Addressing Frequently Read and Heard Movie Criticisms....

[daughterofthedust]

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, Tyler Hewitt <tahewitt at y...> 
wrote:
> Anna wrote:
> 
> Forget Goblet of Fire. The correct answer is: "Anyone
> who wants to 
> know about the Marauders can damn well read the
> books." None of the 
> Marauders background is vital to the plot. In fact, I
> have never 
> seen a good literary adaptation that contained all of
> the 
> information that was in the book - that's why English
> teachers 
> always tell their students that they can't get away
> with just 
> watching the movie.
> 
> So what you do is, if you're interested in the movie,
> read the book 
> too. If you don't care, then you don't read the book
> and you haven't 
> missed anything important. What's the problem with
> that?
> 
> Incidentally, I find it comical that people are
> second-guessing 
> JKR's feelings on PoA. Just because you didn't like
> the movie or 
> didn't think it had enough "important" information
> doesn't mean 
> she's wrong. She's the author! Surely she knows better
> than we do 
> what will be necessary in the future.
> 
> 
> ME:
> 
> Thank You,Thank You,Thank You!!!
> I've been a little amazed (but mostly annoyed) at some
> of the very negative posts about PoA, especially those
> that second guess JKR. Thanks for expressing exactly
> what I'v been feeling.
> 
> Love the film or hate it, fine. Everyone is entitled
> to their own opinion. Whats been annoying is the 'I'm
> right, and everyone else, includung JKR is wrong' tone
> to several posts lately.  
> 
> 
> 
> Film adaptations of books are, to me, like
> translations of literature. Something is inevitabally
> changed. Things are lost, other things are gained.
> Some translations seem flat, others result in new
> works of art.
> Lets imagine you have a poem and need to translate it
> from, say, Spanish to English. There are a couple of
> things that could be done.
> 
> One way is to keep the rhyme scheme, line and syllable
> count, etc. the same as the original. Meaning may take
> a second place,  but the sound and look of the poem
> will carry through in this case.
> 
> Another way is to go for as literal a translation as
> possible. Rhyme scheme, etc. is secondary to capturing
> the exact meaning of what was originally written as
> accurately as you can.
> 
> A third way is to try to capture the spirit and
> feeling of the poem as best as possible. Line length
> and syllables, exact meaning, etc. may be changed
> some, but the translation remains true to how the
> original poem feels.
> 
> Not think about the Harry Potter films. I would argue
> that Chris Columbus used the second method I listed
> above. Alfonzo Cuaron used the third. In the case of
> these films, Cuaron's translation resulted in a new
> work of art with its own identity. Columbus'
> translations are pretty good at being translations,
> but are not new works of art.
> 
> Tyler
> 

Gracias' Senor.  :-D

That was well-put and a great analogy. I feel the same way.

@)--/---
daughter