Oscars, HP Directors!

[roleplayer_m_uk]

--- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., "c" <Caeser56 at s...> wrote:
>     1- I'm sorry to be the one to point it out to all the fanatical 
LOTR fans, but about 45 minutes of the movie was travelling of some 
sort. Introducing the Hobbits, walking along the mountains, etc..

i don't really understand why this is a problem. is travelling in 
movies bad for some reason? the travelling doesn't affect character 
development since, as you point out below, the complexities of 
boromir's character, for example, unfold throughout the trip.

>     2- Yes, I know it was written that way, but the movie explains 
nothing about the plot. NOTHING

i think it explains the plot pretty well - and in a more entertaining 
way than the book. did you get to the cinema late and miss the 5 
minute history that the film opens with? there's your motivation for 
everything that follows, right there.

in the rest of the movie the plot is SHOWN not TOLD, which is how 
movies are supposed to be when they're done well.

The warriorHATED and LOATHED the idea of using the hobbits to protect 
the ring. Then, they climb the mountains, and without AN explination 
he is suddenly playing with the Hobbits and teaching them to fight. 
Then, on the other side of the mountain he suddenly hates them again. 

i think shannon's post explains this one pretty well.

   
>                 3-There is a seriously large lack of a storyline 
here. Maybe it's because of the way I was taught, but as I was lead 
to understand it, a story consists of three parts, without which it 
is not complete.The three parts being: A beginning(or buildup), a 
climax, and an ending.

again, shannon dealt with this very well. the lotr is one book, 
divided into three movies. as such any division is unsatisfactory but 
i agree with shannon that the movie does it better than the book.

>Also, I would wish that anyone wishing to respond to this letter 
also stop for a moment and try to take a very objective viewpoint. 
The reason I say this is because a lot of you have read the novels 
and are fans of the book, and as such have a tendency to defend the 
movie without thought as to the validity of what a detractor such as 
myself might say.

again, i agree with shannon. i think the lotr book is poorly written 
(too many lingering descriptions of meals, while the battles get only 
a cursory mention. and those damn songs.....)

the movie, on the other hand, distills all that works well in the 
book and tells the story with much more pace and power.


>    1- It is a complete story. See abov,e but this has a buildup, a 
climax, and an ending.

i think one of the flaws with the movie is that it has TOO MUCH 
story. things that could have been covered in depth are glossed over 
to the point that the whole story suffers. if they had cut more out 
we'd all be arguing that they cut out the wrong things but we would 
have got a better movie for sure.

the intelligent and brave cuts in lotr are a prime example of how to 
do this.


i have to agree with the weight of opinion that i've seen on the list 
so far:

harry potter: excellent books, ordinary movie
lotr: ordinary book, excellent movie

i don't think hp deserves any of the significant oscars (maybe some 
of the technical ones will be in order) and i don't think the series 
will attract any while columbus is at the helm.

chris columbus produced a movie completely in keeping with his career 
so far - entertaining but not special. he is not a talented director 
and i believe that none of the HP movies will amount to anything 
special with him in charge. if anything, they'll get worse since the 
plots become considerably more complex.