Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:I disagree. Roddenberry always pitched STOS as Wagon train in space. Except for the usual jump the shark moments, I fail to see the difference.

We're talking Captain Kirk romping through the galaxy kicking butt like a captain in a young empire should. The used techese to explain away problems. Hard sci fi it was not.

Naw, tech-ese was more the Next Generation crap. And I agree there, it was mostly crap. Too often his Deus Ex Machina but in all fairness by season three of that show (TNG) he was barely involved as he was having health issues.

I'm talking about episodes like:

Where No Man has Gone Before
A Taste of Armageddon
The Mark of Gideon
City on the Edge of Forever
The Devil in the Dark
Who Mourns for Adonis?
Spectre of the Gun
Let That be your Last Battlefield

Besides, later on he admitted that he described Star Trek as "Wagon Train to the Stars" to sell it to the network and he had his own Sci-Fi agenda.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I'm still not sure how the film vs. most of the TV shows and STOS movies are materially different.

Frazzled wrote:Well we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I'm still not sure how the film vs. most of the TV shows and STOS movies are materially different.

Actually, I have to agree and I guess you win. Most of the old shows and certainly all of the movies are materially the same. Star Trek II was a summer action movie and I can't argue that. I just didn't like the new movie all that much. Thanks for making me feel stupid! I can still love my old show, can't I?

There are two types of nerd..

'NO! Don't change it! NOO!'

And...

'Where's my change? It was a faithful 'adaptation?!' WHERE IS IT!'

Shamfrit wrote:There are two types of nerd..

'NO! Don't change it! NOO!'

And...

'Where's my change? It was a faithful 'adaptation?!' WHERE IS IT!'

Naw, that's just anyone ready to criticize anything. They subconsciously have both arguments ready so they can automatically NOT like something.

Besides, there are Nerds and Geeks. Nerds are really into a given thing. Geeks dress up like that given thing.

GoFenris wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Well we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I'm still not sure how the film vs. most of the TV shows and STOS movies are materially different.

Actually, I have to agree and I guess you win. Most of the old shows and certainly all of the movies are materially the same. Star Trek II was a summer action movie and I can't argue that. I just didn't like the new movie all that much. Thanks for making feel stupid! I can still love my old show, can't I?

heck yea you can have your old show boyo! Even now I still get a little thrill when I hear Shatner's "Space, the final frontier. these are the voyages..."
Ayah I didn't think it was the greatest in the world but it was a good summer movie.

It fulfilled everything Star Trek was to me personally, having watched it 5 nights a week through junior school and ensuring I'd seen Generation, TOS and Voyager 27 times ^_^

And Kirk was hot, and so was uhuhuhuhuhurururur,

Although I expect this has been done to death.

Just thought I'd add in that my Dad actually got the job to set the première in Leicester Square, London up. He then asked me to go along with him. Therefore I got to set the whole première up, and got to see the stars also!!

Didn't see the movie though :(

All in all though, It was a bloody good set-up (if I may say so myself).

Cheers,

Jack.

BTW Jim Broadbent is great as Slughorn. He's not given too much to do as the movie is jam packed (and a bit rushed because of it) but what he does is pretty memorable. His looks are hysterical!

I liked it a little disappointed about no dobby and kretcher man when will they learn house elves are an important part of the story line.
They better be in the last one.

Caught a viewing last night and I liked it. Though the story is much darker, and more serious than Order of the Pheonix, the director was able to keep it lighter and a more pleasent movie. I really liked how you can feel that the kids are growing up. Not in the 30 year olds playing teens kind of way, but you see the relationships and attitudes changing.

After talking to a couple of people I learned they cut alot from the book. I don't know if it was anything overly crucial, but during a post movie discussion I learned a couple of things that makes me think the movie was lacking. I was stilled pleased with it and would gladly see it again.

Considering how big the book is, it was only to be expected, everything there was adequate to get the story across...to be fair, anyone who's read the books is ultimately going to be disappointed, because the big moment of the film is a repetition of something we've already been through.

Still good though

Agreed. Also, I don't envy the filmmakers trying to cram it all in. It is already fairly long (and a bit rushed) how much farther can you go. I do think making the last one into two movies is probably a good thing and should add back in Dobby, Kreacher and other overlooked details up until this point.

Too bad we can't get the first two films remade. Chris Columbus stinks (except Christmas Vacation)

IF I HAD A RUBBER HOSE....

Kilkrazy wrote:The child actors were pretty good, I thought, but the direction and editing was a bit slack. Remember that most of them were only 12 when they did the first film.

It is a relatively juvenile series on the whole, but I enjoyed them.

What's your opinion on the Narnia books and films? (Or The Golden Compass, for that matter.))

I have only read a few Narnia books, but I really liked the style of writing.

I liked the LW&W movie.... a lot. (I alaso liked the cartoon.. from the 80's?)The prince caspian movie ....not so much. I didn't read the Golden Compass, and didn't like the movie at all.


GG

I finished the Golden Compass and the second book. I watched probably 30 minutes of the movie and was instantly turned off from the series. The translation to the big screen was so awful that the story became less compelling. That is pretty pathetic.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Same. I would hardly call this Harry Potter one, a "movie" it was more like an interlude. It hurt me to sit through it.

You mean, like the most recent Star Wars prequel movie?

...Actually that is kind of wierd. Star Wars was...well, I actually can't find the words. I HATE prequels...

When can i start ok, they cut out some very imprtant lessons, with Dumbledore, which were very very imprtant for the next film, the director seems to think wizards dont need to say spells to cast them, or move there wands!

When malfoy was duelling Harry, they were shooting white light at each other, was it meant to be a disarming spell? achualy they were meant to be stupifying each other, which is a red light, and the killing curse whic Dumbledore was the wrong colour.

The fake Horcrux locket, looked completely wrong, the battle scene's were too dark, and the happy scene's were too light.

The burrow does not get destroyed, now i understand the need to show the constant danger to harry, but why destroy something as important as the Burrow?

Slughorn was played brilliantly but Ginny Weasly was played horribly, the director seemed to think Ginny was still nervous and quieit like she was in the 2nd and 3rd book, cant say Harry was played brilliantly, but Ron was played very well, and i realy liked the way he was played.

i HATED the actor playing Tom Riddle, i mean it completely contriditing the 2nd movie, where he looked completely different!
He looked too snake-like, he meant to be a tall, handsome and charming, and he comes across as rather cold.

Very bad film, the only good parts were when Ron ate the love potion, and that was meant to happen on his Birthday anyway.
And when the hand of the Inferno came out of the water and grabbed Harrys ankle, made me and the whole cinema jump, and I was expecting it, Overall terrible, with great difficulty are they going to make Deathly Hollows, now.

Xav I think you know the book too well for Dakka...

Prepare yourself, FOR YOU ARE TO ENTER THE THUNDERDOME!!!

Xav wrote:When can i start ok, they cut out some very important lessons...

While I agree with many of your points, I've also come to accept through the years that the "Hollywood process" of story telling is going to simplify a story and plot on just about anything that was written as a book first.

While I agree that too often these changes severely alter or destroy the source material they serve to tell a story in a concise way for viewers who are used to being spoon fed information (ironically, thanks to the same system that has tried to simplify things for the 'average' viewer). I in no way endorse this kind of practice. It is just that until a.)I own a multi-billion dollar movie studio, or b.)We as viewers become much more sophisticated in what we expect from cinema, this is just the way it is.

I knew going in that the filmakers would skip details of the story, omit other details and simplify things (Like teenage Voldemort) to make it more easily digestible to the movie going public.

The truth is in American cinema (especially pop-cinema), it is almost taboo to portray an evil character as even a little likable, even if it is just an act.

An example: No one wants to think of Hitler as ever being a likable person with real feelings. To have had felt love, loss or pain. To have ever smiled and run around playing with other children. Yet if we stop to think about it, he most probably did, despite the atrocities he committed within his life time. Most people are content to think of him as this Monster from birth hiding in a human's skin. I use Hitler as an example because Voldemort is an archetype formed in a 'Hitler' mold. He's an extreme racist with delusions of grandeur and the power to seriously make a go of it. The film makers want the viewers to believe him to be a monster hiding in a human's skin even if he was portrayed as more human in the books, albeit twisted by those same feelings of love, loss and pain we all feel.

With that said, this is why I consider the movies as companion pieces to the books. Nothing more and sometimes (as is the case with the first two movies) something much less.

Just some of my thoughts on it.

Also, weren't they casting spells they knew well by the fourth or fifth book, silently? Or at least only mumbling? I know more powerful wizards were.

Non verbal spells, yes but it clearly states in the book, that Harry, Ron and most of the people in the 6th year could barely do it, but still even if they are using non verbal spells, doesnt mean you dont have to point a wand, you have to select a target.

I probaly would have enjoyed it more, if i have not read the books, but still, id like the public to see The Harry Potter series properly, and not cut down to size for those of the general public who are incompetent.

Xav wrote:Non verbal spells, yes but it clearly states in the book, that Harry, Ron and most of the people in the 6th year could barely do it, but still even if they are using non verbal spells, doesnt mean you dont have to point a wand, you have to select a target.

I probaly would have enjoyed it more, if i have not read the books, but still, id like the public to see The Harry Potter series properly, and not cut down to size for those of the general public who are incompetent.

Well, they can 'see' them properly if they choose to read them. Of course Hollywood loves to provide a 'lite' alternative. It's like lite beer; it tastes sorta like beer, it's good in a pinch but I'd never drink that crap if I had a choice let alone keep it in my fridge.

Look at LoTR. I know WAY too many people that count those movies as the end all be all of LoTR and have forgotten (or never read nor will ever bother reading) the pipe smoking Oxford Professor that started it all. I personally think this is a tragedy and Jackson's hubris screwed the movies up, especially near the end. I still enjoy them for what they are but when I really want to re-live it, I re-read them.

Oh yeah and I'm not sure I can ever forgive Peter Jackson, LoTR was a huge negative and King Kong was a tipping point. (Not that he needs my forgiveness). You know I have trouble enjoying some of his earlier stuff now. I know I probably take it all too seriously but he wounded me, WOUNDED ME!!!

I see your point, i never read LoTR, but might do soon.

Have you seen Angels & Demons, i enjoyed the book, the film was horrible, i mean about 5x worse then Harry potter, and they missed of a whole character, who was important to the plot.

*Rant Mode On*

I think it is nice that you both read books, but maybe if you were almost as smart and as critical as you think you are you would realize that books and movies are not, and never have been, the same thing. Complaining that a movie isn't the book is a silly and not entirely well thought out argument. If you really like a book, probably best to avoid the movie. You understand they aren't the same thing on a surface level, but if you actually knew it you wouldn't be complaining. Dislike or like a film on it's own merits, not because it isn't a book. Only a blinded by the light fanboy with no perspective would hate the LotR movies. They were well crafted films from the beginning to the end and wonderfully epic peices of cinema. They were never intended to be the books or replace the books.

It is also somewhat disingenuous to characterize the problem as being with Hollywood when any film-maker anywhere trying to adapt something has to face these issues. It isn't as if everywhere else in the world they are making 100% pure adaptations that please everyone all of the time but Hollywood keeps screwing up.

I read these posts and I hear in my head two infants crying and complaining about the most slowed things. Again, if you only want literal adaptations or expect to only see on screen what you personally saw in your head when you read a book, DON'T GO SEE THE MOVIE. You have trouble adapting (pun intended) between mediums that are radically different and it would save you the agony of disappointment and us the agony of the useless fanboy whine.

Rant Mode Off

I dont think im smart......

And I will complain when the film, went off the main storyline so much that its going to screw up the next film and wreck the story for those who dont read books.
I dont mind adaptations, sometimes it has to happen, but i dont like it when the plot gets literally re-written, for no reason, they could have easily included the extra lessons with Dumbledore, as without them, they cannot find and destroy several of the Horcrux's which is what the 7th one is realy about.

I understand completely that books and films can never truly be the same, but i expect them to try and keep the plot as clear as possible for future films, which they havnt done
Well were be the ones laughing when they try to right the Deathly Hollows script.

Xav wrote:And I will complain when the film, went off the main storyline so much that its going to screw up the next film and wreck the story for those who dont read books.

You could have Harry turn into the Hulk and have jetpacks in the next movie and it wouldn't ruin it for the people who haven't read the books becuase they don't know what goes on in the books because they haven't read the books. At best it would ruin it for some of the people who read the books that that have no tolerance for change. Most people who read the books have enjoyed the movies on their own terms. The only complaint you can level, so far, against the movie is that it isn't the book, which is a poor argument in trying to attack the film itself.

Xav wrote:I dont mind adaptations, sometimes it has to happen, but i dont like it when the plot gets literally re-written, for no reason.

No, they get rewritten for a reason. It may be time constraint, it may be that the screenwriter focus's on a theme or idea in a work that is but one of many. What the book may have been as a main theme may not be the same one that a film emphasizes, and vice versa. The changes may not always be well thought out, but there is always a reason. Again, if you want the exact same plot, just read the book again. This film seems to emphasize the characters transformation and growth and less focus on the hunt for the maguffins, which is different than the books (as far as I can tell) but it made for a good movie. The hunt will get enough time with 2 more movies being focused on that. Seeing as they are working on The Deathly Hallows at the same as they were working on this one I imagine they already have worked out the 'problems'. The time line in which things happen may not be point for point the same as the books, but so what? That isn't really a very good reason to go on with the gnashing of teeth and tearing of cloth.

Look at the overlap between The Two Towers and Return of the King. If they hadn't fudged it a bit then the movies would have lost a considerable bit, but that's my opinion.

Ahtman wrote:*Rant Mode On*

I think it is nice that you both read books, but maybe if you were almost as smart and as critical as you think you are you would realize that books and movies are not, and never have been, the same thing. Complaining that a movie isn't the book is a silly and not entirely well thought out argument. If you really like a book, probably best to avoid the movie. You understand they aren't the same thing on a surface level, but if you actually knew it you wouldn't be complaining. Dislike or like a film on it's own merits, not because it isn't a book. Only a blinded by the light fanboy with no perspective would hate the LotR movies. They were well crafted films from the beginning to the end and wonderfully epic peices of cinema. They were never intended to be the books or replace the books.

It is also somewhat disingenuous to characterize the problem as being with Hollywood when any film-maker anywhere trying to adapt something has to face these issues. It isn't as if everywhere else in the world they are making 100% pure adaptations that please everyone all of the time but Hollywood keeps screwing up.

I read these posts and I hear in my head two infants crying and complaining about the most slowed things. Again, if you only want literal adaptations or expect to only see on screen what you personally saw in your head when you read a book, DON'T GO SEE THE MOVIE. You have trouble adapting (pun intended) between mediums that are radically different and it would save you the agony of disappointment and us the agony of the useless fanboy whine.

Rant Mode Off

I think what makes me laugh most about this is I stated very similar things (for the most part) to what you you did. I also stated I like the movies (Harry Potter and LoTR for what they are) My "rant" against Jackson was finished off with this emoticon:

And believe it or not, while the problems that filmmakers face adapting a written work are not just "Hollywood" problems, please don't believe for a moment that "Hollywood" does not dumb things down. Because they absolutely do and they admit it.

Are you familiar with what this emoticon ( ) means? Because I'd be happy to explain it to you. If my sarcasm is lost on you, I cant help. Jackson's hubris comment, I stand by, however.

A book can take a whole page to explain the appearance of a scene which a movie can do in a six second panning shot.

However a book easily lets you into the thoughts of a character which always work really badly done on screen, (voice/over, for instance.)