?

Log in

No account? Create an account
%$@^#@$!^$%#&%$&^#$%@^$@%$!!!!!!! - A place to discuss the Harry Potter movies [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Harry Potter Movies Ranting

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

%$@^#@$!^$%#&%$&^#$%@^$@%$!!!!!!! [Aug. 23rd, 2005|09:25 pm]
Harry Potter Movies Ranting

poaranting

[buttercup31]
[Tags|, , , ]
[Current Mood |crankyfurious]
[Current Music |Dave Matthews on VH1]


I haven't read that all HP movie and book issue of Entertainment Weekly that came out a few weeks ago, it's sitting in my room in Virginia but after this blurb I may skip it all together.

We begin with a SPOILER ALERT, because even though it seems everyone in the world has bought a Harry Potter book, it would be rude to assume that everyone has read all of them and therefore may not want to know that in Warner Bros.' adaptation of J.K. Rowling's fourth novel, the teenage mage grows an unfashionably large handlebar mustache. Okay, that doesn't happen. But what can we say about Goblet of Fire? ''Well...I do a lot more running around than I did in the last one,'' says Michael Gambon, back again as dear old Professor Dumbledore.

Actually, everyone is running around a lot more than they did in Prisoner of Azkaban. Practically double the size of any Potter tome before it, and certainly more action packed, Fire chronicles Harry's participation in a wizarding tournament — while he's simultaneously unraveling a sinister conspiracy, discovering girls, and dodging creepy glances from a spooky new teacher named ''Mad-Eye'' Moody (Brendan Gleeson). It's so epic, the studio considered splitting the story between two films. But Azkaban director Alfonso Cuarón, who took a more freewheeling adaptation approach, persuaded them to reconsider, even at the expense of cutting content. ''He taught us you could really depart from the book in many ways,'' says producer David Heyman. ''Alfonso always felt the ideas in Fire could only support one movie. The studio agreed.''

Thus, Hermione's attempts to liberate Hogwarts' indentured house elves — poof! Gone. Fortunately, most of the book's memorable sequences have survived, including the World Cup of Quidditch match that opens the film and the grotesque rebirth of the nefarious Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) that closes it. It all sounds very Steven Spielberg, though Fire director Mike Newell tackled the material by asking What Would Hitchcock Do? ''It's a bit like North by Northwest,'' says Newell. ''Cary Grant is the happy advertising guy...but that evil James Mason has plans for him.'' (FYI, in this equation, Grant is the one with the handlebar mustache.)


So that motherfucker RUINED PoA and has the fucking nerve to stop the studio from taking a step back in the right direction?!?! You know why he did that? Because if people saw a movie done right again, they would realize what a fucking joke that talentless, hack is and what a fucking horrible wreck job he did in the massacre that was PoA.

But Azkaban director Alfonso Cuarón, who took a more freewheeling adaptation approach, persuaded them to reconsider, even at the expense of cutting content. ''He taught us you could really depart from the book in many ways.''

Are you kidding me? He basically just said that the Harry Potter story doesn't matter in the Harry Potter movies. Uh..I..just...there are no words! Yes, there are; asinine. I wish he would crawl back under the rock from which he slithered. No, they were never going to be able to get everything from the book into the movies. Yes, I wholeheartedly support you cutting S.P.E.W from the film. But it would not have killed Fonzie to portray the book accurately. I understand that Emma is a poor actress at best, but how hard would directing her, 'you're taking a lot of classes and are quite stressed out' been? Or to spend 10 to 20 more minutes so that you fully explain the animagus and do the Shrieking Shack scene right (and I, as well as lotuslion, have proven that they could have done the SS scene verbatim from the book and it wouldn't have taken much more time, if any, than the scene in the film did). And what is the problem with two films? It would have at least seemed, to the people loyal enough to feel truly dicked over by PoA, that they were trying to make up for that travesty. That they were ready to be loyal to the story that is making them assloads of money. Come on now. The movies must be stopped.

That's okay. I'm saving $9.25 of my hard earned cash. On the very next page of the Fall Preview was the blurb on 'Rent, directed by Christopher Columbus no less!! I'm more than willing to throw my money at that film and CC. He knows how to make films, saccharine as they may be.


Crossposted from my journal.
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: diabolicalwoman
2005-10-08 12:08 pm (UTC)
The movies are screwed up and that's not surprising anymore. I think they should have had at least a TINSY bit of Hermione's S.P.E.W. in there. However, I know that Emma probably would have hated looking "uncool" and the people making the films want Hermione to be a girl-powah, I can kick your ass, but I can't read books any longer, cool Hermione. Which in my opinion, Hermione isn't a bad horrible character, but how they portray her as perfect and all that jazz in the movies is stupid. I wish Chris would come back, but I think they have pretty much decided he is NEVER to return.
(Reply) (Thread)