I should clearly direct all movies, ever
Dec. 5th, 2015 04:42 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
deird1Agatha 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 whereKatara 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...
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