GoF movie

[Lindsay!!]

 As a filmmaker and screenwriter (aspiring at least), I thought I 
would throw my two cents into this. Adaptations are perhaps the 
hardest things in the world to do mainly because they're are always 
people who want one thing or another left in or taken out. Everyone's 
always going to have a different perception of what is going to make 
the movie as good as the book. I personally think that adaptations 
are best realized when the writer of the screenplay is the writer of 
the book.

For example look at the film version of Interview with the Vampire. 
Anne Rice wrote the screenplay herself. This does not mean that it 
was one hundred percent true to the book (she cut out a lot of 
subplots and enhanced some other ones). But the fact that she wrote 
it did add some credence for fans. It would be hard for her to screw 
up her own characters. Now JKR has expressed satisfaction with the 
films as some other people said so clearly she agrees with the 
changes and what's cut out and what's added (we all know she objected 
to some of Cuaron's suggestions on PoA). She cannot be expected to 
write the screenplays herself between the time table of writing the 
books and I Don't know that she has ever expressed an interest in 
doing so. I'm sure if she did want to write them herself then she 
could have waited to sell the rights of the books until after they 
were all written (also I have a feeling  she has script approval 
anyway)

This brings up another issue that I know has been discussed here 
before, but I do wish to reiterate it and add my own two cents once 
more to it. Books are not films and films are not books. The film 
medium is never going to capture a book one hundred percent. In film 
things are meant to be shown and not described. You can't just have 
characters on screen describing what's going on and talking non-stop. 
So rather than Ron saying I'm mad for example it has to be shown by 
him pouting (this is a random example I'm not really taking it from a 
specific movie). It takes longer to show and emotion or anything 
really than to write about it so when you have a very large book it's 
inevitable that things are going to need to be cut out.

I doubt it will ever be any better than it is now. If it is made 
again I would bet even money that to put in what people have qualms 
about would lead to cutting out other details. Sure GOF could be made 
four hours long, but then there would be tedious moments that while 
fun to read are not fun to watch. Also, it would be quite hard to 
make a film that long with children because the shooting schedule 
would be a nightmare and the same with breaking it into two movies. 

Yes, things have been cut out of PoA and GoF, but it's nothing that 
can't be rectified in the future. It seems as if they have treated 
the Mauraders in a pretty low key way (it was very subtle, but Remus 
made it pretty well known that he knew about the map and what it was 
at the end of PoA), but they can insert that later possibly in OotP 
with the Penseive or Harry could even reference it on screen without 
it having to go into great detail (it is still possible stuff 
happened off screen--He could be like oh Remus or SIrius told me 
about whne the were in school). It isn't the detail that most fans of 
the books want, but the details in movies are meant to be in the 
shots so other stuff has to be cut out.

Lindsay
> Sherry wrote:
> 
> I hope  that growing up right now, is some kid who will be a great 
movie
> director  someday and will take on a project of redoing all the HP 
movies.
> somewhat  in the way Jackson did LOTR.  sure, those weren't 
perfect  for
> everything, but in general, he did a wonderful job because he 
wanted  to
> honor Tolkien's work.  Maybe, someday, someone will feel like that  
about the
> Potter books and we might get some truly fine movies.  POA  movie 
was so
> disappointing to me, and I actually fell asleep during the  DVD!  I 
think
> I'll skip GOF so as not to feel so  disappointed.
> 
> Sherry