my responses on all points of controversy

[caliburncy at yahoo.com]

--- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)"
> I don't understand why some Muggle critics said that the first part 
> (until the violence starts) was too slow. I thought it was TOO
> FAST, a mad rush through the events of the book, shorter than a
> cliff's notes summary. I would have been happier if let they'd let
> me spend more time with it.

Well, in my attempts to make sense out of all the varying opinions, I 
have a sneaking suspicion that this is what is really going on for 
the critics you mention.

Because of the major time compression necessary, the beginning of the 
movie is very choppily edited, the scenes do not flow in such a way 
that each scene does not always seem like the logical continuation of 
the scene that preceded it.  This tends to make scenes feel a little 
irrelevant and unrelated for anyone that isn't familiar with the 
books--the continuity appears a tad rambling and inconsequential.  
When dramatic events unfold in a way that seems irrelevant, people 
get bored, because they have a difficult time understanding where 
this is all heading.

And then people such as the critics you mention often make a flawed 
logical leap that says, because I am bored (effect), the movie must 
be slow (cause)--even though they are numerous other potential 
causes.  Some professional critics--I'm sure it will come as no 
surprise to many of you here--are just as subject to this kind of 
misidentification of the fundamental problem as anyone else.  So they 
may have correctly registered the effect on them, but not realized 
the real reason it was occuring, which is ultimately a FOCUS issue, 
not a pacing issue.  (I have seen some movie critics misidentify in 
other areas as well, especially regarding film scores, probably 
because most of them have an admittedly limited understanding of the 
function and execution of film music.)

Also certain critics with a high degree of familiarity with the books 
that also identified the beginning as "slow", probably did so meaning 
not literally that the pacing itself was slow, but that they felt it 
should have started up the primary "stealing the Stone" plot sooner.  
Again, it's a slight misidentification, I think, because the issue is 
then still really one of focus, rather than pacing.

You (and others), on the other hand, interpreted the choppy 
discontinuity as meaning that the scenes were going by too fast 
(which is ultimately true . . . but perhaps it does not address the 
issue they were really trying to discuss at all).

I personally maintain though, that the solution to this is not to 
make the movie longer (at least not with specific intent), but simply 
to edit it for better continuity and more emphasis on the elements 
that are the most plot relevant.  Most likely that would still result 
in a *longer* film overall, but the aim is different, see.  Effective 
use of time is more critical than an arbitrary determination of 
length, in my opinion.

-Luke