next »

[changinggears]

.

I apologize.  I wasn't trying to put anyone down.  I just don't understand it.  I read the HP series and saw the first movie.  The movie left out elements that were important to the series (it glossed over how he was treated by his aunt and uncle, for example), and it wasn't as effective in giving his emotions.  I did not find the movie good at all.

I am not against movies, and I don't think less of people who watch movies after reading books - or instead of reading books.  Personally, I just don't understand it.  I honestly wasn't trying to be argumentative.

I also don't understand why people would let cats get on their kitchen table.  I know people who do it, and it works for them.  I just don't get it.

palla,
I didn't particularly like the first book.  I actually watched the movie first, thought it was bleh, and read the book thinking it would be better.  But I just couldn't get into it.  Then, I watched the second movie.  It was a little better.  Then, I watched the third and loved it (it's still my favorite).  And, I couldn't wait to find out what happened next, so I read the fourth book.  Then, I had to go back and read the first three to get a grasp on some of the the things the movies glossed over.  And I read every book, as it was published, after that.  And every year, my son and I have had a date to see the newest movie together.  Maybe you should give the movies (at leat the later ones) a second chance.

[concordancia]

Ah, yes, I am sure that letting the cats on the kitchen table is an aesthetic choice on par with comparing themes as covered in different mediums.

In addition to the cat herding question, have you ever asked anyone if they encouraged their cats to be on the table as a decorating choice?

[palla]

.

I apologize.  I wasn't trying to put anyone down.  I just don't understand it.  I read the HP series and saw the first movie.  The movie left out elements that were important to the series (it glossed over how he was treated by his aunt and uncle, for example), and it wasn't as effective in giving his emotions.  I did not find the movie good at all.

I am not against movies, and I don't think less of people who watch movies after reading books - or instead of reading books.  Personally, I just don't understand it.  I honestly wasn't trying to be argumentative.

I also don't understand why people would let cats get on their kitchen table.  I know people who do it, and it works for them.  I just don't get it.

palla,
I didn't particularly like the first book.  I actually watched the movie first, thought it was bleh, and read the book thinking it would be better.  But I just couldn't get into it.  Then, I watched the second movie.  It was a little better.  Then, I watched the third and loved it (it's still my favorite).  And, I couldn't wait to find out what happened next, so I read the fourth book.  Then, I had to go back and read the first three to get a grasp on some of the the things the movies glossed over.  And I read every book, as it was published, after that.  And every year, my son and I have had a date to see the newest movie together.  Maybe you should give the movies (at leat the later ones) a second chance.

Maybe I will, concordancia.  I read the books because my children wanted to read them, and I wanted to know what they were reading. I enjoyed the books.  We watched the first movie as a family, and I didn’t like it.  Maybe I didn’t give it a chance.

We went to the Harry Potter World in Florida with one of my daughter’s teams.  I really enjoyed that and recommend it. 

[madhatter]

For what it's worth, the first two HP movies are generally considered of lesser quality than the ones that follow.

[concordancia]

I enjoyed the books.  We watched the first movie as a family, and I didn’t like it.  Maybe I didn’t give it a chance.

Whether or not you enjoyed either one is irrelevant to the discussion of why someone would read a book and watch a film adaptation.

Your comments, especially comparing the situation to cats on the table, demonstrate a complete unwillingness to consider the purpose of adaptations and varying mediums. Unfortunately, such unwillingness to engage has not stopped you from passing judgement, since bringing up the cats just takes the whole discussion to the ridiculous because they only thing the cats have to do with the topic at hand is your inability to grasp the concepts.

Not that cats can't be artistic, I just have never heard anyone argue that they let their cat do something because it is artistic. On the contrary, I have seen many people do things that even they do not appreciate aesthetically because it is convenient for the cats.

[egilson]

Have you ever tried keeping cats out of anything, let alone a large open surface?  Did it work?  Please tell me more.

[briefderail] There's always the Blender Defender [/briefderail].

[palla]

I enjoyed the books.  We watched the first movie as a family, and I didn’t like it.  Maybe I didn’t give it a chance.

Whether or not you enjoyed either one is irrelevant to the discussion of why someone would read a book and watch a film adaptation.

Your comments, especially comparing the situation to cats on the table, demonstrate a complete unwillingness to consider the purpose of adaptations and varying mediums. Unfortunately, such unwillingness to engage has not stopped you from passing judgement, since bringing up the cats just takes the whole discussion to the ridiculous because they only thing the cats have to do with the topic at hand is your inability to grasp the concepts.

Not that cats can't be artistic, I just have never heard anyone argue that they let their cat do something because it is artistic. On the contrary, I have seen many people do things that even they do not appreciate aesthetically because it is convenient for the cats.

OK, I obviously am not making myself clear.  I am not against movies.  I am not against people watching movies instead of books.  I personally don’t understand the draw of watching a movie when there is a book available.  I am not saying people are bad people for watching movies.  I am not unwilling to consider the purpose of a different portrayal of a book nor am I unable to grasp concepts.  It doesn’t appeal to me.  That is all I was saying.

[palla]

.

I apologize.  I wasn't trying to put anyone down.  I just don't understand it.  I read the HP series and saw the first movie.  The movie left out elements that were important to the series (it glossed over how he was treated by his aunt and uncle, for example), and it wasn't as effective in giving his emotions.  I did not find the movie good at all.

I am not against movies, and I don't think less of people who watch movies after reading books - or instead of reading books.  Personally, I just don't understand it.  I honestly wasn't trying to be argumentative.

I also don't understand why people would let cats get on their kitchen table.  I know people who do it, and it works for them.  I just don't get it.

palla,
I didn't particularly like the first book.  I actually watched the movie first, thought it was bleh, and read the book thinking it would be better.  But I just couldn't get into it.  Then, I watched the second movie.  It was a little better.  Then, I watched the third and loved it (it's still my favorite).  And, I couldn't wait to find out what happened next, so I read the fourth book.  Then, I had to go back and read the first three to get a grasp on some of the the things the movies glossed over.  And I read every book, as it was published, after that.  And every year, my son and I have had a date to see the newest movie together.  Maybe you should give the movies (at leat the later ones) a second chance.

Maybe I will, concordancia.  I read the books because my children wanted to read them, and I wanted to know what they were reading. I enjoyed the books.  We watched the first movie as a family, and I didn’t like it.  Maybe I didn’t give it a chance.

We went to the Harry Potter World in Florida with one of my daughter’s teams.  I really enjoyed that and recommend it. 

Sorry Changinggears.  I had the wrong name!

[voxprincipalis]

For what it's worth, the first two HP movies are generally considered of lesser quality than the ones that follow.

I haven't seen the two-part seventh film yet, but once again I'm an outlier -- I loved the first one and thought they went downhill from there. #6 was particularly disappointing.

I do agree that far too many details are left out of the films. I wish they had gone the Peter Jackson/LOTR route and just made three-hour-long movies and to hell with the standard length of a feature film.

VP

[mended_drum]

Minor point, but I don't think James Potter was portrayed as simply "heroic" in the novels.  He and his friend did torment Snape, and it's clear that Harry is disappointed in learning that his father (and Sirius, for that matter) was not as virtuous as he'd been led to believe.  Lupin tells him that they were a bit idiotic as teens.  The discovery that his heroic father (and Sirius and Dumbledore, etc) are human beings with human weaknesses is part of Harry's process of growing up, and one of the stronger attributes of the series:  the concepts of good and evil, which are extremely simplistic in the first two novels, become more complex later on.

[mrasher51]

In addition to mended-drum's comments,I would add that one of the series themes is that it's not James nor Dumbledore nor the other men in the series who can defeat Voldemort.  It's the women in the series and their responses that can defeat Voldemort and all he represents.