I've seen all of the Harry Potter movies (the early ones multiple times). I listened to most of book 5 on tape while in Bar Harbor. At one point (sometime around when movie 3 came out) I started reading book 1 at the Harvard Coop. I'm not someone who typically re-reads a book (LOTR is a rare exception, but the gap was about 10 years) and already knowing the major points from the movie I was having trouble getting into it (I realize it wasn't a fair try since Harry hadn't even gotten to Hogwarts so I may give it another try at some point). And I was told the major plot points of book 6 (I'm almost tempted to contact that person to find out what happens in book 7 since she's probably done by now).
I like all the movies, but the last two seemed like they were rushing to hit the major plot points and unable to spend time on the character and background development that the other movies were able to capture (yeah, I think I stole this theory from someone else, but I'm going with it). I know hardcore Harry fans think that all of the movies had left out major details and I didn't know if listening to book 5 was throwing off my opinion so I decided to look at just how rushed the movies were.
| Name | Book [pages] | Film [minutes] | Book/Film [pages/minute] |
| LOTR | 1200 | 558 | 2.15 |
| LOTR DVD | 1200 | 682 | 1.76 |
| HP 1 | 309 | 152 | 2.03 |
| HP 2 | 256 | 161 | 1.59 |
| HP 3 | 320 | 141 | 2.27 |
| HP 4 | 752 | 157 | 4.79 |
| HP 5 | 870 | 138 | 6.30 |
I think it is fairly clear that the movies were trying to pack a reasonable amount in at the beginning, but the last two have been trying to fit in way more book per minute. And the first few books were about in line with LOTR's page/minute rate. Given the length of books 6 and 7 I hope they consider making longer movies or even splitting them into multiple movies (or I guess I could just break down and read the books rather than depending on film makers to cover all the details).
Final thoughts - I enjoyed the fight scene between Dumbledore and Voldemort although I spent a lot of it wondering when Harry was going to get up and do something useful (although when Dumbledore tossed him on his ass with a flick of the wrist I realized he was way out of his league). Perhaps someone knows the answer to this - for the kids it seems like a major portion of spell casting is saying the right word, but adults don't seem to have to say anything to cast spells. What's up with that?
3 comments:
I thought the movie was fantastic... And the folks I was with both loved it and also have read the books. I tried to watch from the 'not-read-book-YET' perspective, and wondered if it was too plot-filled. Your chart is hilarious and indicates, YES, as does your testimonial from a non-reader! READ 7 before you hear what happens!
K, now, watch this (totally different) and tell me Fox news it spreading impossible lies.
YOUTUBE: cell phone fox
If you were to have read the books, David, you would know why the adults don't have to say the spells - in fact, the students are taught how to do it in the "Half-blood prince".
I also find your chart hilarious, as is your assumption that every page of the book carries the same amount of information, and that said amount of information somehow equates to a minute of movie.
On a completely different note, thanks for changing the colorscheme :). I can read your blog without cringing now.
I feel kinda jipped after seeing your chart. I can't believe they cheated us out of so much movie time!
There are so many book elements that just were not or could not be expressed in the movies, that I'd say it's definitely worth reading books 6 and 7. And maybe start from from books 1 again. Heh. It takes real dedication to be a HP fan.
Post a Comment