(no subject)
Jul. 16th, 2009 04:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
geebsSaw 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. Like the opening scene, with some young muggle waitress unaware of the magical world flirting with Harry, I wanna say that's something just for the movie. But something more consequential and relevant to the plot- I don't seem to recall that the identity of the Half Blood Prince was spelled out so clearly as it was in the movie. I mean, I thought in the books, they don't outright say its Snape, but you eventually ascertain that it is. Like I don't remember Snape being all, "I AM THE HALF BLOOD PRINCE!" The only evidence Snape has in the movie that Harry has read his book is when he uses Sectumsempra, so it seems pretty thin for him to make the connection that Harry is wondering who this Half Blood Prince is, so why point it out?!
I guess the issue is, with "Half Blood Prince" in the title, it sounds important, but the reality is, its just some arrogant nickname Snape came up with school that he wrote in his book, not some all-important and meaningful title. In the book, they can better explain that, but in the movie, where time is short, people who haven't read the book would prolly wonder, who the hell is this half-blood prince that's in the title?!
Other things I can't remember if they went differently. I thought in this book, Ron and Hermoine officially become a couple after he gets poisoned. So Ida know if I'm just not remembering it right, or if they're trying to milk it and not have the two romantic interests get together when there's still two movies left. But here, Ron forgets saying Hermoine's name while he was asleep and recovering. Similarly, I don't remember it being so overt that she was hurt over the whole Lavender thing. Like I swear the reader had to read between the lines that Hermoine was pissed/upset, but the movie has her outright admitting her feelings to Harry and asking if its that way when he sees Ginny kissing Dean. Which I also thought was something that wasn't explicitly said, but the reader could figure out.
I thought the book had a lot of him getting mad and not knowing why, even at first thinking its a brotherly thing since she's the little sister of his best friend. But I didn't think he and Hermione had an actual conversation about their respective crushes on Weasleys. It definitely went differently in the books with Harry and Ginny, because in the movie, it seemed like it wasn't until the end that Ron figured out the two of them were into each other and was cool with it, while it was earlier in the book, after the big game (which didn't happen in the movie), where Harry kissed Ginny in front of everyone. And then they were worried about how Ron would take that, but he was cool with it, despite him being all "its a brother's duty to hate whoever is trying to get with his sister" before that.
But Tonks and Lupin are also different. In this, she's all, "what is it, honey?" indicating they're already a couple, but I swear in the book, it took a while for that to happen. Like Tonks was all depresso, and they thought it was because of Sirius dying (well, it was partly that), but I thought there was a whole thing with him being all aloof because he's a werewolf and not wanting her to deal with all that entails?
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. I could've sworn we start learning about him and Harry's mom in OotP and get more snippets in HBP. I mean, I think the whole thing with him and Lily being childhood friends doesn't really get shown until the last book, but I thought there were hints in the previous two books. But I guess little hints like that aren't important to the overall plot until the last book, and with the movies being pretty long already, they didn't need to waste time on that.
It just seems to me, without the hints of his connection to Lily, to a non-reader, he's less sympathetic and an outright traitor, because there's nothing redeemable about him shown. At least in the books, there's hints there's something there. As it is, we're only left with Alan Rickman's acting to convey that there's more than meets the eye, which I think he does a good job of showing. But again, I may only be seeing it because I know to look for it, and a non-reader might not even pick up on the inner conflict within Snape or take double meanings from certain conversations he has with Dumbledore or with Bellatrix and Narcissa.
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. Like the opening scene, with some young muggle waitress unaware of the magical world flirting with Harry, I wanna say that's something just for the movie. But something more consequential and relevant to the plot- I don't seem to recall that the identity of the Half Blood Prince was spelled out so clearly as it was in the movie. I mean, I thought in the books, they don't outright say its Snape, but you eventually ascertain that it is. Like I don't remember Snape being all, "I AM THE HALF BLOOD PRINCE!" The only evidence Snape has in the movie that Harry has read his book is when he uses Sectumsempra, so it seems pretty thin for him to make the connection that Harry is wondering who this Half Blood Prince is, so why point it out?!
I guess the issue is, with "Half Blood Prince" in the title, it sounds important, but the reality is, its just some arrogant nickname Snape came up with school that he wrote in his book, not some all-important and meaningful title. In the book, they can better explain that, but in the movie, where time is short, people who haven't read the book would prolly wonder, who the hell is this half-blood prince that's in the title?!
Other things I can't remember if they went differently. I thought in this book, Ron and Hermoine officially become a couple after he gets poisoned. So Ida know if I'm just not remembering it right, or if they're trying to milk it and not have the two romantic interests get together when there's still two movies left. But here, Ron forgets saying Hermoine's name while he was asleep and recovering. Similarly, I don't remember it being so overt that she was hurt over the whole Lavender thing. Like I swear the reader had to read between the lines that Hermoine was pissed/upset, but the movie has her outright admitting her feelings to Harry and asking if its that way when he sees Ginny kissing Dean. Which I also thought was something that wasn't explicitly said, but the reader could figure out.
I thought the book had a lot of him getting mad and not knowing why, even at first thinking its a brotherly thing since she's the little sister of his best friend. But I didn't think he and Hermione had an actual conversation about their respective crushes on Weasleys. It definitely went differently in the books with Harry and Ginny, because in the movie, it seemed like it wasn't until the end that Ron figured out the two of them were into each other and was cool with it, while it was earlier in the book, after the big game (which didn't happen in the movie), where Harry kissed Ginny in front of everyone. And then they were worried about how Ron would take that, but he was cool with it, despite him being all "its a brother's duty to hate whoever is trying to get with his sister" before that.
But Tonks and Lupin are also different. In this, she's all, "what is it, honey?" indicating they're already a couple, but I swear in the book, it took a while for that to happen. Like Tonks was all depresso, and they thought it was because of Sirius dying (well, it was partly that), but I thought there was a whole thing with him being all aloof because he's a werewolf and not wanting her to deal with all that entails?
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. I could've sworn we start learning about him and Harry's mom in OotP and get more snippets in HBP. I mean, I think the whole thing with him and Lily being childhood friends doesn't really get shown until the last book, but I thought there were hints in the previous two books. But I guess little hints like that aren't important to the overall plot until the last book, and with the movies being pretty long already, they didn't need to waste time on that.
It just seems to me, without the hints of his connection to Lily, to a non-reader, he's less sympathetic and an outright traitor, because there's nothing redeemable about him shown. At least in the books, there's hints there's something there. As it is, we're only left with Alan Rickman's acting to convey that there's more than meets the eye, which I think he does a good job of showing. But again, I may only be seeing it because I know to look for it, and a non-reader might not even pick up on the inner conflict within Snape or take double meanings from certain conversations he has with Dumbledore or with Bellatrix and Narcissa.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-07-19 04:33 am (UTC)I don't recall the romance between R and H really being shown until the last book. Although, hints that they liked each other in earlier books/films. I don't recall them being a "couple" til the last book after Ron returns to them.
I don't recall the Ginny and Harry romance at all in this one.. I guess I should re-read the book.
But, I thought it was ironic that Tom Riddle was a MudBlood... and that was the reference to the HBP.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-19 06:52 pm (UTC)As for Voldemort being a mudblood, I always thought that was an interesting distinction. The movies don't really cover the whole Neville and Harry sharing the same b-day and how the prophecy applied to them both, but it became Harry because Voldemort chose to go after Harry instead of Neville. And he only went after Harry because he himself was a mudblood. Him being all about purity of blood when he himself isn't "pure" is all the more intriguing when he's confronted with that prophecy about the person who would ultimately defeat him. For all his disdain of muggles and mudbloods, when confronted with two boys who fit the prophecy's description, he thought it was the non-pure blood who was the actual threat.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-21 02:53 pm (UTC)If someone didn't read the books and just saw the movie.. they wouldn't really realize about Tom Riddle's past..
no subject
Date: 2009-07-21 07:43 pm (UTC)So mebbe the whole thing was to reveal that Snape was a mudblood in the end, since we hardly knew anything about him from the previous books. But again, the movie hardly touched on the whole figuring out who the half blood prince was. Heh, I remember a non-reader reviewer actually had to be reminded what a halfblood was, because they never actually say it in the movie, it assumes you know the previous movies or at least the lore well enough to understand the concept. I mean, while it seems relatively obvious, the whole purity thing is an important aspect of the motivation of the bad guys, but the movie doesn't even give a refresher on that!
Again, there was so much to cover, but its ironic that the movie is called the half blood prince but they hardly go into that. In the book, I think it was semi-important- the movie somewhat goes into it with Hermoine telling Harry's obsessed with the book, and I think that's part of what brings Harry and Ginny closer, because she was worried it was like Tom Riddle's diary and might be doing something to him. So they wanted to know who the HBP was to figure out if the book might be evil.
The movie focuses more on trying to find out Slughorn's secret, which is definitely important, because that sets up the last book, but again since the movie is called "Half Blood Prince" rather than "the Secret of the Old Fame-Whore Has-Been", its amusing that the name in the title is actually the b-plot.
So yeah, with them covering the Tom Riddle backstory (since Slughorn's secret involves Voldemort), one might assume he's the Half Blood Prince. But as I said, the movie was so focused on that thing rather than finding out the identity of the HBP, I think its easy to miss that all the "Half Blood Prince" was was some silly name Snape came up with in school to sound all cool and bad-ass, and not some important thing having to do with prophecy or defeating Voldemort.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-22 03:28 am (UTC)I hope so... just not sure if they'll have the time and if they don't - do they change the flavor of the plot / story...