http://money.cnn.com/2005/12/18/news/funny/bc.leisure.boxoffice.reut/index.htm

I was very disappointed in HPGOF (the movie). I know the book rather well, and the movie was little more than a series of incoherent cartoons of the plot. I think Newell’s work was far inferior to Alfonso Cuaron’s Prisoner of Azkaban in atmosphere and cinematic artistry, and inferior to all the other movies in plot coherence and magical feeling. Moaning Myrtle was one of the few bright spots – but she was better still in the book.

I preferred to devote the time (on that genra) to trying Philip Pullman’s books, which I much preferred. I will try the Potter books again…one day….but I have this huge huge huge reading list, and I cannot see me finding time any time soon.

Understood…. I haven’t gotten around to reading the Pullman books, though they’ve been recommended by people whose taste I trust. I must have at least a hundred novels around that I haven’t gotten to yet. Physics keeps interfering with my reading habits. (Know of any joint physics/literature jobs? )

Donna wrote:

The Potter books are fun and my youngest enjoys them, but Tolkein *is* fine literature that practically invented the genre of fantasy.

I actually find it kind of hard to justify Tolkien as “fine literature,” but it probably amounts to wondering what defines “literature” anyway. Tolkien did some amazing things in those books, constructing a deeply intricate world and telling a compelling story. But much the same thing can be said for what Rowling has done in the Harry Potter books! It’s hard for me to pinpoint what it is that makes the Tolkien books seem more serious as literature, because, well, they just don’t seem to be to be that literary. I haven’t read one in its entirety in ages, but from what I recall (and glancing back at bits) the prose was just kind of clunky and stilted. If Tolkien is a great storyteller it’s because of the greatness of the story, not of the telling. In that sense the works fall short of truly great literature. On the other hand, there’s undoubtedly something about the books that makes them seem like serious literature. I guess it’s probably the thoroughly academic approach Tolkien took to building a fantasy world, investing it with realistic languages and cultures that were developed in far greater depth than was presented in the novels themselves. This underlying richness seeps through and makes the story that much more compelling. I’m really sort of apathetic about Tolkien compared to most people I know — I have little desire to ever re-read his books — but I do think they are a great achievement.

That said, I think Rowling has created a pretty impressively detailed fantasy herself. It’s really all the little things that make the HP books so nice: recurring minor details that build up the sense that this is a detailed and believable world. It might not have the encyclopedic background that Tolkien developed, but the world of Rowling’s books is quite intricate and consistent. She also writes with great humor and wit.

With Potter I have the “advantage” of not having read, and not planning to ever read, the books, so no expectations to disappoint.

A. Krug – Why do they keep getting new directors? Do the old ones not want to continue? I thought Alfonso Cuaron did an excellent job with the feel of the third film.

Because two in a row almost killed Chris Columbus. The movies are simply too arduous for a single director to do fast enough to keep Ginny Weasely from being an old lady by the end.

And call me Mr. Negativity, but the latest HP movie was a disappointment too [full disclosure: this is the first movie I've seen after reading the corresponding book--disappointed fan syndrome?]. The first three were very successful in projecting the joy, hope, and promise of those youngsters at Hogwarts–always looked forward to seeing them. I suppose I’m satisfied that they didn’t cut anything essential, but there’s definitely less imagination or creativity in this one. That, and none of the characters seemed genuine–Dumbledore, Harry, Hermione, especially. I guess a lot of the whimsy/flow just had to be cut, due to the enormous size of the book, and am hoping that the DVD release will be much more enjoyable.

And I also ate up Pullman’s books – another fine writer who is really a bit dark for children, although my kids enjoyed them. The anti-Christian undertones will probably prevent them from becoming a movie series, though.

And I can’t wait for Narnia. I loved those books as a kid, and the animated version.

I enjoy the Potter series, though, and whatever gets kids reading and imagining (!) is WONDERFUL by definition.

As for the movie, I thought the screenwriters did a pretty good job of paring down the script to its essentials. I suppose that if you’re not familiar with the book you might miss interesting points like why poor Neville is so freaked out about the cruciatus curse. Visually, I thought the quidditch world cup was the best part. (I saw the Imax version, which may have been edited differently than the regular theatrical version.)

Yes, I’ve been told that about the later books. I did run out of motivation since I found the first one so derivative, and since pressed for time back then, I preferred to devote the time (on that genre) to trying Philip Pullman’s books, which I much preferred. I will try the Potter books again…one day….but I have this huge huge huge reading list, and I cannot see me finding time any time soon. But I expect that I will one day.

Cheers,

-cvj

Also I suggest giving the books another try. I also read the first one and lost interest, but eventually was convinced to read them all, and they become much more fun and somewhat addictive. Fine literature they’re not, but they’re good yarns and create a lush and interesting fantasy world.