I don't understand the appeal of Harry Potter (1 Viewer)

[Dick]

I have a different take on this, I guess. My favorite two films of the series (thus far) are the first two. Each has a genuine sense of awe and discovery, and what is best is that I actually felt as though I had spent a full year with these characters in school in both of them, as I expect one does when reading the books. The next several films do not have that sense of time passing - they hone in on specific characters and events and feel truncated to me, despite their length. I love the atmosphere created in the first two films, but find that lacking in the subsequent ones. Each film has its own merits, but I think Chris Columbus has been getting ragged on quite a lot in these threads and I personally think he has provided us with two tremendously entertaining movies that I will treasure for many years to come.

 

[Malcolm R]

Probably because the first two books are the shortest and each subsequent book thru Order of the Phoenix has increased hugely in size and scope. Unless you're going to make a 6-hour film, you have to truncate large amounts of material.

From the US Editions:

Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone = 309 pages
Chamber of Secrets = 341 pages
Prisoner of Azkaban = 435 pages
Goblet of Fire = 734 pages
Order of the Phoenix = 870 pages
Half-Blood Prince = 652 pages

So, given that each of the first four films is relatively uniform in length, it only stands to reason that the first two films would be the most comprehensive, while the subsequently filmed books would lose more and more of their scope, becoming essentially "Cliff's Notes" versions of their originally published form.

 

[Josh.C]

You will be hard pressed to find many movie's created from books, that can live up the written versions.

I'm a movie finatic, and I rarely read books, but I will be the first to admit that books carry so much more detail, and force us to use our imaginations. This is the reason that it is so hard to do a movie (like HP) justice after we have formed so many opinions of the characters before ever seeing the film. The movie is someone elses take on the film, and there's no way that their views will be 100% in line with your own, and there is no way to fit all the small details into a 2 1/2 - 3 hour installment.

As I said I am not much of a reader, but my wife and rented one of these books (actually started out of order w/ the Chamber of Secrets first) on a long trip home. We were instantly hooked, and pulled in by the magic of Rowlings creation. Her extremely vivid imagination and ability to link events together and tell a story without giving away the ending are second to none imo.

I would be lying if I said I enjoyed the movies as much as the books, but I still enjoy them, and think they are well done. Yes, I get upset that some of my favorite parts are missing, but I have to be a realist. There's no way 700+ pages of material can be translated into 3 hours. I think the writers and directors have done an excellent job, and I commend their efforts for such a daunting task. My only big gripe with the series is what they have done w/ Dumbledore's character after Richard Harris passed away and Gambon took over.

Sorry you don't "understand the appeal" of Harry Potter. Millions upon millions do.

I don't know if many of you commenting negatively about the series have actually read the books. I'm not here to sway opinions, and don't really care if you like HP or not. I will say that if you are willing to give the books a try (great if you travel at all), the audio series is excellent. Jim Dale creates a specific voice and tone for every character. It is by far the best audio tape series I have ever listened do (not just in story, but production quality as well).

JC

 

[Nathan V]

As has been mentioned in this thread, the appeal of HP is clear- it's ordinary young life, transposed to a more exciting reality. It's a heightened version of all the stuff kids go through- teachers, crushes, competition- the school experience. I think this is why kids can get into the books so much- here is an adult who is able to actualize their day-to-day living experiences in a very exciting way.

As for the films, chalk me up as another who thinks the two Columbus efforts are utterly unwatchable in their mediocrity. Cauron's version is fascinting and exciting- a new, more cinematically accomplished take on the world. GOF is good populist entertainment. The moment after the yule ball, when everyone's frustrated and angry with each other, is by far my favorite moment of the filmed series. There's a brief shot of Hermione, while the pop music is dying down, that is sublime in its emotion. It's the "21 Grams moment" of the series.

Regards,
Nathan

 

[JeremyErwin]

I'm not sure if this is telling, but the entire GOF dance sequence made me feel, well, uncomfortable-- as uncomfortable as Harry and Ron were... Maybe it's just me, (and for that you may as well pity me) or maybe it was a inspired directorial choice...

 

[Vickie_M]

Right, Harry Potter doesn't start getting really good until the 3rd movie/book. People who gave up because of the first two movies/books should give the 3rd one a try. The kids are growing up, the stakes start getting higher, the danger starts becoming more real, there's more depth.

I saw the movies before reading the books. For me, the first two books and movies were barely tolerable because they are so simplistic and kiddie-ish. I wouldn't have had any interest in seeing the 3rd film except for the director. I was startled when I heard that it was being directed by Alfonso Cuarón, and saw it just for the curiousity factor. I was pleased to find that he made an actual MOVIE, a good movie!

I didn't get around to reading the books until after I'd seen the 4th movie though. I quite liked the movie and wanted more details. I almost started with the 3rd book but I thought it best to start at the beginning.

I did read the first two books, but they bored me and I did a lot of skimming. I would/could have given up, except that I really wanted to get to the 4th book, so I continued on. The 3rd book finally hooked me. By the time I got to the end of Prisioner of Azkaban, I was a drooling fan. After that it was a runaway train...I inhaled the pages of 4, 5 and 6, couldn't get enough. I read all 6 books in a week and a half and like everyone else, was aching for the 7th.

Then I read the books again, slowly this time. I almost skipped the first two, but I decided to try them again, to see what my perception would be as an actual fan of the later books. I found that even though the first two books were still tedious precisely because they're so simplistic, they both have many many details that become crucial later on, so I'm glad I read then re-read them.

Then I had a movie marathon starting with the first one, and while I too dislike Columbus's direction, the first two have a lot of nice details and I felt fonder toward them knowing how the characters would turn out and what they would be like in a few years, and what they would do later. It was a depth born of hindsight and not anything that was present at the time.

 

[Josh.C]

The first two movies were more "kiddie-ish", because that's the way the first two novels are. It has nothing to do with film direction imo. The director was merely making a visual adaptation of the books.

The brilliance of the series is that the darkness of the series grows along with it's main characters.

Voldemort was almost a silly villian in the first couple of books, but as the Ron, Hermoine, and Harry get closer to their 7th year, the danger becomes more real, and Voldemort is down right scarry and evil.

I too like the third through 6th installments the best, and like the series more, as it gets darker and more interesting. I can also appreciate the innocence and cleverness of the first two books, and think the direction of The Sorcerors Stone and The Chamber of Secrets was spot on with the novels.

JC

 

[Rudi]

No it wasn't. Are you here for an arguement or just contradiction?

 

[Vickie_M]

You're right. I understand that more now intellectually than I did at the time, but for me it was an understanding born of hindsight, not from anything I saw at the time, not from an emotional connection. That might have to do with the fact that I was already an old fart when my Harry Potter experience started. If I'd been younger when I saw them/when the first two books came out, I probably would have had more understanding.

Also, my Harry Potter experience (starting with the first movie and never having read the books) started about one month before my Lord of the Rings experience (having never read the books or even knowing the story, but after one viewing becoming a HUGE LOTR fan who devoured the books). HP just got forgotten and it took me several years to catch back up.

Regarding the direction though, I still think that while Columbus did exactly what he needed to do and what the fans wanted and what the studio was looking for, he could have added something...I can't explain what...more. Alfonso Cuarón could have made it more magical. Terry Gilliam, Rowling's first choice for director, could have made it more magical. del Toro could have made it more magical. But, what can you do. Everything was right, but something was missing. An extra spark. Maybe he felt the same way, and is why he gracefully stepped aside to allow another director to pick up as the kids were getting older.

And btw, RIP Harris, but I love Gambon's Dumbledore.

 

[Josh.C]

Vickie,

Some great points, and you are never too old to get into Harry Potter

I guess I bought into the magic on the original two films, and didn't feel like anything was left out. I feel it was very magical, and I loved the way it was filmed.

I will agree with you that it was smart to switch the direction when PoA came out as the films began to get darker.

I will disagree about Gambon's Dumbledore. I don't know if I dislike him or the way the directors are having him play the part (hard to know unless you are on the set). Go back and read the segment in the book (Goblet of Fire) when Harry's name comes out of the Goblet. I think the movie completely got Dumbledore's reaction wrong. He would have never yelled and physically shook Harry in anger. Dumbledore is much more subtle and gentle in the books. I think that Richard Harris (and Columbus) understood this aspect of Dumbledore's character better than previously mentioned.

A small gripe, but one I wish they would correct.

Here's looking forward to OotP in 2007!

JC

 

[Adam_S]

panache?

I like Gambon's Dumbledore, I think it communicated to non readers effectively just how enormous a problem and danger Harry name coming out was. Even as it was a massive shock to readers. A better tact may have been to have Harry react almost to same but to have Dumbledore connect to (and shake) Harry in a non physical manner, doing with his voice, presence and minor body language what he did by physically shaking Harry.

 

[Josh.C]

Adam,

I think that would have been better. The big problem is that there will always be a bridge between the people who have read the books and those who only watch the movies. I don't mind them taking a few liberties here and there, but it really bothers me to see them take a lead role (Dumbledore) and miss the essence of his true character, having him do things in the movie that he would have never done in Rowlings original creation.

This will be a "to each his own topic" regardless, but it will always stick in my crawl and make that part of GoF hard for me to watch. There are many other examples why I feel Gambon's Dumbledore is off, but that is just one that always comes to mind. I really feel like he is trying to do too much with the character. Dumbledore is not a loud boisterous person. Instead he is the Wizard that is so incredibly respected, that the few times he feels the need to speak, everyone listens. He can say more with a look or with silence than most can say with many words.

I know I am the main person that has a problem with this, and don't know if there are any other people on the forum that get the point I am trying to make. I am very passionate about it, because I think Dumbledore's character in Rowling's books is deep and brilliant in every way. He is one of my favorite characters. Something about someone having that much power, and yet never feeling the need to exploit it, or the way he speaks in riddles and lets the intended receipient of his advice figure out his message whenever they are ready.

I'll quit before I ramble too much more. I for one hope that Gambon and company can get this character right in the next two installments.

JC

 

[DavidJ]

Josh,

I tend to agree with you. For example, I really thought they screwed up the end of GoF. The book and Dumbleore's reason for suspecting "Moody" spoke to his character. I can't for the life of me figure out why it was not in the movie.