Observation, not really spoiler

[clshannon at aol.com]

Something I find curious ;-)
When I first joined the many lists discussing HP, it was right around when 
COS opened in theaters and I remember wading through much disgruntled 
conversation about how the movie didn't follow the book enough, or what was left out, or 
what was done wrong. 
Now I am reading comments from people saying COS did such a better job of 
'sticking to the book' compared to POA - hmm. 
I guess by the time GOF comes out, there will be talk of how much better POA 
stuck to the book <g>
Some say that Columbus was too slavishly devoted to the books, yet at the 
time COS came out, many were grumbling about how the plot was too hard to follow 
because of things he 'left out'. I guess it's impossible to make everyone 
happy, but these contradictions are curious to me. I wonder if   the folks who 
grumbled about COS are the same ones who are now saying it did a better job of 
sticking to the book than POA ; -)

I won't go into a whole thing about different mediums and how the technique 
is different for each, but I will say that I loved POA because of what it is - 
a film, not a book. I read all four LOTR books after seeing the first two 
movies and was amazed at the differences - things that would never work in a film 
were left out or outright changed, and I mean drastically. The LOTR were less 
a filming of the books than they were a filming of the 'spirit' of the books. 
Yet, so many people use them as an example of 'how to make a movie from a 
book'. Well, I would say that the Potter films are much closer to 'actually 
filming the books' than the LOTR are - by a long shot. 
But I think POA is the first one to be a 'real film' and not just a series of 
episodic scenes connecting point A to point B from the books. POA is a filmic 
representation of the spirit of the book, while also maintaining the 
storyline that is necessary in order to bring it to life.

Just my 2 cents ;-)
Cindy


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]