OOTP movie (maybe spoilers)

[Thadlerian]

Boy, this was a bad movie.

This movie more than the others made me want to ask what these filmmakers actually want. What is their goal with making the Harry Potter movies?

Is it...
A: To tell the Harry Potter story in a different medium?
B: To make money?

Or, perhaps, it might be...
C: That the filmmakers have submitted to the franchise, the hype, as an institution that exists for its own sake; that they, having entered the HP universe, are succumbing to the endemic impulse of ever aiding the limitless expansion of the "Harry Potter" theme in today's cultural reality?

So...
Let me just clarify this: I don't need anyone telling me that "making a movie is different from writing a novel; even the silliest HP purists have to accept that things have to be left out."

I don't have a problem with things being left out (that's in fact their problem; not showing the locket in Black's house is going to cost them dearly when making movies 6 and 7). I do, however have a problem with what is being kept, and, most of all, the logic Yates moves along when deciding what is to be left out and what is to be kept; it is starkly obvious that elements aren't kept to maintain a comprehensible narrative, but simply for their solitary effect, like the individual and independent numbers of a show.

Instance: The whole Cho Chang sequence. It could easily have been cut away, without altering the movie the slightest. In fact, it made the movie less consistent: Did Harry dump her because she had been forcibly fed Veritaserum? Wouldn't he, who is so full of "love" (as advertised at the movie climax) have done the oppsite; show her even more care, supported her, after such an experience? And why didn't the kiss show up in the "love"-themed video collages near the end? Clearly, the sequence was of no relevance whatsoever for the plot, and could easily have been omitted. But the one thing everyone knows about HP book 5 is that there's a kiss. So, it's gotta be kept.


OotP is a movie that more than any of the others shows that the movie industry by default applies a pre-defined frame for conveying the HP stories. When the actual story diverges from the parameters of the frame, then the story is ditched. The parameters are numerous, but the three foremost are as follows:

1: Spectacle: The movie needs to convey primal emotions; endless use of BOO! events and lots of relatively cheap and unsubtle instant laughs (of the kind that you laugh at in a theatre, when the socially powered impulse to do so is greater than when you watch it alone in your living room, unable to recall why this joke was so funny).

2: Modernism: Everything is physical, and must thus be comprehended as correlative to our percepted physical reality. In the OotP movie, the Room of Requirements can be entered by means of crude physical force (come on, is the great Hogwarts of the books that easily subdued?). It isn't a question whether the room exists in the universe of the individual who wants to enter it, it's simply a question of whether it's physically possible to pass through the wall. The idea that existence can be relative, which is such a fundamental rule in visualizing, understanding the concept of Hogwarts, seems to be utterly incomprehensible to the adult directors of the HP movies (as seen when depicting the "mobile stairways" alternating between only two close destinations in the first movie), whereas a child instantly understands what Rowling means.

3: Methodic reaction: You shall not be creative. Rather, everything supernatural must be conveyed in baroque, excessive, and, most of all, tangible CGI; majestic flyby views of Hogwarts, sparks, lightning effects, spells disrupting the transparency of the air, explosions. The industry has had CGI close at hand for at least a decade, but the idea of trying to do something new with this wonderfult tool seems an impossibility. You can use it for anything, really be crazy and experiment, but there is no room for this within the frame.

Parameters 2 and 3 often depend on each other, for instance in movies like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (mechanically folding rocket engines on the glass elevator) and Lord of the Rings (visible shockwave whenever Sauron dies/is destroyed).


So, in the end, why do they adapt these books when there's noting left of the stuff that makes the story unique? Why do they force them into this inflexible, narcissistic framework? Just for the money? Sure, that would be such a comfortable explanation; the capitalism accusation which never seems to be far away when Harry Potter is concerned. But I believe there is a different reason they made this move so bad. The movie industry's inability to change, to experiment, the idea that something that is popular must also be made simple. Again, not necessarily a symptom of ill will, it's just the default. A default that has been able to root itself in the absence of criticism.

[bookaholic]

They never seem to capture in the films that special sparkle that makes me love Harry Potter so much... but I liked the film well enough though. I watched it twice and loved it even more the second time round.

[PTeppic]

Just watched it for a second time, having read Hallows at the weekend. Very odd to watch it thinking, "You're... " (well, don't want to spoil it!)

However, the screenwriter had clearly been reading ahead. Who else noticed two separate uses of levicorpus...?

[The Upright Man]

well one was spoken and seeing as though its a nvb. spell it made no sense...it'd be wingardium leviosa

[Majimaune]

I didn't notice but then again I'm not thinking well right now. Too tired from skiing.

[HBP]

Well i thought the movie was good enough to watch. Not the best adaptation of the books. I think the director was mainly concentrating on how to please the audience rather than being faithful to the book. It lacked details that i thought was relevant to the plot (the locket) and expounded on insignificant trivial matters (like harry and cho's relationship). All in all it is of my opinion that it didn't do as bad as Chris Columbus word for word portrayal and Alfonso Cuaron's catastrophe. It fell at GOF feet though.

Well I don't think JK would be on the set every once in a while and let them ruin the book that she has worked so hard on.

[Siberian]

I preferred the first three movies, with PoA being my favorite (although it deviates more from the book than the first two). With the last two you can see that they simply don't have enough time to fit all important details and show character and plot development in 2+ hours.

[Commonmind]

Verbose and superfluous Thad - a Chronicles post, if I've ever seen one.

[Dave]

Having finished reading 'Deathly Hallows' I also wonder how they will deal with missing out R.A.B.'s Locket in this film. I think they did a reasonable job with 'Order of the Phoenix', though I still don't know why they couldn't have cut the 'Goblet of Fire' film into two parts. It was that film that began leaving great chunks out.

I have to agree with many of Thads points on the movie makers concepts of Hogwarts physical makeup though. I know of someone who refuses to watch the films at all, because they will spoil her enjoyment of the books.

To be fair to Daniel Radcliffe and his rather stiffer acting, Harry is meant to reign in his emotions this year, as he feels alone, unbelieved, and thinks that doing so will protect the others. This sets the stage for him to open up and accept their help again in the later books. But of the three main child actors, Rupert Grint is by far the better actor, demonstrated by the fact that he has also appeared in other films. Somehow though, Daniel and Emma get all the publicity.

I've stayed away from this forum until I completed the last book, but those concerned about Upright Man's language can rest assured that he has been banned from the forum.

[nettle]

I think that the film was quite good but not the best of all the five movies.

They changed a few things in a film e.g. that Chao told umbridge about DA when she drunk vertaserum they also changed oter bits
that really annoied me

[PTeppic]

It was a faster way for Harry and she to come apart, without lots of dialogue. But still felt quite clunky.
And being able to break into the Room of Requirement is, of course, utterly wrong (see also book 7).

[Majimaune]

Originally Posted by Dave

But of the three main child actors, Rupert Grint is by far the better actor, demonstrated by the fact that he has also appeared in other films. Somehow though, Daniel and Emma get all the publicity.

Out of the three main, yes he is, out of the entire movies I would say the guy who plays Draco Malfoy and Luna are the best child actors in the thing. Malfoy was going to play Artemis Fowl but got too old since as far as I know they haven't started filming it yet.

[PTeppic]

I've always thought most of the child actors were pretty planky - including Draco and Luna. In the latter's case, from the interviews I've seen, she simply plays herself and naturally appears and sounds the way she does on screen.

[pyan]

Sorry, Pteppic - "planky"??....

[Culhwch]

Wooden, I'm guessing.

Draco's always been pretty abominable, but I thought Luna did all right...