Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - New Director... (1 Viewer)

[David Rogers]

I'll echo some of the comments; for the love of God keep Gilliam away from the Harry Potter films. I'm not a fan of his because he's dark dark dark to the point of obscurity. While Harry Potter is turning maturely dark with some of the turns in book 3, and certainly in book 4 it becomes MUCH more than a 'simple kid's story', the core of the series is still amazement over the Wizarding World. Leading into my second rejection ..

… as for the comment about changing the stories, no no big time no. I want to watch the stories Rowlings wrote appear on screen; not someone else's interpretation of those stories. Edit for time, cut material out for time, no problem. Change material, big time no. I don’t want characters changed, don't want them consolidated, don't want plot points changed, none of that. Rowlings has filled her world with clever, amusing, and interesting characters; there's no rewriting needed there. The plots are more than sufficient to showcase the characters and the interesting things about them (particularly Harry), so no rewriting needed there either. The settings, the background of the world, all is fine. Leave it the heck alone!

I'd love to see Spielberg do a Potter film, that would turn out extremely well I feel. Certainly it would be more magical and inviting than Columbus' work (whom I rate as a talented rank-and-file director, nothing more).

***BOOK SPOILERS***

A two-parter for Goblet of Fire, especially if released Thanksgiving then Christmas, that would be the best! Where to cut it in half though … Perhaps after Harry is picked by the Goblet or after the first challenge (the Dragons)? That enables no skimping in the World Qidditch match coverage (which I'd love to see, including the campgrounds and also the wizard's terrorism/riot following the Cup match), gives enough time to introduce all the visiting students and professors, sets up the Challenge, and finally would let us see the Dragon challenge. Then we have the second film for the resolution of Ron/Harry, the Underwater challenge and research, and finally the Maze challenge with the Voldermont confrontation, reactivation of the Dark wizards, and the wrapup/setup with Dumbledore presaging things to come. Would make for a hell of a four-five hours of movie, IMO. By going with that length of two films, we'd also be able to see all the relationship work between the Hogwarts students and the visiting students, and also the challenges; no cuts.

My biggest disappointment from Sorcerer's Stone was the cutting of the potions from the final sequence. They left in dialogue about Snapes helping defend the Stone, but cut his contribution to the defense. Very disappointing. If they needed to cut something from the final act I would have preferred they take the 2mins spent on the Constricting vines and have spent it on the potions (could have taken a minute from the Wizard's Chess segment to help this also).

 

[Rich Malloy]

Cuaron would be an excellent choice (and don't forget his way underrated re-telling of "Great Expectations" - this guy's one of the best when it comes to adapting books to the screen).

For all our sakes, get Chris Columbus out of there now. The first movie is exactly what everyone feared it would be, and I can't imagine his second effort will be any less pedestrian.

 

[TheoGB]

I'm sure it's Azkaban the two film thing is rumoured for. I believe that makes up all of the four films they set out contracting for.
Face it, they couldn't fit all of the first book in one 2.5 hour film. Number 2 should be easiest as it has little in the way of strong plot and IMO is the weakest.
The third book is far and away the best of them and is really quite complex...

 

[Dan Brecher]

Theo,

The two film split was most definately for Goblet. I find 4 to be the weakest myself, saved by another genius ending. Too much quidditch exposition. Hack it down for the movie, most certainly keep the campground stuff remain, but the most hacking can be done there.

Dan

 

[Chris]

I really liked book four. *shrug* anyway, that having been said, I too would not want to see Gilliam do it. I love his directorial style, but think he's just the wrong choice for this format.
I'm more interested in waiting on the fifth book; word has it that there is a struggle to get it "down" in size and at least partly "kid-friendly" and not too dark.. *shrug*.. Harry Potter books are great for kids to start with.. and grow up with, as the content gets more mature and intricate as it goes.
No, it's not "Grapes of Wrath" but it is something to keep kids thinking and reading, and I've always found them damn good

 

[andrew markworthy]

I think that 2 and 3 could easily be single films. 4 may be a bit harder to cut down. The quidditch world championships aren't of course just about quidditch, but also serve to introduce new characters, explain about portal keys and flesh out some of the existing but until now rather peripheral characters. Cutting out the quidditch may make exposition rather tricky. However, cutting the movie in two would be difficult - i.e. where to do it? In filmic terms, there isn't a full length movie in the cup-portal bit, and a lot of the denoument would rely on the film-goer having remembered the first half of the movie pretty well. A more sensible point might be after e.g. the second challenge, but this doesn't exactly provide a gripping ending.

Whilst a totally-faithful-to-the-book script would be appealling to me and I guess a lot of folks on this forum, it might make sense to make a brutally trimmed version in order to make it into a viable mainstream movie.

 

[Matthew_Millheiser]

In a perfect world, the entire Harry Potter saga would be produced as a series of animated films by Studio Ghibli... *sigh*

In the next perfect world, Gilliam would have directed the first film and then followed up with The Defective Detective, The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, and produced a ten-part Watchmen mini-series for HBO...

By then, of course, I would be dating both Mila Kunis and Kristin Kreuk....

*sigh*

What's that? June 2003 for Book Five?!! I'm going back to sleep...

 

[Ryan Jameson]

Who wants to see EXACTLY the same thing that they read? If I wanted that, I could just as easily read the books themselves.

 

[David Rogers]

Ryan,

***I*** want to see exactly what I read.

Period.

I'm interested in the movies *because* they're faithful. I'd really not be all that interested if they were "adapted from the world of" or anything like that.

Again, Ms. Rowlings has a story and is telling it. She's doing so with great skill and immense creativity. I enjoy the characters she creates, from the amazing Dumbledore and funny Mr. Wesley to the sinister Snapes and even the grumpy Finch. I enjoy reading about the characters moving through the Wizarding World; I enjoy seeing the characters live and work (and learn) in a world fairly different from my own. All the ways, from huge to tiny, magic is used in the Wizarding World, and how the characters react to and adapt around it (vs the technology used in my world), it's quite interesting.

To make a movie of it is just great! I derive great joy from reading great stories, but I even more greatly enjoy seeing great stories translated into the visual medium of movies. I enjoy watching actors transform character descriptions into walking breathing people. I enjoy watching sets come to life before me. I enjoy watching effects used to create the sparkle when someone waves a wand, when someone looks at a Wizard's Photograph (where the inhabitant of the photo is 'alive' and will smile and wink at you, or even occasionally leave the picture to visit other pictures), and most certainly when a fantastic element such as a Centaur or a talking spider is shown to me.

Yes I picture these things in my head when I read.

But I watch movies to see them pictured FOR me. Then I can focus on enjoying what I'm watching.

Don't know how else to tell it to you. It has always ticked me off immensely the habit Hollywood has of taking existing stories and then changing them so dramatically the only elements recognizable from the original are the title and main character names (and often not even those).

There are quite a LARGE number of screwed up translations Hollywood has ruined, utterly ruined, by refusing to admit the property they bought was just fine. I love it when the studio expresses confusion after a adaptation-film comes out and finds no audience; it found no audience because you lied when you said it was the story fans recognized from the (book/comic/poem/song/etc...).

So, all things considered, if a story in a book was good enough to be popular enough to make people want a movie to be made of it ... why not just make that story into a movie, rather than making a story that's "similar" into a movie? I mean ... if you're going to do the second you should do everyone a favor and not buy the original story you're ignoring. That way we don't expect it to be like the book and don't hold it against you when it isn't.

 

[Coressel]

I don't know about that... I'm as big a bookaholic as I am a filmaholic, and I'd much rather see a film that portrays a representation of a book than to see a film that just basically recites the book.

For example, I like Stephen King's novel "The Shining." I also love Stanley Kubrick's film of the same name, BECAUSE it's different than the book. I hate the miniseries of "The Shining," partly because I can sit and read the book in less time than it takes to sit through that boring, over-lit tv version.

If Rowling wanted Gilliam to direct the film versions of her books, then that's what should have happened. Problem is, the HP fans wouldn't like it because it might end up being too interesting.

Just my take...

 

[Ryan Jameson]

Whew! I'm glad someone is on my side.

I too dislike carbon copies of the source. I enjoyed HP, and had a great time seeing some of the images in my head come to life, but absolutely nothing felt fresh to me. As I said before, Lord of the Rings made neseccary changes to the original story, yet still remained incredibly faithful to the themes and characters. It felt like the book, yet had many additions and subtractions.

I like to see something new and interesting, yet still derived from the same ideas and source of something I already enjoy. When I go to a concert, I don't like hearing exactly the same thing I already have on the cd at home. When I heard Tom Petty play last year, and he jammed for 5-10 minutes during 'It's good to be King', I was in heaven. When he played a couple songs I'd never heard before, it was bliss.

 

[Oscar]

Alfonso Cuaron would made POA a sex filled film like Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN.
Terry Gilliam would made it in an alternate world with no magic and adult characters.

 

[Mark-W]

Even if Rowling wanted Gilliam, no offense, but what does
she know?
Gilliam would feel like he was in a creative jail if they
made him stick closely to the book. I love Gilliam's work,
but he in a auteur. It would be "Author vs Auteur" and
it would be ugly.
Keep the films like the books. If don't want to see
the book made into a film, then write your own story.
Did we learn nothing from The Queen of the Damned?
If that film had followed the book, sure,
it would have been 3 hours long, but it would have
been a much much much better film.
Mark

 

[Malcolm R]

Keep the films like the books. If don't want to see the book made into a film, then write your own story.

Amen. It never ceases to amaze me how films based on novels generally end up having little to do with the novel on which the film is based. Why pay hundreds of thousands (or millions) of dollars for film rights just to rewrite the story and/or change the characters? It's silly, stupid, and just ruins the film for anyone who loved the original novel.

 

[Phil Florian]

I guess those "keep it exactly like the book" people hated Blade Runner , which was almost but not quite entirely unlike the book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep ? Or Total Recall? I am all for interpreting work vs. translating. Even plays which have a dialogue structure for performance built in require changing. For example, one of my favorite flicks is Amadeus . This is based on one of my favorite plays, Amadeus . They resemble each other but in very few ways is the film a direct translation of the play. It wouldn't work. The Venticelli, which were so important for the play to work, had no part in the movie at all and weren't missed there. The participation of the audience as acknowledged witnesses to the activity in the play were replaced by the priest...and it worked.
I have to side with the interpretation view of books vs. literal. As for Gilliam, I would say it would be a neat risk. Hell, if it isn't right, they can remake the stupid thing...they do more remakes than originals any more these days. Facetiousness aside, though, it wouldn't hurt to have a bold view of the book (especially since the author, who OWNS the story, thinks he would be good). Yes, it would change. But he does good book adaptations...just look at one of my favorites of his, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas . That is, honestly, one of the best book adaptations out there. He wouldn't go and make Potter any weirder than it already is. Characters might come off more intense (as they are in the book, mind you) than in the Columbus walk-through. Visuals might be overwhelming (as it all is to Harry, the outsider to this whole world of magic thing). I think it would be a good change of pace.
Phil

 

[Coressel]

Why pay hundreds of thousands (or millions) of dollars for film rights just to rewrite the story and/or change the characters?

Hmmm... ok. I see your point. But I guess my feeling is why spend all that money just to "recite" the book??

 

[TheoGB]

Some books are improved going to screen if their concepts are great. I think that't the point about something like Bladerunner - it is a wonderful idea and put to screen in the hands of great director.

On the other hand it's also not that well-known a book.

Would you argue that the changes of The Beach were worthwhile? To me they just seemed pretty pointless. The reall irritation is how often 'Hollywood' seems to creep in. With the Beach we have that Leo is an American and gets the girl.
the first is classic and allowable but the second just sort of robs the character of his point.

Similarly Dickie Attenborough's character in Jurassic Park is a loveable guy. Personally I don't find this is a problem in JP but it is an unneeded touch of 'niceness' if you see what I mean?

 

[Malcolm R]

But I guess my feeling is why spend all that money just to "recite" the book??

Then why spend all that money period? Hire a screenwriter for a fraction of the cost and tell your own story.
Most changes to adapted novels are pointless. I can see some modifications if they work within the movie and have plot relevance, but most do not. They are often just change for the sake of change.
One of the most irrelevant changes that still bugs me is in The Bone Collector (which is full of such pointless changes). But the one that really mystified me is that in the book, Lincoln Rhyme's assistant is Thom, a white, gay, male nurse. In the movie, Thom has suddenly become Queen Latifah. It has no plot relevance. They gave her six lines and no significant scenes. All it did was remove a beloved character from the story for the sake of giving Queen Latifah a job, apparently.
Novels come with a built-in audience. If you make haphazard changes to the novel that everyone loved, you just succeed in alienating your core audience who will then spread poor word-of-mouth far and wide. At least with Harry Potter, they seem to realize this (so far). Kids fell in love with the characters and stories as written. They would be very disappointed to see anything different up on the screen.

 

[Ryan Jameson]

The key is in making changes that while making the new work seem fresh, also remain true to the original work. My favorite moment in Lord of the Rings is when Gandalf captures a moth and whispers to it. A total departure from the book, but it worked. It was both beautiful, and eliminated a character that would have only been confusing if he'd been kept in the movie.

 

[Chris Lock]

> Why pay hundreds of thousands (or millions) of dollars for film rights just to rewrite the story and/or change the characters?

Probably because there's a built-in audience for movies based on established characters, an audience that will go see the film even if the story's changed. It has to be safer for a studio exec to okay a movie based on a hit book; if the first Harry Potter film flopped, whoever greenlit it could've said how did I know, since the books are bestsellers?