LeChuck
Posts: 58
Joined: 1/5/2006
|
quote:
The whole point of adapting books is so that you get a visual interpretation of the book not a complete rape like 'I am Legend' that completely went against the original.
See, this is where we disagree; I've always felt that making a film that is simply a play-by-play visual imitation of the book is an exercise in masturbatory pointlessness. Obviously in this case I'd prefer a film that's faithful to the spirit, message, story and characters of the source text, but more than anything, I would like an actual FILM. Deathly Hallows was a fabulous book, but it was just that: a book, and a bloody long book at that. It was paced like a long book, and structured like a long book. Simply filming that scene-for-scene over five hours might be a gratifying exercise for a core of HP fanatics, but my fear is that this process of non-adaptation will land us with a bloated, stylistically confused vomit drop of scenes that conforms to no recognised cinematic storytelling conventions, and that will be essentially worthless as an independent creative entity.
Furthermore, I disagree fundamentally with this concept that Deathly Hallows is a story so complex that it cannot possibly be cut. For God's sake, look at the entire history of cinematic literary adaptations; hundreds upon hundreds of novels, many infinitely more complex than Harry Potter, have been adapted for the silver screen, and not one of them has needed FIVE bloody hours to tell their story. Yes, Deathly Hallows was long and dense on the page, but that's because it was meant as the ultimate culmination of the books' larger and denser universe; every loose end needed to be tied off, every character accounted for, every major and minor arc completed. The universe of the films, however, has thus far been a (necessarily) simpler and less layered vision of the same thing, where background characters are sometimes just that, where precise detail isn't always given, where some things are left unsaid if they're not 100% important to the main thrust of Harry's story; as such, the finale to THIS universe could in turn easily have afforded to be a much simpler story. Would you have to cut things that were important in the book? Of course; everything in the book is important, that's why they're in there, but it doesn't mean that those things are necessarily important if you're making a film. The Marauders' backstory was crucial to the book of PoA; it wasn't to the film, so they cut it. Dobby's roles in GoF and OotP were vital; he wasn't necessary in the film, so they gave his role to Neville instead. They're details, detours and elaborations, all of which are fascinating on the page, but would be time-consuming and pointless on the screen, and Deathly Hallows is chock full of them (Regulus, Bill, Fleur, The Tale of the Three Brothers, Snape and Dumbledore's pasts, Dobby, Scrimgeour, Dean, Griphook). Which is why you change it, lest you get a five hours of formless, pointless reiteration, which is what I fear we're going to get. The Potter filmmakers understood this in the past, but now they seem to have forgotten it, which is why I suspect that they're taking into account considerations beyond the creative...
|
Printable Version
Potter Producer Talks Deathly Hallows - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread