Re: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Split Revealed



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Welsh Dog wrote:

Benjamin Esham wrote:

[discussing WB's motives for splitting DH into two movies]

On the other hand, their money-grabbing act /did/ help them to make the
movie(s) more like the book. Even if their primary motive was
financial, it should at least be acknowledged that their greediness has
/increased/ the artistic integrity of the books, not decreased it--there
are plenty of ways they could have saved or made more money by cutting
the story to shreds.

Please tell me this is sarcasm??

Either that or we've been watching an entirely different set of movies!

Hi Welsh Dog,

Well, actually I was talking about the DH movies, not the previous ones. As
I mentioned, splitting the book into two movies gives me hope for a
storyline that more closely resembles the book--though as you said, the
plots already differ so much that you have to wonder, what's the point?

(Of course, making DH into two movies is necessary but not sufficient
for "preserving the artistic integrity", so I'm not assuming that the
movies will be faultless just because there are two of them. And I'm
sure you could argue that /previous/ HP films have suffered for
financial reasons--Moody's eye, anyone?)

Actually I didn't mind the representations of things that really weren't
essential to the ploy. Making Moody's eye the way they did saved a lot of
expense with CGI etc. What infuriated me and still does was the cavalier
way they dealt with crucial parts of the storyline and the abandoning of
links that draw the story together as a cohesive whole.

I just thought that Moody's eye was distracting in the extent to which it
seemed cheap. It wasn't a subtle change, it clearly contradicted the
description in the books, and when you thought "I wonder why they changed
that?", "money" was the immediate response. With the budget of these films,
is it really unreasonable to do this little bit of CGI to avoid jarring the
audience with such an unapologetic workaround?

As far as the Lord of the Rings films were from the original books, you
can at least watch all 12 hours of films sequentially and follow a unified
storyline that equates to Tolkien's vision (except of course for the final
chapters). With the Potter films there *is* no 'cohesion'. Each stands
alone and each suffers because of it!

Agreed.

The debacle of the Goblet of Fire *still* rankles all these years on.
What happened to the real *fun* of the opening chapters? The chaos at the
Dursley's? The 'anticipation' of the Quidditch World Cup?

Indeed, the complete lack of Quidditch at the QWC in the movie felt like the
production team was purposefully pulling the rug out from under us. I think
there just isn't any way to do GoF well as one movie: observe how rushed the
film is now, even with so much left out; if the pacing were adjusted to
remove the "bunnies on speed" feeling, even more would have to be omitted.

Drives me to drink... !! :)

If I'm ever in the UK I'd love to be able to go to an AFHP meetup in some
pub and commiserate about the films in person ;-)

- --
Benjamin D. Esham | bdesham@xxxxxxxxx
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (Darwin)

iEYEARECAAYFAkxoKQ0ACgkQzOC3TdZ2u5q0KgCfejcp6Ij0XkCx8khjsVxB66yC
W3YAnjlfMEP0jVwJG8U2K1WvY3gOPB4b
=mkUn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.