# Bad News For Potter (movie) Fans



## MA-Caver (Aug 14, 2008)

> http://news.yahoo.com/s/eonline/20080814/en_movies_eo/23875
> *                                         Harry Potter and the Unexpected Summer Premiere                *
> 
> Natalie Finn                                                                 _Thu Aug 14, 12:07 PM ET_
> ...


It gets worse... :miffer: 


> Warner Bros. Motion Picture Group president Jeff Robinov also made a fine point: There will now be less of a wait between the sixth and seventh (and eighth) Potter films.The studio is eyeing respective summer releases in *2010 and 2011* for the two-part Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.


You'd think the kids playing the films would by then be a bit too old to be playing 17 yr. olds. Sigh... No wonder Emma Watson wanted to bow out... it's one thing to play a repeat of a character over a short period of time but another to do it over 10 years? Yeah it's a steady job (of sorts) and a damn good paying job at that... but actors/actresses DO like to expand out ya know? 
A longer wait for fans. Will I still be interested by then? Will you? Will the kids??


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 14, 2008)

A two-parter?  Sheesh.  Half the book was them wandering around in the woods overhearing crucial plot bits in an outrageously unlikely fashion.  Making Deathly Hallows a two-parter is really going to end up bloating it out.

It's also pretty obnoxious to delay release for 8 months for "economic reasons."  You could only release the movie between 4 and 6 AM on April 15th and it would still be a worldwide blockbuster.

As for the kids, I can understand getting a bit bored with the whole thing.  Still, world's tiniest violin, kids.  Most of us would love to have this problem.


----------



## Big Don (Aug 14, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> A two-parter?  Sheesh.  Half the book was them wandering around in the woods overhearing crucial plot bits in an outrageously unlikely fashion.


Wasn't it more like ¾?


----------



## shesulsa (Aug 14, 2008)

Jeesh.  My kids will lose interest by next summer. And I'm sorry - there ain't no pharking way I'm sitting through Hallows 1 AND Hallows 2.  It will be like ... like ... LOTR all over again!!

The sequels that wouldn't end! OH the HORROR!


----------



## Randy Strausbaugh (Aug 16, 2008)

I figure that the reason they made Hallows a two-parter is if they did justice to the battle for Hogwarts and the aftermath, they wouldn't have time for much else. Granted, the rest of the book was pretty tame, but the purists would scream bloody murder if Warner Brothers left too much out.


----------



## MA-Caver (Aug 16, 2008)

Randy Strausbaugh said:


> I figure that the reason they made Hallows a two-parter is if they did justice to the battle for Hogwarts and the aftermath, they wouldn't have time for much else. Granted, the rest of the book was pretty tame, but the purists would scream bloody murder if Warner Brothers left too much out.


Well they hacked the heck out of Goblet of Fire and Order of The Phoenix, they'll probably shortchange folks on Half Blood Prince too... gee why not go for broke. 
What they should've done with ALL the books was follow Peter Jackson's idea of going back (too late for Sorcerer's Stone) and shooting scenes that would've been cut out and putting them on the DVD's. I'm frankly surprised/disappointed that Rowling who had strict control over the movies didn't encourage them to do so.


----------



## MBuzzy (Aug 16, 2008)

As much as I hate it when they butcher books for movies...I have to be devil's advocate here.  I love the Half-Blood Prince book, as well as all of the others that got cut, but seriously.......if they hadn't hacked them up, they would have been 6 hour movies.  I mean, they picked some things to cut early and had to make adjustments to make it all make sense.  And then throughout the series, they cut some little subplots and nuances to save time.

Though I don't like it....I can definatley see the reasons and I REALLY don't want to sit through a 6 hour Harry Potter, so I'm kind of glad they do make these choices.


----------



## stickarts (Aug 17, 2008)

This will give me time to re-read the books. I will still look forward to the movies but sooner would have been better!


----------



## arnisador (Aug 17, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> Jeesh.  My kids will lose interest by next summer



Yeah, I'm having similar thoughts...the last book's been out for a while and they're moving on to other things (e.g., my daughter is excited about the upcoming "Twilight" movie).


----------



## David Weatherly (Dec 19, 2008)

I'm just not as anxious for the last few films.  The final book was a big let down as far as I was concerned.  Why draw the last book out into two films?

David


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 19, 2008)

David Weatherly said:


> I'm just not as anxious for the last few films.  The final book was a big let down as far as I was concerned.  Why draw the last book out into two films?
> 
> David



$
$$
$$$

:EG::duh:iratelau


----------



## David Weatherly (Dec 20, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> $
> $$
> $$$
> 
> :EG::duh:iratelau


 

HAHA you got that right, because those kids aren't rich enough yet.

David


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 20, 2008)

David Weatherly said:


> HAHA you got that right, because those kids aren't rich enough yet.
> 
> David


Well, rich enough or not... they are the richest in their age group in England.


----------



## David Weatherly (Dec 20, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Well, rich enough or not... they are the richest in their age group in England.


 

Yep, Emma Watson (Hermonie) just bought a house is France.

David


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 20, 2008)

David Weatherly said:


> Yep, Emma Watson (Hermonie) just bought a house is France.
> 
> David


Probably to have a convenient place to live while studying to get Hermione's Masters degree from Beauxbatons.


----------



## David Weatherly (Dec 20, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Probably to have a convenient place to live while studying to get Hermione's Masters degree from Beauxbatons.


 

haha, very good.

David


----------



## arnisador (Dec 21, 2008)

I didn't even know she was French!


----------



## zDom (Dec 22, 2008)

David Weatherly said:


> I'm just not as anxious for the last few films.  The final book was a big let down as far as I was concerned.  Why draw the last book out into two films?
> 
> David



I liked it. I thought the books got better and better. The last was the best. A very well-done story arc.


----------



## stickarts (Dec 22, 2008)

I enjoyed them as well. I got hooked after about the 3rd book and then couldn't stop reading the rest.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 23, 2008)

zDom said:


> I liked it. I thought the books got better and better. The last was the best. A very well-done story arc.



I was hugely disappointed in "The Deathly Hallows".  It seemed like the introduction of the Hallows was very tacked on, with no antecedents in the story, and was a left turn from the Horcruxes introduced in book 6.  It seemed like she just came up with it that book.  It felt like a clumsy "Ah ha!" kind of moment, a moment that _just by chance _made Harry master of the Deathstick by beating Malfoy.  Also, the book had way too much wandering around in the forest, and an _extremely _improbable event advanced the story from that point.  Come on, you are wandering the woods, and you _just happen _to wander up to the right people at the right time to hear just the right conversation?


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 23, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> I was hugely disappointed in "The Deathly Hallows".  It seemed like the introduction of the Hallows was very tacked on, with no antecedents in the story, and was a left turn from the Horcruxes introduced in book 6.  It seemed like she just came up with it that book.  It felt like a clumsy "Ah ha!" kind of moment, a moment that _just by chance _made Harry master of the Deathstick by beating Malfoy.  Also, the book had way too much wandering around in the forest, and an _extremely _improbable event advanced the story from that point.  Come on, you are wandering the woods, and you _just happen _to wander up to the right people at the right time to hear just the right conversation?


Well as simplistic as the Deathly Hallows was ... do you remember that she was writing a "children's book" ? Adults adopted it but started putting adult minded complexities to it and thus ended up disappointed. I adopted it but retained my childhood love for the fantastic and the simple way of seeing things, yea even unto teenagers forced to grow up fast like the trio in the series. 
At least she didn't get too heavy into the romance ... that'd screwed it all up I think.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 23, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Well as simplistic as the Deathly Hallows was ... do you remember that she was writing a "children's book" ?



Of course.  Deathly Hallows' problem wasn't that it was simple.  Indeed, you could actually say it was too complex!  The problems involved are with poor storytelling, which would be the same problem in an "adult" or a "children's" book.

I did read though where Rowling intended the books to increase in complexity, so that the readers would "grow" with the characters.  If nothing else, the increase in page count would bear that out!


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 23, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Of course.  Deathly Hallows' problem wasn't that it was simple.  Indeed, you could actually say it was too complex!  The problems involved are with poor storytelling, which would be the same problem in an "adult" or a "children's" book.
> 
> I did read though where Rowling intended the books to increase in complexity, so that the readers would "grow" with the characters.  If nothing else, the increase in page count would bear that out!


Yeah, that and she already had the ending set in her mind when she started so perhaps she was working trying to fit all that happened in the previous six books into this last one. Had she started with no clear cut ending in mind she probably could've had room (mentally) to flesh everything out. 
She was also under enormous pressure as well to finish, we all know that even she had no idea of just HOW successful her books would be. Like most authors she hoped that they would at least be popular and sell modestly... far from it. It's a crushing sense of responsibility to make sure to write something that will please MILLIONS of fans and not just a humble few thousand.


----------



## zDom (Dec 23, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> I was hugely disappointed in "The Deathly Hallows".  It seemed like the introduction of the Hallows was very tacked on, with no antecedents in the story, and was a left turn from the Horcruxes introduced in book 6.  It seemed like she just came up with it that book.  It felt like a clumsy "Ah ha!" kind of moment, a moment that _just by chance _made Harry master of the Deathstick by beating Malfoy.  Also, the book had way too much wandering around in the forest, and an _extremely _improbable event advanced the story from that point.  Come on, you are wandering the woods, and you _just happen _to wander up to the right people at the right time to hear just the right conversation?



Both life and fiction are full of improbable coincidences :shrug:


----------



## zDom (Dec 23, 2008)

******** WARNING: SPOILER CITY below ***********













While the above arguments are duly noted &#8212; and I even agree on some points &#8212; the fact is, I took my time with the first few books but by the last two, I was racing through the books just DYING to find out what happens.

And that indicates to me that she succeeded in telling a compelling story, at least on SOME level.

Both the characters and the audience, presumably, STARTED as children &#8212; but grew up into young adults.

And I appreciate that she was willing to sacrifice some major characters (such as Tonks and Lupin) and NOT go the "... and Harry had all three Deadly Hallows so he raised his parents and Sirius and all his other lost ones from the grave and they lived happily ever after" route.

And I really, REALLY liked what she did with Severus.

And I thought she did well with the "hero vanquishes the villain" ending. So many ways she coulda screwed THAT up.

And wasn't the whole "Harry was the last Horcrux" thing a nice twist?


Hey, it wasn't a perfect job, but I started the series thinking "Eh, she's an OK  writer..." and ended the series (dying to see how it all ends!) thinking, "Hm. Nice job ..."


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 23, 2008)

zDom said:


> And I appreciate that she was willing to sacrifice some major characters (such as Tonks and Lupin) and NOT go the "... and Harry had all three Deadly Hallows so he raised his parents and Sirius and all his other lost ones from the grave and they lived happily ever after" route.



Indeed - acceptance of the supreme sacrifice and the death of loved ones was one of Harry's ultimate yet inward challenges as it is for us all - and it was well handled.



> And I really, REALLY liked what she did with Severus.



So ... did ... I.  



> And wasn't the whole "Harry was the last Horcrux" thing a nice twist?



So ... dish.  It was the first thought that came to my head when I came to the point in the story where Riddle had unintentionally created a horcrux and probably didn't know only seven could be made.  Those two pieces of the puzzle plus the prophecy and Harry's failure to expire upon the Killing Curse ... all added up.  But it was a sweet twist, no?


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 23, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Of course. Deathly Hallows' problem wasn't that it was simple. Indeed, you could actually say it was too complex! *The problems involved are with poor storytelling*, which would be the same problem in an "adult" or a "children's" book.
> 
> I did read though where Rowling intended the books to increase in complexity, so that the readers would "grow" with the characters. If nothing else, the increase in page count would bear that out!


 
Dead-on.  I actually made it thru the entire series, altho I felt like I was whipping myself with a cat-o-nine-tails just to get thru it.  Personally, I really felt like it was poor writing all the way thru, even if you want to give it the crutch of being a "children's book".  Hell, _The Hobbit_ was originally a Children's book, and the quality of writing is such that it is entirely enjoyable by adults.

Another Children's series was Lloyd Alexander's _Prydain_ stories, written in the early 1960s.  This was a very Tolkienish type tale, altho clearly written for a younger audience.  However, the writing was still intelligent, and it dealt with real issues of danger, injury, and death, as well as obligations that come with growing up.  Even as a children's book, I think most adults who enjoy fantasy reading would appreciate these stories.  I re-read these when I was 30 years old, after being away from them for probably close to 20 years, and I felt they were still a good tale.  

It's all about good writing, which, in my humble opinion, was severely lacking in the Potter books.

Where I think they went wrong in making the movies was that they didn't wait until all the books were published first.  So as each volume was delayed, that delayed production of the movies, and now we've got 25-year-olds playing the part of 15-year-olds, and it's just painful.  And those kids have changed in ways that aren't consistent with the books.  Anyone notice how in the books thru to the end, Neville Longbottom is portrayed as being heavy and bumbling?  Did ya notice in the last movie how the actor who portrays Neville has grown up and he's tall and thin?  

They rushed this into movie production before the story itself was complete, and that sort of obligated them to make ALL the books into movies or it would be even more incomplete.  And the result is a weird feeling that it was all forced along, in some unexplainable sort of way.

If they had waited until all the books were published, they could have had a more coherent master plan, sort of like Jackson did in making LOTRs.

Anyway, I've been none too impressed with either the books, or the movies.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 23, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> I was hugely disappointed in "The Deathly Hallows".  It seemed like the introduction of the Hallows was very tacked on, with no antecedents in the story, and was a left turn from the Horcruxes introduced in book 6.  It seemed like she just came up with it that book.  It felt like a clumsy "Ah ha!" kind of moment, a moment that _just by chance _made Harry master of the Deathstick by beating Malfoy.  Also, the book had way too much wandering around in the forest, and an _extremely _improbable event advanced the story from that point.  Come on, you are wandering the woods, and you _just happen _to wander up to the right people at the right time to hear just the right conversation?



Full agreement, dude! I was disappointed at the out-of-nowhere and wow-what-are-the-odds aspects of book 7.


----------



## Aefibird (Jan 14, 2009)

Flying Crane said:


> Where I think they went wrong in making the movies was that they didn't wait until all the books were published first.  So as each volume was delayed, that delayed production of the movies, and now we've got 25-year-olds playing the part of 15-year-olds, and it's just painful.  And those kids have changed in ways that aren't consistent with the books.  Anyone notice how in the books thru to the end, Neville Longbottom is portrayed as being heavy and bumbling?  Did ya notice in the last movie how the actor who portrays Neville has grown up and he's tall and thin?
> 
> They rushed this into movie production before the story itself was complete, and that sort of obligated them to make ALL the books into movies or it would be even more incomplete.  And the result is a weird feeling that it was all forced along, in some unexplainable sort of way.




Agreed. The makers of the movies saw how hugely popular and successful the books were and went "ker-ching!" before thinking it through fully. 

Obviously, children grow and develop but now we're left with this daft situation where we're expected to see mature adults playing the same part they did when they were 12 year old kids. 

Anyway, with all the money they've made from the films it's a pity that certain members of the HP cast didn't buy themselves some acting lessons... :dramaqueen:


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 14, 2009)

Aefibird said:


> Agreed. The makers of the movies saw how hugely popular and successful the books were and went "ker-ching!" before thinking it through fully.
> 
> Obviously, children grow and develop but now we're left with this daft situation where we're expected to see mature adults playing the same part they did when they were 12 year old kids.
> 
> Anyway, with all the money they've made from the films it's a pity that certain members of the HP cast didn't buy themselves some acting lessons... :dramaqueen:


Probably but it was still a huge risk non-the-less because not all movie translations of great/popular books have been successful. They were fortunate with what they got. Plus casting wise, they done I thought pretty well at least with the major adult characters, i.e. Maggie Smith as McGonagall, Alan Rickman as Snapes, Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid... . The three heroes could stand a bit more experience and should've broadened out their range by appearing in other features... even television to help them out with their present characters ...


----------

