Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - - (Spoiler zone)

[LSPoorEeyorick]

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.

[Alex]

For the record, Lani hasn't read the books either. She just feels she has put enough time into seeing the movie that she still wants to see where they end up. I go with her because I drag her to a lot of movie she isn't particularly interested in and 150 minutes with Lani at a boring movie is still better than any way I can think of to spend my time without her.

As for why I read Narnia but not Potter. There are several reasons, the first is that I know and respect C.S. Lewis's other writings on religion and therefore have always intended to eventually read them and just never got around to it (mostly for the reasons I haven't read the Potter books). Second, where I just get to watch Potter, I will have to review Narnia for MousePlanet, so I think being able to comment on the adaptation will be of some use. Third (and most important), all seven Narnia books combined are shorter than one of the later Harry Potter books so even if I didn't really want to read them I could knock them out in a few hours.

But you're essentially saying the same thing about the movie that I am: it isn't a good movie, it is a good addendum to the books. I don't deny that; I was just sharing my opinion of a movie. "But in the book..." is not a defense of the movies, it is a promotion of the books.

There is enough good adult fantasy fiction out there that I don't have room for Harry Potter on the reading list. I'm ok with this, but it doesn't make the movies any better and I've expressed no opinion of the books.

[Mousey Girl]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

I go with her because I drag her to a lot of movie she isn't particularly interested in and 150 minutes with Lani at a boring movie is still better than any way I can think of to spend my time without her.

This has got to be one of the sweetest things I have ever read.