h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Enough said, I think.

It seems like people fall into one of two camps. Either you're a film buff and you love the film, or you're a Harry Potter buff and you have somre real issues with it. I haven't seen the movie yet (horrors, I know) but since I'm in the latter camp, I'll probably have issues as well.

Now I'm really worried about the fourth film (although I'd happily live without SPEW and Rita Skeeter).

I wonder why they keep worrying about the films being too long. I've not noticed that kids have trouble sitting through to the end, and as the story gets 'darker', we're probably losing the younger ones with (presumably) shorter attention spans. 'Tis a puzzlement.

More quizzical than ever...

I suspect they're more worried about adults going 'I'm not spending three-and-a-half ----ing hours watching a kid's film' and, er, not going. (A hundred teddies are hurled from their prams.)

I'm really dubious about the idea of splitting any of the Potter books over more than one movie. It sounds a very post-LOTR sort of idea and smacks of Pott-heads (sorry, I can't face typing 'Harry Potter enthusiasts' over and over) thinking that Potter and LOTR are somehow similar, cut from the same cloth.

(I know we've been here before, MaW, apologies for the repetition...)

They're not! Goblet of Fire (for example) is structured to work as a single uninterrupted narrative. Making it work as two separate episodes would involve more of those changes to the sacred texts of Rowling, changes you all hate so much.

I get the impression a lot of Pott-heads turn up to the cinema expecting to somehow see the exact same thing that they had in their mind's eye when they first read the book. I think that is a bit of an unrealistic expectation. Sorry guys.

My unPott-head husband thought it was brilliant, much the best of the 3 films, a proper film rather than an HP tribute.

My daughters (5 and 7, far too young really) thought it was much, much scarier than the first two - and so they should; it is, and rightly so. Unless you've read the books, in which case there's nothing remotely scarey about it at all *sigh*

I'm a bit of a Pott-head, and I thought it was the best of the three - but I really didn't think the first two were up to much and cringed my way through them in the cinema (both much better on DVD though - I assume because Rupert Grint's face-pulling is more toned down on the small screen). The time travel section was handled superbly, but oodles of other, helpful, stuff was missed out (particularly about the map and the passages) - yet my unPott-head husband didn't notice this at all and wasn't at all bothered by how come everybody suddenly knew the secret way and the identity of Ron's rat. He did notice Harry's moving scar, though.

I did think it was a good film; the first two were really just, um, adequate versions of good books. Whether enough of the back- and forward-story was included is another matter; but each HP book can stand alone and each film should, too.

There's loads that can be hacked out of Goblet of Fire to make it short enough for one film, don't panic. All the weeks that Harry's not listening to his egg, for example. It could probably be extremely short indeed, eg:

Quidditch World Cup
Harry receiving his post
spooky forest bit with maze growing in the background (to show passing of time)
Harry in the maze and return of (oops sorry that was a bit of a spoiler).

Goblet of Fire and Order of the Phoenix have both suffered as books from poor editing (they are far, far too long - not to say I don't like that, I do, but they do pander to the Potter lovers somewhat) and there is a fair chance that the cinematic versions might be improvements.

Mol

*braces self for barrage of HP4 and HP5 defenders*

I love Harry Potter and hate most films, but I do take issue with the people (usually irritating prodigious 10-year-olds - no offence, broe) who think that the Harry Potter films should be faithful word-for-word to the book. This is a completely different genre, for Christ's sake. Why on earth should it be exactly the same? Films are designed to entertain; for me, the first two did neither as they were considerably overlong.

The third was pretty good - the visuals and direction in general was stunning, for me. The acting let it down, particularly the three leads and Michael Gambon, who doesn't radiate anywhere near as much mystery as Richard Harris, God rest his soul.

I agree that the climactic scene is let down by lack of plot, but this is more than made up for by some fantastic set-pieces, including the Knight Bus, the Dementor scenes and the aforementioned clock-tower.

B

what did they do

Pott-head ... and here I thought I put that title safely behind me I like it.

I realise that there are two distinct camps of opinion on this that will never see eye to eye. I also know that being critical of the film throws me into the camp of those who want the movies to be faithful reproductions of the books. This isn't strictly true; I don't consider myself part of that group. But I do take issue with big chunks of plot going missing. It could have been done better.

I know there's plenty that can be cut from the fourth book to make it an endurable film, but it depends on *what* they cut. I just hope they don't waste the better part of two hours then dump the whole of the plot in the last twenty minutes.

Hmm, good point. Think I need to force myself to do a little extra HP reading to fully refresh my memory of what happens in book four, what a hardship!

Am I the only person in the world who didn't like Richard Harris as Dumbledore and didn't think Michael Gambon was much better?

Mol

I liked Richard Harris in the first film, in the second though, you could really tell he was sick. He should have backed out of the second one. I thought Gambon did a marvelous job. While I was worried about switching actors (although it couldn't be helped), in the end I thought Gambon was better than Harris.

I've said repeatedly that I don't expect the films to be word-for-word adaptations of the books. I know that won't work, I know that cannot possibly work.

However, that doesn't mean I have to agree with the production of a film which is inconsistent with both itself and with the other films, and which makes changes which are entirely (as far as I can see) unnecessary. It's a lot of little things, like the werewolf not looking remotely like a wolf, despite Hermione's little speech about how the werewolf differs only subtly from the real wolf (which was included in the film). Or Harry's room in the Leaky Cauldron being really noisy and dusty and horrible, when the book implies that it's actually very comfortable and present. Or Harry being told about Black wanting to kill him rather than overhearing it (although that's really rather minor, as Mr. Weasley was going to tell him anyway). I could go on for a while, but I won't because there's no point. It's made now, but I think it's a flawed interpretation of the world. And add to that a really rather dismal portrayal of Draco Malfoy, the Patronus charm losing most of its plot value because they didn't draw it in as an animal charging down the Dementors, it was more a load of pulsing light, and the completely unnecessary modification to the Dementors themselves - did they have to make it so that they can fly? Was that for even a moment necessary to the shooting or plot?

I know I'm judging that by my own impression of the world, but that's the only thing I can judge by, and it's come up very wanting.

I shall stop now, because I've got work to do and I'm not doing it typing this.

I'm just having a quick break from work ...

I'm starting to be slightly convinced by all this, MaW, and you've also reminded me of something that did jar with me when I saw the film: Werewolf Lupin attacking Dog Sirius. I thought that the whole point of Lupin's 3 chums becoming animages was so that it would be safe for them to be with him when he was a werewolf. I have an image of the 4 of them playing together in animal form (although I'm not sure where that image has come from and also I'd have thought a rat, stag or dog would have made a good meal for a werewolf, but never mind). Possibly my reading of the book was incorrect, or my memory is playing me false, though. This thread is rapidly showing me that I haven't read any of the HP books often enough & I don't know as much as I thought I did about them ...

Mol

I thought the actual werewolf was a bit shonky, and yeah, in the books James becomes a stag and Sirius a big dog so they can keep the werewolf under control.

The thing that *really* bugged me was the map. I spent the entire time I was watching the movie th first time going "Come on, say it, say it! Will you just ask him how he knows?!" and even my friends who haven't read the books and don't know them nearly off-by-heart (ahem...) picked it up. They came out of the theatre going to me "Does everyone know how to use that map? It seems a bit pointless as secret maps go if everyone knows how to use and everyone knows it doesn't lie..."

Cat

Woohoo! Someone else noticed!

So it's not just the differences with the book, it's internal consistency too!

See, I wouldn't mind the changes so much if they all worked properly together.