"Order of the Phoenix" MOVIE SPOILER BELOW!
My poor fantasy fic blog. It never sees me!
If only this were my only blog. I'm convinced that if I didn't have to work for a living or keep up a political blog that I'm reluctant to give up because it garners interviews, press, invitations to cool events, and a few intangibles, and provides a well-linked forum for my "controversial" opinions, I'd be the premiere Christian fantasy fiction blogger on the whole wide web.
Nothing wrong with my ego, as you can see. But since I'm doing this on stolen time, I'll get to the point: I'm probably the only Harry Potter fan not going to see "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix." Why? The cuts and story changes will be gut-wrenching. I can't take it.
I liked "Goblet of Fire," in a sense, because it was about Harry Potter. But it drove me crazy. Read my review. And that dragon chase scene. Don't get me started on that. All through the movie, I actually took notes (don't tell anybody) so I could remember what was left out, condensed, changed…Watching the DVD months later made me feel only marginally better about the movie.
I've explained why I love the first three movies. I saw them before I read the books. I was ignorant! The movies were delightful. I didn't know until I read the books how things were supposed to have happened in the movies. In this case, ignorance was truly bliss.
To save myself from "Goblet of Fire" type agony, I'll pass on "Order of the Phoenix." Here's one example why. I read an advance review some months ago and learned this: the screenwriter has Cho Chang instead of her best friend Marietta ratting out Dumbledore's Army to Professor Umbridge. I mean…what? Peter Pettigrew killed Cho's boyfriend on the Dark Lord's orders. She told Harry that despite what her parents said about keeping her nose clean at Hogwarts, she was not going to forget about what happened to Cedric or who had him killed. Cho's angry and wants to learn to fight back. And she's crushing on Harry.
But in the movie, she's the rat — completely out of character — because the movie company didn’t want to pay another actress or add a few more lines to the script. And that's just one deplorable change (albeit involving a minor character). I can't imagine what they've done with pivotal scenes. My heart can't take it. No, I'll stay home and wait impatiently for the seventh and final episode of Harry Potter's battle with evil.
Who, me? Obsessed? Nah….
P.S. Still gonna write that review and nagging plot holes in Sorcerer's Stone post…
Update (6/26): Tips for parents on comforting their kids if Harry snuffs it in Book 7. I'm in the Harry-sacrifices-himself-for-his-friends camp.
Young Daniel believes his character ought to die. "I do think it would be fitting in a way, because when you consider the prophecy that was made about him and Voldemort, one of them has to go. I think he might, but that's based on absolutely nothing."
June 25th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
You'll be happy to know that every bit of the dragon scene now irritates me as well. I remember we had a minor disagreement on part of it.
I'm still planning to see the movie. The left out and changed plot points are a touch irksome, but somehow I'm able to go in saying, "This is a movie. Let's see how they've pulled this off in 2.5 hours."
The Cho thing is definitely out of character, but it doesn't bother me so much…Cho is a rather minor character, and it's certainly easier, when you're planning to condense 900 pages into 2.5 hours, to have Cho be the rat, especially since it makes for a clear-cut reason for the breakup with Harry (rather than the sort of ambiguous, "We just fell apart," which works great in the books but is not as easy in a movie).
I'm planning to go to the midnight showing. I'm inexplicably optimistic about Order. No idea why. I should expect to be pessimistic, since it was my favorite book, but apart from bracing myself for another abysmal performance from Gambon, I'm looking forward to it.
June 25th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
LaShawn Barber explains why she won't be going to see Order.
June 26th, 2007 at 2:54 am
I felt the same thing with Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies.
The Faramir debacle had me in knots. The reluctant Aragorn didn't sit right. The "Mostly Jolly" Gandalf irked me and Xena/Arwen gave me a dose of salts… And many more.
I understand your reluctance.
Matthew
June 26th, 2007 at 6:14 am
Cheers, Travis.
Yes, it's true Cho is a minor character, but I figured if that change bothered me so much, I'd better not risk seeing changes to major characters.
June 26th, 2007 at 11:24 am
I'm not sure if anyone's aware of this change, since I read of it in a post by someone on The Leaky Cauldron who had seen a screening of Order, so I'll warn that this is probably a "MOVIE SPOILER", but here I go:
What is the point in having Lily in the "Snape's Worst Memory" scene at all if she supposedly does very little reguarding Jame's bullying? It's odd, I've seen some pictures from the scene and it looks like she confronts James but from what I've read about that particular scene her role was very botched. Again, I could have heard inaccurate information, but if they dared butcher one of my favorite selfless acts in the entire series I'm going to have a cow.
Lily's role had better be just as righteous and "how dare you!?" as in the book or I'll be disappointed. Somebody needs to give James a telling off…
June 26th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Oh, Cho, Cho, say it ain't so!
I liked the Lord of the Rings, movies, sorry, korg, and LOTR is my favorite book The only thing that really bothered me was Theoden's death scene. That just didn't cut it.
I didn't much like the GoF movie, and the long dragon scene is a big part of it–so much else was chopped short or cut out entirely, but the dragon scene went on and on and on and on and. . .
I thought Rowling had at least some creative control over the movies, at the very least in an advisory capacity. I'm really surprised she wouldn't object to making Cho the traitor. I know she's argued against some of the other changes they wanted to make, such as when they wanted to leave Kreacher out. I suppose it does make things a lot easier, though.
My big problem is that I won't really be able to appreciate the movie so much, because I've already read HBP and will be viewing everything in the movie in light of subsequent events.
June 26th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Well, if it is any comfort Cho is the traitor through Veritaserum, not free will (from what I've heard).
That isn't a comfort to me at all, however. That does away with Snape's fake Veritaserum slip where he gives Umbridge useless stuff to put in Harry's drink. If she uses real Veritaserum on Cho, that means Snape gave her the real thing. Well, at least in the movie. Now there goes another missing "Snape is good" piece of evidence!
June 26th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
That isn't a comfort to me, either. I'd actually rather have it be a real traitor.
I'm not sure it was intended to take away a piece of "Snape is good " evidence. It sounds as if it were intended more to make sure nobody thought Cho was evil. And if it's Veritaserum, then that makes the breakup even less explicable. Harry wouldn't be mad AT Cho, he'd be upset at the way she'd been treated. If her friend were the traitor, then they could have a big fight over the continued friendship.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:03 am
Just wanted to let you know that you aren't alone. In fact, I have seen none of the movies yet. I want to keep the characters I have pictured rather than see movie actors when I read Deathly Hallows. After I finish it, I will probably watch all the movies, but, until then, I want to keep my mental characters pure.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:46 am
I signed up for "Deathly Hallows" at the library and I was at 793 on the list o_0 but now am at 785!
My wife and daughter really wanted to get the book asap so we pre-ordered but I'm staying on the list to see how long it takes to get to it. I know I'm not gonna be the first one in my home to read it!
June 27th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Look, guys. Don't ask for a slavish faithful rendering of the book on celluloid–it rarely works to the advantage of the film. Think of the movie OOTP as "based on" the book, rather than the film version of the book.
Listening to director's commentaries on DVDs can be extremely instructive for those many of us who are not part of the film industry. I say this particularly for the benefit of korg up above, because I gained a great deal of appreciation for the choices Peter Jackson made during the production of the LOTR trilogy by hearing him explain why he did this scene the way he did, and why some things were left out and other things "expanded." So much has to do with timing and flow. In a movie, it is crucial to keep the plot going forward or you lose the audience. Remember that not everyone who sees these films has "memorized" the book(s) upon which they are based. The stuff on screen has to make sense within the context of the movie. Remember also that 150 pages of script equals roughly 2-3 hours on the screen. How long did it take you to read OOTP's 800-odd pages?
So give the filmmakers a break–you, too, LaShawn. Based on the trailers, this promises to be the best of the series so far.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
I don't see how anyone could understand the last two movies without having read the books. They seem to me to be collections of must-see vignettes and opportunities for CGI, not good storytelling. But maybe that's because I, like La Shawn, sit there and mentally fill in all the stuff that's left out. The character development and intricate details are what make the books so engaging, and so much of that is necessarily sloughed off in the screenwriting process.
My real problem at this point is picking the appropriate day to start the series re-read to be finished at 11:55 p.m. on the 20th. I haven't done a complete read-though in years, but I think the occasion of the final book demands it.
June 27th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Ken–
I agree with you to some extent. And as I said, I liked the LOTR movies, although I forgot how badly they messed up Galadriel. (and Theoden's death scene ruined the storytelling and the flow–completely out of place.) BUT — it's one thing to say "a movie can't slavishly follow the books" and another to be pleased if a movie guts the book completely, leaves out essential points or changes things that affect the entire spirit of the movie. By making Cho the traitor, you change the attributes of her character. That's a great deal different.
GoF was really a terrible movie, and I say this even though I have been willing to cut moviemakers a lot of slack if the essential spirit of the story remains intact. I don't think it did, and I fear it won't in OotP.
June 27th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Yes, I agree with Trish. I understand that screenwriters have to condense, consolidate, cut, etc., but changing attributes of a character? I don't like it. Why do it? From my perspective, I think there are dozens of ways to cut and condense scenes that don't require making a character do or say something they wouldn't do or say, according to canon.
I hate to admit it, but I guess I'm a…purist (?).
June 27th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Ken,
Of course I understand that not everything can go into a film that was in a book! WHat I really dislike is when a character, that I love, is given a different motivation to "improve" the story or scenes that were crucial to understanding the story are omitted while other scenes are created (or repeated) for whatever reason.
I liked the LOTR movies and have all the Extended version DVDs and have appreciated the commentries. I can understand why some changes are made but don't have to like the changes.
SO thank you for posting "for my benefit" but I had already taken those things into consideration.
Matthew
June 27th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Matthew/korg: So chalk it up to creative differences between you and Peter Jackson (and the writers). I've had this discussion before with friends who dearly love the books Tolkien wrote and hated to see anything changed about them at all. I accepted the changes as the price for having them translated to the screen in a way that far exceeded my expections. Perhaps you need to know that I had been subjected to the execrable versions put out by Ralph Bakshi and the Rankin-Bass animation studio in the early 80s–after them, PJ was a veritable Godsend.
Should you ever have the opportunity to remake the LOTR trilogy yourself I shall look forward to the definitive cinematic translation!
FWIW, my wife has read none of the Potter books (she's also never read LOTR and the movies are among her favorites) but has seen all the films so far. She enjoys them on their own level. Whether the deleted plot and character elements really spoil the series for her remains to be seen when the movie version of DH is released.
June 27th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
"Should you ever have the opportunity to remake the LOTR trilogy yourself I shall look forward to the definitive cinematic translation! "
No need to be like that. I wasn't suggesting that I could. I was relating my experience with Jackson's movies to the possible disappointment with OotP that the original post was talking about.
I liked certain elements of Bahski's movie better than Jacksons. At least the Nazgul were scary in Bakshi's version. They weren't in Jackson's. The Weathertop scene- Aragorn fights all 9 Nazgul and defeats them?!!! If they're that easily beaten…any stout warrior could hold them off. In the book Aragorn said they left because the knew the morgul-knife woul do it's work. Even Gandalf had to flee just a few of them when he was assaulted on Weathertop a few days earlier.
I know Jackson wanted an heroic moment for Aragorn early in the piece but it pulled the teeth of the ringwraiths for the rest of the series. That irked me a lot and didn't seem a fair trade-off ie. Aragorns heroic vs Nazgul are seriously horrible and dangerous.
Matthew
June 28th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Matthew: The smiley emoticon is there because I was joshing you. Conversation's becoming too serious, so I shall bow out.
Hope DH exceeds everyone's expectations!
June 28th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Cho is going to be the rat in OOTP? Ugh. Definitely out of character. I still want to see the movie but it is disheartening seeing certain scenes cut or changed. You can't do justice to a 870 page book in 150 minutes. I'm reading the fifth book right now and I cringe on how much is getting cut. However I am excited about the DA and Dept of Mysteries scenes. In any case, the movie is just an appetizer for the main course on July 21.
July 3rd, 2007 at 3:57 pm
I actually think I'll like OotP a bit more the GoF. GoF was pretty darn painful. It wasn't just the stuff cut. It was the fact the director lacked all notion of subtlety. I remember watching actor interviews were the only compliment they had for the director was that he was very "different".
OotP I'm much more excited about. Evanna Lynch could not be more perfect for Luna. The cast seems MUCH happier with the director. And despite the fact the book was longer, OotP is much easier to condense than GoF. GoF was very dense plot-wise, everything affected everything else…so I respect the challenge they faced. OotP is far easier to trim down.
The Cho/Marietta thing doesn't bother me so much… Marietta always functioned as Cho's accessory in the book. And the fact that Cho defended Marietta was more significant to Harry I think, than Marietta's betrayal. So I admit I did a double take when I found out they merged the characters, but in the end, I think it makes a lot of sense.
Now, if they would just cut the Lavender Brown subplot from HBP and keep eveything else, that movie will be a perfect.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Carla Lute–
I never understood why Cho defended Marietta so strongly. After all, Marietta ratted her out, too. From that standpoint making Cho the rat makes some sense.
July 13th, 2007 at 11:10 am
I was shocked when I saw that Cho had ratted out the DA. But later it was revealed that Umbridge had used Veritaserum on Cho, so she really wasn't to blame for it. She felt awful about it, and that came through. There was no "Sneak," bit. Just her looking like she had eaten a bucket-full of slugs, and trying to explain to Harry, who wouldn't listen. Then, when Harry finds out about the Veritaserum, he has only a split second of screen-time to react, but his face says it all.
Daniel Radcliffe has really come into his own in this picture. As much as they changed and cut, it was worth watching, if only to see his growth in acting, and Imelda Staunton's deliciously hatable Umbridge. And I loved the chocolates. HEE!
July 15th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
I saw OotP last night. I have only read that one once (well, one and a half - that's where I got stuck re-reading them a while back, long before #6 came out), so I know I forgot a lot of details. I was shocked that Cho was the "rat", because I knew that wasn't what happened in the book (although I'd forgotten about her "friend"). In the scene in Umbridge's office after the DA are caught, and Snape comes in, I'm not sure that he's telling her the truth that he is out of the serum (as far as the movie plot goes). I think he uses that "you've been using so much of it on the students, the last of it with Cho" excuse to, in essence, save the Harry from Umbridge's interrogation - not only could he tell about what the DA has been up to, he could have been forced to spill the beans about The Order, as well letting the rest of the DA know that Cho didn't willingly betray them. Harry gives Snape the cryptic message about Padfoot, which we know Snape understands, but Snape plays ignorant with Umbridge.