I cringe at it- and I am just trying to justify it in my own head- ya know?

Don't know if this is pointed at me, but I'll respond.

All I ever expect of a good film adaptation is that the spirit of the characters and the story are maintained. I was hoping that they would maintain the spirit of Hermione by keeping her mousy in every day situations. When she comes on screen looking like she spent 2 hours in hair, makeup and wardrobe, it means she's a totally different character. When Ron's only lines involve how scared he is about everything, it's hard to understand why Harry likes him and why we should like him. When Dumbledore loses it like Bill O'Reilly it means he's no longer the rock of wisdom and peace that these stories require.

I'm all for changes in story that make a book into a movie. But when you cut out the things that make the characters work, it's game over for me.

I've already committed to seeing this with friends, and I know I'll enjoy many of the cast (casting has been an overall strength of this series) - but I also know I'll find the experience exhausting. These two and a half hour fantasies, though I kind of like them, somehow grate on me with their overbearing, noisy soundtracks, flashy swoopy camera-work, highly variable CG critters, overstuffed narratives and so on. I like them better when I can watch them in shorter installments at home. That, and when I closed the cover on "Deathly Hallows," I really felt like I had given an extraordinary chunk of my life-minutes to Mr. P and friends. I guess I feel obliged to see the movie series through, but I really wish I was relishing the prospect, rather than half-dreading it.

Perfectly sums up my feelings too. Good post.

That wasn't directed at you, CP. But I dig your response.


Alas, I agree only insofar as Dumbledore goes. I've read all the books, most multiple times. I don't perceive Hermoine as remaining mousey through the series. She seems to grow more confident and mature with age and experience, like most girls ... much less most girls who happen to be the most talented witches of their generation.

Ron Weasely is a wimp and comic foil for Harry throughout the books. Perhaps Harry likes him because he's good natured, mellow where Harry is not, and loyal to a fault ... though for dramatics, it seems Harry and Ron have stupid, long-lasting fights a little too often.


Also it must be remembered that the movie characters are aging a little bit faster than their literary counterparts. The books happen once per year, the movies have lagged behind that schedule a bit ... but the young actors hit puberty when they do - regardless of filming schedule. That might explain why, for example, Hermoine seems a little more womanly that you pictured her while reading.


I happen to think movie Hermoine's attractiveness peaked at Prisoner of Azkaban. She was too young, but I think she's gotten less pretty since then. Same for Potter. His cuteness peaked during the same movie, and once he actually became legitimate hotness age - he wasn't quite as handsome (imo).


Ron Weasley, though in a doofy way, was a surprising ball of sex appeal in the last movie. Um, but his twin brothers had peaked in Goblet of Fire, and looked pretty old in the last film.


Speaking of which, and since the movie lag will only get worse as they release the last filmed book as a two-parter, the entire cast will look like those 30-somethings of old trying to play high schoolers. Unintended comedy awaits us.

Hey, It worked for John and Olivia in Grease.

Is it safe to assume that:

A) The final book is now in production
B) Even if they are breaking it into two movies they are shooting LOTR style (both at the same time)?

That should help the age problem at least somewhat.

I still haven't finished the book, and I won't see the film until I do so. I better get to reading this week. :eek:

I disagree, but then... My tastes are far far less... Um... "Statutory" than yours.