|
Yes, I echo WB's advice to Alex-- I'm a Potter fan and Phoenix doesn't float MY boat.
Alex, I wonder: why read Narnia to prep for the film, but not Potter? I have always thought that the movies weren't particularly good for those who haven't read the books. I don't deny that they leave things out; Potter seems just like a craftless kid who has such things thrust upon him. If you'd read the books, you'd see that in an effort to splice together a reasonably sized film, they cut out much of the exposition that may have seemed unnecessary book by book, but is wholly necessary for the arc. Such things as how Harry completely resents his lot and his fame. In his mind, too, he's just a craftless kid. Like a Dickens novel, Rowling's secondary and minor characters are the more interesting, vivid ones. Though I also feel great affection for Harry, despite (or because of) his floundering.
Really, though, if you're dragging your feet on reading the books, I see no reason why you ought to go with Lani. There's a magic on the page that simply doesn't translate to screen. I enjoy the movies, but primarily as a reflection of the richness more palpable in the books, and the great affinity I feel while witnessing the gradual coming-of-age of these characters and the maturation of their relationships. I just don't think I'd feel the connection with the twins, for instance, if I hadn't read the books. They are all but excised from the first three films, and missing out on their antics disappointed me. Part of the reason I so enjoyed Goblet was their presence.
Connecting with these characters on the page is the real magic in Rowling's writing. I believe we all enjoy these films primarily because we're caught in her literary spell.
|