Yes. When I first read them, I thought they were just fun kids’ books and I read them aloud to my (then) young children. And then the movies came out and it was a family thing we could all share.
But I have found an appeal in this particular film that is deeper than the others for me. I am most likely going to go see it again this afternoon (this will be the 3rd time). I have been questioning this desire in myself for several days, even mocking myself about it, but I think it’s because there’s not too much “danger” in this one and the story line is mostly sweet. I am working 2 jobs and an infrequent 3rd one; my husband is out of work and we very recently lost his father. I need this movie. I need the escapism.
If others have different ways of escaping, that’s great. I don’t look to pop fiction for Great Literature. I look for solid writing (which is iffy in Rowling’s case), sturdy plotlines (she’s got that) and good characterization (ditto). If the fictional place and story are plausible, so much the better… It’s all I need to make a commute better.
I don’t want to reread the books though–I reread book 6 just prior to seeing the opening of the film and I went on to book 7 (skipping the horrid epilogue). I put that down to me being an adult (and yes, being irked by some of the writing style). I prefer murder mysteries for my reading escape. YMMV.
No, she wasn’t. That is not how the movie business works. You are very naive if you think Rowling could have set herself up as dictator over the films. I doubt that’s a position she would have wanted even if she could have, since she’s a novelist and not a film director.
You’re right. They took out the development and importance of Doby in this scene. I knew one of the characters was screwed up in the scene. There was a Neville complaint I had but can’t think of it at the moment.
You brought up a classic example of a movie that veered from the book (Oz) and stood alone because of it. I would grant this if I thought this were the case. There were scenes that were included that I thought were complete misrepresentations of the book (for no good reason) such as the return of Ron’s father from the hospital. It was so out of character with the book. I can accept the death of Harry’s Uncle in the movie because it’s close enough to the book and they wanted to dramatize it more. It’s not like I’m a purist but I want the meaning and intent to be consistent to the story line.
I know I’ve seen authors talk about their creative control of movies before in interviews. Maybe I’m expecting too much from this author’s status. She wasn’t an established author when the first book became an international success.
Your opinion makes no sense. It’s common practice to pay people to ensure elements of a movie are factually correct. That does not make the person a dictator. All of the LOTR movies were very faithful to the books. That was no accident.
These books were extremely popular (internationally) and it was within the author’s negotiating power to include the appropriate guidance to the movies. For people in this thread to conclude that the movies would not be made if she were contractually part of the process ignores the worldwide appeal behind the books and the money those movies would make.
It was widely reported when she signed the original contracts that she had “unprecedented” control over the movies. It was widely reported that was the only way she was willing to sell the rights. She certainly didn’t need to sell the rights, Harry Potter had made her wealthy already. It was also said that was one of the reasons the first few films were so weak - that she refused to have things cut in order to make the films tighter. And its why the later films are better, she stopped micromanaging them. Its normal in translating a book to film to cut parts, combine characters, change scenes - it makes for a better movie.
(Magiver - The LOTR movies were very faithful to the books? Did you see the same movies I did? Aragon falling off the cliff, elves at Helm’s Deep? Some nonsense about Arwen’s fate being tied to the ring? Faramir?)
I have to disagree. If the Wizard of Oz were released today, there would be people screaming that they were silver shoes, not ruby slippers and that it was a sawhorse, not a strawman (IMS–and it may not–I read all of them 34 years ago, and may have mixed them up with that detail).
I found that abrupt too, and would have been delighted to see St Mungo’s, but it was a needed cinematic shortcut.
You have completely lost me–Harry’s Uncle does not die, not even at the end of book 7. His godfather dies, and dies on screen exactly the way he dies in the book.
She got unprecedented control for a writer (and got to insist that only Brits be used–I’m not sure if that has remained in place after all this time). She is on record as saying that the film version of Hogwarts match her vision. True, they don’t always match mine, but that’s the limitation of film and the beauty of imagination.
Thanks. I vaguely remember a sawhorse and could not remember where it came in. I always found that object to be quite odd…
There were other changes made from the book for the filmed Oz, but I cannot recall them now.
IMO, what happens is that good stories (no matter how well or ill told) unfold much like movies in our heads. When an actual film does not match that, people get a bit testy… But we are straying OT.
You’re the one who said Rowling should have been dictating how the movies were made. Guess what that would have made her?
*It wasn’t because J.R.R. Tolkien was given complete creative control over every single production decision though, now was it? Of course not, because he had been dead for decades. Rowling had a hell of a lot more to do with the making of the Harry Potter films than Tolkien did with the LOTR films.
*Rowling had far, far more input in these movies than most authors could ever hope for. I said that quite a few posts back, so I’m not sure why you think I’m arguing that it was impossible for her to have any input at all. I’m arguing that you have no understanding of the Hollywood moviemaking process if you think that she could have demanded vastly more power, dictating every detail down to the floor plans.
I don’t know why you think she’d have even wanted to do this, since she had no experience as a filmmaker and at the time she sold the movie rights she still had five books to complete. Do you think maybe that might have been a higher priority for her than micromanaging every aspect of the movies? Rowling has always said she’s pleased with how the movies have turned out, so she obviously doesn’t share your outrage over the fact that certain changes were made in the transition from page to screen.
This is essentially what I said back in post #106. Rowling had a lot more power when it came to the way these movies were made than most authors do. She was able to make the studio concede to certain demands, like casting only British/Irish actors in the lead roles. IIRC she also insisted that children of approximately the same age as the characters be cast for all child roles and had a lot of input into the first four scripts. But Magiver thinks that this was not enough, and that it was some sort of personal shortcoming that Rowling did not demand complete creative control over every little detail of the films.
And yet the movies did not accurately portray the books.
What manner of rocket science is required to get a good adaptation of a movie from a book when the author is involved? LOTR is accurately portrayed, Harry Potter is not.
Because she wrote the books and would take pride in how well they were adapted to movies.
They were far more accurate than many other screen adaptations of novels. We were lucky Harry didn’t wind up being rewritten as an exchange student from California or something.
*A lot of people would disagree with you on both points. But if you really feel that the LOTR series was far more faithful than the HP series, it’s pretty bizarre that you also believe the problems you perceive in the HP films could only have been solved by giving total creative control to the author. Authorial involvement obviously isn’t necessary to produce a film that you consider a faithful adaptation of a book.
*Rowling IS apparently proud of how well the movies have turned out, even though she didn’t put her writing career on hold to micromanage every detail of their production. If YOU don’t like the way the movies came out then you can blame the actual moviemakers for the decisions THEY made, although frankly it sounds like you would have been impossible to please. I’ll bet you’re one of those people who got all upset because Hermione’s Yule Ball gown wasn’t the same color in the movie as in the book.
I think it’s depressing. Anything that gets children to read is great but this sophomoric literature’s infection of the mature brain is nothing but proof of widespread adult idiocy.
I’m not as picky as you think. I want the character development to remain intact and I want artistic license to remain in the background. A good example would be the brick wall that moves aside in Diagon Alley. It was masterfully done in the movie. Truly a great special effect that did not detract from the scene.
You have raised a point about dealing with the movies in addition to writing the next book. I can see a conflict of time with the author. Since this is something that can be done by someone other than the author I concede your point that the movie makers mucked it up. If Rowlings signed on as the perveyor of the gospel then she failed in that respect.
I love LOTR, read the books and think the films were great. Am looking forward to seeing The Hobbit as well.
That said, I have never read any Harry Potter books, but have seen all the films in theaters when first released and like them a lot. It is silly, escapist fun - some cool magic and effects and - I actually care for, and like, the lead characters. I have no idea how the last book ends, so am looking forward to the next (two) films to find out. What’s not to like about HP? And why should I, or anyone else, begrudge a popular series for being financially successful?
I have never seen Transformers (and don’t intend to), nor read or seen Twilight (also don’t intend to) and there are many other big-hit films that don’t particularly interest me. But if they make a gazillion dollars, good for them.
Which they awkwardly changed to Neville doing about 5 minutes of exposition to Harry privately in the Room of Requirement. Not the best solution, but it spared them the expense of several more actors for the St Mungo pts and staff, another set and the most important thing: time.
Yes, indeed he was cursed by Bellatrix LeStrange who crowed about it afterward and Harry chases her, using the Cruciatus curse on her in the book.
The entire world–I suppose we should say the non-Muggle one, since there is no label for the magical world, just the magical school. Rowling made a point of saying that this was true to her version and vision when the first movie came out. I’m not about to hunt that far back for a cite.
Part of the issue may be because several different directors led the first few films, creating the changes in vision. That they all kept to the same “look” and major sets (with changes here and there) is amazing in and of itself. Just look at how much the Star Trek films costumes change with every film (the first 6)–details count. Do I love every change? Of course not, but I accept them as part of film making.
Thanks. The directors and producers were capable of reading the books on their own, so they didn’t need Rowling standing over them to point out what it said on the page.
*She didn’t sign on as any such thing though, and I don’t think there’s any chance the studio would have agreed to have her serve in such a role.
