Comments | jadeites_lady: If I were a screenwriter...

jadeites_lady

If I were a screenwriter...

Mar 05, 2006 15:08

This is movies week. The Academy Awards are tonight (I don't think I've watched any of the movies nominated - well, I'm sure Harry Potter was nominated for some type of Science and Technical award but they don't televise those - but I do like to hear the monologues if they're funny) and Goblet of Fire is coming out on Tuesday. I will probably buy ( Read more... )

ramble, gof, edit, movie, writing

Comments 8

traceria March 6 2006, 00:18:36 UTC

I agree on most points. :)

I don't think that movie-goers in general would agree with cutting the World Cup. And forseeing the outcry (there were a lot of 'They didn't even show part of the game!' responses as it was), I think I'd keep it in just to placate the public (the guys especially).

But it would have been nice to have that additional piece Harry/Cho interaction, too! And there could have soooo much more Sirius screen time and involvement. I would have loved to see him in the hospital at the end, but then there wasn't even a hospital scene at all!

Eh...I'll still be watching it Tuseday night with my friend. ;D

jadeites_lady March 6 2006, 00:27:23 UTC

I know - they weren't happy with PoA cutting most of the quidditch games too, but since they didn't even show the world cup game or the veelas or anything really 'important', that's why I said they should've just cut it.

I really wanted the hospital scene! and I think that even had Snape in it (Snape & Sirius agreeing to be civil for once).

traceria March 6 2006, 00:35:57 UTC

Yeah, Snape was definitely there! That would have been great to see! Dumbledore's such a peacemaker in that scene, I don't know that Michael G. would have been able to pull it off in the same way the actual book scene feels.

I'd almost completely forgotten about the complete lack of Quidditch in the PoA movie. I loved that one if only for the introduction to the Mauraders and for its tone and feel. It would have been awesome to see Gryffindor win the cup...and Oliver all gung-ho and beside himself when they win. :D

jadeites_lady March 6 2006, 04:38:20 UTC

If they could go back and re-do PoA, I would've loved to see Gryffindor win the cup too (and of course, Sean is easy on the eyes ;). But they cut that out, and Cho, and Cedric -and even mentioning that it was Hufflepuff who beat them when Harry fell from the sky. *shrug* What can you do?

smammers March 6 2006, 04:08:40 UTC

I personally hated they way they changed the whole Barty Crouch story.

The other thing I hated was the fucking hedges eating everybody. What was that? No sphinx? No crazy enchantments? Just... man-eating hedges?

I don't agree with you on a lot of the things that were cut out, because I'm one of those people who wants an eight-hour, line-for-line movie. I think the only change that I liked was Neville giving Harry the information about gillyweed, and maybe Snape smacking Harry and Ron upside the heads.

jadeites_lady March 6 2006, 04:36:00 UTC

oh- of course, I'd love an 8 hour version with everything in it. My "edit" on it would be for the 2-2.5 hr version, because obviously you can't have everything in a shorter version. Basically, I would've traded the world cup for the hospital scene. And as movies simplify everything - that's why I liked the Barty Crouch Jr. explanation. It would have been 'too complicated' to put the entire dad-mom-Azkaban in the movie (they wouldn't have done it justice if they tried to squeeze it for 5 minutes).

and I forgot about the 3rd task. you're definitely right on that. It could have been better - with more obstacles/monsters/spells for them to fight. And I didn't like the Cedric/Harry "you take it" and they grab it together so quickly (no arguing back and forth before deciding 'together').

smammers March 6 2006, 05:58:04 UTC

Really, I think it's unfair of them to squeeze HP into a movie under 3 hours long. Look how long LOTR was! People went to see that (and I almost made it through without having to leave to pee)!

jadeites_lady March 6 2006, 15:23:20 UTC

LOL... true, LOTR is about 3 hours long (not including the extra extended 20 min or so footage you get on the dvds). I hate to play devil's advocate, but maybe the directors thought: since LOTR is geared towards an older audience, it can take the risk of being longer; while HP has to keep the attention span of children, and as children's movies run usually shorter (e.g. 90 minutes vs 120 minutes), 2.5 hours was already pushing it.