Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (SPOILERS)

[Morrigoon]

I think they'd do better breaking up the long books into more than one movie than to throw so much out due to time.

[innerSpaceman]

Should they do that with all novels adapted to the screen, or just Harry Potter??

[Chernabog]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

I think they'd do better breaking up the long books into more than one movie than to throw so much out due to time.

Oh hell no. If the screenwriter is doing his job correctly, it can be condensed into an entertaining cinematic experience that does not have to be 5 hours long. And FOUR MORE YEARS of Harry Potter? (i.e. Rambo.. errr Harry: half blood part 1, half blood part 2, deathly hallows part 1, deathly hallows part 2? ugh.) Of course, the screenwriters can't just include things willy-nilly and then drop the reason for including them, a la OotP. Slavish reproductions of any novel make for boring watching. Hell, even 3 1/2 hour Gone With The Wind was MASSIVELY condensed (from the 1000+ page novel) and that came out beatifully.

Though of course it would have been cool for the "fans" to have extra DVD scenes, a la Lord of the Rings.

[Gemini Cricket]

Hmmm.
I didn't like Dumbledore's temper tantrum in Goblet of Fire. It was after he found out the Harry was going to be in the games. It seemed out of character. I don't know if Harris would have played it that way...
I liked Harris' Dumbledore... if only for the scene where he and Harry are in front of the mirror. That's a very, very touching scene in movie 1.

[innerSpaceman]

I have to agree that Gambon's freak-out in Goblet of Fire was his worst Dumbledore moment, and Harris' sweetness at the mirror was his best.

[Alex]

The problem with breaking the books into multiple movies is that (I'm assuming) the books don't necessarily have a logical breaking point in the middle.

Heck, in most of the movies it seems like by Christmas break they have barely made it to the beginning of whatever the point of that book is.

But this is why beloved books are almost never appreciated as movies (and why the majority of well regarded book adaptations are of rarely read books). Where you're unhappy that things got cut out or dropped I am just left unhappy because it is frequently obvious that something got cut out or dropped.

One of William Goldman's books has a great chapter on the difficulty of movie adaption using his work on Misery as an example. I wonder if it was a mistake to have Rowling adapt her own books since it must be very difficult to make the important decisions.

[Chernabog]

Gambon tries to play him like Gandalf the Grey, which is not how Dumbledore is written.

[innerSpaceman]

'Not as he is written' being a criticism linked to parroting of the novel.

That's not to say "as written" isn't better.



One of my most admired film adaptations is Juraissic Park. Don't get me wrong; I loathe that movie.

But, except for the T-Rex attack and some of the basic set-up, Spielberg almost stubbornly refused to import any scenes from the book. The book was WAY better, and the main character far more compelling than as eventually played by Sam Neill. But I admire the choice to refuse to simply film the book ... even if it meant a movie that was nowhere near as good as the book.

(And, teehee, lots of scenes from the original book ended up in the JP movie sequels.)



With Harry Potter, I not only don't mind the films that have been most cinematically adapted (PofA and OoftheP), but find them equally as enjoyable as the novels they are so loosely based on.

[Chernabog]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

'Not as he is written' being a criticism linked to parroting of the novel.

That's not to say "as written" isn't better.

It is a quandary isn't it? In this case, "as written" is better, because I don't believe that Gambon's "homeless old man" act works for the part. Harris just played him better. It is hard to put my finger on WHY that is the case.

I guess instead of saying "which is not how Dumbledore is written" I should have said "in a way that contributes positively to the film, gives emotional attachment, is multi-dimensional, or makes us believe that he is the powerful headmaster of Hogwarts."

[BarTopDancer]

I loved Harris as Dumbledore. I like Gambon plays Dumbledore. It is very hard to say how I would feel had Harris not died or had Gambon be Dumbledore from the start. Is my preference based upon what was first? What I became attached to? Or better portrayal.