Harry Potter [2]

Continued from: http://www.hobbitmovieforum.com/t42p975-harry-potter

----------



A new Fantastic Beasts trailer was previewed at Comic-Con and fortunately WB has put all of their new trailers online pretty much immediately this year.



Haven't followed news for this film very closely so I'm not really sure what to think. Rowling's backstory on magic in the US was pretty terrible (like several other hyped-up Pottermore essays) and The Cursed Child sounds like garbage from the summaries so far. Don't necessarily want to judge the film based on that, though. In any event, I know that I'll still be seeing this, at least the first film. If it's disappointing I might not go back for the sequels. To be honest part of that's the setting; if it was in the UK I'd be more likely to see all of them even if the story sucked. Though probably less so than I would've been 5+ years ago.

it looks fun

liked the bit about the most dangerous creatures on Earth.

After doing my LOTR marathon I went back to the Harry Potter films; I'm up to the fifth one now. I actually enjoyed Chamber of Secrets more than Philosopher's Stone, it felt much more kinetic and lively, despite being longer (arguably longer than it needed to be). Prisoner of Azkaban is the one I remembered as my favorite going into this rewatch and it still holds that position so far. Watching it a couple days ago, though, I think that a big part of what I like is the inventive and visually interesting way in which it was filmed by Cuarón. There are certainly shortcomings with how the story was adapted, though. I had previously shrugged off the lack of a Marauders explanation as only being an issue with inter-film continuity, but at this point, I do think it's a serious impediment to the film. I found myself continuously supplementing the film with my recollections of the book (some of which only came back to me as I was watching) as I had with the first two. It's a little disappointing as it makes even the arguable high point of the series feel more like an adjunct to the books than something that can stand on its own.

Goblet of Fire is probably my favorite of the books but I've gone back and forth on the film multiple times over the years. My feeling right now is that while it has a lot of good moments and memorable performances, it is just way too condensed and choppy to sing its praises. My mom has watched some of the movies with me, including Goblet, and tonight she commented that she had felt that it didn't make any sense on its own without referring back to the books (and I don't think she read them quite as many times or with an eye towards encyclopedically understanding things as I did when I was younger). I agree, and I have always felt that the smash cuts that sometimes span months make the movie feel disjointed. My level of enjoyment for the film was fairly high just in the sense that it was nice to see visual representations and be reminded of parts of my favorite HP story, but as a film, it's wanting.

We watched Order of the Phoenix tonight and ... I can't believe I'm saying this, but I thought it was a lot better than I had remembered. It's the film I've seen the fewest times, other than DH2 probably (which was more recent of course), so it was one of the ones I was most curious to see again. I recalled having hated how condensed it was and I still don't see any good reason for having made it quite so short. But I think it compares favorably to Goblet of Fire in particular in the way in which it condensed things. There are a ton of montages and of course the narrative is so stripped down as to be somewhat compromised, but I thought it was really good at conveying the emotional beats of the story. I still found myself referring back to the book a lot and the exact reasons for everyone's emotions were often only hastily sketched out, but I found it a more rewarding experience as a movie than Goblet of Fire. OOTP, while undeniably limited by how much they cut out, felt more cohesive, flows much better, and was more than the sum of its parts, although I liked the individual parts of GOF more, if that makes sense.

There are a number of things about OOTP that still really bug me, though they're largely nitpicks. Back when the movies were coming out, I was kinda bothered by the relative lack of robe-wearing from the third movie on. When I was 11 or 12 I actually wrote an essay trying to make sense of the clothing situation in the books, which was probably my first excursion into writing about "lore", before I got serious about Tolkien stuff. But the situation in the books is contradictory and doesn't make a whole lot of sense, so it's something I've more or less gotten over. However, I still don't understand why they thought it was a good idea to put Voldemort in a fucking business suit in Harry's vision of him at Platform 9 3/4. It's the last thing an anti-Muggle extremist like Voldemort would have worn. I also still dislike the depiction of apparition as flying around while trailing smoke. The smokey effects were present in earlier films, but OOTP made it so that apparating characters were actually flying and could grab people as they zoomed by, rather than teleporting. And the smoke becomes conveniently color-coded to show if you're with the good guys or the bad guys. I guess Snape never had to apparate in front of any Death Eaters or else his double agent schtick would have been up. I get that these are stylistic choices made in the interest of visual storytelling, and I don't feel that the movie was ruined by them or anything, but I feel like they could have had engaging visuals that made more sense in the context of the story.

It might just be that the books were such a huge part of my childhood and even so many years after reading them (other than the first two in an abortive attempt at re-reading the series last year) I'm still very familiar with the stories that I have a hard time seeing the films as their own things. On the other hand, I'm even more immersed in and knowledgeable about The Lord of the Rings, but I feel that PJ's LOTR has its own creative identity and can stand on its own two feet, even though there are plenty of adaptation-induced plot holes. Something that stood out to be in my LOTR rewatches both this year and last was how thoroughly and economically the characters were fleshed out (for the most part; things admittedly break down in the second part of ROTK). They're frequently very different from their book counterparts, but I can care about the movie characters on their own merits. With the HP films so far, all the characters (with the partial exception of the Trio) feel the Cliff's Notes version of the ones I actually care about (and I do care very much about the book's cast) and I'm continuously thinking of all the little things I liked about them in the books. Fred and George are a good example: they have plenty of good moments in the movies, but nearly all of the stuff that makes me care about them beyond comic relief (and be so devastated when Fred dies) is left out. Obviously there's time constraints but to some extent I just feel that the Kloves isn't as good at economical characterization. On the other hand, there are a lot of really great performances, especially from the adult cast, which go some way towards alleviating this problem.

Ranking so far (I might change my mind on these by the time I'm done):

Prisoner of Azkaban > Order of the Phoenix > Chamber of Secrets > Goblet of Fire > Philosopher's Stone

Note that this is what I think of them as movies. Trying to rank them by personal enjoyment is actually trickier for me (normally it's the other way around) since my preferences for certain books can skew things even in a particularly lacking adaptation (e.g., Goblet of Fire).

Just a reminder the Cursed Child script book is out tomorrow, I have pre-ordered it (it was going cheap) but the format and plot are certainly giving me concerns, Rowling is only credited as a co-author so frankly I'm not sure I even want to consider it canon.

She always claimed she'd only do an 8th story if she could think of an exciting enough plot...

Spoiler:

doesn't strike me as a good enough reason to do so...Cursed Child was written as a play and should probably be experienced as such, but the vast majority of people will never have an opportunity to see it, I'm really curious how the more hardcore fans react to it.

Spoiler:

I'm probably not going to pay money for it, though I might read it if I can find a copy through a library.

Spoiler:

Well, I'm 200 pages into Cursed Child and I'm not sure what I think

Spoiler:

*Edit, finished. I think the easiest way to some up my thoughts is-what would make it work as a play aimed at fans lucky enough to see it on stage, is also going to alienate those who will only ever be able to read the script and I don't think I'll ever be able to make a reasoned judgement because of that, to be honest I've never been a huge potter fan and was largely indifferent to the final story-I din't enjoy it as much as I hoped nor hated it as much as I feared, as far as I'm concerned it's only canon when a 9th book confirms it as such...

Interesting to hear your thoughts on it, Malick. It sounds more and more like the Avatar: The Last Airbender continuation comics though.

Fake edit: was able to borrow an e-book copy so I'll give it a try myself too.

Yes I definitely see what you mean about it reading like fanfiction and I agree I've read better.

Spoiler:

I don't worry too much about canon as a general rule; I suppose that's in part because there's not really such a thing as a Tolkien canon and that's been the main focus of my fannish interests, but like with Star Wars stuff I'm able to enjoy (or not enjoy) stories regardless of their official status. And with Harry Potter, there's already been plenty of stuff from Pottermore and interviews that are clearly incompatible with the books (including previous comments about time turners*). Most people seem to describe them as canon since they're from JKR's mouth, but I'm happy to restrict myself to the original series for the most part. I'm not generally a believer in "death of the author" but in this case (as in some other fandoms) I find it more enjoyable to think of the books in those terms.

*See here: https://hpcompanion.com/2013/08/01/pottermore-and-the-problem-of-time-travel/

If Rowling is so determined to expand the world how about actual books of A History Of Magic or Hogwarts A History...?

I thought it got marginally better in the second half but it still comes across as fanfiction, and not especially good fanfiction, in far too many parts. The plot is definitely the weakest part. I'm not a huge fan of time travel stories in general but there are some I like, including Prisoner of Azkaban. This ... no.

Spoiler:

There was a lot of really weird stuff like

Spoiler:

and the characterization in the first act is a very jarring shift from the glimpse seen in the Epilogue and it just generally doesn't feel like an organic part of the HP universe. It's not without its positive qualities but it's not something I feel any compunction about excluding from my mind when I re-read the books or think about the fictional world. I'm sure seeing the actual theatrical production goes some way towards salvaging the experience (especially if the acting and effects are as good as the critics say) and I know there are people who enjoyed just reading the script book as well, though I don't think it will be remembered especially well once the honeymoon period passes (same as we saw with AUJ and many other examples). But only time will tell (pun semi-intended).

{{{Exactly what I'm doing right now }}}

The more I think about this and especially reading others comments the more it just doesn't work. I mean, thinking the story is crap is me making a subjective statement about taste, but it's just not compatible with the established HP universe of the books.

Spoiler:

EDIT: so yeah, I didn't do a very good job pretending it didn't exist, though it's even easier to mentally separate it from my "headcanon" than I expected. Despite the marketing as "the eighth Harry Potter story" they were clearly not aiming for a particularly cohesive fit with the original seven novels (or if they were ... well, I think it'd be uncharitable to assume that).

Eldorion wrote:The more I think about this and especially reading others comments the more it just doesn't work. I mean, thinking the story is crap is me making a subjective statement about taste, but it's just not compatible with the established HP universe of the books.

Spoiler:

EDIT: so yeah, I didn't do a very good job pretending it didn't exist, though it's even easier to mentally separate it from my "headcanon" than I expected. Despite the marketing as "the eighth Harry Potter story" they were clearly not aiming for a particularly cohesive fit with the original seven novels (or if they were ... well, I think it'd be uncharitable to assume that).

Agree with all of that, also:

Spoiler:

...The more I think about it the less I like it...and I thought The Hobbit films were disappointing...

After I skimmed through that leaked script you posted a while back I lost what little interest I had in it - it sounds so utterly shitty that I have to wonder if she was high when she wrote or if Petty was right and she just stole everything she wrote in the HP books. I refuse to believe the latter is true, so I guess she was high, and decided to make a complete joke of the entire HP series and universe for fun. Perhaps she started out with an outline that looked good, then she began to write the whole thing out and suddenly it was all chaos and not such a good idea after all, as it often is with writing. She should've tossed it in the bin, but perhaps she had a deadline or whatever. I'm struggling to find a reasonable explanation here

And the more I read about it (in this thread), the worse it seems to get. There were some major internal issues in the HP universe to begin with, but this takes the bloody cake. HP was flawed at times, but nonetheless highly enjoyable. I'm not going to ruin the series for myself by reading this.

Come to think about it, she should've written a prequel instead, about how the first Order of the Phoenix came to be and their resistance and battle against Voldemort. There are all these great characters to write about - Harry's parents, Sirius, Lupin, Dumbledore in his prime(-ish), Snape as a young death eater, Voldemort on the rise - there's lots of story there already, no need for all this time-turner BS she's spewing out. That would've been cool, not ridiculous. Something darker than Tolkien's TH or GRRM's stories about Ser Duncan the Tall, perhaps, but some backstory to flesh out the story we already know. That I would've bought in an instant. Stop smoking, Rowling

Ringdrotten wrote:After I skimmed through that leaked script you posted a while back I lost what little interest I had in it - it sounds so utterly shitty that I have to wonder if she was high when she wrote or if Petty was right and she just stole everything she wrote in the HP books. I refuse to believe the latter is true, so I guess she was high, and decided to make a complete joke of the entire HP series and universe for fun. Perhaps she started out with an outline that looked good, then she began to write the whole thing out and suddenly it was all chaos and not such a good idea after all, as it often is with writing. She should've tossed it in the bin, but perhaps she had a deadline or whatever. I'm struggling to find a reasonable explanation here

And the more I read about it (in this thread), the worse it seems to get. There were some major internal issues in the HP universe to begin with, but this takes the bloody cake. HP was flawed at times, but nonetheless highly enjoyable. I'm not going to ruin the series for myself by reading this.

I'm not actually sure whether it was Rowling or the writers who came up with the plot, as I understand it the writers approached rowling about doing a stage show she had no story planned but drafted a basic outline which was then rewritten by the other writers (but that may be false), it certainly dosen't feel like it was written by Rowling, and I'm not going to consider it canon...

Ringdrotten wrote:Come to think about it, she should've written a prequel instead

Or she could just leave the universe and characters alone, DH was the perfect ending i.m.o and if CC was the best story she could come up with for a continuation I'd rather the franchise just died instead...

"DH was the perfect ending i.m.o" . Malick

Indeed, it was one of those rare perfect endings - you're right, she should've left it alone altogether. Though I would have liked to read that prequel..

yep a prequel would have been cool, maybe the adventures of Sirius, but I don't intend to read this new book, it looks like tripe.

Yeah.. do I even want to get into the details of this..?

Bluebottle wrote:Yeah.. do I even want to get into the details of this..?

I recommend reading it, if only to say you did so, and perhaps better set yourself up for any more future disappointments Rowling might crank out in the future (though in fairness I don't think Rowling really wrote much beyond a brief story outline) ...you never know you might love it...the plot was so derivative I honestly struggled to have much of a strong opinion either way...that said there were certainly things I liked and whilst the story was bad it was quite enjoyable to read...

Of course neither me nor Eldo have seen the play, and the reading the script will only give a biased viewpoint against the format the story was conceived to be experienced in

Okay, thanks. After seeing a total of 15 seconds of the current GoTs season I feel my fortitude on holding out on underwhelming pop culture's at an all time high though.

Bluebottle wrote:Yeah.. do I even want to get into the details of this..?

I wouldn't recommend it except to people who already care about Harry Potter and are either completionists or want to form their own opinion since there has been a significant gulf between the overwhelmingly positive critical reviews and the majority fan response (at least among online fans).

It has some nice parts and some okay parts but on the whole I did not enjoy reading it. I thought the story depended heavily on contrivance and it lacked the richness and sense of depth that's always been one of the things I liked about Harry Potter. I'm sure actually seeing the play would go some way towards resolving this, though the relatively small cast and small number of things that happen would remain. (I say relative compared to the novels; I don't know much about plays but this appears to be a large and lavish production by theatrical standards, but I think it was inevitably gonna be thin compared to the richness a novel allows.) Scorpius was a pretty cool character but other than him, Albus, and Delphi most of the characters are established ones from the novels and I felt that much of the characterization there was inferior to what came before. I would have preferred a story that was less dependent on previous plots and characters, both because of my dislike of retcons and because it's more interesting to me than retreading old material.

Some of the dialogue (which Rowling appears to have had little to no involvement with) is pretty cringeworthy IMO but I've read other fan responses from people who liked it so

Things I liked:

Spoiler:

As much as I disliked the story I'm still very curious as to how it works on stage, maybe they'll do a DVD release...

One of the more extreme reactions I've read 'There were 7 novels and 7 horcruxes' i.e implying Rowling got greedy with an 8th part and murdered the soul of the Potter franchise

(Though there were a surprisingly large amount of characters killed off between DH and CC...)