My Chemical Romance song of the day: “Kill All Your Friends” (morbid title I know but it’s a pretty catch song for a B-side)
So, as my WIP declares yet another civil war on me (it’s been threatening to off a couple secondary characters and change the color of my protagonist’s hair, the rascal) the week preceding the release of HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART ONE begins. As does the week before the release of rock group My Chemical Romance’s 4th album, “Danger Days: the True Lives of the Fabulous Killjoys”. So, let’s jump right into it!
Okay, so I know the books vs. movies debate is as old as time’s great-great-grandfather but now that I have so many cool writer buds it’ll be interesting to share opinions.
My opinion? Well…I’m glad you asked.
SSF’s PROS AND CONS OF THE HP MOVIES AND BOOKS
Books:
Pros…
- Sorta obvious. Meatier plots and characters, as well as backstories never mentioned in the films.
- Things are explained so you’re not left to wonder how one piece of magic is possible when something else said it isn’t.
- Peeves the Poltegeist! Everyone’s favorite, immature poltergeist. If he’d been in the movies, I would vote for a contemplation of his rude songs.
Cons…
- Okay, the world’s a BIT too open for the imagination at times. You’d think they can do any sort of magic to achieve something, then get disappointed to learn the rules clearly explaining that, no, they cannot.
- There’s only so much time Harry can spend on his “obsessions” (like when he knows there’s a mystery in the castle or that Professor Snape’s up to something). In the movies, they’re introduced then resolved. In the books, Harry spends not only paragraphs of his book but weeks of wizarding-time thinking about the newest mystery. You guys probably already know, but as great of a way that is to focus on voice it means no action. It’s the whole “thinking-and-washing-dishes” technique.
Movies:
Pros…
- The constant action! The horror that is more distinct! Its amazing depth really resignates with people, even the ones who don’t know how to read. The screenplay adds just enough snarky humor that still aligns with the characters too.
- The actors have fallen so permanently into their roles that I wouldn’t be surprised if Emma Watson (Hermonie Granger’s portrayer) finds herself reading textbooks for fun while she’s a student at Brown University. Besides, there have never been so many spot-on castings in one movie - Helena Bonham Carter as psycho, but forever loyal, Death Eater Bellatrix Lestrange is enough proof of that.
Cons…
- Huge chunk of story missing, of course! No house-elves rights (S.P.E.W!). No Bill and Charlie Weasley (though hopefully that’ll change with Bill in this last movie as he’s getting, I don’t know, MARRIED). No dramatic Ron vs. Hermonie plots (I think their arguing over their pets in “The Prizoner of Azkaban” lasted a minute). Not even any Horcruxes - well, one Horcrux. Big whoop.
- Really random additions. I’m sure you all remember the shrunken heads in “Prisoner of Azkaban”. Or has anyone noticed that “Nigel” character that’s in the fourth and fifth flicks? I have no idea who this kid thinks he is, but he’s not a figment of J.K Rowling’s wonderful imagination, that’s for sure.
Yeah, sadly nothing about Harry Potter is perfect (the books are close though). However, one pro is that both the books and movies share is that they’re worth waiting in line at midnight for.
So, friends, what’s your view on the debate? Is there something you love about the movies but would usually hate to admit, or vice versa? Tell all.
And as a goodbye until tomorrow, here’s an entertaining cameo that British actor Daniel Radcliffe (you know…the guy who dons the Harry Potter glasses and lightning scar) did in “The Simpson’s” Treehouse of Horror episode last week. He plays a vegeterian vampire named Edmund…huh, sounds familiar.
No comments:
Post a Comment