What should we do next?

[Geoff Bannister]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Stephen Vandecasteele <vand195550 at ...> 
wrote:

> --- On Sun, 1/18/09, sistermagpie <sistermagpie at ...> wrote:

Geoff: 
> > > > > Which raises the rather perplexing question
> > - how do you view the books then when they  are the
> > primary sources for the films?
 
Steve Van: 
> > > > I couldn't disagree more. The movies are
> > merely based on the books as stated in the 
> > > credits of each movie. As for the books 
> > themselves, I have not read  them, do not 
> > intend on reading them so I have no opinion
> > >  of them whatsoever.

Geoff:
> > > That really isn't logical. Whether you like a book
> > or not, if a film is based on a book, using the 
> > characters and the basic  story line, then the book 
> >has got to be the primary source. 

> > > Otherwise, why use the name of the book?
 
> > > You might just as well give the film a different name
> > and  write a completely different story - although you
> > would have to change the names of the characters because of
> > copyright, which defeats the object of the exercise.
 
Magpie: 
> > Many adaptations do do that, though. 

Geoff (now):
Excuse me? Would you care to quote me a film based supposedly 
on a book where the story line and the character names have 
been changed?

I can think of films - the various incarnations of "War of the Worlds" 
for example where the story line has been completely messed around 
and could have been given a totally different name.... But to revamp 
the whole lot is just pointless in terms of saying that it is based on 
or adapted from. Why bother? Just invent your own name.

Magpie:
I think what Steve V.
> > might be saying is just that the movies stand on their 
> > own. Surely we've all  seen plenty of movies that were  
> >based on books without ever reading  the book. You  
> >both. Though they're both for entertainment.

Steve Van: 
> I don't hold the opinion that one must read the HP Books in order to enjoy the movies. 
As Magpie put and did so well I do believe the movies stand on their own as far as 
entertainment goes for me.
 
> Steve who loves movies.

Geoff:
I quite agree with you on that. I have never said that you **must**
read the books. I can quote instances of books where I have seen 
the film/TV versions and not read the books. An example springing 
straight to mind is Charles Dickens. I have greatly enjoyed many 
adaptations - including the BBC TV "David Copperfield" back in 
1999 where I first encountered the name of Daniel Radcliffe - but I 
just find Dickens on the printed page unreadable. I think it's the style.

My main grouse continues to be where the adaptations either leave 
unanswered  questions which are resolved in the books or alter the 
story line which can cause trouble in further adaptations. One instance 
coming to mind was a TV version of  Catherine Cookson's "The Mallens" 
where the two leading characters were killed off at the end of the screen 
version. This therefore ruled out the possibility of the remaining two 
books being filmed because the author **didn't** kill them and the 
story as she continued it needed their existence.

I might also say that, in my case, my introduction to Harry Potter was 
through seeing "Chamber of Secrets" in the cinema on its intial release 
in 2002. That sparked me into getting the books and I have enjoyed 
them side by side ever since.

Geoff
[who wishes that Yahoo chevrons could be quietly harvested 
off-screen so that we didn't have to snip so much :-( ]