quote:

---

Originally posted by gkgyver:
[B]Well, here you have it again, the everlasting battle book VS movie.

---

Who was complaining about the books vs. movies?

The only thing this series does wrong in terms of adaptation is leaving out a significant chunk of emotional resonance. I could care less about who finds Harry on the train or if Harry isn't wearing his cloak on the tower. The filmmakers try so hard to fit things in that they neglect a coherent emotional arc. Yates can yap all he wants about how he's making this stuff character driven, but he's not.

quote:

---

I feel like with OotP, the MOVIE series lost control over its own storyline, and Yates was just trying to make the movies as coherent as possible.

---

The books lost control over their own storyline too, though.

quote:

---

Seven is a magical number, and I have no doubt that Rowling had seven books in mind once she published the first one because it is fitting.

---

Wanting seven books and actually having the amount of story to fill them are different things entirely. People are getting tired of this series being dragged out, and for good reason. I am a fan of the books (well, the first six, anyway) but I really think Rowling could have wrapped things up earlier.

The fact that there are virtually no repercussions to the wizarding war by the end of the final book (save some cheap-shot deaths), to the point that Harry can fix his broken wand that created many problems in the book, is what made me drift away from the series. Are we allowed no effects of the conflicts? "All was well"?...you've got to be joking, Rowling.

Yeah, I know it's a children's series, but Rowling and her hardcore fans like to act like this series is masterpiece literature.

However, I did enjoy this film, even if it isn't a relevant or meaningful one.

There are many people who think that the Lord of the Rings novels are far too stretched out. But who would argue their impact or their genius?

Harry Potter is not on the same level as Lord of the Rings, but the situation you describe is almost identical.

Rowling indulges herself into her story because she loves to do so, and that may have lead to some detours. But that doesn't change the fact that billions of people love to dive into that detail as well.
And there are people, casual readers, who perceive those details as helplessly overbearing.
Just like with LotR.

I'm sure, had those films not been made until the release of Deathly Hallows, nobody would fuss about how Half-Blood Prince drags things out too far.
After all, the books were not meant to be screenplays for movies.

There is no question that the story could have been wrapped up earlier.
But there is also no question that the novels would appear a lot more ordinary then.

The greatest tales are so great because they aren't so eager to get the job done.

There is simply too much redundancy and too many incremental characters introduced in each book for that to be possible.

Even mentioning Tolkien in the same breath as Rowling is entertaining, but there is a key difference between LoTR and HP. LoTR was written as a single book and for nearly 10-years he attempted to hold out for a publisher who would release it as such. Business prevailed and it was carved up rather haphazardly.

Business certainly prevailed for Rowling and her publisher (they would have been fools not to.)

It's very nice to read objectivity when dealing with these stories. That's very hard to find.

The difference between the two stories are indeed in the form and circumstances of publishing, but who are we really to just say the story as it is now was never planned as such?

The modern publishing world certainly faciliated the release of Harry Potter, but who's to say Tolkien, if he lived today, had not included much more stuff in Lord of the Rings, were he in Rowling's place?
I'm almost certain he would have, had he been allowed to do so.
And don't forget that Tolkien had no idea where he would go with the story when he started writing, and it essentially ended up like this!

HAd Rowling conceived Harry Potter back in those troublesome days of Tolkien, her story would have been condensed as well, no question.

Back then, were people saying "Oh, that Bombadil is such a redundant character, clearly that guy never knew what he was doing here"? Or that encounter with the elves in the forest was so totally irrelevant to the story ...!
And they would have been partially right, he didn't know what he was doing, essentially. He just kept writing and celebrated his invention.

And so did Rowling. It may not always appeal to all people, but that doesn't mean it was never intended as such.
Plus, nobody could ever keep the stories of seven fat books in his mind in all detail.
You have the main story and subplots, but how you play them out, that is by taking one step at a time.

The main reason is that there are so many random inserts and so many contrived moments in the last installment for me to take her fabled "boxes and boxes of notes" about her overall plot seriously. People make such a deal about her hinting at things in early books, which was certainly true with the first half of the series (which I think she did plan), but there is very little of that in book seven. Most of the attempts to connect the storyline come off as very forced (the sudden change in the Deluminator, for instance, or the lack of any previous hints concerning Harry's cloak). There are clearly some moments that she's been dying to write for years, but they are few and far between.

Are you a creative/art guy? Because when I have an idea for a piece of music or a possible solution for a problem, musically, I always write it down immediately. My whole room is flooded with sketch books that contain random ideas, exercises, and so on. Even my PC is just messy with all the scrapped ideas, or things I never got to pursue further.

It's a natural obsession with most creative people. You wouldn't know how often I go back to one of those half-ideas for a piece that is something completely different.

Therefor, there is no question for me that Rowling also has loads of notes stashed away, notes for ideas that she revisited and incorporated into the books when she saw fit, while polishing the main plot that she had in mind.

Guaranteed.

I don't fault her for it either.

I simply look at the story arc mapped in Goblet of Fire, Order of the Phoenix, and Half Blood Prince and I can say that fundamental, plot advancing material (when viewing the 7 book cycle) clearly was stretched thin.

Five books would have been appropriate for the amount non-trifling content.

I am amazed by people claiming this to be the best "film" so far. I just can't fathom it.

It was by far the weakest, most contrived, and laborious to sit through.

Anywho, the score and the movie weren't nearly as bad as I was expecting. I'm glad they expanded on my favorite cue from the last movie (Posession) so I really can't complain. There are some stuff that's not really all that memorable, but for the most part I think it's because they didn't want to overdo the music.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gkgyver:
Again the common misconception that subtle music can't be memorable ...

[Message edited by gkgyver on 08-10-2009]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by scoreguy16:
There are some stuff that's not really all that memorable, but for the most part I think it's because they didn't want to overdo the music.

---

quote:

---

And when I read that I don't reread it as "subtle music can't be memorable." I read (and meant) it as "there's parts that aren't really memorable in the score, but I feel like they didn't want to over do the music to the point of being intrusive."

---

I don't comprehend that sentence.
But anyway, there is nothing to twist about that statement.
You say the music is largely not memorable because it shouldn't be intrusive. The difference is marginal - then you are saying more memorable music would be more intrusive, which is just as absurd.

You could play "The Friends" over the final scene in Philosopher's Stone, and it wouldn't be "intrusive" or "overdone", that is correct. But not because Hooper is such a clever composer, it's because the cue is so bland.
Now, Williams' "Leaving Hogwarts" is also not very "intrusive", and yet it's ten times more memorable.
And that's because Williams actually dares to do something with his music.

What would make the music "intrusive" anyway in your eyes?

But I posted to say something else completely.
I find it profoundly ironic that the only time I thought the music wrenched a genuine emotion out of me, and actually connected with the film was during Aragog's funeral.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gkgyver:

I don't comprehend that sentence.
But anyway, there is nothing to twist about that statement.
You say the music is largely not memorable because it shouldn't be intrusive. The difference is marginal - then you are saying more memorable music would be more intrusive, which is just as absurd.

You could play "The Friends" over the final scene in Philosopher's Stone, and it wouldn't be "intrusive" or "overdone", that is correct. But not because Hooper is such a clever composer, it's because the cue is so bland.
Now, Williams' "Leaving Hogwarts" is also not very "intrusive", and yet it's ten times more memorable.
And that's because Williams actually dares to do something with his music.

What would make the music "intrusive" anyway in your eyes?

But I posted to say something else completely.
I find it profoundly ironic that the only time I thought the music wrenched a genuine emotion out of me, and actually connected with the film was during Aragog's funeral.

It's ironic because the cue was severely shortened in the film, and I think that's because someone realised the first two thirds of it were very much out of place.

---

Sweet Jesus... let me re-write what I meant in a way for you to understand:

There are a few memorable moments in the score (though not nearly as many as there were in the first 5 films so I guess this would be my least favorite Harry Potter score next to the second one). I feel they wanted to take a minimalistic approach to this film. Because of that, a lot of the music is not memorable or catchy. Now I am not saying that applies to all minimalistic and subtle music. But unfortunately, this score's subtle moments don't do much for me. Perhaps with a different composer doing the subtle parts, they would've been more memorable.

While it does not have many grandstanding moments (say, as compared to a John Williams score) it worked well enough in the film and is pleasantly consistent throughout on the release.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gkgyver:
Since I was talking about being intrusive - I watched the thing again, and I couldn't help but notice the music during the kiss scene, and thinking that it is indeed intrusive.

The way the harp and guitar starts to tingle all of a sudden is so emphatically romantic, low key and "teeny" that it takes me out of a scene that is actually quite lovely.

---

Yep... it was the only "cringe" moment in the entire film for me.

I finally saw this last week, and, contrary to my expectations, I found it a more than adequate entry to the film canon. Given that I detested the last film, and consider it easily the worst of the series, I'm shocked at how nicely David Yates and Co. packaged this one up. I have some quibbles, mostly with the final half hour or so, but I'm quite pleased in general.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gkgyver:
Since I was talking about being intrusive - I watched the thing again, and I couldn't help but notice the music during the kiss scene, and thinking that it is indeed intrusive.

The way the harp and guitar starts to tingle all of a sudden is so emphatically romantic, low key and "teeny" that it takes me out of a scene that is actually quite lovely.

---