I should clearly direct all movies, ever

[deird1]

Agatha Christie used to have her novels adapted into plays by other people – and then, one day, she sighed, picked herself up, and started adapting them herself. Because everyone else was doing it wrong. They were, you see, sticking too closely to her original novel-like plot, rather than changing it to a play-type plot.

This bit of trivia is not unrelated to why I think the AtLA movie and the Harry Potter movies suck.

Okay – so there are many reasons why The Last Airbender sucks*, but this is the one that is related to the Harry Potter movies also sucking.

I should note that I haven't actually seen most of these movies that I'm rubbishing – but I have seen the first Harry Potter movie, and its inate suckiness was a large part in my choosing not to watch the others. (The werewolfy appearance of Lupin and the Boggart scene in movie 3 being the other bit that made me run screaming. Just ask me about the Boggart scene. I dare you.)

ANYWAY.

So, in Philosopher's Stone, they left out a huge amount of plot from the book, because "we just don't have time to include it". Reasonable enough.

However:
1) You had enough time to have a big CGI scene of the wall to Diagon Alley rolling back, brick by brick, as Harry gasped in wonder, rather than just "melting away" as it did in the book. (As well as similar Harry-gasps-in-wonder scenes of moving staircases, and a far-too-long broomstick riding scene.)

2) Why was that Diagon Alley bit in there at all?

Seriously – have Hagrid explain the "you're a wizard, Harry" thing, and then cut to Harry getting onto the Hogwarts train, looking nervous, and about to meet Ron. Diagon Alley is not the slightest bit important to the plotline. Really, the only reason to leave it in the film is because it's the next bit of the book, and the filmmakers didn't stop to think that "next bit in the book" does not automatically mean "next bit in the movie".

In the same way, Avatar started with exactly the same scenes as The Last Airbender. And ...why? Why should it?

If I had been making the movie, I would have opened with them already in the Earth Kingdom, on their way north. Backstory could be filled in as they went, and plot could be spent on things that actually matter, rather than wasting half the movie on the bit where the Gaang meet.


Thoughts? Comments?




* the cast, the weakass bending, the scene where Katara Aang inspires the prisoners to break free of their metal prison stop being stupid, changing the Avatar's love life, making Appa look weird and scary...

Comments

[immer_am_lesen]

...since you're admitting that you haven't seen the movies you're rubbishing, maybe you should say "I think that the parts of the Harry Potter movies *I have seen*, have sucked". Generalisations are lazy. :-p

...and because it's been a while and I've forgotten a lot of the plot...what is it about boggarts that you dislike, on or off-screen?

[deird1]

Generalisations are fun!


My issue with the boggart scene is as follows.

In the book:
- boggart is attacking members of the class
- Harry worries about the boggart turning into a Dementor when it attacks him
- boggart turns to Harry
- before it can attack Harry, Lupin jumps in front of him to redirect the boggart's attention
- Harry worries that Lupin thinks he's weak
Then later:
- Harry asks Lupin why he stopped the boggart from attacking him
- Lupin says "Well, I assumed it was going to turn into Lord Voldemort, and I didn't want to scare the class."


In the film:
- boggart is attacking members of the class
- boggart turns to Harry
- boggart turns into a Dementor
- Lupin turns around with a look of horror on his face, yells "Nooooooo!", jumps in front of Harry, and makes the boggart attack him instead
Then later:
- Harry asks Lupin why he stopped the boggart from attacking him
- Lupin says "Well, I assumed it was going to turn into Lord Voldemort, and I didn't want to scare the class."

BUT YOU JUST SAW IT TURN INTO A DEMENTOR. AND THAT'S WHEN YOU JUMPED IN TO STOP IT. THAT MAKES NO SENSE. YOU MAKE NO SENSE, LUPIN YOU MORON.


...like I say, I have issues with that movie.

[velvetwhip]

The absolute worst are the screen adaptations of Mansfield Park. All they keep are the character names. *sigh*


Gabrielle

[deird1]

*nods grimly*

[elisi]

Why was that Diagon Alley bit in there at all?
Because it's wonderful and magical. Because they know that people want to see it. Because it's Harry's first step into a parallel world that he's never known about. People want to see him 'choose' his wand, to marvel at the wizarding world and all the wonderful things it contains. People want the magic. And the film needs to establish the wizarding world as a place that doesn't just contain Hogwarts. Hogwarts is just the school, the world is so much bigger.

I'm not saying the film is brilliant, I'm saying it's a wonderful scene and the film would have been poorer if it had left it out.

My eldest daughter (who read all the books) dislikes the films on principle because they're so different and left so much stuff out.

My youngest daughter wanted all the movies for Christmas last year (after catching a couple on the telly) and we spent several days marathonning through them. She likes them very much.

I don't really feel strongly one way or another. Often the films' choices are baffling, but they are what they are.

*shrugs*

The best argument for them, is vids like this one, because they do offer excellent visuals: Snake on a Plane - Harry Potter.

(It's my favourite Harry Potter vid of all time.)

[the_rck]

I tend to think that the Diagon Alley stuff is there because the folks making the movie knew that many viewers cared more about the setting than they did about the plot. Most readers of the books that I've talked to really want to visit the Wizarding world and to see all of the things that Harry encounters. Those movie scenes are the closest most people are going to get (and a movie, with special effects, can do things that the various theme park reconstructions can't).

I think this goes along with all of the folks wishing they'd get (or had gotten) Hogwarts letters. If one looks closely at what the books really say about life at Hogwarts, I don't think it's nearly as attractive as all that, even if one isn't Harry and doesn't have people trying to kill one all the time, but Hogwarts caught people's attention very strongly. The first movie had a huge task because it needed to show the magical places and such of the first book in a way that didn't disappoint people who'd built up versions in their imagination while still paying at least some attention to the plot.

[deird1]

So it's like Lord of the Rings? I watched those movies purely for the scenery porn...

:)

[bobthemole]

I blame the suckiness of the first two HP movies on director Chris Columbus, whose shtick seems to be "wacky hijinks" and "crowds of extras applauding protagonist during maudlin climactic sequence."

For reference see Home Alone and far to many Robin Williams vehicles.

[deird1]

Yep. *nods grimly*