[HPFGU-Movie] Re: (unknown)

[mugg1eb0rn at aol.com]

In a message dated 5/19/2006 11:49:11 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
rkdas at charter.net writes:
<<Jen here, yet again...(someone else get in here and add something!)>>
OK, you asked for it!


<<I saw LOTR on TBS in April and went 
gaga! ...<clip for space> I was thrilled 
at all the was from the books, delighted. And I could see why some 
things were changed, was sorry that certain things were changed but 
not unhappy at all. I could accept that the two things are different 
but yet have at their core, a very close correlation, for me at 
least. But what if I'd been a fan of the books for 30 or 40 years? >>

I've been one of the fans who stay pretty quiet on this list, but I guess I 
have to put in my 2 knuts (or 200, given my wordiness) on this subject.

I'm also one of those Tolkien fans who has loved the LotR books for over 35 
years. (I once worked out how to sign my name in Quenya, and I still have the 
bookmark I made kicking around the house somewhere.)

What I felt when I saw the first LotR movie was astonishment. Of course I 
noticed the changes that had been made to the story, but I was blown away by how 
much the filmmakers had managed to get INTO the films. I still get a chill 
whenever I see the scene of the Fellowship walking into view in the first movie 
trailer--seeing the hobbits (hairy bare feet and all) in perfect scale to the 
humans, dwarf, elf and wizard. I never expected anyone to be able to make those 
books into films successfully, so to see so many of my favorite scenes 
brought to visualization was thrilling to me. I felt such gratitude for that, and 
for the fact that three films were made, that I ignored the changes that I 
thought were made less successfully. Sure, I didn't agree with all of what was 
done, but I figure that if the director and writers help me see the fields of the 
Shire, the Halls of Moria, the Forbidden Pool, the destruction of the Living 
Eye...the sailing of the ship into the West...I'll let them indulge themselves 
by showing me their OWN favorite scenes. And, most importantly, I will let 
them construct a coherent narrative, even if it's not exactly like the book, 
because adaptation of the written word into a movie is so dang hard to begin with, 
and some of the differences are a matter of personal taste anyway. When I 
visited a list for LotR regularly a while ago, I was very amused about what some 
people think is "essential" to the story. Many of the lamented lost scenes 
were so non-essential to my view of the story, I realized that no one can do a 
perfect adaptation that everyone will like. 

(I will get on topic to Harry Potter in a minute, honestly...please bear with 
me!)

A typical movie script is around 100 pages long. That's all. While the 
visualization of scenes from a book cuts out massive amounts of descriptions, since 
we can see what's happening, it takes TIME to say the dialogue. It must be 
cut, cut, cut ruthlessly in order to fit into the running time of a movie. The 
recent movie adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, compared with the BBC miniseries 
version, is Jane Austen feather-light. It's about 2 hours long, instead of 
the 5 hours or so of the mini-series, a feat it accomplishes by cutting out all 
but a few scenes of Mr. Wickham. However, the major incidents of P&P were in 
the recent movie (unlike the 1940 version, which not only cuts out Pemberly 
entirely but turns Lady Catherine deBourgh into a good guy matchmaker!). And even 
that BBC miniseries cuts out tons of Jane Austen's rapier-witted dialogue. To 
enjoy that, you have to go back to the book, visualizing the Elizabeth and 
Darcy of your choice!

I'll bet both Jane Austen and J.R.R. Tolkien would be upset about some of the 
changes made to their works in adapting them for the screen, but I also think 
both would be amazed that people cared so much for their stories that they 
would turn them into movies in the first place. Tolkien, you know, sold the 
rights to LotR to movie makers who meant to make cartoon versions of them. He 
became really upset when they wanted to cut his story's length by having the 
Fellowship fly from Rivendell to Mordor on the backs of the eagles! Jackson & 
company didn't do anything that radical, even by increasing Arwen's presence the 
way they did; and I suspect Tolkien would have been so thrilled such a great 
deal of Elvish dialogue made it into the films, he would have forgiven the fact 
that Arwen was saying much of it. Most of the major events of the story were 
essentially the same as he wrote it. The cutting out of the Scouring of the 
Shire was the major loss, and frankly, I'd had enough of battles by that point and 
was more than willing to forego it.

In this context, how strange it must be for JKR to be around and see what 
others are doing to her imaginings! (See, I told you I'd get there eventually.) 
Reportedly, she has been able to warn the producers about dropping some things 
they were tempted to eliminate (such as Sibyl Trelawney) because they would 
need to include them in later movies. She seems to be very accepting that the 
filmmakers will include things she never imagined in order to make the movie 
they feel will work. 

Think how well the scene AC interpolated into POA fits, with Harry and his 
mates clowning around in their tower room while Dementors floated ominously just 
outside the window, setting up what happens later, throughout the film. The 
talking shrunken head in the Knight Bus was hysterical enough that I suspect 
she wished she HAD thought of him! It was definitely in the spirit of her sense 
of humor. Even though POA was a relatively short HP book, lots of things 
couldn't fit into it. I suspect that even if the movie had been over 3 hours long, 
many people would have complained about a favorite scene that was missing.

Now, GOF is over 700 pages long, and a huge amount of it was cut out of the 
script right away. I enjoyed the movie anyway, because they did a good job with 
what they did keep. But OoP is almost 900 pages long, and HBP is "only" a 
little over 600 pages. Either of these movies could be 6 or more hours long. When 
we think of how much the HP movies cost to make, even in their "truncated" 
adaptations, can you imagine what it would cost to produce movies of that 
length? There's no way they could be profitable, and profit is essential in the 
movie business.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that no movie company can stay in 
business unless its movies show enough profit for them to make more, while 
allowing for a nice standard of living for the producers themselves... (Sorry about 
the paraphrase, Jane, but I couldn't resist.)

Unfortunately, while it is certainly our priviledge to wish for "extended 
versions" of the HP movies, it's not likely we will ever get LotR-style ones. 
Jackson actually filmed extra footage just for the DVDs, much of it after the 
first movie made so much money that the studio indulged him in his desire to make 
a version that would satisfy the fans more than the theatrical versions 
(works for me, by the way). But, unless footage was filmed at the time each HP 
movie was made, they can't go back and make more because of the growth rates of 
the kid cast. (They actually have hard time matching scenes in the same movie, 
with the way some of them have had growth spurts during the shooting schedule.) 

Maybe sometimes we need to focus on the gift of having what we have of the 
movies and not so much on the missing favorite scenes. I, for one, am glad not 
all of the scenes make it into the movies. I still want the joy of "seeing" 
them when I read the books. I like to keep those imagination muscles in practice!

jamelia


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