Daniel Radcliffe reveals his favorite Harry Potter movie
Daniel Radcliffe is currently on a promo tour for his new TBS comedy "Miracle Workers" where he plays an angel of God. It also costars Steve Buscemi as God (Owen Wilson was originally cast in the role) while Deadpool breakout Karan Soni plays God's right-hand man
( Read more... )
Click to view
In GoF, the backstory of Neville's parents and how they were tortured is important and in the film, the hospital never appears and all we see of Neville's parents is a photo of them with the first Order Of The Phoenix before they are sent mad.
The importance of the prophecy, as well as its potential triviality, is overlooked in the movies, which never explain Trelawney's importance to Dumbledore and Harry, or how Neville could have easily been the Boy Who Lived.
When Snape takes over as Headmaster, he installs the Carrows as the Heads Of Discipline, as well as teaching Dark Arts and Muggle Studies. All of their story was left out.
In HBP, the Riddle backstory is relegated to just two scenes, with Tom already clearly evil when we meet him and the other with him seeking the definition and secret of Horcruxes.
Percy Weasley's betrayal of the family, when he sides with Fudge and the Ministry after Voldemort returns, is alluded to in OotP, but it really didn't get the substance it deserved.
Dumbledore's threatening howler to Mrs. Dursley didn't make it to the movies, which is a shame because not only did it show that Mrs. Dursley actually cared for Harry, it also showed that she knew more than she let on.
There are more.
Reply
And I never said all the movies got every detail of the books right. Of course that’s not the case. I just think PoA’s blatant priortization of style over storytelling - long shots of backdrops, putting the teenagers in jeans for absolutely no reason, not to mention the introduction of, IMO, a terrible Dumbledore - made it the weakest of the films for book fans, and the one that felt least like a Harry Potter story.
It’s really OK for me to feel that way lol. These are subjective thoughts.
Reply
To you, the plot hole in PoA is massive and to others, it isn't. To me, leaving out Neville and his parent's backstory is massive.
The Carrows are not important in the films because their story was not told, which made their role in the overall drama much less important. There are many examples of how they cut out plot and depth in order to give the 3 leads more screen time. But then, they're movies not 600 page books.
Putting the teenagers in jeans made them much more relatable than running around in robes which no teen does. It humanized them. I can't get worked up about Dumbledore shouting rather than saying something quietly, although I know it's an atrocity to some.
Reply
The Carrows are not important in the films because their story was not told - This kind of illustrates my point. They had to pick and choose which stories to tell because of the book lengths, like you said, so by not addressing something at all, it avoids confusion later, as opposed to half-assing a story like the Marauders.
Putting the teenagers in jeans made them much more relatable than running around in robes which no teen does. It humanized them. - This, to me, was completely unnecessary and only done for a coolness factor. They're in robes because that's how you dress at Hogwarts, and the story and characterizations are what makes them human in the books (and throughout many of the other films, especially the first two). Part of the reason I was drawn to HP in the first place, through the books, was because it felt relatable - I don't usually like fantasy. IMO, Cuaron tried too hard to humanize something that the source material already does a great job of through the way it's told, and that ended up cheapening it.
We can totally agree to disagree on Dumbledore lol yeah, some of the things Gambon did (and particularly that scene) were the complete opposite of how the cool-headed character would've behaved. It took me totally out of the scene.
And yes - we're allowed different opinions! ♥ It's nice to discuss with someone who knows the intricacies. I haven't read the books in probably a decade and I need to read them again.
Reply
I was thinking more about the Marauders backstory being left out, and I think they did that to make their first on screen appearance carry more weight and be a surprise (when Sirius and Lupin reveal themselves in the Shack). Are you suggesting that they should have cast younger actors and staged a bunch of scenes with the Mauraders? Because the cast was already jam-packed and I'm not sure how it would have furthered the plot. I mean, Harry gets the map, uses it, and life goes on. Why does anyone need to know about the Mauraders at that point? They're fun, I know fans want a spin off just about them, but why was it necessary to PoA?
What if Harry had found the map on the floor of his bedroom? Would the audience have needed to see the Maurader's backstory to understand that? I don't think so.
I never saw one of the films without having read the book first and I pity anyone who went into one of the movies blind. There was so much that wouldn't really make sense if you didn't know what was supposed to happen.
To me, the details of Neville's backstory and his parents is far more substantive, it's not just fluff. To start with, it kind of puts Neville on equal footing with Harry, which is why I think they purposely left it out. The prophecy could be interpreted to be Neville or Harry, but by leaving out the hospital scene, the audience didn't even think about Neville.
It didn't make the rest not make sense because they didn't even address it. You can't ponder something you aren't even aware of.
As for the jeans thing, you say the characters were already humanized for you through reading the books. But what about those people who didn't read the books? They go to the movie, they see teens running around in robes, and they don't identify at all. Plus, there was much more off campus action in PoA than there was in the previous two films, which were confined to classrooms and the castle itself. They weren't running around in the woods, they didn't have classes with Hagrid outdoors, they didn't all go to Hogsmead, etc. I think putting them in normal clothes made sense overall.
I don't usually like fantasy either, but I can't agree that Cuaron tried too hard or cheapened anything. If anything he expanded the scope for enjoyment.
It took me a really long time to warm up to Gambon (who is not my favorite actor). There was a lot I didn't like about his portrayal of Dumbledore, which I just tried to ignore for the most part, which is why I don't let myself get worked up about it. I mean, at the time I complained about him for 3 movies worth, I don't have the energy to dredge that up again, lol
Reply
Leave a comment