In which i nitpick about the Harry Potter movie.

[hermionesviolin]

So i finally saw the Harry Potter movie last night, with my family. Not an experience i’m eager to repeat.

The casting was generally good. Draco, Snape, Filch, McGonagall, and Hagrid were all well cast. (I’m glad i wasn’t familiar with any of the actors except Maggie Smith because that was distracting enough.) Draco is oh-so-fuckable. Oliver Wood is cute. No wonder i remember seeing “Sean Biggerstaff” (the actor who plays him) a lot when i was reading about the movie. (Though i happened to open the book to a page which contains the sentence “But Wood turned out to be a person, a burly fifth-year boy who came out of Flitwick’s class looking confused.” Cute as Sean Biggerstaff is, “burly” he is not.)

I’ve complained about the casting of Hermione from the beginning. She’s supposed to have big frizzy hair. The way her hair was essentially achieved the same effect, but i was disappointed. In the book she has buck-teeth, but i can forgive that omission. They certainly achieved the effect of having her look unattractive. This annoyed me because i don’t visualize her as unattractive, but that’s just me. Mostly i didn’t like that she looked bitchy. Her character came across as know-it-all and bossy but still vulnerable, but i really didn’t like how she looked.

Dumbledore just didn’t do it for me. In the book he’s this amazing mixture of being slightly mad, somehow knowing everything, being in a position of great authority and power but still bending the rules somehow. In the movie he’s just there.

I found this to be the main failing of the movie, the insufficient character development.

I definitely understand why i heard so many people complain that the bit with Neville getting the final ten points for Gryffindor to win the House Cup at the end means little because we haven’t seen him have trouble standing up to people, have only seen him botch some spells at the beginning. If you’re paying attention you know he’s a bit of a bumbler, but that’s all. That was my favorite scene in the book, but in the movie it really doesn’t mean much.

I know the movie was two and a half hours already, but it should have been about an hour longer. If you’re not willing to make it three and half hours to make it great, don’t make it.

I definitely understand why Ally hated the movie. I was very glad it had been a few years since i had read the books. A lot of stuff at the beginning i was complaining that it wasn’t true to the book.

• Draco and Harry meet at one of the shops in Diagon Alley. They dislike each other from the first, even before they know who each other is. Okay, this is a nitpicky omission.
  
• They cut the Sorting Hat song. Boo.
  
• The Sorting Hat is supposed to go in alphabetical order. Why was that changed?
  
• I found it problematic that the Sorting Hat says everything aloud. In Harry’s case there was debate. Why did that have to be broadcast to all the first-years? Yes the computer graphics on the hat were cool, and i did even like them, but they could still be utilized when the Hat announces each person’s house. The exchange between Hat and Harry is verbatim from the book, except that in the book it’s “said a small voice in his ear.”
  
• In the book, Dumbledore addresses the Great Hall to say a few words he says, “Welcome! Welcome to a new year at Hogwarts! Before we begin our banquet, I would like to say a few words. And here they are: Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak!” I was annoyed that this was changed because i really liked it in the book, but also because it adds a playful aspect to Dumbledore’s character, something which was largely missing from his characterization in the movie.
  
• They don’t have the bit where Harry asks Dumbledore what he sees in the Mirror of Erised and Dumbledore say, “I see myself hold in a pair of thick, woolen socks.” I loved that part!
  
• I understand why they changed the plot regarding Norbert. It would have taken an additional half an hour to have the plot with the kids sneaking Norbert to Charlie.
  
• Doesn’t Neville get a Screamer at some point, or is that in another book?
  

And a last few bits.

• I thought Harry’s scar was supposed to be in the middle of his forehead. That’s how I’ve seen it in pictures in the books. Is this specified anywhere in the text itself?
  
• It was interesting to hear some of the names like Hagrid and Slytherin, which were pronounced differently than i say them. Sometimes the British accent actually meant i didn’t know what was being said except that i knew it from the books.
  
• Still annoyed of course at the Americanization of “sorcerer’s” for “philosopher’s” stone.
  
• Yes, it’s a shame that the Peeves scenes didn’t look right and were therefore cut, but i really didn’t miss them.
  
• Some of the Christmas scenes reminded me of the end of Home Alone 2: Lost in New York. Later i learned Chris Columbus directed both this movie and Home Alone 2. I wonder if that had anything to do with it.
  
• I was annoyed that i already knew how a lot of the scenes looked from seeing ads or whatever (even though i really tried to avoid seeing any). No wonder Allison hid from all LoTR ads.
  
• Filch’s cat (Mrs. Norris) is never named, and we only hear Hedwig’s name in passing at the very end.
  

I want to reread the book now -- if for no other reason than to cement in my head the “right” way it is. I’m sure i’ll notice a hundred other little things that were changed.

Does the DVD have more cut scenes? I would be interested in seeing the supposed “hours and hours” of footage that got cut. The video only has 2 cut scenes. The couple minutes that were cut from the Potions scene were okay to be cut, but the cut scene with Neville would have helped lead up to his act of bravery at the end.

I have no real desire to see the future movies now.

Recently i’ve been finding that once i read a book i have no desire to see the movie. Like, i read The Virgin Suicides and it was good (though i wasn’t blown away) but having read it i had no desire to see the movie. I found out The Cider House Rules is a movie, but having read the book i have no desire to see the movie. Only if i have no desire to read the book would i be willing to watch the movie. Snow Falling on Cedars, for example. I looked at the book and was had no desire to read it. If someone really wanted to watch it with me i would be willing to give up a couple hours of my time, though.

Comments

[sexonastick.livejournal.com]

Like I always say, I'm just absolutely horrible at getting around to actually reading the things I plan to. So, yeah, I haven't read the books yet, but plan to at some point this summer. (Now, whether I actually get around to it or not is another thing entirely.) So, perhaps I'm not the best person to comment at all, but here goes.

A lot of people, especially those marketing it, considered it to be, first and foremost, a kid's movie. Kids just do not sit through three hour movies. It just really, really hardly ever happens and to make the kind of profit they wanted, they cut lots of stuff out and kept it shorter.

In the DVD case, on the inside somewhere, it has the same image as that on the cover again, except it does actually say "philosopher's stone".

The thing about the scar was answered in an issue of Entertainment Weekly. If I remember correctly, JKR had originally invisioned the scar on the right side of his forehead and the illustrator had drawn it incorrectly. She hadn't objected, but when time came to make the movie, it was decided that they'd go with her original plan rather than the illustrations from the books.

As for Hermione, I adored the way she looked, but that's just a personal preference, I suppose. Didn't consider her unattractive at all.

[hermionesviolin.livejournal.com]

Yeah, i know kids aren't gonna sit through 4 hour movies -- though the fact that kids read the 700 page HP Book 4 in droves has gotta count for something. The movie just felt so incomplete, like there was serious character development lacking and all. And i never wanted them to make a movie anyway.

The DVD actually has something that says "Philosopher's Stone"? That's so cool.

Thanks for the clarification regarding the scar. Given how involved JKR was with the movie i figured it was the way she envisioned it in the movie, i was just a little confused.

Well i'm glad someone liked how Hermione looked. Some of my comments were definitely personal preference. And i know a lot of them were nitpicky and obviously the movie couldn't be exactly true to the book. I tend to go all out though.

You definitely should read the books. They're so much richer than the movie. But i definitely know what it's like to intend read things and never get around to it. I have tons of books i should read or want to read or whatever but instead i've been reading lots of random things i happen upon at the library.

Of course you're not the *best* person to comment since you haven't read the books, but your comments are -- as always -- appreciated.

[sk8eeyore.livejournal.com]

I was really interested in your reactions to the movie. As I said a few days ago, I loved it; but then again, I don't think I possess your attention to detail ;), and I guess I didn't have terribly high expectations for the film adaptation to begin with, so I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed it. I agree with a lot of what you said, though; Dumbledore's character could have been MUCH better developed, and some of the little things, such as Hedwig's name never being mentioned and the omission of the Sorting Hat song, bothered me, too. Other cool scenes that weren't included were the harrowing cart journey through Gringotts, the escape of Norbert the Norwegian Ridgeback, and the brainteaser with the cups of potions prior to meeting Voldemort....among numerous others, I'm sure. On the whole, though, I did enjoy it -- and I thought Hermione was adorable, actually more likeable in the film than in the book, but that's just me. :)

Re:

[hermionesviolin.livejournal.com]

I hadn't thought i had such high expectations, but apparently i did. I had heard some people hated it, but i had heard other people loved it. I thought i was going into it sort of expectation-less, but my subconscious probably remembered that i had heard J. K. Rowling had a lot of control over the movie and was very pleased with how it had turned out (the latter is the only reason why i allowed myself to see the movie -- as i think i mentioned somewhere i never wanted a movie to be made of the book(s) to begin with) and i think the nitpicky purist whatever portion of my brain kicked in without my permission.

Glad to hear i'm in the minority regarding Hermione.

[offbalance.livejournal.com]

I loved Hermione in the book AND in the film - I thought she was adorable. And you had to know going in that things were going to have to be omitted, just because there's only so much time to do things. When I saw it in the theater I sat for awhile and counted the things omitted, but if you just focus on what they don't do, you miss all the great stuff that they did do. I mean it's only a movie, after all. It got the feeling and spirit of the book, which is the most important thing of all.

Virgin Suicides the movie is a little different from the book, but both are pretty good.

Re:

[hermionesviolin.livejournal.com]

I definitely seem to be in the minority regarding Hermione in the movie, which is good because i love her in the books and am glad that most other people seem to think she translated to the big screen well.

Yeah, i really should have just appreciated it for what it was -- and they did a good job; as a stand-alone it was a good movie. My brain just got stuck in nitpicking the differences and the ways it didn't measure up. Sigh.

Re:

[offbalance.livejournal.com]

oh, I understand completely. you should see me mouth off about some of the screen versions of Jane Eyre that have been done (I can't decide if the one A&E did is worse than the one with William Hurt or vice versa. they're both AWFUL!) The only good version, in my opinion, is a four-hour miniseries starring Timothy Dalton done by the BBC in the late 1970s. The Orson Welles one is campy and fun, but not amazing.

this digression was brought to you by packing at 1 am.