[HPFGU-OTChatter] Books to movies to books was Re: What should we do next?

[Stephen Vandecasteele]

--- On Mon, 1/19/09, Sheryll Townsend <s_ings at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Sheryll Townsend <s_ings at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Books to movies to books was Re: What should we do next?
> To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, January 19, 2009, 6:42 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     
>             >> Potioncat:
> 
> > > But making a movie for an audience who is already
> fans
> 
> > of
> 
> > > the book is harder.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Ali
> 
> > I think that's exactly the problem right there.
> For
> 
> > someone like
> 
> > Steve Van, who doesn't care to read the books, he
> can
> 
> > take the movies
> 
> > unto themselves, judging them against their own
> internal
> 
> > logic/story.
> 
> > Contrast that to most of us who see the movies and
> books
> 
> > existing in
> 
> > contrast to each other, we can't judge each medium
> by
> 
> > itself so we
> 
> > always find things wanting here or there. It's
> 
> > especially a big
> 
> > problem for HP because the books are now done but the
> 
> > movies aren't.
> 
> > We can nitpick about what was left out in one movie
> (versus
> 
> > it's
> 
> > corresponding book) but what if it comes back in
> another
> 
> > movie where
> 
> > it's more convenient for that medium to have it
> there?
> 
> > 
> 
> Sheryll:
> 
> 
> 
> Very true that those who've read books on which movies
> are based are a much harder audience to please. I like
> Ali's point, though, that things we may have missed so
> far in the movies could well make their way into those yet
> to be seen. Considering the time allotted by making DH as 2
> films, it's entirely possible that some of us will be
> happier with the end results than we may anticipate. I'd
> count myself among those hoping that the added time for the
> last movie will allow for the addition of bits missed so
> far.
> 
> 
> 
> > Alla:
> 
> > 
> 
> > But the thing is, I don't do that. I mean, yes I 
> often
> 
> > do find 
> 
> > myself wishing that filmmakers would include
> storylines
> 
> > they would 
> 
> > cut out, sure, as fan of books it is indeed
> inevitable.
> 
> > However, once 
> 
> > I get over that fact, I do try to give movie it is
> fair
> 
> > chance and if 
> 
> > movie stands out on its own, I would still say it is a
> good
> 
> > movie. 
> 
> > The only thing I would insist on that this movie has
> 
> > nothing to do 
> 
> > with the book, you know?
> 
> > 
> 
> > I would never say the movie is bad simply because it
> does
> 
> > not reflect 
> 
> > the book in detail, except one thing – I think if
> movie
> 
> > does not 
> 
> > reflect the book, while it claims it does, it is a lie
> on
> 
> > filmmakers' 
> 
> > behalf, unfair capitalizing on the name of the book
> (any
> 
> > book) that I 
> 
> > know and love.
> 
> > 
> 
> > I would call the movie bad, if I consider the acting
> bad,
> 
> > if I 
> 
> > consider the visuals bad, the storyline not watchable,
> etc,
> 
> > etc. 
> 
> > Again, Bourne movies, I certainly would not call them
> bad,
> 
> > just 
> 
> > having very little to do with the books.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Although having said that, yes, sure there were couple
> of
> 
> > times when 
> 
> > to me the story in the book was so much richer that
> maybe
> 
> > that 
> 
> > influenced me. But again, that was mainly disgust that
> the
> 
> > book was 
> 
> > butchered so badly and they still wanted fans of the
> books
> 
> > to come 
> 
> > and see - The Seeker comes to mind again. 
> 
> 
> 
> Sheryll:
> 
> 
> 
> Same here, I'm perfectly okay with declaring a movie
> good on its own merits. I think I'll almost always
> prefer the rich detail of books but have no problem enjoying
> a film for what it is if its well done.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Ali:
> 
> > <SNIP>
> 
> > As such, I've come
> 
> > up with a rule for myself: if I know of a movie coming
> out
> 
> > for a book
> 
> > I want to read, I shall hold off on reading the book.
> I did
> 
> > this for
> 
> > Twilight (and enjoyed the movie more for it) and will
> do it
> 
> > for Neil
> 
> > Gaiman's Coraline - don't know why but I can
> ignore
> 
> > the movie for the
> 
> > book but not the reverse.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Alla:
> 
> > 
> 
> > Oh yeah, for me I try not to reread the book if movie
> is
> 
> > coming.
> 
> > 
> 
> Sheryll:
> 
> 
> 
> Count me in on this one as well. I really hate to see a
> movie soon after I've read the book. It makes it far too
> obvious what the differences are and allows me no end of
> nitpicking over what's been left out or what changes
> have been made. I'd rather read or re-read the book
> *after* seeing the movies so as to be able to get as much
> enjoyment from the film as possible without making
> comparisons. Much easier to appreciate the film for what it
> is that way.
> 
> 
> 
> Sheryll

SV Now,

There is a major mistake being made by the producers insofar as breaking the final movie into two parts. Look how succeccessful Return of the King was for Lord of the Rings.