Harry Potter - by Brad on 15:53 29 Dec 2002
Okay so I'm the last person on earth to watch Harry Potter I. Despite some serious holes in the plot I thought it had a lot of charm. I also feel that it lacked a lot of immotional depth or warmth. Are the books like that too?
I can see that kids would enjoy these and it was no great sacrifice to watch them myself. I just kept thinking that there was an ellusive something missing from this film that was hard to identify.
Has anyone seen the second film and is it better or worse than the first?
Okay so I'm the last person on earth to watch Harry Potter I. Despite some serious holes in the plot I thought it had a lot of charm. I also feel that it lacked a lot of immotional depth or warmth. Are the books like that too?
I can see that kids would enjoy these and it was no great sacrifice to watch them myself. I just kept thinking that there was an ellusive something missing from this film that was hard to identify.
Has anyone seen the second film and is it better or worse than the first?
Harry Potter - by Arislyn on 16:22 29 Dec 2002
I agree with you, Brad. There was /a lot/ missing from the film. As always, the book is so much better.
With the film, you don't get a true idea of exactly how much of an "outsider" poor Harry is in the Muggle world. The way his family comes across is not truly as....unfair?....as it seems in the books, where you get to better understand what Harry feels and thinks. The same goes for all of the characters. When you put them on the big screen, you loose all the wonderful, underlying thoughts and feelings that are running amok among the Hogwarts crew.
In the film, they did leave out whole, huge chunks of events that took place in the book. Now, right off the top of my head, I don't remember exactly what was left out, but I do remember walking out and saying to myself, "But if you don't know /that/, then /this/ makes no sense!"
I agree with you, Brad. There was /a lot/ missing from the film. As always, the book is so much better.
With the film, you don't get a true idea of exactly how much of an "outsider" poor Harry is in the Muggle world. The way his family comes across is not truly as....unfair?....as it seems in the books, where you get to better understand what Harry feels and thinks. The same goes for all of the characters. When you put them on the big screen, you loose all the wonderful, underlying thoughts and feelings that are running amok among the Hogwarts crew.
In the film, they did leave out whole, huge chunks of events that took place in the book. Now, right off the top of my head, I don't remember exactly what was left out, but I do remember walking out and saying to myself, "But if you don't know /that/, then /this/ makes no sense!"
Harry Potter - by Brad on 20:09 29 Dec 2002
I have not read the books, but - emotion seemed missing. I figured Harry was lonely, because any kid would in his circumstances, but I didn't feel it.
This is a horrible example, I know, but it deals with child actors so I'll use it: look at some of the Shirley Temple films where she plays a little orphan girl. With good directing, script, musical score, lighting, directing and the emotions that can play across little Shirley's face they make you feel empathy with the character. Okay so HP is not supposed to be heavy, but Disney used to pull the right emotional strings all the time. It can be done.
Well, I'm nitpicking.
I did enjoy the film. It was very good and I can see where it could have been great.
I have not read the books, but - emotion seemed missing. I figured Harry was lonely, because any kid would in his circumstances, but I didn't feel it.
This is a horrible example, I know, but it deals with child actors so I'll use it: look at some of the Shirley Temple films where she plays a little orphan girl. With good directing, script, musical score, lighting, directing and the emotions that can play across little Shirley's face they make you feel empathy with the character. Okay so HP is not supposed to be heavy, but Disney used to pull the right emotional strings all the time. It can be done.
Well, I'm nitpicking.
I did enjoy the film. It was very good and I can see where it could have been great.Harry Potter - by MoonHunter on 02:17 30 Dec 2002
I thought the books were a fairly good adaption to the book. (I read the book after I saw the movie.) Yes, the movie does not have the emotional heart pull that is in the books. (Aside: it is missing a few things that should make movie 2 a bit more complicated.) However, if it did, I don't think the movie would of been as effective or as popular.
Think about it. People hate sad movies and movies without up endings. They will tolerate it in books, as books are "art". Most people will not tolerate it in movies, as movies are "entertainment". (Flame Barrier: This is not to say certain books are only entertainment and some movies are "art", I was just over generalizing the popular perception.)
If the movie was as sad as the book, it would have only been popular with those who read the book. While that would of been a large number, it would not of been the outpouring of people. There would not of been the general "spill over" of muggles who wanted to see the movie though they had never seen the book, let alone read it. Very few people would of seen it more than once (sad movies are like that). The video rentals and sales would of been a fraction of what they are.
Nope: It was both good marketing and good writing for the medium that made the movie what it was.
I thought the books were a fairly good adaption to the book. (I read the book after I saw the movie.) Yes, the movie does not have the emotional heart pull that is in the books. (Aside: it is missing a few things that should make movie 2 a bit more complicated.) However, if it did, I don't think the movie would of been as effective or as popular.
Think about it. People hate sad movies and movies without up endings. They will tolerate it in books, as books are "art". Most people will not tolerate it in movies, as movies are "entertainment". (Flame Barrier: This is not to say certain books are only entertainment and some movies are "art", I was just over generalizing the popular perception.)
If the movie was as sad as the book, it would have only been popular with those who read the book. While that would of been a large number, it would not of been the outpouring of people. There would not of been the general "spill over" of muggles who wanted to see the movie though they had never seen the book, let alone read it. Very few people would of seen it more than once (sad movies are like that). The video rentals and sales would of been a fraction of what they are.
Nope: It was both good marketing and good writing for the medium that made the movie what it was.
Harry Potter - by VampirePrincess on 21:59 30 Dec 2002
I saw both films... And got the first one for christmas... Anyway the books tend to be better but the second one should capture your interest. Its way better in action and fun to watch.
I saw both films... And got the first one for christmas... Anyway the books tend to be better but the second one should capture your interest. Its way better in action and fun to watch.