I've felt it since the 3rd movie but think that it's a safe statement since the 4th (Goblet of Fire) the films have surpassed the books. I'll wait for the screaming to die down before I continue.
Thank you. I know that a lot of people out there have some sort of emotional involvement with the books. I like them. Really, I do. But I have a critical eye and liking something doesn't stop me from seeing the flaws in it. JK Rowling has created a full world with a great number of characters, details and a rich history. She's really good at world building. What she's not great at is actually writing. Her style is immature to say the least. She tends to reuse favourite words to the point of pain. She has trouble separating how she feels about her characters from what the characters would do. She's admitted as much when she said she saved Mr. Weasley because she couldn't write his death. I mean, look at the first book and the last book. The first book is written about (and to an extent for) an 11 year old. The last is about (and for) a 17 year old. And the amount of time between books has been greater than the realtime timeline. So she's had 10 years (1997-2007) to develop her writing. And I'll be honest, it hasn't grown nearly as much as it needed to. The last two books had really interesting stories but the actually writing? It was shit.
Now, the movies do cut out a lot of information. They have to. Hell, even the directors cut of Lord of the Rings cuts out information and they still run over 4 hours each, or so, and they still work. But JK Rowling isn't as good an author as Tolkien. It's true. Her quality isn't that high. Should every tiny word and detail she puts into the books be left in the movie? No, not at all.
First of all, you're going to lose some point between the films since they rotate directors like a lazy susan. Sometimes they even leave out things that should be left in. For instance, in Azkaban, Lupin never informs Harry of who wrote the map (being his father and his father's pals). That's a big point that would have cemented some of the plot together. Skipped. But a lot of what's left out is to streamline the storytelling and, as I've said, Rowling is good at coming up with stories by not so much telling them. The books tend to be many many pages longer than necessary because she just loves to drool and ooh and ah over her own creations.
The main movie where cutting information was a problem was the second one. They casual skip over the fact that every child who was attacked was a mud-blood, which is the essence of the plan. But the first two movies are the lowest of all of them. Sure, people tend to give credit to Columbus either because it's the closest 2 to the books or because they were first so he had the least to work with. But if you honestly go back and watch the movies they are pretty terrible. The acting and directing is on par with a high budget TV movie. The first is a little embarrassing now and the second is downright dreary, a complete rip off of the first one with little else to add.
It's after the first 2 books that the plots start to tie together. Anything later on about the diary being a horcrux and all that tends to be forced and fall apart with the least bit of analysis. I would venture that Rowling herself didn't have the whole story worked out and then desperately tried to backpedal and ret-con the second book into her continuity. But it's also after the first 2 movies that the film universe begins to solidify into something wondrous. Oh, I know that they diverge from the books, but the books aren't religious tomes. They're recent, moderately competently written children's books. The movies (3 onward) are made for a wider audience and it shows. They focus on the dark aspect that Rowling tries to talk about but at the same time lighten with her wordy prose. No, the movies create their own continuity based on the books. Personally, at this point, I prefer the film universe.
All that said, a good move based on a book is not a direct transcription from one medium to another. It should be an adaptation and that's what Alfonso Cuarón does in Azkaban, with his naturalistic interpretation of the world. Newell takes the same darkness and runs with it, but focuses more on the private school aspect in Goblet of Fire. See what's happening? The movies from the 3rd on build on each other. They aren't just a parade of directors taking the book their assigned and making a moving picture version. They're adapting between the books, the story itself, and the preceding films. And they create a cogent whole that starts to grow its own history, character and feel. Yates inherits all of this and continues instead of dropping it and going only back to the book. He focuses on the larger conflicts emerging and steps up the fighting. That incorporates the tone and essence of the story from book number 6 while not throwing away film continuity. That is the definition of good franchise film making.
So, the last book is going to be 2 films? On one hand I'm happy that the Potter Experience gets to be stretched out a little bit longer. I was a bit sad to see the characters go. But as for the book itself, it is so poorly constructed that I was happy when I thought it would be cut down to one film. I mean, she felt that she had to drag out the angst to no end but couldn't be bothered to write out some of the biggest deaths in the story, just casually mentioning “Oh, and so-and-so died a while back”? Oh lord, and the middle is just this:
- Harry, Hermione and Ron in the woods, hiding
- They continue to hide
- They almost get found but manage to hide, still not doing much of anything
- Ron gets pissed (rightfully so) because they aren't actually doing anything
- He leaves
- Harry and Hermione hang out and toast some marshmallows.
- Ron comes back and gets a kiss
No comments:
Post a Comment