Still More Musing on Adaptations

[Lino Padrun]

Cindy wrote:

>> I'm not sure I'd chalk these thing up to sloppiness
and inattention to detail.  For instance, the snake
scene makes more sense in the movie than the book,
IMHO.  As Alex, our resident snake enthusiast
explained, the movie snake is a (fake) Burmese Python.
 Why?  Movies are visual, so perhaps they wanted a
large, colorful snake, and maybe Brazilian Boas don't
fit the bill. Failing to change the snake's origin
would have led to claims that the filmmakers made an
error and don't understand snakes.  So they change the
dialogue to be accurate and avoid an avalanche of
nit-picky letters.  I doubt it was a slip- up, and I
would have made the same decision, as the snake's
origin is unimportant to the story. <<

I do not think we should get into speculating why the
director and screenwriter did this or that, we will
never know the why's. What we can speculate about is
if a change or decision they made worked. Did it
improve the final product or would it have been better
if they did not make the change. For this we have to
re-play the scenes in our heads and try to be as
honest with ourselves as we can about which is the
better solution. As I said in my initial post, I think
the film makers did a wonderful job overall, but I do
think many of the smaller details would have better
off left as they were in the book.

That said -- yes, Alex the snake was fake -- IMHO, it
was fairly obvious it was a CGI. My point is that,
IMO, they could have made the scene work just as well
-- and I do think over all the scene works-- without
changing the species of snake. I'm not even bothered
by the absence of Piers (a good choice in editing and
stream-lining, IMO).

>> As for the Put-Outer, I'll have to take your word
that the movie order is backward (and bestow upon you
a special citation for L.O.O.N- iness for spotting
this).  But perhaps they are setting up the shot, and
they observe that having Dumbledore extinguish the
closest lamp first fouls the lighting or obscures him
or something.  So they fix it on the spot, not out of
ignorance of the book, but because of the practical
issues in filming a movie. <<

This film was made by an experienced director with an
experienced with proper planning they could have made
the scene work any number of ways, including with the
lights going out from closest to furtherest. Close
your eyes and picture the scene as it was in the
movie, but with the lights going out from closest to
furtherest. You see the Put-Outer held up and open...a
long shot of Dumbledor holding it up...light from the
street lights falls on him...a flick of the putter
outer and the light from the nearest lamp goes to him
and into the Put-Outer...the figure at the end of the
street cast into shadows...as he flicks the
Put-Outer...another light comes to him, illuminating
him as it travels to the Put-Outer....etc... I think
this could not only have worked, but it also would
have been much more dramatic.

>> As for Irish vs. Greek, I have no idea.  It could
be that they felt it was more logical for Hagrid to
believe the man to be Irish if it is supposed to be a
cloaked Quirrell.<<

There is no logic to it, as with most of the small
detail changes, which is why I do not like them. The
changes are so small they do not any real effect,
positive or negative, and/or it would have taken an
equal amount of effort to leaving things as they were
in the book, leaving one to wonder why anyone bothered
to changing it. Again, there are some changes,
additions, etc. that I thought were brilliant (Dudley
stomping on the steps is one), but the details should
have been kept.

That's just my $.02

Michael



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1