all right, I just sent a semi-snotty e-mail to an old friend, but I need EVERYONE to GET ON BOARD with the fact that yea is pronounced like “yay” and is what they say in the Bible and Congress and and yeah is what the rest of us say before “OK” and “whatever.” Just to make myself seem a little more sane, this wasn’t/isn’t at all a random typo. This has been a habit of his for years and years and I’m pretty sure he thinks I’m as wrong as I know he is. ROAR!
For proof: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=yea
and crap, I just overcopied something. I had written this nice response to a comment from about the differences I see between the HP and LOTR movie franchises, then decided it was too long for a comment and copied it to make into a nice post, and now… it’s gone. The reconstruction is never as good, is it? I’ll try anyway.
Part of my disappointment with the HP movie series (though I know I’ve talked over and over again about how most of the sets and casting fit my pictures) comes, I think, from the fact that the movies are coming out before the books are finished. This leads to all kinds of trouble. For instance, if you look at the HP series as a kind of mix of mystery and fantasy (which I would argue it very much is – each book is sort of a mystery novel in and of itself), then everything that’s cut from the books must be unimportant to the final conclusion. I do realize that the immediate solution to that spoilery problem is to not see the movies until the last book comes out. However, part of the charm of the entire Harry Potter series, for me, has been the attention to detail that Rowling has paid in all of the characters and situations. That, I think, is often lost in the movies.
I think the LOTR movies have several advantages on the HP movies. For one, and possibly the most important, I really think (and seem to have read to this effect) that the goal with LOTR was to make good books into good movies. The point for the HP movies seems to be to make good books into more money. I’m not saying the LOTR movies haven’t been (over)commercialized, but I’m saying I don’t think the original goal in making them was to create plastic toys and coloring books. I do think that was most of the goal in creating the HP movies.
Some of what I wanted to say is in this column at veritaserum.com, which I found by searching “Harry Potter Movies – why they were made” on google, in an attempt to find some kind of corroborating evidence for my statements. The writer is more critical of Daniel Radcliffe than I can bring myself to be (he’s 12 or 13), but I agree with most of it.
Anyway, so, I do believe that HP can be made into good movies. I think maybe things could even be fit into a relatively-feature-length film, but I am (so far) unconvinced that it can be done well. LOTR notwithstanding, the two HP movies so far have not been told in a manner that inspire confidence (if they had to cut things from Chamber of Secrets to make it all fit, how in the world will they handle Order?
Still, maybe the change of director will make a (big) difference. Maybe the actors will mature. Maybe… maybe the magic book fairy will bring me books 6 & 7 within the next six months. Despite all of these reservations, I’m still looking forward to the third movie, in that I do like the clues that watching everything pared down provides.