![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Jul. 16th, 2009 04:53 pmSaw Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince today. I enjoyed it, though it is one of the longer ones (two and a half hours!) Its odd though, there are things, that I'm guessing because of the translation from the book to the movies, that they have to explicitly spell out for those in the audience who may not have read the books. But at the same time, it seems like there are tiny things, that if you hadn't read the books, you might not get. I heard one reviewer complain of this, being someone who hasn't read the books. It sounded like they needed a couple of things explained to them.
Ida know, for me, its always the little details and the seemingly inconsequential subplots that stick with me, because as I've said, it makes the story (whether it be in print or on the screen) more real and thus more engaging to me. Like to me, I'll pick up and know the backstory of some secondary or tertiary character or some minor little plot, but when I try to talk to people about it, they'll be "who?!" So for something like this, where I've actually read the source material, I can't make an objective judgment on whether something was lost in translation because my mind automatically fills in the blanks.
Of course, there were several things in the movie that I'm not sure if I just don't remember the books right, or if its a little thing added just for the movie. ( spoiler cut )
Getting out of the cut, is it ghey that the main differences I notice are those things involving the shippy-stuff? But that's one of the things that interested me about the series the most! I was also fascinated by the similarities between Neville and Harry, Snape's backstory, and the entire Black family and how they connect to so many different characters. As I said, I find those relationships more edifying than any of the Voldemort stuff. Nor did I find Dumbledore so great. He's just some old queen! (Its not really a spoiler if JKR never outright said he was a poofster in the books but admitted it in later interviews!)
But getting back to Snape, again, I know what's up with him, but I wonder if the movie does a good job of conveying things to non-readers. ( spoiler cut )
Ida know, for me, its always the little details and the seemingly inconsequential subplots that stick with me, because as I've said, it makes the story (whether it be in print or on the screen) more real and thus more engaging to me. Like to me, I'll pick up and know the backstory of some secondary or tertiary character or some minor little plot, but when I try to talk to people about it, they'll be "who?!" So for something like this, where I've actually read the source material, I can't make an objective judgment on whether something was lost in translation because my mind automatically fills in the blanks.
Of course, there were several things in the movie that I'm not sure if I just don't remember the books right, or if its a little thing added just for the movie. ( spoiler cut )
Getting out of the cut, is it ghey that the main differences I notice are those things involving the shippy-stuff? But that's one of the things that interested me about the series the most! I was also fascinated by the similarities between Neville and Harry, Snape's backstory, and the entire Black family and how they connect to so many different characters. As I said, I find those relationships more edifying than any of the Voldemort stuff. Nor did I find Dumbledore so great. He's just some old queen! (Its not really a spoiler if JKR never outright said he was a poofster in the books but admitted it in later interviews!)
But getting back to Snape, again, I know what's up with him, but I wonder if the movie does a good job of conveying things to non-readers. ( spoiler cut )
