I generally enjoy the Harry Potter movies. The latest one was, in my own mind, the best of the lot to date, and I'm a bit PO'd about the producers choosing to make two more instead of one. I want to see how it all ends (honestly I have no idea), and they've surely got enough money already. Imagine if they'd tried to pull some kind of crap like "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King Part 1" on us.
Anyway, my co-worker Jessica, a Harry Potter fan, said "You wouldn't have enjoyed the movie if you had read the book." She, obviously, didn't like the movie.
What a curious statement, though. It was almost as though she thought the movie didn't deserve to be enjoyed by anyone because it didn't do justice to its source material. She didn't say that, to be clear, but I got that impression.
Isn't a movie a whole different sort of medium? I fully expect an adaptation to emphasize some of the source's material and trash other parts. Movies have more constraints in terms of narrative, time, and character development, while they have all kinds of advantages in transferring imagery and sound more clearly. Books rely heavily on the imagination of readers. Movies are imaginative visions laid out in finished packaging. Therefore, it is up to HP fans to mediate their expectations when they enter the theater to see an adaptation of a fantasy novel.
And on the topic of LOTR, I was happy to see the movies shed so much from the books. Giving every blade of grass it's own freakin paragraph my be all fine and good for Tolkien fans who like to get into the world, but the hypothetical 15 hour motion pictures that would have been required to "be true to" the novels would have been a disaster.
Anyway, my thought is that we should expect different things from movies and books, and not expect an adaptation from one to the other to be the way we imagined. The HP movies aren't made for the book readers, they're made for people who want to go see a movie.
Generally, the fewer expectations one has going into a theatre (or into many of life's activities), the less of a chance there is to be disappointed. Enjoy things for what they are!
------------
And one other thing: I know the word "muggle" is supposed to mean a normal person; i.e. without any witch/wizard powers. I get the suspician, though, that it's used among fans as a mocking term to describe people who aren't into HP.
Anyway, my co-worker Jessica, a Harry Potter fan, said "You wouldn't have enjoyed the movie if you had read the book." She, obviously, didn't like the movie.
What a curious statement, though. It was almost as though she thought the movie didn't deserve to be enjoyed by anyone because it didn't do justice to its source material. She didn't say that, to be clear, but I got that impression.
Isn't a movie a whole different sort of medium? I fully expect an adaptation to emphasize some of the source's material and trash other parts. Movies have more constraints in terms of narrative, time, and character development, while they have all kinds of advantages in transferring imagery and sound more clearly. Books rely heavily on the imagination of readers. Movies are imaginative visions laid out in finished packaging. Therefore, it is up to HP fans to mediate their expectations when they enter the theater to see an adaptation of a fantasy novel.
And on the topic of LOTR, I was happy to see the movies shed so much from the books. Giving every blade of grass it's own freakin paragraph my be all fine and good for Tolkien fans who like to get into the world, but the hypothetical 15 hour motion pictures that would have been required to "be true to" the novels would have been a disaster.
Anyway, my thought is that we should expect different things from movies and books, and not expect an adaptation from one to the other to be the way we imagined. The HP movies aren't made for the book readers, they're made for people who want to go see a movie.
Generally, the fewer expectations one has going into a theatre (or into many of life's activities), the less of a chance there is to be disappointed. Enjoy things for what they are!
------------
And one other thing: I know the word "muggle" is supposed to mean a normal person; i.e. without any witch/wizard powers. I get the suspician, though, that it's used among fans as a mocking term to describe people who aren't into HP.
Comments
In all seriousness, I thought the movie was a great addition to the series and quite faithful to the books. There is plenty of extra detail, character, and humour in the books, but watching the movie, I felt like I only missed out on one scene.
You may have put some words in my mouth with that statement of yours. :-)
Though, if you /did/ follow that kind of philosophy you'd make a great FCC executive.