Yet more Pottery thoughts

[selenak]

You know, I'm so with the people who hope that in another decade or so, the books will get the tv series treatment, because the more I think about them, the more dissatisfying the film versions get. There's just sooo much missing, from book!Harry's snarky attitude to some of the most interesting subplots. Now I'm not saying the books were perfect,

Comments

[vaysh]

Selenak, would it be okay if we linked to this post from the daily_snitch? You raise some awesome points that I would love for more HP people to read and discuss.

[selenak]

Absolutely, go ahead!

[vaysh]

Great. :) Thank you.

[zahrawithaz]

Nice piece. I have limited patience for the later HP canon, but I always appreciate your insistence on reading a source for what it actually presents, rather than fanon assumptions based on emotional connections. (See: Snape. Always.)

"The movie manages to make a questionable creator choice worse" seems a propos for so many of the decisions you describe here, especially the Dumbledore backstory.

And I appreciate your reminding me that Slughorn was a much more interesting and realistic depiction of prejudice and human failing than we get elsewhere in the series; in a lot of ways, I think it's a shame he was introduced so late, when the cast was already full-to-bursting and less subtle approaches to Fantastic Racism had already been established.

[selenak]

re: Slughorn, true, though given his subject is Potions, he couldn't have been introduced sooner unless JKR had given him something else to teach, I suppose. (But not DADA, given the running gag of the position being jinxed.)

Any of the romances aside, which is so not wht JKR is good at, I actually love the later HP canon.

[brigittebod]

Your mention of the severe lack of Grindelwald in the movie made me look him up and... WTF, they made him all scowly! Noooooooo, he was suposed to be the fun, gregarious, irreverent Dark Lord! I had found that to be such a refreshing choice on JKR's part too. Why should all evil overlords be po-faced mwa-ha-ha-ers by default anyway? Does the desire to take over the world automatically erase one's sense of humor or love of hiking or respect for one's elders or whatever?

[selenak]

Well, to be fair, we only see young Grindlewald on photos and in a very brief Harry dream (where he's stealing the wand), but yes, given the book deliberately sets him up as a contrast to Voldemort in most ways (blond to Tom Riddle's brunette, irreverent and laughing to Voldemort's FEAR ME OR DIE, having his empire on the continent whereas Voldemort never makes it beyond Britain, and in the end arguably of at the very least accepting death and prefering it to cooperation with Dark Lord Junior - whether or not this constitutes remorse is debatable - whereas Voldemort's core obsession is avoiding death), it's a shame they didn't even try in this regard.

[amorette]

On another note: something that movies and (a lot of) fanfiction do have in common is that they remove not only Harry's tendency towards sarcasm but also Snape's pettiness. Seriously: Snape is still one of the most interesting and compelling characters of the saga to me, but he's the uncontested winner for "most petty" by far. Fanon usually goes with "but he had to maintain his cover!", but I very much doubt Voldemort's belief in Snape's loyalties depended on such gems as Snape making Harry copy detention notes on his father and Sirius in the year after Sirius' death. Fanon!Snape never does that kind of stuff. (Movie Snape didn't, either.) I really thought a lot of the characterizations in the movie were bad, and you've mentioned Snape and Harry. I feel like in the movie (probably to give mass appeal), they flattened the characters and ignored some of their multifaceted nuances, like Snape's prickly pettiness, and Harry's sarcasm and snark. Also, I was never a fan of Alan Rickman's mannerisms for Snape, but that's just me. Everyone

[selenak]

I don't have a "Dumbledore is terrible" attitude. On the contrary. Deathly Hallows made him into one of my favourite characters (because it proved his moral ambiguity was intended), and I wrote a pro Dumbledore meta one or two months ago. What in this post makes you think I'm anti Dumbledore? *is puzzled*

[amorette]

Sorry it has taken me so long to come back.

Hmm, I don't know what gave me that impression. I'm glad to hear I was wrong :D!!

[akatnamedeaster]

Here via daily_snitch

On another note: something that movies and (a lot of) fanfiction do have in common is that they remove not only Harry's tendency towards sarcasm but also Snape's pettiness. Seriously: Snape is still one of the most interesting and compelling characters of the saga to me, but he's the uncontested winner for "most petty" by far. Fanon usually goes with "but he had to maintain his cover!", but I very much doubt Voldemort's belief in Snape's loyalties depended on such gems as Snape making Harry copy detention notes on his father and Sirius in the year after Sirius' death. Fanon!Snape never does that kind of stuff. (Movie Snape didn't, either.) My feeling on that is that the filmmakers made the choice to soften Snape's character since reading about a grown man being horrible and petty to children is one thing but actually seeing it is another. It would have been difficult for them to elicit any sort of sympathy at the time of the character's big reveal after watching him be such a horrid person for 6 films prior. Snape's

[germankitty]

"Not to mention making him twenty years or so older than he is in the books ruins the timeline of his story arc in other ways."

But the thing is, Alan Rickman is older than Snape -- the actor, not the character. (Incidentally, the same holds true for the actors playing Lily and James. They look old enough to have a teenaged son when in canon they died in their early twenties.) Strange, when you consider that they managed to cast most recurring characters about right, age-wise (obviously disregarding Dumbledore); the only other actor who didn't quite fit was Julie Walters, but she did such a great job as Molly, I think one can forgive her for being about a decade or so out of sync. :)

Rickman was also too good-looking for Snape, but I guess the producers felt you can't have someone ugly in an important part, unless it's Wormtail. *sigh*

Aside from the watering-down of book!Snape done by the scriptwriter(s), though, I rather liked Rickman's Snape. IMO, he got the underlying menace and sinisterness of the character rather right.

[akatnamedeaster]

But the thing is, Alan Rickman is older than Snape -- the actor, not the character. True, but they never get into the ages of the characters at all and if I were a film goer who never read the books, well, Rickman looks like he's in his 60's at the end of the series, certainly not 38 like Snape is supposed to be in the books. That's all I meant by it since the film audience is never told Snape is 31 at the start of the series and would never guess that by looking at Rickman

[germankitty]

Actually, the actors' and their characters' ages really aren't that far apart. I once obviously had too much time on my hands when I looked up and compared the ages. :)

For example, when they first appear on screen in PoA, Gary Oldman is two years older than Sirius and David Thewlis actually three years younger than Remus; Jason Isaac is the same age as Thewlis and thus about 8 years too young for Lucius whereas Helen McCrory (Narcissa) is yet another five years younger, but looks too old.

Natalia Tena (Tonks) is five years older than Daniel Radcliffe, which kind of fits the characters, but she, too, certainly appeared to be somewhat older.

Rickman, on the other hand, is 14 years older than Snape.

Possibly it was more a question of the "look" they gave the characters in the films; a bit of tweaking re: makeup and wardrobe to make it fit better would've been nice.