I am placing it here because technically Harry Potter could be considered AH.Saw it last night with the auditorium packed.Other shows were sold out!Good work.The students are growing now.No, I won't reveal anything.The Force.net on its board dealing with SF and Fantasy films has a thread with spoilers.Go Harry!
Harry Potter 6!
- Thread starter edvader
- Start date
The Harry Potter films are travesties of a decent books for children.
Come again?
Apparently fanboys are complaining that the script writers and directors couldn't fit close to 700 pages of text into a two and a half hour movie.
I wouldn't go that far. They do a good job of presenting what the setting of the books look like, and the acting is done quite well.
However, you're right in that the books are just too long for a movie to do justice to them. The problem was especially apparent in the Book 5 movie. They really rushed through all the events to fit everything in, and it just didn't have a natural, logical flow. The Book 6 movie does a much better job of compensating for this, though. Still, I did notice a lot of scenes in the film where they used a lot of jump cuts to speed things up, and that made the pacing seem less natural to me.
The only thing that was REALLY atrocious about the Book 6 movie was that they didn't explain why [name redacted to avoid spoiler] was the Half-Blood Prince and what exactly that meant.
I'd be happy if the Harry Potter movies were 4 hours long, but the movie industry doesn't seem to think that the public at large would like that.
I don''t think that has anything to do with the desire to tell a good story, though.
That was one book that should have been shorter, actually. All that tedious, melancholy traveling about the world looking for horcruxes.
FWIW, I thought this was the best of the movies, by far. It didn't detract from my enjoyment of the book, which is as high a complement as can be given to a movie like that, I think.
This one was good except for the end. Yates is good at including details from the book without taking up too much time. The falling action after the big spoiler climax was mishandled though, especially considering the strength of the same scenes in the book. Also, Steve Kloves' tendency to ignore Ron in favor of Hermione was flagrant in the final scene.
Potter is more secret history than AH. The few AH bits are more easily explained away as anachronisms.
Potter is more secret history than AH. The few AH bits are more easily explained away as anachronisms.
I keep hearing people saying that, and frankly feel kind of stupid for having no idea what they're talking about. Other than the revelation that you-know-who* overheard you-know-what being predicted all those years ago, just what was skipped exactly? Oh, that, and a big noisy battle scene. Frankly, I'm so blown away that a modern filmmaker actually chose to foregoa big noisy battle scene to spend more time on character development, that I don't mind a bit. But the crucial bit of info that seems to have been skipped - why, it would take 10 seconds in the next movie to reveal the same piece of info. It didn't even come from you-know-the-one, may he or she rest in peace; it came from that other person who sort of faded into the background before the final sequence.
And HP is an excellent example of secret history.
*not the You Know Who, mind you - the other one.
And HP is an excellent example of secret history.
*not the You Know Who, mind you - the other one.