I’m pretty psyched about it, honestly. I never read the books until recently and I love them. The Goblet of Fire is my favorite by far.
Special not for Matthew Gallant: Jarvis Cocker is in this movie.
Pulp is awesome.
Between Goblet of Fire in Nov and Chronicles of Narnia in Dec, this is the greatest year for fantasy film since LotR.
I’m actually not at all excited for this movie. The Goblet of Fire is the best of the Potter books but it’s also huge. Considering how much book material the previous movies have had to omit, I suspect that about 3/4 of the book is getting dropped for the sake of getting the movie runtime reasonable. I very much would have supported the idea of a Kill Bill style 2 parter for Goblet of Fire.
With a good script writer, this could be a good thing. Prisoner suffered (though just a little I’d say) by trying to transcribe the book ver batim.
Prisoner wasn’t so bad, but Order of the Phoenix is going to need some serious editing. Heck, the book needed serious editing.
With a good script writer, this could be a good thing. Prisoner suffered (though just a little I’d say) by trying to transcribe the book ver batim.
Prisoner wasn’t so bad, but Order of the Phoenix is going to need some serious editing. Heck, the book needed serious editing.[/quote]
Goblet needed serious editing, too. There was way too much going on with the intrigue in the Magic Department, the competition rules, the teenage puppy love stories…even the opening Quidditch scene dragged on.
The entire book could have lost 100 pages and still been pretty much the same, I think.
Troy
I used to think that, but I’ve grown to appreciate all the extra flavor things Rowling puts in to flesh out the whimsical magical setting. To a certain extent the setting is one of the attractions of the series so veering off plot to showcase the world a bit is okay with me.
I agree to an extent. But sometimes I think it just distracts from the major plot stuff. These are children’s books - there is a reason, for example, that the Hobbit has fewer digressions than LotR. I wonder if the surprising adult appeal of the books hasn’t led to Rowling consciously trying to make the books more “mature”. I know that she has planned this stuff out from the beginning; that darker themes will grow as Harry ages. But I wonder if the writing and organization of the books is being done with an adult audience in mind.
I think Goblet is better written than the first book from a pure prose standpoint, but it also goes all over the place. The good thing about this means that it shouldn’t be too difficult to take stuff out and leave a coherent plot (unlike Azkaban, which had a completely confusing ending for anyone not familiar with the book).
The bad thing is that a lot of Potter-heads (is there’s a name for HP fans?) will scream bloody murder.
Troy
As long as their not screaming in the audience while I’m watching the film let’m scream.
Heck, the book needed serious editing.
Totally. The damn thing read like a Robert Jordan “novel”. By the time I turned the last page, I realized I just read 700+ pages about nothing at all. All this buildup about a secret order, and not a goddamn thing happened.
Yes, “teenage slashfic writers”.
I can only imagine their outrage at having a film adaptation of a beloved book be edited to fit into a manageable running time. O THE INHUMANITY OF IT ALL WAIT IS THAT THE DIRECTOR’S CUT DVD?
Hm. I have the jury out on the new Potter movie. The trailer doesn’t seem to have much to it, really. Considering the King Kong trailer has lot of “wow” and that movie is coming out at about the same time as HP…Hm.
Pssst!
LotR wasn’t that long ago!
Hm. I have the jury out on the new Potter movie. The trailer doesn’t seem to have much to it, really. Considering the King Kong trailer has lot of “wow” and that movie is coming out at about the same time as HP…Hm.
I’m sure you can expect a real Potter trailer in the very near future. The first one was a very minimal teaser. I wouldn’t be surprised if something pops up in the next couple of weeks, or at least within the next month.
In the last few weeks, I saw the movie version of Azkaban, and then read the book for the first time. I didn’t find the movie confusing at all. Reading the book shortly thereafter, I actually think that, in terms of structure, the movie was much better constructed than the book. The movie used lots of subtle-but-effective storytelling tricks to foreshadow upcoming plot complications, and the book, well, didn’t. One man’s opinion…
I think that all the stuff with Hermione and the Time Turner comes off much better in the movie, simply because it relies on her sudden appearance, which is much harder to pull off in print.
In the last few weeks, I saw the movie version of Azkaban, and then read the book for the first time. I didn’t find the movie confusing at all. Reading the book shortly thereafter, I actually think that, in terms of structure, the movie was much better constructed than the book. The movie used lots of subtle-but-effective storytelling tricks to foreshadow upcoming plot complications, and the book, well, didn’t. One man’s opinion…[/quote]
Nice to hear that. I had read the book first, so I wondered if the omission of a lot of stuff near the end left too many unanswered questions. The image of the stag is never explained, the names on the Marauder’s Map are left implicit, a lot of the Sirius stuff is glossed over, Hermione’s class schedule solution is implied, and the whole animagus thing is left aside.
I know some people were a little puzzled by the ending - and it did seem rushed - but it’s good to know that you could follow it fine. Probably a lot of people did; you generally only hear about the complainers so I may be overstating the point a little.
I think the movie works better in some places, but I do think it leaves a lot on the implicit side. This works really well at times and sometimes I think Rowling falls into the Too Much Exposition camp of writing (of course, her target audience could use it).
Troy
Nice to hear that. I had read the book first, so I wondered if the omission of a lot of stuff near the end left too many unanswered questions. The image of the stag is never explained, [/quote]
I assumed (from Harry’s recation) that it had some connection with his father. Didn’t need any more.
the names on the Marauder’s Map are left implicit,
That was one of the cool things I got out of the book that wasn’t in the movie. But again, not actually needed for the plot.
a lot of the Sirius stuff is glossed over,
I don’t doubt that you’re right, but I don’t remember examples. No, wait, they totally didn’t explain how he survived Azkaban and stayed sane. OTOH, he didn’t seem entirely sane, being Gary Oldman, so I didn’t mind that so much :-)
Hermione’s class schedule solution is implied,
Nope, as soon as she pulls it out, she has a line to the effect of “that’s how I’ve been making it to all my classes.”
and the whole animagus thing is left aside.
Not quite all of it. They actually introduce the concept of the animagus much earlier in the movie than in the book.
I think the movie works better in some places, but I do think it leaves a lot on the implicit side.
I largely agree. I wouldn’t have said “but”, though. I think that much of why the movie works better is because it concentrated on telling the story clearly, with as few distractions as possible.