# Harry Potter movie issues...



## AceHBK (Oct 29, 2007)

Ok I know that movies that are based from a book will of course have to leave something sout due to time contraints and whatever else.
My thing is that I wish they could keep some consistency as well as make sure some core elements remain from the book.

What issues do you have with the movis that have come out so far?

I will say that I enjoy the films b/c they give me a visualization of thing especially since I have listened to the audio books.  I will say that by stating the the books are "loosely" based upon the books would be a understatement.


I sat up last night watching Order Of The Phoenix again for like the 10th time and I noticed some real differences.
1. When the Demeantors came for Harry and Dudley...I noticed that they didn't have their cloaked hoods that they are suppose to have AND had in POA.

2.  This stuck out like a sore thumb....Where in the world was Harry's stag when he produced his petronus???

3. In the book I can't remember but did Sirius say "Good one James!" when he and Harry were dueling the Death Eaters in the Dept of Mysteries?

There are more issues with this film and other but something like those 2 things should have been handled correctly.

Could this be a problem with directors changing with the movies?  Is it better if 1 director directed all of the movies?   If a director is a fan of the book does that make a difference as opposed to a person who is just a director?

I like to use Spider-man as an example b/c Sam Raimi is a comic fan and has been the only director of the series and it shows in how he keeps certain things and the consistency throughout the movies.

Your thoughts?


----------



## tellner (Oct 29, 2007)

The books are just too darned long for a standard 100 minute Hollywood film. The third one had the best directing; they should have stuck with Alfonso Cuarón.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Oct 29, 2007)

Personally I think consistency of direction is very important to a series of films.  With the HP films the look of Hogwarts has changed considerably from film to film.

I can see real problems with a director who is a fan.  It can completely distract from an objective approach to the film.  They will tend to emphasise elements they like and dispence with those they don't.  Just look at the Tim Burton and Joel Schumaker Batman films both had particular visions of what Batman should be, not what he was.  We got the character filtered through their imaginations.

The guys at Marvel keep approving films that completely transform characters.  Why?  They know the characters, they know why they are popular.  The stories of these characters are layed out in storyboard fashion so should be that hard to translate to film.

In the case of novels it is much more difficult but a sort of objective eye should be run over the text before hand to understand what will appeal to the audience, not just to themselves.  Directing a film version of such popular stories should not be a self-indulgent wank.


Have agree with T about Alfonso too.


----------



## exile (Oct 29, 2007)

tellner said:


> The books are just too darned long for a standard 100 minute Hollywood film. The third one had the best directing; they should have stuck with Alfonso Cuarón.



That's interesting, because I've seen at least two surveys of HP readers that suggest that _The Prisoner of Azkaban_ is still regarded by the bulk of fans as the single best-crafted novel in the whole saga. And that's the third film too, of course...


----------



## AceHBK (Oct 29, 2007)

Tellner...you are correct....
1. POA was the best directed movie in the series
2. That is the problem..trying to cram stuff in.  HP fans have no problem sitting through 3 hours of more if it is done right.  Heck POA was only 141 minutes long. (Lord knows I sat thru..fell asleep...woke up and continued to watch the 1st lord of the rings which was like 4 hours.....4 hours of my life i will never be able to get back    )

People who read novels know that when it becomes a movie they can't move over everything but some core things have to be brought over to keep the continuity.

Switching directors I see now is killing the movie franchise.

Funny though that Guillermo Del Toro (directed Hellboy, Pan's Labyrinth & Blade II) was offered to direct POA but turned it down (reason being the movie was: "bright and happy and full of light."....how he thought that is BEYOND me) Then was rumored to direct Deathly Hallows but turned that down as well for another project.

I think the lack of character development will come back to ruin future movies.  one of them being Ron and even thought there was no Quidditch shown there could have been some way to mention Ron becoming his own and out of Harry's Shadow.

The second being the absence of Hermoine creating S.P.E.W.  That I think has the biggest ramifications of all throughout the rest of the movie.

The director had no plans of putting Kreature in the movie but JK Rowling told him that ihe is too important to keep out of the movie so that is why he ended up in the movie....(thank god)


----------



## tellner (Oct 29, 2007)

AceHBK said:


> Funny though that Guillermo Del Toro (directed Hellboy, Pan's Labyrinth & Blade II) was offered to direct POA but turned it down (reason being the movie was: "bright and happy and full of light."....how he thought that is BEYOND me)



I think you've just answered your own question


----------



## Big Don (Oct 30, 2007)

What impressed me about the movies, having read the books, was that there were no major plot changes caused by the transition from  print to film. While somethings were, nessecarily, left out, they didn't change things as happens in so many movies; in _The Sum of All Fears_ the bad guys in the book are Arab, in the movie, they are neo-nazi Eurotrash, for example.


----------



## tellner (Oct 30, 2007)

That's because Rowling was given some serious control over the script. It had to be that way or the movies would trip over plot developments in later books.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 30, 2007)

tellner said:


> That's because Rowling was given some serious control over the script. It had to be that way or the movies would trip over plot developments in later books.


Dean Koontz has written a number of very good books that have been turned into really crappy movies. I don't understand why an author would let their work be turned into cinematic garbage that way. Movies would be better if all authors excersized the level of control Rowling did.


----------



## MA-Caver (Oct 30, 2007)

I think I've said this (here) before  about how I felt that they should've gone the way of Lord of the Rings and filmed the additional sequences/scenes so that when the films are released on DVD they can be in "novel-length". At least much more of the books richness can come through. 
While yes, doing SEVEN films of the same character (even while growing and changing) can get tiring. Witness Emma Watson's desire to leave before her contract of seven films was completed. Thankfully she decided to stay. I can't imagine anyone else doing Hermione

While also thanks to computer technology much of the magic and creatures of the books have managed to translate well to the film/digital media the story does get a bit changed around. 
This has to do with the screen writers and the vision of course is always up to the directors. 

I think using different directors may have helped rather than hurt the franchise. For one thing it brings a new look to the films which would other wise turn into a stale imitation of the previous one. Witness the number of sequels done by same directors in the past of other franchises. Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, and so on.
The actors all liked the 3rd director and enjoyed working with the newest one.

I'm still reserving final judgement on the whole thing until Deathly Hallows comes out. Still I enjoy watching  the films regardless. I've re-read the series thrice so far and probably will again.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 30, 2007)

I had the same issues with LOTR. I can understand editing for lengths sake, but I cant tollerate changing the story because the writers/director somehow thought that thier idea was an improvement on the book. In the LOTR it was Farimir's character change ( the whole "take him to my father" thing) and the whole Sam/Frodo split they worked up. Arwen's scenes and Elves showing up at Helms Deep were a problem too , but they didnt really bother me all so much. Those werent for brevity's sake.

The Potter films at least stick fairly well to the books. Its the differences in details that seem to be the issue there.


----------



## Kreth (Oct 30, 2007)

MA-Caver said:


> Witness Emma Watson's desire to leave before her contract of seven films was completed. Thankfully she decided to stay. I can't imagine anyone else doing Hermione


Really? I thought she phoned in the last movie. Personally, I'd like to see an actress whose range extends beyond "bitchy" and "terrified." 



Blotan Hunka said:


> and the whole Sam/Frodo split they worked up.


Um, this was in the books. Maybe not exactly as it made it to screen, but Gollum did manage to drive a wedge between them for a bit.


----------



## tellner (Oct 30, 2007)

Every time you take a book to film it's an interpretation. The thing I liked about POA was that the director implied where he had to cut. Viewers who were familiar with the books filled in the details.

There were some things I didn't like about LOTR. There were others where Jackson made the right decision. Helm's Deep? Meh. Getting rid of Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs was sad, but it made sense. That's a lot of extra filming that isn't essential to the plot. And they didn't know how much the audience was willing to sit through. Cutting the Scouring of the Shire was a good move. The double climax would have detracted from the effect.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 30, 2007)

Kreth said:


> Um, this was in the books. Maybe not exactly as it made it to screen, but Gollum did manage to drive a wedge between them for a bit.


 

Only at the crack of doom. Name a place in the book where Sam willingly left Frodos side. Sam had a difference in opinion on bringing Gollum along vs. killing/tying him up. But he went along with Frodos decision regardless. In the book Frodo was bit by Shelob only because he ran out ahead of Sam. Not because Sam left/changed his mind/Gollum framed Sam etc. etc. etc. The whole Stairs/Shelobs Lair scene was a contrivance. I agree w/Tellner on the rest, but I think they could have had a barrow downs scene minus Bombadil w/o much issue.

But I digress, this is about HP. I kinda liked all of the movies, but I do think that consistancy in costume, set, look+feel was spotty. I would have thought that someone would have kept an eye on that. The change from Robes to street clothes in the 2nd (??) movie bothered me for starters.


----------



## Marginal (Oct 30, 2007)

tellner said:


> There were some things I didn't like about LOTR. There were others where Jackson made the right decision. Helm's Deep? Meh. Getting rid of Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs was sad, but it made sense. That's a lot of extra filming that isn't essential to the plot. And they didn't know how much the audience was willing to sit through. Cutting the Scouring of the Shire was a good move. The double climax would have detracted from the effect.


Making Treebeard into a moron pretty much killed the second movie.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Oct 30, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> I agree w/Tellner on the rest, but I think they could have had a barrow downs scene minus Bombadil w/o much issue.
> 
> But I digress, this is about HP. I kinda liked all of the movies, but I do think that consistancy in costume, set, look+feel was spotty. I would have thought that someone would have kept an eye on that. The change from Robes to street clothes in the 2nd (??) movie bothered me for starters.


 
As far as LOTR is concerned the barrow downs contains a vital plot element for the fall of the Witch-King (the Westernesse daggers).


As to HP, it seemed odd to me too that a children at a boarding school would so often be out of uniform.  Changes in uniform can happen but a school that old and with such obviously well established traditions would not be changing the unform, so there were some inconsistencies that could have be avoided.  The problem seems to be in the field of continuity checking.   Those doing this work don't seem to care anymore.  Close enough is good enough, it seems.

While there is a lot of material in the books I think that a lot of it is description of setting and of emotion and mood of the characters.  Description of setting is going to have to be translated regardless so is already figured into the costing.  The characters emotional state, well that can effect how many scenes are needed to portray events so it can contribute to extending the film and increasing the cost.  But the two usually run concurrently on film, something you just can't do in a book.


----------



## tellner (Oct 30, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> I think they could have had a barrow downs scene minus Bombadil w/o much issue.


Definitely. But when the first movie came out nobody knew that the audience would have sat still for six hours at a pop as long as the theater provided discount catheterization  PJ was playing it safe.



> But I digress, this is about HP. I kinda liked all of the movies, but I do think that consistancy in costume, set, look+feel was spotty. I would have thought that someone would have kept an eye on that. The change from Robes to street clothes in the 2nd (??) movie bothered me for starters.



That's probably down to the changes in directors. 

Rumor has it that Spielberg was offered the job but demanded that the kids be American rather than British. Dumb.


----------



## exile (Oct 31, 2007)

tellner said:


> Rumor has it that Spielberg was offered the job but demanded that the kids be American rather than British. Dumb.



I'm sure that went over _very_ well with JKR, who had required that all the actors be _British_ as a condition of the film rights.... what the hell was he thinking???


----------



## MA-Caver (Oct 31, 2007)

exile said:


> tellner said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think that rumor should've been given any credit. I'm sure Spielberg would've liked to have done an film but probably was tied up at the time. Also I refuse to give nods to the rumor that he was demanding to have American actors. Spielberg knows that British actors are just as good as Americans (sometimes better) as evident that he used an _almost_ all British cast (Americans & Asians for their respective roles) in his master work "Empire Of The Sun" (Christian Bale is British btw). 
Rowling was definitely adamant about an entire British cast and it makes sense since the characters are all British (exceptions of the Beauxbatons Academy, Durmstrang Institute students and teachers and a couple of others). As the author she was wise enough to pad the contract in her favor to have final say-so on the production when she signed the rights of filming over to Warner Brothers. Likewise Speilberg is too powerful a movie mogul these days to simply NOT use his own production company Dreamworks instead of going to another. 
How much better/different would the HP films be in the hands of an American cast/crew? It's a good question. I think the casting of the 3 primary characters were brilliant choices. I can't imagine another set of actors doing them.


----------



## AceHBK (Oct 31, 2007)

Steel Tiger said:


> As to HP, it seemed odd to me too that a children at a boarding school would so often be out of uniform. Changes in uniform can happen but a school that old and with such obviously well established traditions would not be changing the unform, so there were some inconsistencies that could have be avoided. The problem seems to be in the field of continuity checking. Those doing this work don't seem to care anymore. Close enough is good enough, it seems.
> 
> While there is a lot of material in the books I think that a lot of it is description of setting and of emotion and mood of the characters. Description of setting is going to have to be translated regardless so is already figured into the costing. The characters emotional state, well that can effect how many scenes are needed to portray events so it can contribute to extending the film and increasing the cost. But the two usually run concurrently on film, something you just can't do in a book.


 
LOL@ boarding school.  Being that I have been to boarding school I will agree that you are in uniform while school is in session.  When school is over then you can be in regular jeans and t shirts and all but from like 8:00am - 4:00pm you was and had to be in school attire.

That is the thing with changing directors...if one feels a previous director was wrong then they will change it how they see fit .  Sometimes that could be bad and others it can be good.  When things like that come up and could happen I wish the author would be the ultimate decision maker in those circumstances. b/c they wrote it and know how it should go.


----------



## AceHBK (Oct 31, 2007)

Also I think it was exile who mentioned to me that if Gambon was the first Dumbledore and then Richard Harris later filled in for him people may feel like Harris wasn't as good as Gambon.

I almost agreed with that BUT then I realized that isn't true.

I REFUSED to watch Harry Potter b/c I thought it was some kiddie thing and I wasn't into that.  It wasn't until my ex made me go to the movies and the first Harry Potter movie I saw was GOF.  I liked the movie then I went home and the next day I saw all of the rest of the movies and was impressed.

Then I decided to get the audio books and lsiten to them and it was till I after I heard the audiobook that I realized that Richard Harris was better at Dumbledore than Gambon.  

Maybe it was the uncanny resembelance that Jim Dale had to H when he did Dumbledore's voice, I don't know but I saw RH more for the part than Gambon.


----------

