The Reason Potter Films Will Never Be as Respectfully Done as LOTR

[huntergreen_3]

daughterofthedust wrote:
>>Harry Potter

--- a scriptwriter, while a friend of the author, writes in an
extremely stilted manner
--- a succession of directors, of varying abilties and visions
--- books at the height of their popularity being rushed to
production for that all-mighty dollar.
--- J.K.'s still alive and well, to give input and approval (this is
both a good and bad thing to me)
--- the books haven't even all been written yet<<

Rebecca:
One of the biggest reasons LOTR-films are much better than the HP-
films (just my opinion of course...I love both series very much) is 
that LOTR was a director picking the subject and not the other way 
around. Peter Jackson WANTED to make the LOTR trilogy, he went out 
asking to make it, *begging* to make it. Harry Potter was the other 
way around, WB had the rights and they picked a director to film it. 
Notice that they specifically chose for money, not artistic merit 
(Chris Columbus is known for making hit movies that are only okay 
when it comes to reviews). They wanted a guarenteed hit. There was no 
way they were going to choose someone like Alfonso Cuaron with the 
first movie, (IMO) they were afraid of making the material too broad 
(not easy for children to get into), or straying from the books at 
all. 
LOTR was completely different. For all the complaining we do over the 
smallest changes, there are HUGE changes in each of the LOTR movies, 
but there were reasons behind each change. Some of the changes (or 
cuts rather) in CoS are completely insanse to me. They filmed the 
scene, it makes the movie make more sense, its not very long, why did 
they cut it out? (I'm thinking of the additional five seconds of 
Colin Creevy, the Hufflepuff conversation in the library about Harry 
being the heir of Slytherin, and Lucius Malfoy in Knockturn Alley). 
On the first two extended versions of the LOTR (and I assume on the 
third, although its not out yet), there is an explanation on the 
editing and WHY certain things were left out of the movie. Wouldn't 
it be wonderful to have something like that for the Harry Potter 
movies? (if only to know why on earth we didn't get to see Alan 
Rickman doing Snape's hospital tantrum scene in PoA).

The other thing about LOTR, was not only did Peter Jackson love the 
material, he was involved in not only the directing, but the adapting 
of the script. Each Harry Potter movie is going through three minds 
before it gets to the screen (first JKR with the original book, and 
then Steve Kloves, and finally whatever director is working on that 
movie). This is very disjointed, and I think is the reason that 
certain things get lost along the way.

As an aside, I don't think switching directors between movies is 
really that horrible. LOTR was a specific 3-part trilogy, the entire 
story takes place in the span of a year. In HP, although involved in 
an overall arc, each book has a different plot and different mood for 
the story. In that sense, the series can benefit from a different 
director for each book. Not to mention that LOTR was only 3 movies, 
and Peter Jackson was still extremely exhausted at the end of making 
them. Can you imagine a director doing all seven Harry Potter films? 
Considering the amount of special effects and child labor laws, it 
would take more than a decade to complete. 

>>But I'm beginning to believe that, at least this time around Harry
Potter simply won't be done in manner befitting it's massive
popularity...Or perhaps it has? :-)<<

'This time around' is a good point. I commented a few months back 
that the movies will most likely be remade at some point in the 
future and that version might be much better. The problem with Harry 
Potter is that its too new a series. Its first audience hasn't 'grown 
up' yet. Yes there are many adult fans, but none of us can have fond 
memories of reading it as a child. I think the artistic and true to 
the darker spirit of the books HP film will be made by someone who is 
only a child now. Someone who will *grow up* loving the books and 
WANT to someday make a movie out of it. Chris Columbus and Alfonso 
Cuaron simply cannot have that sort of attatchment to the story (I 
don't know about Columbus, but I know Cuaron hadn't even read the 
books until he was offered to direct PoA). 

>> the focus is on the
all-mighty dollar instead of maintaining the magic of the books...<<

As I said above, sometimes being stringently faithful to the 
material, does not yeild a better movie, or a movie more reflective 
of the book. The words and the scenes can stay the same while the 
spirit is lost (Chamber of Secrets was a DARK book, nothing at all 
lik the mood of the movie). Hopefully a future adaptation won't be so 
afraid of changing things if thats what it takes to make the film 
better. Getting the characters right too would be nice, just because 
a line is IN the movie doesn't make it faithful to the books if 
Dumbledore said it in the book and suddenly Hermione is saying it in 
the movie. 

>>Personally, I think they should have waited (but "the almighty 
green" beckoned) until the whole series had been complete for a while 
and found ONE quality director with love for the source.<<

I think they should have waited too. Its difficult to adapt the 
series without knowing where the series is headed. Yes, JKR can hint 
at what to leave in, but its not nearly the same as if the entire 
series was already done. Not to mention the fact that if there's long 
delay for books six and seven to come out, we'll have to deal with 
the distraction of a re-casting (maybe not for the trio, but it could 
be hard to get EVERY child actor from Seamus to Ginny, to come back 
several years later) in the last two or three movies. 
At the very least they should have found a director who is in love 
with the books and understands them better than the ones we've had. 
Then perhaps things like the character assasination of Ron and Super!
Hermione wouldn't have happened. 

hp wrote:
> A cast that seems to either be in it for the money (Oldman) or for
> their children/grandchildren/nephew/neigbur's cat, pretty much for
> anyone but themselves. (The rest. Well, maybe not Thewlis.)

Alshain replied:
>> At the end of the day, every actor in the business works for money
and has a career to think of. Let's not overestimate the dedication
of the LotR actors, please. That was a function of how long the cast
were involved with the thing.If you're working on a project for three
entire years, in contrast to acting in four films in one year, you're
bound to have time to grow a lot more attached to it.<<

Rebecca:
Indeed. Be realistic, after an actor is established, money almost 
always is a factor in whether or not they choose a script. And when 
you're dealing with a kids movie, a lot of the actors are going to be 
in it because a child in their life wants them to. That's not 
horrible either. Doing a kids movie is harder than a regular movie, 
its a longer shoot, there are more breaks (and thus more breaks in 
concentration), and many kids just aren't very polished actors. I can 
see why any actor would be hesistant about it. Especially when it 
comes to Harry Potter, since many of the roles are re-occuring, 
meaning that the actor in question has to sign up for *several* 
movies. And AS for Gary Oldman, he's sited several reasons why he 
agreed to do the movie, 'needing the work' being only one of them. 
(of course there are a few actors who are exceptions, both Emma 
Thompson and Jason Isaacs appear to have loved it, and both are eager 
to come back).

>> Personally I rather want my actors talented than dedicated. Viggo
Mortensen, who everyone keep gushing about, took the role mainly
because his son was a fan and convinced him that this would be the
greatest thing since sliced bread. Have I seen any complaints about
his lacking dedication? <<

I haven't heard any LOTR fan complain about he only agreed because of 
his son. His performance was wonderful, and that's all that matters. 
Has anyone been disappointed by any of the adult actors? (by their 
*performance*, not by the casting itself).

>>But hey, what do I know? I'm just one of those nit-picking idiots 
who complain about the Scouring of the Shire, after all.<<
Hey, she did say Tom Bombidill, which is a much smaller thing to 
complain about (-; 

>>Alshain, thinking nitpickers can be found in other fandoms than 
LotR. It's stones and glass houses, friends.<<

Whatever do you mean? No one *here* was complaining about minor 
details.... (-: