Harry Potter 3?

Question

Ok..so I'm rereading the Harry Potter series..again. And as I read each book I'm watchin the movie afterwards..(I know I'm a loser...lol)...but, has anyone else noticed how much the changed the movie for #3 compared to the book. #1 and #2 were not changed this much!! I mean the ending was SOOOO different..!! Did anyone else notice this???


I know they have to cut out some to make it fit in the time-frame..but that's not even what I'm talking about!! All the events that happened with the time-turner they changed completely. Like Hermione having to howl like a wolf , and throwing the pebbles to warn thier past selves to leave never even happened in the book!!!

Answer 1

Yea, they did the same in the fourth book to movie (actually watching the 4th movie now believe it or not). I have no clue why they did that stuff... The part about the patron really pissed me off, completely different scene in my mind. And the sequences, like Harry getting the Firebolt... What they should have done for the whole series, is shoot the book from beginning to end the way Rowling wrote it, then cut scenes for the theathre release. When the DVD came out, they would have made bank by releasing 4 - 6 hour movies (books 4 and 5 would be absordly long movies) that were Rowlings books scene for scene. But that won't happen unfortinately. The screen writer butchered the third and fourth book. Still good movies, but they could have been better.

Even now in the fourth movie, why couldn't they have sat in the ministers box at the World Cup? This stuff really got under my skin I'll tell you.

Answer 2

You think you are a loser. I just finished reading all the books and have started again after watching the corresponding movie. I have to say Movie 4 was my least favorite. POA though quite different from the book seemed to combine several different scenes from the book into one in the movie but it all seemed to gel together. Although 1 & 2 were remarkable in how close it was to the book. I would have liked to see more of the Dursleys in the movie as the scenes get much more enjoyable in the books. Alas the longer the books get the more they will have to cut out and the more disappointed most fans will be. Also some things just do not translate well onto screen. There have been many movies that we have not seen cause they were just bad while the books were amazing. Other movies do well but do not closely follow the books. There is so much more freedom with the imagination.

Answer 3

Yes I did. A lot of that was putting dialog into other character's mouths to save on scenes.

And yes, they did change around the action of Harry and Hermione back in time. Having just read through it again, it is good as a book but not for a movie, so they added actions for H&H to do, rather than just waiting around.

I think where they did the book some disservice is in leaving out some exposition about James and the Muraders, but it was going to be hard to get that into a movie.

Basically though you can't expect a book of this sort to translate into a 2-21/2 hour movie.

wl

Answer 4

I recall the same quote that Mevelyn mentioned here.

You mentioned that the degree of change becomes greater than #1 and #2. But again, movie #4 is not exactly "impressive" when you compare it to the book...who knows what 'shi*' we might be seeing this summer?

But the things is, we have to change our perspective: we can't take for granted as the book and movie for the same thing. The movie is the director and scriptwrite's reading of the story, re-creating it with the restraints and framework of a film. They do not go 100% hand in hand. The movie in a sense, is a whole another story, feeding off of the original, rather than a visual representation of the book. Like it is implied in Rowling's quote, there are things that only the book can do and things that only a movie can do. Sure, the the receiving of the Firebolt may draw some grunts, but is there so much left behind by not including the whole issue including the it? Buckbeak's feather represents the whole letter that Harry reads on the train, but again, the conversation betwen Harry and Sirius before he and Buckbeak take off is not included in the movie. The intimacy between Harry and his godfather, the trust that Harry bestows in the following books makes much more sense after seeing this conversation. Some people consider the newest Pride and Prejudice a disgrace. I agree in the senese Mr. Darcy is more a developed character in the novel, who becomes a gentleman on the inside and just the outside, through the course of the book. But in the movie, he starts as a gentleman and we realize what a gentleman he is, rather than the development. But Elizabeth is nevertheless the same, there is only so much character development. But this is not a flaw. In the movie context, we can see much more of the result of this initially established character and not have to deal with the possible confusion of character development.

The movie "as" the book is almost frustrating for me. I agree with you in that sense. But the movie "from", "derived from" the book is rather impressive. We can appriciate not just the movie, but the book, much more (isn't that the whole objective anyway?) when we do not take the two hand in hand.

Answer 5

I actually thought the third movie was much truer to the spirit of the book than the first two were, but that's just me.

They did change the Time Turner scene a lot, but I think it was changed to add more excitement and action to that part of the story--things can work just fine in a book that would be absolutely boring to watch on screen. And they actually managed to keep what I thought was the coolest part--the fact that it actually works the way time travel would have to, if it were real. They never change the past.

Answer 6

Yeah, that's the problem I've always had with the Harry Potter movies, and lots of other movies based on books. There's lot's of things that they change or take out because they have to with costs and time constraints, but there's also stuff that they change for no good reason. The third movie especially bothered me because yeah, it looked "artsy" and magical and all of that, but the story was almost completely different. There wasn't even a line to let Harry know that his father was one of the Mauraders! Ah well, it would be nice if they imroved on this aspect, but I wouldn't get my hopes up too much.

Answer 7

Well, since you've just finished the movie, you might find this quote from JK rowling veeeeeeerrry interesting...

In an interview after the completion of the Prisoner of Azkaban film, she commented that director Alfonso Cuarón had "put things in the film that, without knowing it, foreshadow things that are going to happen in the final two books. So I really got goosebumps when I saw a couple of those things, and I thought people are going to look back on the film and think those were put in deliberately as clues."

Answer 8

Both of them are better because the books are by JK Rowling and the characters seems to be fun.Catch the next harry potter which is coming in 2007[think so].

Answer 9

I noticed at as soon as i first saw the movie and the bad thing is is that the longer the books get the less there is in the movie or something like that.

Answer 10

yeah i know that.i was really upset,they just change evrything.the movie 4 was so fragmented and drammatic.moddy makes malfoy a ferret and then suddenly mcgonagal comes and the suddenly harry and the others are seen somewhere else in between these scenes there are lots of scenes.and i think if the directors made the films longer then also evry hp fans wd see coz its amazing and they shdnt worry abt money.there are millions of fans to watch the movies.i wd have watched the movies even if it was 5 hrs long coz i just love hp.