[HPFGU-Movie] RE: Concerns about PoA and future films

[GulPlum]

glory wrote:

>I agree completely. Part of me argues that this film, and the others in 
>the series, are being made for the fans of the books, that those groups of 
>people are the ones who will appreciate the film more, therefore, making 
>sense that the books should be depicted in their entirety.

Not quite. These films are NOT being made *primarily* for existing fans of 
the books. For most existing fans of the books, whether or not movies are 
made is largely irrelevant, if not a Bad Thing (TM).

The first two films are being marketed towards younger children than the 
books' are, namely 6-9 year-olds rather than roughly 12+.  In that respect, 
Columbus was probably a good choice of director - he might not have much 
talent for personalities or character, but he's a fair director of 
slapstick and similar stuff. Cuaron is, if anything, the reverse (none of 
his movies to date have featured much in the way of action sequences, for 
instance).

Columbus & Co have, however, been mindful of the fact that a huge 
percentage of modern movies' grosses come from repeat attendances, and 
they've clearly tried their best not alienate the books' fans. As far as 
I'm concerned, this is not necessarily a Good Thing (TM) because these 
movies will always be little more than "scenes from the books" rather than 
decent movies in their own right UNLESS the production team are allowed to 
take liberties with the books' narratives.

Condensing PoA into even a three-hour movie means losing at least half of 
the narrative events. Judging by the reaction to Sean Biggerstaff's 
departure, a huge proportion of the fans are either unwilling or unable to 
grasp the fact that this is a different medium which requires a different 
kind of story-telling.

To a HUGE extent, I place the blame for this squarely on JKR's own 
shoulders. I find it nothing less than completely absurd that she has 
refused to tell Kloves where the underlying plot is going. As he says in 
the CoS DVD interview, he's writing a story whose end he does not know. 
Sure, plenty of films go into production with incomplete scripts, but 
*some* kind of end is known before the final cut is made. But this is very 
different. The production team is being deliberately kept in the dark and 
they don't know what they're doing. JKR has shown that her priorities, 
while admirable on some levels, are in all the wrong places. She, like many 
of the books' fans, wants to see her favourite episodes brought to life. 
She clearly doesn't appreciate that films have different narrative tools to 
novels, and making good films as such is not high on her list.

>The fact that something as significant as quidditch has been effectively 
>'dropped' from PoA definately stirs concerns for the future films.

Whoah. We have absolutely no reason to assume that Quidditch as a whole has 
been dropped from PoA. All we know is that Wood doesn't have a speaking 
part. As I've said on countless occasions before, I can't see them excising 
Quidditch altogether as it's one of the elements of the HP "formula", much 
as car chases are part of James Bond. The production team know that they 
fiddle with the formula at their peril. Wood's Quidditch obsession was 
absent from the first two movies, so there really is nowhere for the 
character to go in terms of the PoA plot. Ron, Harry or the twins can 
easily be given the obsessive role without any detriment to the plot.

I really do find it distasteful to see the amount of verbiage expounded 
online by people who are jumping to conclusions based on incomplete 
information and a lack of understanding of the film-making process, not to 
mention absolutely no knowledge of the finished script.

Personally, the fact that *some* liberties have been taken with PoA's plot 
are for me a Good Thing (TM) and I only hope that the condensing of the 
book's plot is more astute than that witnessed in the first two movies.

My major problem with CoS (and PS to a smaller degree) is that although the 
book's key events are present and accounted for, a large chunk of the 
*spirit* of the book (and in particular of the characters) has been lost by 
unnecessary fiddling with the dialogue. Despite Kloves's statement that he 
"steals JKR's best stuff", regrettably he replaces too much of it with his own.

>Has anyone else here heard of the films being referred to the 'Harry 
>Potter Trilogy'? I've heard this in a few places, though for the life of 
>me I can't remember where, and it quite frightens me.

I've never heard that anywhere, and certainly not in anything coming from 
WB. If fans use that term then they only have themselves to blame. Just as 
with the "No Wood = No Quidditch" statements coming from fans, one of he 
most dangerous things about online communication is the spread of 
misinformation and I REALLY, REALLY wish that people had the good sense of, 
say, the Leaky Cauldron editors, and simply refused to repeat unfounded 
rumours. Especially on this list, which is purportedly for people with the 
maturity to appreciate the difference...

>The idea that WB wouldn't make all the films has always been a fear of mine.

Warners bought the first four books because that's all that's available to 
buy. They have an option on succeeding books because that's all they can 
have, in view of he books' non-existence. They will continue making the 
movies only for as long as they make money. Not a moment more or less. If 
the films continue to be successful, they will continue to be made. It's a 
simple as that.

>But in the same breath, I have heard whisperings of plans to make GoF into 
>a two part film to be realesed in much the same manner that the two Matrix 
>sequels are being released this year. Also, to help dispel rumours that 
>PoA will be the last Potter film they make, Jason Isaacs has confirmed 
>previously that he has been signed on for GoF. So the fear of an 
>incomplete Harry Potter film series may end up to be groundless but others 
>fears in regards to the production of these films quickly creep up to take 
>it's place.

I you were satisfied with the first two, there is no reason for the later 
ones to be worse. Cuaron & Co have a big problem with PoA because it's far 
and away the favourite of the books' committed readership as a whole, and 
it's going to require a lot more condensing than the first two. I repeat: 
we all need to be prepared for the fact that major changes MUST be made 
from the book to the film simply to squeeze it into a reasonable running 
time. A significant number of people refuse to accept this and I for one 
will prefer a well-made movie which stands up in its own right (and as a 
successor to the first two) rather than a scene-by-scene translation of the 
book.

As for GoF, Columbus himself hinted at the possibility of its being made 
into two movies (back before PS was even released!) although the hints 
being dropped at present seem to indicate that it will probably be one 
single movie. If anyone cares to look back at my comments in the past on 
this subject, I'm dead against it. The Matrix sequels were conceived, 
designed and written as two movies; GoF would need a considerable amount of 
tinkering to make it into two valid separate movies.

Jason Isaacs' confirmation of having been cast to return in GoF isn't the 
major casting highlight: Robbie Coltrane was taken on from the start for 
five, and Richard Harris contracted for seven possible movies. In any case, 
the fact that these actors have agreed to appear is not in itself 
confirmation of anything on Warners' part beyond an *intention* to make 
seven movies. This is normal for the movie industry, and actors' contracts 
always depend on the studios actually making the movies they intend to. For 
instance, it is normal procedure nowadays for the main cast of all 
blockbusters to sign on for any possible sequel as a matter of course, even 
though the studio won' decide whether or not a sequel will be made until 
after the movie's release.

>Such as the idea that they would recast characters because the actors 
>currently playing them decided they didn't want to do it anymore. I would 
>hate for this to happen. After only two films, I've become attached to the 
>actors that play these characters, much like how I've become attached to 
>the characters themselves in the books. To me, Daniel Radcliffe is Harry, 
>just like Tom Felton is Draco. It would be awful for the cast to change 
>part way through a series of films.

Errr... isn't that just a bit obvious? Nobody would want the cast to have 
to change, from the studio to the production team to the fans. But then 
that's true of any franchise and just because this issue was raised at the 
onset with this particular franchise doesn't of itself make it any more or 
less likely to happen.

The fact that the cast are schoolchildren, though, makes all the 
difference. Again, as I've said countless times before, I don't see how the 
Dan's parents are going to allow him to spend the whole of his GCSE year at 
school making GoF. Something tells me that we're either going to suffer a 
production delay, a recasting or grumpy Radcliffes.

For the time being, it seems that everyone apart from Tom Felton has no 
problems with staying in showbusiness, but again these kids are still quite 
young and only time (and academic achievement) will tell. Even Felton, 
though, has said that considering he has a fairly small part (certainly in 
PoA and GoF there's very little of him) he's prepared to continue as long 
as he's wanted.

One way or the other, though, a heck of lot of all this speculation is all 
about counting chickens before the hen's been hatched, never mind the eggs 
themselves. Until we have a much better idea of what the PoA script 
contains or whether GoF has been successfully condensed into a single 
script, I find very little point in wringing our hands and screaming blue 
murder.

--
GulPlum AKA Richard, who is feeling particularly opinionated this Easter 
Sunday...