[HPFGU-OTChatter] Movies and books WAS: Re: What should we do next?

[Stephen Vandecasteele]

--- On Sun, 1/18/09, dumbledore11214 <dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: dumbledore11214 <dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Movies and books WAS: Re: What should we do next?
> To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, January 18, 2009, 3:53 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     
>             > Magpie:
> 
> > Many adaptations do do that, though. 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 shouldn't need to do both. Though
> they're both for 
> 
> > entertainment.
> 
> >
> 
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes of course. Movies stand up on their own as
> finished 
> 
> products and one should not need to read books to enjoy
> movies.
> 
> 
> 
> However, while I cannot speak for Geoff, this is not
> exactly what I 
> 
> was saying. I was saying (or trying to say) that while one
> does not 
> 
> need to read the books which are the basis for the movies,
> one should 
> 
> acknowledge the fact (simply because it is a fact) that
> books are 
> 
> primary basis for these movies, you know?
> 
> 
> 
> You (hypothetical you) does not need to read the books or
> enjoy them, 
> 
> but to deny that movies would not have existed without the
> books 
> 
> being in existence seems a bit strange to me. And that is
> what I read 
> 
> in Steve's post when he said that the books are merely
> based on 
> 
> movies, you know? Maybe I misread what he was saying, sorry
> if I did.
> 
> 
> 
> Steve Van now: 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> 
> 
> And nowhere in my post I said that one must read HP books
> to enjoy 
> 
> the movies, of course not. But what I am saying that the
> fact that 
> 
> without HP books HP movies had never existed in the first
> place is a 
> 
> fact.
> 
> 
> 
> As I mentioned elsewhere, I usually much prefer the book to
> the movie 
> 
> it was based on. However, I was able to come up with one
> movie or 
> 
> more precisely TV series where I preferred them to the book
> it was 
> 
> based on. I adore Horratio Hornblower TV series, however, I
> found 
> 
> Horatio Hornblower books to be extremely dry and of course
> I thought 
> 
> that bumping up Archie Kennedy's character to the
> status of Horatio's 
> 
> best friend was the best decision filmmakers made. Now,
> granted I 
> 
> tried reading the books, but I read I think half a book, or
> maybe two 
> 
> thirds of one book. And those series have many books, so I
> think it 
> 
> is fair to say that I almost did  not read them and do not
> have an 
> 
> opinion about other books, only first one.
> 
> 
> 
> But I would never say that the books are anything else but
> primary 
> 
> source for the movies and I would certainly acknowledge
> that without 
> 
> the books movies would have never existed. Therefore even
> though I 
> 
> did not like the first book and have no opinions about
> other books of 
> 
> the series, I respect the books if for nothing else but for
> the fact 
> 
> that thanks to those books I was able to enjoy the TV
> series so much. 
> 
> Does it make sense?

Steve V Now,

Sometimes the lack of words speaks volumes.