those rabid fanboys purchased all the tickets for the premiere yesterday...).
The main reason I watch the movies is to see how they show different characters, spells, how they solve some problems that books are okay with (for instance, the scene where Ron destroys the medallion and he sees Harry and Hermina naked and kissing) and generally to SEE things I read about months ago.
Also because it's sort of a tradition. Every year I went to the cinema with my class from 1st book to 4th one, till I went to middle school, then I started going on my own.
However, I have a great respect for the director for one thing - he didn't try to rush the movie and "pack" everything in 1 movie. The book is simply too damn large - that's like trying to put the entire LotR trilogy into one movie. Unless it was a 5-hour long movie, there was no way of making Deathly Hallows a one-time thing.
It does mean that we'll have to see the second part in a year or two, but hey, better than sitting for 5 hours in the cinema or missing half of the plot.
The main reason I watch the movies is to see how they show different characters, spells, how they solve some problems that books are okay with (for instance, the scene where Ron destroys the medallion and he sees Harry and Hermina naked and kissing) and generally to SEE things I read about months ago.
Also because it's sort of a tradition. Every year I went to the cinema with my class from 1st book to 4th one, till I went to middle school, then I started going on my own.
However, I have a great respect for the director for one thing - he didn't try to rush the movie and "pack" everything in 1 movie. The book is simply too damn large - that's like trying to put the entire LotR trilogy into one movie. Unless it was a 5-hour long movie, there was no way of making Deathly Hallows a one-time thing.
It does mean that we'll have to see the second part in a year or two, but hey, better than sitting for 5 hours in the cinema or missing half of the plot.
It's not that the books/movies are dangerous, or immoral, or whatever. It's just that they're LAME. And I'll explain why. I've read the first book adn I've watched the first movie of the whole series and for the others I just read the synopsis and I've been told about them a MILLION times and I am just sick of it. The problem with the whole Harry Potter thing is that it's boooring, it's midiocre... It's just... Lame. It's this cliche good vs evil thing and it's just... boring. At least, that's my personal opinion.
You are wrong. The original idea for harry potter was as a bed time story sort of thing for her children, who really liked it, prompting her to carry on.Hosker said:
Also the very fabric of the books is child oriented: 3 school children, going to school where they learn all sorts of fairy tale magic. Its only the last few that have focused on a broader audience, incorporating a larger amount of darker descriptions, slight gore and adding a darker side in general. The original design was 100% for children.
Yeah it was large, but goblet of fire was bigger, but THAT didnt come out in two parts.Abedeus said:
just saying.
I love the books and the movies. The reason the movies leave out details and cut over parts is because if you left all the important stuff in, we'd have seven (or eight), seven and a half hour movies on our hands. It's called adaptation because the stories have been adapted to fit the general population's idea of a decent length movie. And for the most part I like the adaptations.The Electro Gypsy said:
And you actually LIKED Azkaban? That was really the only one I didn't like. It just drug on and on. And on. And on.... and on......
If you liked it because of the accuracy, go see Hallows Part 1. Now. Then complain.
I don't think they had that idea yet. Goblet of Fire would've been a good 2 parter.Jacob Haggarty said:
Elizabeth Grunewald said:
There's this amazing trend in Harry Potter towards a defense against a straw army of "haters." The feedback here has been mostly positive, so the article's "defense" and the notion that "finally" someone wasn't just hating them are both kind of ridiculous.Alon Shechter said:
I imagine one would avoiding admitting "defeat" when he had the chance...Zachary Amaranth said:
A very good read, but I would complain that it was a non-argument, as you raised all the nessecary (sp?) arguments and counter-arguments, but I felt you didn't really come to a conclusion. I got to the bottom of the page and genuinely expected a link to page 2, not an ending.
I would agree that it encourages discussion and debate. This time last week I went around a freind's house with another friend. We had about five minutes of smalltalk and accidently slipped into an unbroken, 3-hour conversation about the finer details of the Harry Potter mythos, the faults in the plot, the pros and cons of the film, the casting choices etc.
To make this clear - we don't normally talk about Harry Potter. I have not mentioned the chap or his universe since the last book came out, and only because X Factor was on and they met the cast of Harry Potter was it that we ended up talking about it
For Three Hours
In detail
...It's a good story. I hated the last book, though.
I would agree that it encourages discussion and debate. This time last week I went around a freind's house with another friend. We had about five minutes of smalltalk and accidently slipped into an unbroken, 3-hour conversation about the finer details of the Harry Potter mythos, the faults in the plot, the pros and cons of the film, the casting choices etc.
To make this clear - we don't normally talk about Harry Potter. I have not mentioned the chap or his universe since the last book came out, and only because X Factor was on and they met the cast of Harry Potter was it that we ended up talking about it
For Three Hours
In detail
...It's a good story. I hated the last book, though.
I mean - Voldemort 'kills' Harry and then dosen't check the body? He sends someone else, which is fair enough given that he dosen't want to die AGAIN. But he sends the mother of the boy (malfoy) he's abusing and torturing, not the psychotically-loyal and bloodthirsty goth-chick? OF COURSE MRS. MALFOY would lie! It's a really, really weak ending to the story. I knew it would be Harry vs Voldy and loads of people would die, but doing something as conveluted as a fetch quest with a willfully stupid villain giving up the game at the end there? Bah
I read every Harry Potter book but I had little interest in the movies after the fourth one, which I felt was botched horribly. I decry the legions of fans who claim it is the greatest fantasy series ever. Objectively it isn't. I haven't seen any of the movies since, won't be seeing this couple, and I generally turn my nose up at those who clamor to see the movies and midnight ect.
Of course I'm really no better. I thus became an elitist, claiming my "sophisticated" fantasy was superior to the, I dunno, tween/teenage fantasy that is Harry Potter.
In retrospect, I sold Harry Potter short. The characters are indeed engaging, and develop nicely over the books. Of course they're immature at the beginning, and of course they act like self-absorbed teenagers at times. They are. The romance drama and subplots make me gag, but that is probably because I care little for romantic drama. I prefer romance to be more straightforward and basic. Which is apparently utterly uninteresting. XD
In the end, my misplaced Harry Potter hate came about simply because I found fantasy that I enjoyed more, specifically R.A. Salvatore's books, the Forgotten Realms collection of novels, George R.R. Martin, and the Dresden Files.
And damnit, I want THOSE books to be made into movies!!!
Of course I'm really no better. I thus became an elitist, claiming my "sophisticated" fantasy was superior to the, I dunno, tween/teenage fantasy that is Harry Potter.
In retrospect, I sold Harry Potter short. The characters are indeed engaging, and develop nicely over the books. Of course they're immature at the beginning, and of course they act like self-absorbed teenagers at times. They are. The romance drama and subplots make me gag, but that is probably because I care little for romantic drama. I prefer romance to be more straightforward and basic. Which is apparently utterly uninteresting. XD
In the end, my misplaced Harry Potter hate came about simply because I found fantasy that I enjoyed more, specifically R.A. Salvatore's books, the Forgotten Realms collection of novels, George R.R. Martin, and the Dresden Files.
And damnit, I want THOSE books to be made into movies!!!
I do kind of like the Harry Potter movies. I just hate the way they dragged this last book on into multiple movie parts. They cleared all of the others up in a short, 2+ hour sitting; got the story across, made their point and allowed people to move on wondering what will happen next.
The last book they divide into parts... why? None of the others got this special treatment, why wait until the finale? The only logical answer I can come up with is, "to make more money".
Sorry harry, but I don't want to watch your final exploits on the big screen badly enough to warrant two trips to the theater.
The last book they divide into parts... why? None of the others got this special treatment, why wait until the finale? The only logical answer I can come up with is, "to make more money".
Sorry harry, but I don't want to watch your final exploits on the big screen badly enough to warrant two trips to the theater.
The only reason that I can see an adult not liking the books is because the first two are just sooooo childish and flowers and rainbows that I can't read them now without feeling a little ill. But since the third onward is a lot more serious and grim, I feel an adult would be able to get into those alot easier.