Ok, I went to see the Harry Potter movie yesterday, and liked it very much. They stuck to the book and left out only some details, which is understandable. Only one thing surprised me: At the end of the book, Harry, Ron and Hermione have to master 7 barriers before Harry gets the stone: Fluffy, the plant, the keys, the chess, the troll (it's only mentioned very briefly because Quirrel has killed it and so they can simply pass the room), the potions and finally the mirror. In the film the troll and the potions are being left out - why? Anybody got an idea?
Oh, and then a general question about Harry Potter: I just wondered why the first volume has two English titles: HP and the philosopher's stone (I think this one is the original, but I'm not entirely sure about it) and HP and the sorcerer's stone.
Could anybody explain this to me, please?
November 23rd, 2001, 05:24 AM
Evidently American publishers though it would sell better using the word 'sorcerer' rather than 'philosopher' as 'philosopher' has religious connotations.
Unscrupulous people that I have spoken to have also suggested that it was because publishers felt (after detailed research, no doubt) American readers would understand 'sorcerer' but not 'philosopher'.
Don't blame me - you decide. http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif
[This message has been edited by Hobbit (edited November 23, 2001).]
November 23rd, 2001, 12:53 PM
Not much input here, but I noticed this also, however i also noticed that it's ONLY in America that the book/movie is HP and the Sorcerer's stone..
So the rest of the world has got Philospher's stone..
The only reason i could guess that they left out those little bits in the movie is time, i mean the movie already goes for 2 and a half hours, so why does it really need to go on any more?
Just like the LoTR movies coming out, there is no WAY that ALL of the details could be included from the book, most of them.. but not ALL of them..
November 23rd, 2001, 01:30 PM
The rest of the world understands and knows what Philosopher's stone is http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif I think it was with Fox News where the critic said along the lines: "It's dummed down for us dumb Americans".
Having not read the book, but as my wife said after waking up from her Chris Columbus -induced coma: "They included pretty much everything and that was just plain stupid". I don't know, to me it was just too long and uninterestingly scripted film. I'm certain the books were delightful and jolly, but the film was dull (where was the humor?) and monotonous. But then again, I'm not really of the target-audience.
November 23rd, 2001, 02:00 PM
I was at the movies too yesterday, and I think that you can enjoy this movie only if you.. found the book charming, interesting, special... just like that.
I don't think that anyone who does not know what the book is about, or how or in what way it is special (and I think it is- but I won't go on about that in this post), will enjoy this movie... or like it a lot, or find it special in some way.
Before watching the movie, I only read 1/3 of the book (That was because someone lent it to me, and I wanted to read it in german. In german, I would have read it in a few hours, but my friend gave it to me in english the day/night before I went to the movies, so I didn't make it in time :-P English is a lot harder for me to read). Even after reading a relatively small part of the book, I found it very special.
As Liselle said already (it was her pointing it out to me at first, and I don't want to.. well, brag on and on with someone else's thoughts (no better word comes to my mind (it's 3 am)))... anyway, as she said, the first few lines of the book... are... special? I don't knwo another word for special right now. Sue me :-P
"Mr and Mrs Dursley, of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much."
I didn't realize it then, but I just thought the same way when I read that first sentence. And I remember exactly when and where I read it... made me smile :-)
I think I'm going on and on about stuff non-related to the original post, and I just came home, so maybe I'll just stop this now, and post something with more sense somewhen later / tomorrow / ...
It's late, and I better go to bed.
[This message has been edited by Elessar (edited November 23, 2001).]
November 23rd, 2001, 04:34 PM
I myself thought the movie was great, but there were a couple spots I wished were delved into a little more deeply. Such as a little more with the Dursleys, A little more with Norbert, etc. etc.
I'd have to say the 7 trials at the end were cut down due solely to time and $$. The troll, since it was already dead, CC probably didn't see the need to pay for the CGI to put the Troll in there http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif I do wish we would have gotten to see Hermione strut her stuff in the Snapes Potions Room though! Ah well.
I read the first book a while before the movie came out, and since seeing the movie, have been on a 'Harry Potter' Frenzy, reading both the 2nd and 3rd books this weekend so far http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif Can't wait to get home tomorrow and get ahold of the Wifey's copy of the 4th book! These things just keep getting better and better, and I just can't wait to see what they do with the movie sequels!
November 23rd, 2001, 05:24 PM
I am seeing the HP movie next weekend - it only opens here (Australia) on Thursday. My understanding about the cuts is that the film was originally 4 hours long and Warner Brothers forced the director to cut it back to its (I think?) 120 min length, understandably thinking that even the hardest HP 11yo fan would have trouble with the four hour version - tho no doubt it will appear on DVD. Of our family, my husband hasn't read it - I've read all four, so has my oldest son, my youngest hasn't read it at all and my daughter has only read bits - so I guess we'll be an interesting test audience. Me, I couldn't put them down, though I don't think they're the greatest books ever. But they do have considerable charm.
The Sorcerer's Stone title was for the US market only, in the wisdom of the pr people I suppose. JK Rowling is reported to have said that she regretted changing it, and won't again - the publishers made her do it.
November 23rd, 2001, 06:35 PM
I saw the movie and read the book. I must say that the book was so much better than the movie. My main problem with the movie was that it tried to be the book, rather than try to be a movie. I can tell you that if I did not read the book, I would not of understood everything that went on in the movie. For example, if you just watched the movie, you would have no idea why Snape hates Harry so much. To me, the movie just put together a lot of scenes from the book, and rather poorly at that.
As for the last scene, I can totally understand why they only showed some of the challenges. The movie was already too long. And, when watching a movie, how interesting is it going to be to watch someone mixing a potion? Anyways, that's my take. I read all the books and enjoyed them all. I just hope the 2nd movie tries to be a movie, rather than just a "visual book."
November 24th, 2001, 12:51 AM
jasers, I have to agree.. That's exactly what I meant when I said, people who didn't like or know the book probably wouldn't find the movie special, either.
Since I'm reading the book right now, before and after watching the movie, I notice a lot of things being different- even the smallest ;-)
I'll mention some very minor stuff here...
(I'm doing this only to point out that there are a lot of tiny differences one would hardly notice; redirect flames to firstname.lastname@example.org)
In the movie, Harry reads in the Daily Prophet about vault 713 being breaked-in at Gringotts. In the book, the vault is never mentioned, and Harry merely guesses that there could be a connection, because it said the vault had been emptied earlier that day. Also, in the book Harry reads the DP at Hagrid's, and in the movie, I *think*, he takes it at lunch from Ron or something.
In the movie Hagrid's always saying "Hadn't I said anything" (or similar- I saw it in german). That was quite funny, I'm missing it in the book ;-)
Neville's flight was quite shorter in the book (understandable), and the whole Remembrall scene was a bit different.
In the book they talk about Quirrel's turban and how it stinks, clearly a direct connection to Quirrel actually holding Voldemort's face on the back of his head. I think this was never mentioned in the movie.
Were there heads of Houses in the movie?
The potions scene.. Where Snape asks Harry questions he can't possibly answer. I'm not sure wheter Hermione (who is called Hermine in german, ha-ha) stands up at the last question (I love details, don't I?), but I'm pretty sure that in the movie, Harry doesn't say:
'I don't know', said Harry quietly, 'I think Hermione does, though, why don't you try her?'
Snape doesn't take points off Gryffindor in the movie, either.
The nimbus 2000 was mentioned by Prof. McGonagall in front of Harry in the book, and that she'd speak to Drumbledore about bending the rules for 1st-years (since they were not allowed to actually have their own broomstick). This doesn't happen in the movie at all, he gets the Nimbus 2000 from his owl, and in the movie, it's the first letter he gets (while in the book, he got one from Hagrid first).
Okay, getting to something more important than these little details, on to the duel scene.. that one was quite different in the movie as well.
In the book, Harry is going to duel with Malfoy (I haven't read how this one ends yet :-P); in the movie, there is no such call-up for a duel; Malfoy spies on Harry & Co. while being at Hagrid's and watching the dragon, and tells McGonagall about it. I guess these two scences match somehow, or were put together, in the movie; I can't tell yet because I haven't finished that part.
I'm at the middle of the book now, and I have the *feeling* that, in the movie, the bad relationship (hate?) between Snape and Harry was described way more subtle, i.e. the scene is missing where Snape scolds Harry for not telling Neville what he was doing wrong in the potions lession, and doesn't take off points. It's all empasized with the way they look at and interact with each other. In the book, the "hate" comes out more clearly.
In fact, in the movie, I found Snape pretty cool and not that bad at all (since he was the only one noticing some of what was going on), and was missing some sort of "excuse" from Harry for false suspect. Reading the book, it's clear so far why such a scene is missing.
Last but not least, watching the movie, Hermione really did most of the cool stuff and Harry knew what he knew only by intuition. Hermione was actually *really* cool *G
[This message has been edited by Elessar (edited November 24, 2001).]
November 24th, 2001, 03:47 AM
In my opinion, it was completely pointless to make a movie out of Harry Potter(All those rich Hollywood people just want to cash in big money). HP became was a great book and stimulated a love of reading among an age group of non-readers. Don't get me wrong, the movie was good- it just defeats the purpose of reading the book.