Differences in books to movie Options

[Heart of Gold]

First, I understand and recognize (and have since I was a young teen) that books and movies are different media interpretations, so I do not compare them critically.

I just read a CNN review of HBP, (see here: http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/...nce/index.html) and it mentions on major character who is missing from the movie. Who is it?

I have tickets for the 7pm show tonight, so I will find out soon enough, but I would be interested to know who so I may ponder it before I see the movie.....

[Dobian]

Sure, they have to leave a lot of things out of the movie because otherwise you end up with a six-hour movie (not that I'd mind, but their production costs would go through the roof). I'm sure they start by including a lot of these subplots from the book, then take a look at the entire draft and realize that it's a monster, so they start cutting stuff out. Some of the things that jumped right out at me due to their absence from the film - aside from Percy Weasly - include the reason *why* Snape is called the Half-Blood Prince, and the dysfunctional and abusive redneck family of Voldemort's mother, and why he ended up in an orphanage.

This post has been edited by Dobian: Aug 11 2009, 05:24 PM

[whitewolf]

Sure, they have to leave a lot of things out of the movie because otherwise you end up with a six-hour movie (not that I'd mind, but their production costs would go through the roof). I'm sure they start by including a lot of these subplots from the book, then take a look at the entire draft and realize that it's a monster, so they start cutting stuff out. Some of the things that jumped right out at me due to their absence from the film - aside from Percy Weasly - include the reason *why* Snape is called the Half-Blood Prince, and the dysfunctional and abusive redneck family of Voldemort's mother, and why he ended up in an orphanage.

My problem is not that they left things out, it what they left out that and how they played one particular scene. Everyone's hung up on Snape's reveal as the Half-blood Prince, how about the small detail of his being the one that revealed the prophesy to you-know-who. We accept that the story can survive without the small details of Ministry and Percy, but the houseelfves, Greyback, the relationships of Remus and Tonk and Bill and Fluer are not so minor details that could have been played into less that one scene. And no matter how you look at it, the Dumberdore Deathscene was just dead wrong!! That scene should have been played as it was in the book, especially if they were going to take the liberty of putting Bella on that roof! No amount of shock would have kept that boy still, especially with her on the roof. And then we are suppose to believe he listened to Snape! He barely listens to Snape when things are good!! And things on the roof were very very bad!
Sorry about the rant. But why I can empathize with the problems of producing such an rich story, but there are ways to do it without disconnecting it from its core. POA and OOTP are such examples. They were shallow in someplaces, but they stuck with the story. And the Dumberdore and Voldermort fight was better visually that the one in the book. So they have the tools, they just need to construct the last products better. I'm through.

[baty4potter]

And no matter how you look at it, the Dumberdore Deathscene was just dead wrong!! That scene should have been played as it was in the book, especially if they were going to take the liberty of putting Bella on that roof! No amount of shock would have kept that boy still, especially with her on the roof. And then we are suppose to believe he listened to Snape! He barely listens to Snape when things are good!! And things on the roof were very very bad!

I agree with everything you said but the above that I quoted from you is exactly the thing that tweaked my melon. There is NO way that Harry would have listened to Snape! It should have played out in the book as it was. I can forgive *almost* everything else but not that!!