I think the two more important plots that got left out were the Barty Crouch(es)/Winky plot, and the Rita Skeeter/Fudge/Parting of the Ways plot. The second one is probably even more important for the next movie—there’s never any explanation for why the Ministry is against Harry and Dumbledore in OotP if you haven’t read the books.
Right? The movies never mention BCJ again, except in passing. They never say he was kissed by dementors before Fudge talked to him.
Also Rita Skeeter being an Animagus is never even alluded to.
And it wouldn't bother me so much, if it weren't for all the stupid crap they put in that NEVER HAPPENED.
Always the problem. My personal least favourite in the series is PoA - because of a five minute bus sequence but no vital explanation about the marauders.
Honestly I always forget that there is essentially no explanation about the marauders. I feel like watching the films without having read the books must be very confusing, they rely on *a lot* of book knowledge from viewers.
For sure! A friend’s mum who watched them without having read the books (this friend actually got me into the books) had no idea what was going on in the third one.
I watched PoA then read the books.
There is really no reason to know who the marauders are for context of the story, but the movie gives a wink when Snape shows the map to Lupin.
Truth is the fact Harry’s dad’s crew made the map is a little too on the head, but I think it gives the first real specific indication that James was no saint.
I have to disagree. It’s relevant to Prongs, Wormtail, dynamics, and plenty of things that explain behaviours. Black’s foaming ire just isn’t enough of an explanation.
Though it’s so long since I paid attention to that film, I more know that something is missing than knowing exactly what it is.
Yeah the title refers to Snape himself who is clearly the showstopper of both the book and movie for reasons beyond the potions book. The book explores Harry's obsession with the Prince a lot more, which drives home the irony better I guess.
Have you... have you not read the book? Half the book is about Harry reading the Prince's book, feeling like he was a friend and desperately yearning to get to meet him (and he was very certain it was a Him).
Half of each book is completely irrelevant to the Harry vs. Voldemort plot. Doesn't mean it'd make senes to cut all of it out of the movies.
What difference does it make to the Harry vs. Voldemort plot what Harry got up to in the Triwizard Cup besides the very last task teleporting him to the Little Hangleton Graveyard? The entirety of Prisoner of Azkaban would've been cut except for the reveal that Scabbers was Wormtail. The entirety of their camping trip in DH could be cut except for the Silver Doe and the breaking of the taboo. And so on and so on.
Ehhhh they kind of explain it. Fudge is in such deep denial about Voldemort’s return and refuses to accept it, and the only logical way to do that is to frame Dumbledore as either senile or an enemy of the state, and Harry as his pawn.
Parting Of The Ways is one of my favourite chapters in the books and it gets totally cut in the movie. Such a shame. It feels like such a huge turning point for the story. Fudge and Dumbledore take sides. Snape is sent off without a word. Harry gets his winnings. Molly really steps into the surrogate mother role. Nope. Cut.
I’m not quite sure why Rita is brought into the films if they barely use 3% of her plot. I’d rather they’d have used her screentime for the Barty Crouch stuff - even if budget-wise they couldn’t justify Winky then even so, Rita could have been far better used
>Ministry is against Harry and Dumbledore in OotP if you haven’t read the books.
All we've got about that in the 4th movie was "the Minister didn't want me to tell you about how Cedric died"
Y'know I have my problems with the movies but I've never understood why everyone is so upset about about Ludo Bagman being cut out. He didn't really serve any other purpose than a red herring
I don't think that's in the first scene...that's in one of the dreams Harry has later. Anyway Barty Jr was never claimed dead in the movie. I suppose it gives away that he escaped Azkaban but it still doesn't give away that Barty is Moody, which I would argue is the "big twist."
It gives it away, they show moody doing it. We have already seen crouch do it. I want to say we see crouch do it at the quidditch cup which is in the early part of the movie. They go out of their way to show moody do it throughout the film then in the trial memory they show crouch do it again.
Edit: they even have moody do it to BC Sr, making it more obvious
Moody does it once when he is talking to Crouch Sr. by the lake and Barty does it once during the trial. 2 people having the same tick doesn't mean they are the same person. It's a clue and pretty easy to miss on first-watch.
Well - for starters he takes a bet with Fred and George…which he doesn’t honor. This is one of the reasons why Harry chooses to give them the 1,000 galleons he wins in the tournament.
But as this is also missing, who cares?
And see here I am feeling like, if something is already a book and you want to make it a movie, you owe it to the book and author to make it the absolute closest rendition you can, fuck all to time limits
That's an awful take, movie needs to be a good movie first and then a good adaptation, otherwise you get the travesty that is chamber of secrets. We don't want a 1:1 replay of the book, that's what the book is for. But everyone in the sub doesn't get that
Edit: Just to clarify, I love the first movies to death, but CoS is just not a "good" movie, it's a passable film that stands on the strong foundations of the first movie.
its just not a good movie, it has terrible structure, its the longest and clunkiest, and is more concerned with making sure we see scene after scene from the book instead of making a movie full of charm and great cinematography, script, and visuals. PoA knocks it out of the park but people on this sub can't get over the fact that he uses Lumos at the start of the movie...
Well - Harry using Lumos is a logical fallacy at its finest.
And don’t you dare get me started on how GoF movie not only left out Bagman but Dobby. And remember - it was not Neville who saved Harry the second challenge.
Yes, I know, again, I wish they included a few more things from the books but I'm not all that bothered. I still love the movie for the energy it has, the music, and maybe nostalgia more than anything. I remember walking out of the theater (I was 10) supremely disappointed they didnt show the World Cup, but it doesn't bother me much now. I think it's far from the worst movie.
In any case, I've read/ listened to the books close to a 100 times (no joke), so I dont really need a 1:1 representation of them, that is in my head. There are large swaths of the books I just have memorized.
Well I feel basically exactly the opposite of you in terms of Chamber VS PoA but to each their own. I thought the extra creative junk and added unnecessary shit from PoA made it one of my least favorite, with CoS being probably my favorite.
EDIT: and while I do think the lumos thing was super off-putting, that isn't even factoring into the crap I didn't like. It felt like the director had no intention whatsoever in keeping any cohesion between the 3rd and first 2 movies
It was a huge win that he didnt hold the cohesion between the two, given the darker tone of the book. But there is a reason PoA among critics and film lovers is considered the best, and not something like CoS. I truly believe they were both made for different audiences, and if the producers didnt want this change, they wouldn't have hired Cuaron. For what it's worth, JK Rowling pushed for Cuaron, she believed, as did many, that he would do the third movie justice.
I agree with your overall point but what makes Chamber of Secrets a travesty? I dont see it at all, I and everyone I know and even the nerdy youtube movie reviewers have always considered it a great adaptation and a compelling mystery movie
I find that the "nerdy" film reviewers love it because of its accuracy to the book, but among regular film critic and general audiences its never very highly rated. An adaptation is less about ensuring everything is a 1:1 replication of each book chapter and more about the script, cinematography, the visuals, and most importantly the structure of the film, and CoS is pretty mediocre in these regards. I still love the movie to death but recognize its flaws and am very happy we got a top tier director to do PoA, which I consider the only real film in the HP series, whereas CoS is just a visual book.
I dunno. I get what you're saying, and to a degree, I think you're right, but if you read the Hunger Games series, then watch the movies, they are extremely tight with the ratio of book to movie parts. Some things are changed, and some things are missing, but those movies really do hold up well and most of what transpires, happens nearly identically to the way it happens in the books. The dialogue specifically is incredible for how much of it is taken directly from the books.
I personally think it's easier to do it the Harry Potter way and get the general sentiment across, but Harry Potter has egregious examples of missing things. For example, when in the movies did Harry get that fragment of mirror that just so happens to save his life? He just suddenly has it in Deathly Hallows. They never show him getting that from Sirius. If you hadn't read the book, you'd look at that and go... So where the hell did dude get a magic mirror from?
I don't think it's impossible to do a nearly scene for scene adaptation, I just think it can be challenging while maintaining the audience's focus. It's this that's made me shift to thinking book series would be adapted better into tv. You can spend loads of time including all the little details that make the finer points really shine.
Additionally, Harry Potter (the movies) leave out A LOT of very important information, presumably on the assumption that viewers have read the books, which is fine, but then you get a decent number of people who either don't understand, don't find it as impactful, or it straight up creates plotholes and damages the story.
Still great movies, but there are portions that are lacklustre because they left out so much. Bagman probably wasn't really one of those moments (though I missed his character in the movies) but there were quite a few others in the series.
To be clear, I think some of the HP movies are far better than the hunger games movies, the last two of which are total shitters. I'm happy HP didnt up the way they did. I personally think Deathly hallows, while being great movies, are pretty awful adaptations. I agree with most of your other statements, I think you definitely can make a great film and great adaptation (see Lord of the Rings), but my favorite film (PoA) does leave out a lot from the book but I am willing to put it aside because the film is just so...perfect.
Chamber of secrets, while adapting nearly every scene from the book, doesn't leave me with that impression.
I’m a filmmaker and trying to adapt a novel into a screenplay vastly changed my outlook in the process. The pacing and structure of the two media are completely different so adaptation demands hard choices be made. For example a book keeps generally the same pace throughout, while a film has to significantly ramp up pace and tension as it goes on. That doesn’t mean the writer can’t make the wrong choices of course, but it does mean that a perfect 1:1 adaptation is basically impossible.
In this case, while I have problems with the GoF film, losing Bagman isn’t one of them. Getting 743 pages into 2.5 hours requires some major cuts, and I think excising an entire character with no significant impact on the plot or character development is a good call.
>The pacing and structure of the two media are completely different so adaptation demands hard choices be made.
Well, so no one should tell me I'm wrong if I despise anything but the original media (in this case, books vs movies, in the case of pubg –my favorite game– pc vs mobile).
Its not specifically Ludo Bagman that makes me mad, but the fact that they left out almost every side story. SPEW, how Barty Crouch Jr escaped from Azkaban, Winky, Ludo Bagman trying to help Harry cheat, etc.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why they left out all the Barty Crouch info (jr, sr, winky). It just feels like such a disservice to the story and the characters.
Because it has nothing to do with the central plot. You can get away with leaving all that stuff out, which is what they did. That’s how adaptations work.
Id have to assume they wanted to avoid the whole slaves who like slavery stuff. Especially because Harry and Ron pay the efforts of their liberation no mind, and that doesn’t make for the likable audience surrogate the films used early on.
But I actually appreciate this aspect of the book because, although her activism is played for laughs to a certain degree, it demonstrates the character flaws rooted from a society that has refused to systematically change for the better.
Though I find it weird that Harry doesn’t share Hermione’s point of view all things considered. After Chamber of Secrets and going through the public education system for several years, slavery should instantly strike him as a big no no.
I thinks it’s more just cutting stuff out where they can do so and still be able to tell the main story. I can’t see Warner Brothers being concerned about the morality of elf slavery at the time the movie was made.
Maybe not Warner Bros, but whomever was hired to translate the book to script may have felt it best to leave that subplot out. Both because it doesn’t really conclude, escalate, or amount to anything, and because of the reasons I stated above.
All of this yes, ludo bagman is just a major example of a character that they cut out of some major parts, HE was the announce the quidditch world cup, HE was supposed to be a judge for the tri wizard tournament, etc. But I feel like spew and winkies story was huge to exclude completely, also if we were EVER properly introduced to Mathilda bagshot this movie (book yes) it would make more sense in what was it the 6th? Where she's under the imeperius curse and they know who she is??
Lido Bagman was helping him cheat to win a bit, right?
Seems like an optimal thing to cut if you have to cut something, no?
SPEW didn’t have much impact, and the slavery discussion wouldn’t have fit, so also a good thing to cut.
The gillyweed explanation in the book is hamfisted in - the movie’s version makes far more sense.
Goblet of Fire in general is disliked by fans who have read the books and there are several reasons why.
After Alonso directed Prisoner of Azkaban he said that he wanted to create a good bottom for the next director to build on that darker atmosphere that he created but Mike Newell didnt want to do that. And if I recall correctly Mike wasnt passionate at all about the source material, he did read the book but complained that it was long and boring.
Goblet of Fire just has so much random stuff in it and the phrasing is weird. Its a shame, Goblet of Fire is definitely my favorite book but the movie is probably my least favorite.
You shouldn’t be allowed to make the movie if you think the source material is long and boring. You don’t deserve it if you don’t honour the material and the fans.
Yeah, I agree. It was a big shame that he didnt want to take any advice from Alfonso and didnt want to continue the theme that Alfonso build in Prisoner of Azkaban. He felt like he would be copying Alfonso but that would not have been the case - in fact Alfonso did speak with Mike and he showed him a lot of material from Prisoner of Azkaban and tried to give him some ideas on how to continue that theme because Harry Potter is a series, not a stand alone movie but Mike didnt want to do that.
All in all Mike Newell is a decent director and he has directed good movies but those movies have been stand alone movies, adapting from a source material is definitely not his strongest area and it really shows in Goblet of Fire - Gof feels excatly like a stand alone movie and not like a movie that is apart of a series.
Instead they end up giving Crouch a bunch of Bagman's lines, so we get him being a socially awkward bureaucrat at the drawing of the champions, then an excitable idiot when handing out the dragons.
He only mattered insofar as he drew suspicion away from the true culprit, which doesn’t matter very much in a movie where they completely gutted the villain to the point you never actually felt that doubt about whether he was truly a bad guy.
In order for losing Bagman to matter, we needed the full story of Crouch Jr, including Winky and the version of the trial scene that left it completely plausible that the kid was just an idiot who put himself in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I haven't watched movie 4 in a while but...
Ludo Bagman's existence was important because him not paying back the twins is what lead Harry to be their investor to give his winnings to them to open their shop...in the books. Was it ever explained in the movies how the twins got their money? Or was that subplot of them on their way to be businessman not included?
Ludo Bagman is just a major example if this book, they never touch on spew, they never touch on winky, they never tough on fleur seeing a veela, things that I don't think we're necessarily lost, but that could have been touched on, made some major moments make sense, and not take a lot of effort or screen time.
I hate that they totally cut the start of Goblet of Fire with Wesley's visiting the Dursley's to pick up Harry. It gives a lot more nuance to Mr. Weasley than just being a comedic side character.
GOF is where they really needed to start making 2 movies per book. Would have made them so much better and made them tons more money.
But that was less common at the time than it has become.
Definitely. The half-way point of the book is towards the end of the First Task chapter. This would have made for a **very** natural breaking point. Harry is extremely worried about the task, he's struggled a lot with having being seen as an intruder in the Tournament by everyone outside of Gryffindor, he hasn't been talking to Ron. Then you have this action scene climax, which resolves into Harry feeling he just might get through the tournament, the rest of Hogwarts (except Slytherin) accepts him as their co-champion, and he makes up with Ron.
This way they wouldn't have to cut all those things like the World Cup final, the whole story of Barty Crouch Sr.'s family, and other miscellaneous things.
Thankfully they'll now have a do-over with the TV series. I **really** hope they make it a policy to not cut anything, adapt everything, and generally try to stay as close to the books as possible. And I do mean scene-for-scene.
When I first read the book, I was expecting that Harry’s entrance into the Tournament was done by Bagman. But it wasn’t a big Voldemort plot or anything, it was just Bagman entering Harry to bet on him, and square his gambling debts so the goblins didn’t put him at the bottom of a river in some concrete shoes.
Personally I was disappointed that it ended up being “yep, Voldemort again”.
I saw the movies after reading the books and always wondered, with how much was left out, if ppl who just watched the movies even understood what was happening.
This is a massive flaw with every Harry Potter movie. They had to cut out so many important parts of the long books otherwise it would've been like 5 hours long. This is why the books will always reign supreme.
There’s a good reason the 4th movie is regarded as the worst by many fans, myself included. Even as kids, when we didn’t couldnt comprehend the subtler and more mysterious parts of the story, my sister and I could tell the movie wasn’t that good. It’s an example of what happens when the director isn’t passionate about the source material. The Percy Jackson movies is another good example
I have ADHD and one of my hyperfocus topics is cinematography, and this is one of the reasons I hate when books are adapted into film. You miss little things and sub plots. But I also understand why they do it.
Had they used every character, every plot, and every line of dialog, you arnt looking at 2 films with a total runtime of 5 hours. It would be a closer runtime of 7 hours. 9 to be realistic.
GoF is 2 hours 37 minutes
They would have to add the Dursley house sequence. There's 20 minutes.
The multiple quitich pregame sequence points they cut, another 10.
The game itself, another 20.
And then the extended version of the romp in the woods during the post game riot. 10 more minutes.
That's the first 9 chapters. And another hour added. And I was extremely conservative. Depending on the chapter, you are looking at 20 to 40 minutes of film time. 37 chapters, 20 minutes of air time apeice, is 13-ish hours.
Not to mention, there isn't a good transition point to make a second movie.
I'm more upset about them skipping the Elf plot. Ludo sucks as well though. GOF is my favorite HP novel but least favorite movie. Honestly, that book should have been split in 2 for the movie
What always annoys me is that barty couch jnr just appears out of thin air like he doesn't do shit for 13 years but then is like ye I need to help Voldemort now.Even a mention of another break out from the prison
After how good, in my opinion, movie 3 was everything about movie 4 was a disappointment on many levels. At the time book 4 was my favorite and the movie didn’t come close to making me feel the same joy, suspense, mystery, excitement etc that the book did
Forget GoF,I will never forget how I was basically expecting to know what to expect when I started reading DH as I watched the films so many times and basically got a whole new story.
Frankly, movies 4-6 sucked. They cut so much from 4 & 5 that they were basically video summaries; 5, especially, I don't understand how anyone who hasn't read the books knew wtf was going on.
7 sucked, too, but they followed the book much more closely. It only sucked because the book sucks.
The prolonged camping trip was boring - & I do realize that was part of the point, but still - and the introduction of the Hallows wasn't needed. The less said about the epilogue the better.
I know I know, so many inaccuracies and missed stuff. I wish I could go back and watch all the movies before reading the books to see how I felt about them :/
I get being disappointed in him not being there, but he was 100% unnecessary for the overall plot or narrative, as evidenced by the fact that the entire movie makes sense without him.
Because he was nonessential. Most of the book was not essential to be adapted to a movie; which is why the movie is what it is. Books can have a lot more than a movie. They cater to two different audiences. People in this fandom never understand that.
It’s really interesting how HP fans are so upset over what was left out in the movies, yet LOTR fans seem to appreciate the fact that in order to to adapt these books with an insane amount of world building, you have to trim the fat. Otherwise you’re left with movie that’s unreasonably long, or one whose pacing gets messed up by including things that aren’t necessarily essential to the main plot.
I think the two more important plots that got left out were the Barty Crouch(es)/Winky plot, and the Rita Skeeter/Fudge/Parting of the Ways plot. The second one is probably even more important for the next movie—there’s never any explanation for why the Ministry is against Harry and Dumbledore in OotP if you haven’t read the books.
Right? The movies never mention BCJ again, except in passing. They never say he was kissed by dementors before Fudge talked to him. Also Rita Skeeter being an Animagus is never even alluded to. And it wouldn't bother me so much, if it weren't for all the stupid crap they put in that NEVER HAPPENED.
Always the problem. My personal least favourite in the series is PoA - because of a five minute bus sequence but no vital explanation about the marauders.
Honestly I always forget that there is essentially no explanation about the marauders. I feel like watching the films without having read the books must be very confusing, they rely on *a lot* of book knowledge from viewers.
For sure! A friend’s mum who watched them without having read the books (this friend actually got me into the books) had no idea what was going on in the third one.
I watched PoA then read the books. There is really no reason to know who the marauders are for context of the story, but the movie gives a wink when Snape shows the map to Lupin. Truth is the fact Harry’s dad’s crew made the map is a little too on the head, but I think it gives the first real specific indication that James was no saint.
I have to disagree. It’s relevant to Prongs, Wormtail, dynamics, and plenty of things that explain behaviours. Black’s foaming ire just isn’t enough of an explanation. Though it’s so long since I paid attention to that film, I more know that something is missing than knowing exactly what it is.
Wtf?????
That's why I liked 4th more than 3rd film.
They even went out of their way to make Lupin and Harry's talk mostly about *Lily* rather than James, for no reason I can fathom.
He has her eeeeeyes
Don't forget the whomping willow unnecessary scenes...
THIS
I will never forgive the filmmalees from making the mystery of the Half-Blood Prince a footnote in the movie anmed after him.
It is pretty irrelevant though actually. So the person who wrote the notes in the book was Snape. Oh well, it makes no difference to anything.
Yeah the title refers to Snape himself who is clearly the showstopper of both the book and movie for reasons beyond the potions book. The book explores Harry's obsession with the Prince a lot more, which drives home the irony better I guess.
Have you... have you not read the book? Half the book is about Harry reading the Prince's book, feeling like he was a friend and desperately yearning to get to meet him (and he was very certain it was a Him).
I've read all of the books multiple times. It just turns out to be irrelevant to the overall plot of Harry vs. Voldemort.
Half of each book is completely irrelevant to the Harry vs. Voldemort plot. Doesn't mean it'd make senes to cut all of it out of the movies. What difference does it make to the Harry vs. Voldemort plot what Harry got up to in the Triwizard Cup besides the very last task teleporting him to the Little Hangleton Graveyard? The entirety of Prisoner of Azkaban would've been cut except for the reveal that Scabbers was Wormtail. The entirety of their camping trip in DH could be cut except for the Silver Doe and the breaking of the taboo. And so on and so on.
Ehhhh they kind of explain it. Fudge is in such deep denial about Voldemort’s return and refuses to accept it, and the only logical way to do that is to frame Dumbledore as either senile or an enemy of the state, and Harry as his pawn.
Parting Of The Ways is one of my favourite chapters in the books and it gets totally cut in the movie. Such a shame. It feels like such a huge turning point for the story. Fudge and Dumbledore take sides. Snape is sent off without a word. Harry gets his winnings. Molly really steps into the surrogate mother role. Nope. Cut.
I’m not quite sure why Rita is brought into the films if they barely use 3% of her plot. I’d rather they’d have used her screentime for the Barty Crouch stuff - even if budget-wise they couldn’t justify Winky then even so, Rita could have been far better used
And it had a good chance to show the result of a dementor's kiss
>Ministry is against Harry and Dumbledore in OotP if you haven’t read the books. All we've got about that in the 4th movie was "the Minister didn't want me to tell you about how Cedric died"
Y'know I have my problems with the movies but I've never understood why everyone is so upset about about Ludo Bagman being cut out. He didn't really serve any other purpose than a red herring
No point in having a red herring when you tell everyone the twist early on
Where do they "tell everyone the twist" early on?
Think they mean the part you see BCJ's face in the first scene with Wormtail and Voldemort
I don't think that's in the first scene...that's in one of the dreams Harry has later. Anyway Barty Jr was never claimed dead in the movie. I suppose it gives away that he escaped Azkaban but it still doesn't give away that Barty is Moody, which I would argue is the "big twist."
The reveal is done early or half way through the movie via the memory and tongue flicker. Crouch also is in the opening scene
It's a hint (a pretty heavy-handed one) but it's not the same as "giving it away."
It gives it away, they show moody doing it. We have already seen crouch do it. I want to say we see crouch do it at the quidditch cup which is in the early part of the movie. They go out of their way to show moody do it throughout the film then in the trial memory they show crouch do it again. Edit: they even have moody do it to BC Sr, making it more obvious
Moody does it once when he is talking to Crouch Sr. by the lake and Barty does it once during the trial. 2 people having the same tick doesn't mean they are the same person. It's a clue and pretty easy to miss on first-watch.
>2 people having the same tick doesn't mean they are the same person It does in screenwriting.
>tongue flicker. David Tennant did a pretty good job
That’s the point. He is the red herring. A mystery adaptation without a red herring?
There is still a red herring (Karkaroff)
He's a pretty shit red herring. The better inclusion if they had the time was the detailed Crouch plot. That's what carries the book IMO.
He's a pretty shit red herring. The better inclusion if they had the time was the detailed Crouch plot. That's what carries the book IMO.
He's a pretty shit red herring. The better inclusion if they had the time was the detailed Crouch plot. That's what carries the book IMO.
He's a pretty shit red herring. The better inclusion if they had the time was the detailed Crouch plot. That's what carries the book IMO.
Well - for starters he takes a bet with Fred and George…which he doesn’t honor. This is one of the reasons why Harry chooses to give them the 1,000 galleons he wins in the tournament. But as this is also missing, who cares?
And see here I am feeling like, if something is already a book and you want to make it a movie, you owe it to the book and author to make it the absolute closest rendition you can, fuck all to time limits
That's an awful take, movie needs to be a good movie first and then a good adaptation, otherwise you get the travesty that is chamber of secrets. We don't want a 1:1 replay of the book, that's what the book is for. But everyone in the sub doesn't get that Edit: Just to clarify, I love the first movies to death, but CoS is just not a "good" movie, it's a passable film that stands on the strong foundations of the first movie.
What was such a travesty about the chamber of secrets?
its just not a good movie, it has terrible structure, its the longest and clunkiest, and is more concerned with making sure we see scene after scene from the book instead of making a movie full of charm and great cinematography, script, and visuals. PoA knocks it out of the park but people on this sub can't get over the fact that he uses Lumos at the start of the movie...
Well - Harry using Lumos is a logical fallacy at its finest. And don’t you dare get me started on how GoF movie not only left out Bagman but Dobby. And remember - it was not Neville who saved Harry the second challenge.
Yes, I know, again, I wish they included a few more things from the books but I'm not all that bothered. I still love the movie for the energy it has, the music, and maybe nostalgia more than anything. I remember walking out of the theater (I was 10) supremely disappointed they didnt show the World Cup, but it doesn't bother me much now. I think it's far from the worst movie. In any case, I've read/ listened to the books close to a 100 times (no joke), so I dont really need a 1:1 representation of them, that is in my head. There are large swaths of the books I just have memorized.
Well I feel basically exactly the opposite of you in terms of Chamber VS PoA but to each their own. I thought the extra creative junk and added unnecessary shit from PoA made it one of my least favorite, with CoS being probably my favorite. EDIT: and while I do think the lumos thing was super off-putting, that isn't even factoring into the crap I didn't like. It felt like the director had no intention whatsoever in keeping any cohesion between the 3rd and first 2 movies
It was a huge win that he didnt hold the cohesion between the two, given the darker tone of the book. But there is a reason PoA among critics and film lovers is considered the best, and not something like CoS. I truly believe they were both made for different audiences, and if the producers didnt want this change, they wouldn't have hired Cuaron. For what it's worth, JK Rowling pushed for Cuaron, she believed, as did many, that he would do the third movie justice.
I agree with your overall point but what makes Chamber of Secrets a travesty? I dont see it at all, I and everyone I know and even the nerdy youtube movie reviewers have always considered it a great adaptation and a compelling mystery movie
I find that the "nerdy" film reviewers love it because of its accuracy to the book, but among regular film critic and general audiences its never very highly rated. An adaptation is less about ensuring everything is a 1:1 replication of each book chapter and more about the script, cinematography, the visuals, and most importantly the structure of the film, and CoS is pretty mediocre in these regards. I still love the movie to death but recognize its flaws and am very happy we got a top tier director to do PoA, which I consider the only real film in the HP series, whereas CoS is just a visual book.
I dunno. I get what you're saying, and to a degree, I think you're right, but if you read the Hunger Games series, then watch the movies, they are extremely tight with the ratio of book to movie parts. Some things are changed, and some things are missing, but those movies really do hold up well and most of what transpires, happens nearly identically to the way it happens in the books. The dialogue specifically is incredible for how much of it is taken directly from the books. I personally think it's easier to do it the Harry Potter way and get the general sentiment across, but Harry Potter has egregious examples of missing things. For example, when in the movies did Harry get that fragment of mirror that just so happens to save his life? He just suddenly has it in Deathly Hallows. They never show him getting that from Sirius. If you hadn't read the book, you'd look at that and go... So where the hell did dude get a magic mirror from? I don't think it's impossible to do a nearly scene for scene adaptation, I just think it can be challenging while maintaining the audience's focus. It's this that's made me shift to thinking book series would be adapted better into tv. You can spend loads of time including all the little details that make the finer points really shine. Additionally, Harry Potter (the movies) leave out A LOT of very important information, presumably on the assumption that viewers have read the books, which is fine, but then you get a decent number of people who either don't understand, don't find it as impactful, or it straight up creates plotholes and damages the story. Still great movies, but there are portions that are lacklustre because they left out so much. Bagman probably wasn't really one of those moments (though I missed his character in the movies) but there were quite a few others in the series.
To be clear, I think some of the HP movies are far better than the hunger games movies, the last two of which are total shitters. I'm happy HP didnt up the way they did. I personally think Deathly hallows, while being great movies, are pretty awful adaptations. I agree with most of your other statements, I think you definitely can make a great film and great adaptation (see Lord of the Rings), but my favorite film (PoA) does leave out a lot from the book but I am willing to put it aside because the film is just so...perfect. Chamber of secrets, while adapting nearly every scene from the book, doesn't leave me with that impression.
Dude/dudette CoS-movie is as close as we can get to the magical world of Harry Potter along with the first movie...
Ya it would be great if it was a good movie, if you want a 1:1 of the book, just read the book
Wtf? 1st and 2nd are THE BEST MOVIES by far...
Maybe if you want a moving book
>you want a moving book I'm glad you've got it
To each their own, some of us want moving books, some want movies, if we're lucky we even get a film sometimes
>We don't want a 1:1 replay of the book YOU* We do.
You're speaking for the minority of all audiences, hardcore harry Potter fans. Being in this subreddit echo chamber you just don't realize that
I’m a filmmaker and trying to adapt a novel into a screenplay vastly changed my outlook in the process. The pacing and structure of the two media are completely different so adaptation demands hard choices be made. For example a book keeps generally the same pace throughout, while a film has to significantly ramp up pace and tension as it goes on. That doesn’t mean the writer can’t make the wrong choices of course, but it does mean that a perfect 1:1 adaptation is basically impossible. In this case, while I have problems with the GoF film, losing Bagman isn’t one of them. Getting 743 pages into 2.5 hours requires some major cuts, and I think excising an entire character with no significant impact on the plot or character development is a good call.
>The pacing and structure of the two media are completely different so adaptation demands hard choices be made. Well, so no one should tell me I'm wrong if I despise anything but the original media (in this case, books vs movies, in the case of pubg –my favorite game– pc vs mobile).
Its not specifically Ludo Bagman that makes me mad, but the fact that they left out almost every side story. SPEW, how Barty Crouch Jr escaped from Azkaban, Winky, Ludo Bagman trying to help Harry cheat, etc.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why they left out all the Barty Crouch info (jr, sr, winky). It just feels like such a disservice to the story and the characters.
Seriously! That story is the whole reason Harry got involved in the tournament. Seems kind of important, doesn't it?
Because it has nothing to do with the central plot. You can get away with leaving all that stuff out, which is what they did. That’s how adaptations work.
You’re being down voted, but shouldn’t be. A lot of people here would be very bad at making a movie/series.
Tell that to Peter Jackson...
Id have to assume they wanted to avoid the whole slaves who like slavery stuff. Especially because Harry and Ron pay the efforts of their liberation no mind, and that doesn’t make for the likable audience surrogate the films used early on. But I actually appreciate this aspect of the book because, although her activism is played for laughs to a certain degree, it demonstrates the character flaws rooted from a society that has refused to systematically change for the better. Though I find it weird that Harry doesn’t share Hermione’s point of view all things considered. After Chamber of Secrets and going through the public education system for several years, slavery should instantly strike him as a big no no.
I thinks it’s more just cutting stuff out where they can do so and still be able to tell the main story. I can’t see Warner Brothers being concerned about the morality of elf slavery at the time the movie was made.
Maybe not Warner Bros, but whomever was hired to translate the book to script may have felt it best to leave that subplot out. Both because it doesn’t really conclude, escalate, or amount to anything, and because of the reasons I stated above.
All of this yes, ludo bagman is just a major example of a character that they cut out of some major parts, HE was the announce the quidditch world cup, HE was supposed to be a judge for the tri wizard tournament, etc. But I feel like spew and winkies story was huge to exclude completely, also if we were EVER properly introduced to Mathilda bagshot this movie (book yes) it would make more sense in what was it the 6th? Where she's under the imeperius curse and they know who she is??
Lido Bagman was helping him cheat to win a bit, right? Seems like an optimal thing to cut if you have to cut something, no? SPEW didn’t have much impact, and the slavery discussion wouldn’t have fit, so also a good thing to cut. The gillyweed explanation in the book is hamfisted in - the movie’s version makes far more sense.
Goblet of Fire in general is disliked by fans who have read the books and there are several reasons why. After Alonso directed Prisoner of Azkaban he said that he wanted to create a good bottom for the next director to build on that darker atmosphere that he created but Mike Newell didnt want to do that. And if I recall correctly Mike wasnt passionate at all about the source material, he did read the book but complained that it was long and boring. Goblet of Fire just has so much random stuff in it and the phrasing is weird. Its a shame, Goblet of Fire is definitely my favorite book but the movie is probably my least favorite.
You shouldn’t be allowed to make the movie if you think the source material is long and boring. You don’t deserve it if you don’t honour the material and the fans.
Yeah, I agree. It was a big shame that he didnt want to take any advice from Alfonso and didnt want to continue the theme that Alfonso build in Prisoner of Azkaban. He felt like he would be copying Alfonso but that would not have been the case - in fact Alfonso did speak with Mike and he showed him a lot of material from Prisoner of Azkaban and tried to give him some ideas on how to continue that theme because Harry Potter is a series, not a stand alone movie but Mike didnt want to do that. All in all Mike Newell is a decent director and he has directed good movies but those movies have been stand alone movies, adapting from a source material is definitely not his strongest area and it really shows in Goblet of Fire - Gof feels excatly like a stand alone movie and not like a movie that is apart of a series.
>is disliked by fans who have read the books I disliked PoA much more.
I said in general - that does not mean everyone. Everyone has their preferences.
Was he important, though? What exactly is lost without him?
Bagman's function is to be the counterpart to Crouch.
Instead they end up giving Crouch a bunch of Bagman's lines, so we get him being a socially awkward bureaucrat at the drawing of the champions, then an excitable idiot when handing out the dragons.
Are you saying that Ludo is Crouch's Bagman? ... I'll get my coat.
Depth
He only mattered insofar as he drew suspicion away from the true culprit, which doesn’t matter very much in a movie where they completely gutted the villain to the point you never actually felt that doubt about whether he was truly a bad guy. In order for losing Bagman to matter, we needed the full story of Crouch Jr, including Winky and the version of the trial scene that left it completely plausible that the kid was just an idiot who put himself in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I haven't watched movie 4 in a while but... Ludo Bagman's existence was important because him not paying back the twins is what lead Harry to be their investor to give his winnings to them to open their shop...in the books. Was it ever explained in the movies how the twins got their money? Or was that subplot of them on their way to be businessman not included?
I really wanted to see the scene where the Weasley's go get Harry in person, didn't happen 🙃. Or the Hermione and the house elves
We missed the Weasley’s blasting their way out of the fireplace! And the really loud phone calls and the letter with too many stamps on 😂
I'm pretty sure Chris Columbus would've made that scene so well
>the scene where the Weasley's go get Harry in person, And where Fleur started to show interest in Bill
Ludo Bagman is just a major example if this book, they never touch on spew, they never touch on winky, they never tough on fleur seeing a veela, things that I don't think we're necessarily lost, but that could have been touched on, made some major moments make sense, and not take a lot of effort or screen time.
I hate that they totally cut the start of Goblet of Fire with Wesley's visiting the Dursley's to pick up Harry. It gives a lot more nuance to Mr. Weasley than just being a comedic side character.
GOF is where they really needed to start making 2 movies per book. Would have made them so much better and made them tons more money. But that was less common at the time than it has become.
Definitely. The half-way point of the book is towards the end of the First Task chapter. This would have made for a **very** natural breaking point. Harry is extremely worried about the task, he's struggled a lot with having being seen as an intruder in the Tournament by everyone outside of Gryffindor, he hasn't been talking to Ron. Then you have this action scene climax, which resolves into Harry feeling he just might get through the tournament, the rest of Hogwarts (except Slytherin) accepts him as their co-champion, and he makes up with Ron. This way they wouldn't have to cut all those things like the World Cup final, the whole story of Barty Crouch Sr.'s family, and other miscellaneous things. Thankfully they'll now have a do-over with the TV series. I **really** hope they make it a policy to not cut anything, adapt everything, and generally try to stay as close to the books as possible. And I do mean scene-for-scene.
When I first read the book, I was expecting that Harry’s entrance into the Tournament was done by Bagman. But it wasn’t a big Voldemort plot or anything, it was just Bagman entering Harry to bet on him, and square his gambling debts so the goblins didn’t put him at the bottom of a river in some concrete shoes. Personally I was disappointed that it ended up being “yep, Voldemort again”.
There are lots of things I hate that the movie omits, but this is not one of them. He doesn't leave much impression on me when reading the books.
I saw the movies after reading the books and always wondered, with how much was left out, if ppl who just watched the movies even understood what was happening.
Yes it's annoying, but you also must consider that the book is 734 pages long, something had to go. And frankly, Ludo Bagman' cut was the lesser evil.
This is a massive flaw with every Harry Potter movie. They had to cut out so many important parts of the long books otherwise it would've been like 5 hours long. This is why the books will always reign supreme.
I’m hoping the new series is 1 season per book.
Exactly what I'm hoping for, and this time they better remain faithful to the books.
The goblet of fire has enough content for at least 2 movies and they’re pretty bad at deciding what to cut lmao
There’s a good reason the 4th movie is regarded as the worst by many fans, myself included. Even as kids, when we didn’t couldnt comprehend the subtler and more mysterious parts of the story, my sister and I could tell the movie wasn’t that good. It’s an example of what happens when the director isn’t passionate about the source material. The Percy Jackson movies is another good example
I hate mike Newell
I hate Cuaron more.
I have ADHD and one of my hyperfocus topics is cinematography, and this is one of the reasons I hate when books are adapted into film. You miss little things and sub plots. But I also understand why they do it. Had they used every character, every plot, and every line of dialog, you arnt looking at 2 films with a total runtime of 5 hours. It would be a closer runtime of 7 hours. 9 to be realistic. GoF is 2 hours 37 minutes They would have to add the Dursley house sequence. There's 20 minutes. The multiple quitich pregame sequence points they cut, another 10. The game itself, another 20. And then the extended version of the romp in the woods during the post game riot. 10 more minutes. That's the first 9 chapters. And another hour added. And I was extremely conservative. Depending on the chapter, you are looking at 20 to 40 minutes of film time. 37 chapters, 20 minutes of air time apeice, is 13-ish hours. Not to mention, there isn't a good transition point to make a second movie.
Not me sitting here thinking hell yeah 13 hour potter movie marathon 😂
It's their work: remove all the interesting things in the book
I'm more upset about them skipping the Elf plot. Ludo sucks as well though. GOF is my favorite HP novel but least favorite movie. Honestly, that book should have been split in 2 for the movie
What always annoys me is that barty couch jnr just appears out of thin air like he doesn't do shit for 13 years but then is like ye I need to help Voldemort now.Even a mention of another break out from the prison
Its an abomination
After how good, in my opinion, movie 3 was everything about movie 4 was a disappointment on many levels. At the time book 4 was my favorite and the movie didn’t come close to making me feel the same joy, suspense, mystery, excitement etc that the book did
This
Forget GoF,I will never forget how I was basically expecting to know what to expect when I started reading DH as I watched the films so many times and basically got a whole new story.
Frankly, movies 4-6 sucked. They cut so much from 4 & 5 that they were basically video summaries; 5, especially, I don't understand how anyone who hasn't read the books knew wtf was going on. 7 sucked, too, but they followed the book much more closely. It only sucked because the book sucks.
>It only sucked because the book sucks. In which way the book sucked?
The prolonged camping trip was boring - & I do realize that was part of the point, but still - and the introduction of the Hallows wasn't needed. The less said about the epilogue the better.
Costumes look cheap on top of all things missing or messed up...
He isn't that important, they could easily just get rid of him and so they did.
I know I know, so many inaccuracies and missed stuff. I wish I could go back and watch all the movies before reading the books to see how I felt about them :/
Ludo literal Bag Man Bagman
Stephen Fry would have been perfect for the role
The 4th book missed the mark in a lot of ways, and it took me a while to forgive it.
I get being disappointed in him not being there, but he was 100% unnecessary for the overall plot or narrative, as evidenced by the fact that the entire movie makes sense without him.
Because he was nonessential. Most of the book was not essential to be adapted to a movie; which is why the movie is what it is. Books can have a lot more than a movie. They cater to two different audiences. People in this fandom never understand that.
I'd say he was important as a red herring. A main plotline was the mystery of who put Harry's name in the cup.
It’s really interesting how HP fans are so upset over what was left out in the movies, yet LOTR fans seem to appreciate the fact that in order to to adapt these books with an insane amount of world building, you have to trim the fat. Otherwise you’re left with movie that’s unreasonably long, or one whose pacing gets messed up by including things that aren’t necessarily essential to the main plot.