Hasn't Chris Columbus done exactly what he was tasked to do?

[Hollydaze]

I am apologising now, at the beginning of this email. I am absolutely 
not in any way a film expert or connected with films at all and have 
no idea what I'm talking about ;). As such I have quite some 
difficulty in expressing some of my views on films especially in 
comparing why I like and don't like films so if this email seems very 
confusing it is because it's expressing some views that I have had 
(and still have) problems working out and find confusing myself. Part 
of this confusion is actually due to some of the views in this group 
which have helped me to partly sort out my views, it's just getting 
all the different reasons to work together that's the problem. So I'm 
blaming all of you lot for this confusing email ;)

hpoldfan:
> > > Now everyone seems to want to compare Harry and the Lord of the 
> > > Rings. Anyone who has read LOR knows that it is a story of the 
> > > Hobbits. The movies are not about the Hobbits. The movie is so 
> > > far from the books that it is almost a different story.
> > > The people behind LOTR have done what some people want done to 
> > > Harry. I do not think Harry Potter fans want that to happen in 
> > > future films!
> 
> > Taryn:
> > Why are the LotR movies so much more highly praised than the HP 
> > movies? Because they are true to the /spirit/ of the book, 
> > something the HP movies certainly aren't. The LotR movies have 
> > the depth and wonder of the books (even adding a lot of depth to 
> > characters like Aragorn that was not found in the books), while 
> > the HP movies, while entertaining, are extremely flat and 
> > childish. I would be /exceedingly/ happy if the HP movies got the 
> > same type of creative treatment that the LotR movies did. 
> > 
> 
>  hpoldfanF:
> LOTR is true to the book, or the spirit of the book? I would 
> suggest you reread the books as you are watching the movies. They 
> could not be further from what Tolkien had written.

I have to agree with Taryn, I absolutely LOVE the LOTR books. I love 
both HP and LOTR *books* to about the same degree. But when it comes 
to the films, LOTR is far superior. After much confusion and 
discussion with friends (who started looking very bewildered!) I've 
actually put this down to the same reason that you don't seem to like 
the films: the changes they've made. They've needed too make them but 
the important thing is that even in the bits they have changed they 
have kept the essence/spirit of the books. They have adapted the 
books into movies.

The HP films haven't done that, as many others have said, they've 
bunged in as much as they possibly can and not really worried about 
whether it works as a movie.

I've actually thought about this in some detail just because it 
puzzled me so much why I loved the LOTR films but really didn't like 
HP (in fact I almost despise PS now) especially as LOTR seemed to 
have changed so much more than HP. I'm still not exactly sure why I 
like one but not the other. There seem to be a lot of reasons (and 
many of them actually contradict one another which is why I have such 
problems trying to work it out). The simplest way of expressing the 
conclusion I've come to is that Peter Jackson wanted to make the 
books into a movie while CC wanted to make the movies into the books. 
What I think this approach has lead to is that PJ, in making the 
books into movies, has successfully *recreated* (for want a better 
word) the books and made an amazing movie, CC on the other hand, in 
trying to make the movies into the books, has failed at both.

When I was thinking about the changes in the stories I got myself 
into some really confusing contradictions because one week I'd be 
thinking that I didn't like HP because it had changed too much of the 
story and LOTR hadn't, yet the very next day I'd be thinking that I 
didn't like HP because it hadn't changed enough of the story while 
LOTR had. I eventually came to the conclusion that this was linked to 
the reasons behind the changes, that in wanting to make a successful 
adaptation Peter Jackson had changed many things but most of those 
changes had a reason behind them. After thinking about this I 
actually watched FOTR with the intention of seeing how many changes I 
could spot that seemed to have absolutely no reason to them and I 
spotted about 5, every other change seemed to have a valid reason. I 
compared this to Harry Potter and virtually every change I spotted 
seemed to have absolutely no reason at all, and those that did seemed 
to have been changed in such a way as to contradict a lot of the 
rules that the book and the movie had set down (I'll come back to 
that later). The perfect example of unnecessary changes being the 
whole James = seeker/chaser argument. That doesn't mean there aren't 
changes in LOTR that don't bug me (Faramir is a perfect example) but 
I can put up with and get used to them because they are so few that 
don't have valid reasons. HP just seemed to be full of changes that 
don't work.

Coming back to the whole "Rules" thing. (prepare for confusion). This 
was another thing that I was thinking about with regards to the two 
films. I don't know if there is any "technical term" for what I'm 
talking about but the HP movies seem to contradict a lot of the HP 
*rules*, not just with regards to the books but with regards to the 
movies themselves. This is very difficult to explain exactly what I 
mean so I'm hoping you might pick it up as I talk about it. It's 
basically to do with hmm, rules of consistency I suppose. It includes 
the ideas of flints and such, contradictions that are inherent within 
the books/movies, things that break the "spirit of canon" (as 
discussed in a thread on the main list a few months back) and some 
other stuff that I am not even going to attempt to put into words. In 
a straight off book(series), rules are basically to do with 
consistency because you aren't adapting anything. LOTR as a book is 
exceptionally good at keeping to it's own rules, there are very 
few "flints" (to use our HP term) in them, and I always marvel at how 
few there are in a book that is so complex. The HP books aren't quite 
so good (see the many discussion on the main list) but they're still 
very consistent when they absolutely need to be. 
 
With movies based on books, there are multiple sets of *rules* and 
these are not all based around consistency. The main rules come from 
the books themselves as the movies have to follow some of those rules 
because otherwise there would be no connection between the movies and 
the books at all.These aree not the same as the consistency rules of 
the books I mentioned above. They include things like the rules of 
the main plotlines, you can change some of the details of how that 
plotline happens or how you get from A to B but you have to keep the 
idea or the story becomes a totally different story. Secondly there 
are the rules the movies establish for themselves (these are the 
movie consistency rules), basically the details they might change, or 
the minor plotlines that they have to remove, they have to make sure 
that anything else relating to those changes/removals is also changed 
so that it is still consistent. There are other things as well but 
they are a bit difficult to explain (I'm not even sure about them 
they are more feelings than anything else) and they are what stop me 
from just referring to these *rules* as consistency. 

The first of the HP movies seems to break a lot of these rules, the 
first example that springs to mind is the whole Norbert storyline, I 
can deal with them having to remove it (it's one of the few changes I 
can understand) but it's how they've gone about it that bugs me. I 
compare this to FOTR (especially the extended version) and that movie 
is pretty good at following both the books rules and it's own. There 
are not many annoying/obvious contradictions, or jsut plane annoying 
changes. 

Looking at CoS, there are a lot less instances of *rulebreaking* 
compared to PS, but there are still some there. One that I can think 
of which kinda fits into the "other" category of rules is that in the 
books you are always given clues to who the person responsible for 
what is happening is, it's just that your given them in such a way 
that most people misinterpret them, but they are there (especially on 
a second reading, as we all know!). In COS, and to an extent in PS, a 
lot of these clues were either missing or were way too obvious (I 
told you there were contradictions ;). I have a couple of friends who 
have not read HP and neither of them could guess who it was on their 
first viewing or on a second viewing spot any of the clues that would 
have implicated Quirrel or Ginny/Riddle except the diary, which was 
so OBVIOUSLY placed in the cauldron by Malfoy that you couldn't not 
miss it. 

However just to be fair I must also point out that TTT falls foul of 
some of these rules to, it's entire Merry/Pippin/Treebeard plotline 
is riddled with rulebreaking (although in that case they take the 
form of flints) so it's more a consistency problem. I hope you see my 
point here and sorry if I've thoroughly confused you. 
 
Anyway I feel I'm getting away from my point now. Basically I feel 
that the HP movies break to many of these rules to be decent 
adaptations of the books. There are some really stupid changes in 
there (Hermione spouting Dumbledore for one) that just have no 
reason. There are unnecessary inconsistencies within the films and 
they do not seem to carry the spirit of the books/canon with them at 
all. When you compare this to how Peter Jackson and his team have 
adapted LOTR I just think there is no comparison, as an adaptation of 
the books and as a movie in it's own right LOTR is far superior to HP.
 
Just to finish off, there are other problems as well. As someone (I'm 
sorry, I'm writing this offline and I read the emails online so I 
can't check who) pointed out, there is the problem that CC, DH and SK 
don't really know what they are supposed to be foreshadowing, they 
don't know where the story is going, they only have clues and guesses 
to go on and that is going to lead to some problems/inconsistencies 
etc, especially when comparing these early movies to the ones that 
will follow. I also feel the fact that they have so obviously 
marketed these films at younger children does take away slightly from 
the movies feeling, but then that's also them missing out as they 
have this whole area of the demographic that they could end up losing 
if the films don't gain the same appeal as the books. 
 
Anyway I think I've made my point about the way I personally compare 
LOTR and HP and other people are free to (dis)agree and I hope I 
haven't confused you all as much as I've confused myself and that I 
at least made some sense (which I'm not sure that I did!).
 
HOLLYDAZE!!!
hpoldfanF, have you actually tried reading LOTR while watching the 
movies cos I'd think it was pretty much impossible? ;) Also, I don't 
know if your interested (or you might already know) but if you'd like 
to look at some of the views of some REALLY die hard LOTR fans (some 
are even non Hp fans - huh, shock horror ;) and see their views then 
you could try http://www.theonering.net/movie/reviews/index.html and
http://www.theonering.net/movie/ttreviews/index.html
there are literally thousands of reviews there although you have to 
search for the decent ones that really actually have valid points to 
make in terms of book/film adaptation.