Film as Canon.

[Steve <bboy_mn@yahoo.com>]

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "heiditandy" <heidit at n...> wrote:
>
> ...edited...
> 
> Since this is the movie list, though, let me make this post fully on
> topic by asking a question - those of you who came to the HP series
> and the fandom through the books - do you consider the films to be
> canonical, and if so, why?
> 
> Heidi, asking questions on HP lists since 2000

bboy_mn:

Hummmm..... thought provoking question.

I think the difference between the two (book vs film) is like the
difference between and example and an illustration. Or perhaps, I can
create a better analogy by saying it is like the difference between a
photograph and an illustration.

A photograph is a real life representation of a person. An
illustration is an artistic representation of a person. It's possible
for the artistic representation of the person to by so fabulously
artistic as to be better than the person themselves, and while it may
be fantasically better, it is not a true life representation.

The book is the real thing, it is the true to life representation. The
movie is the artistic representation; the illustration, and as
fabulous as it may be on it's own merit, it is still not the real
thing. It's someone else's impression of the real thing.

There... I think that should serve as an excellent illustration of my
point... or wait... was that an example of my point. Hummm... now I'm
confused.

Just some thoughts.

bboy_mn