We've all had this conversation:
"You're a Harry Potter fan?" someone says to us. "So am I! I must have seen each of the movies a dozen times!"
You: "What about the books?"
Someone: "Oh, I haven't read the books. But I'm a HUGE fan!"
Doesn't that make you want to scream? Can we not all agree that, if you have not actually read J.K. Rowling's original Harry Potter novels, then...
YOU'RE NOT A HARRY POTTER FAN!
I don't care how many times you've watched those ridiculous movies. I don't care that you know the film dialogue off by heart and that you can name the actor who played the auror who is standing at the gates of Hogwarts when Harry trudges up, his face bloodied, near the start of the film version of The Half-Blood Prince, or that you think the portrayal of Draco Malfoy is simply dreamy.
If you have not read the books, even once, you are not a real Harry Potter fan.
That's why I can't stand Harry Potter trivia events these days. In North America, at least, the organisers' idea of a show stopper, a stumper, a question that separates the fans from the wannabes, is something ridiculous like: Who was the gaffer on the second movie? I don't know and I don't care. I can barely watch the films at all, not to mention studying their ludicrously long credits to prepare for a trivia contest. Ask me about Rowling's world, her characters, her plots, her details... don't ask me about the movies.
What is happening in American society is that the movies are replacing the original books as the canon of Harry Potter. This is ridiculous. The movies are fine as stand alone projects -- some of them are even mildly entertaining -- but they cannot and must not replace Rowling's works as the foundation of Harry Potter fandom.
Not only are the film versions significantly inferior to the books as stories, as narratives, as world-builders -- they are flawed even as films. They are internally inconsistent and self-contradictory. They have plot and character-development gaps through which you could fly a hippogriff and they undermine many of the most praiseworthy of the themes, of the creative decisions, of the original books.
I have described many of what I perceive to be the films' shortcomings in other blog posts so I won't rehash all of that now. Suffice it to say, in my Harry Potter fandom, if you haven't read the books, you're not a Harry Potter fan. Okay?
Showing posts with label Auror. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Auror. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 4, 2018
Tuesday, August 29, 2017
Magical Beasts are not worth finding
To put my cards on the table, I am not a huge fan of either of the two "new" Potter-world tomes. Neither the play The Cursed Child nor the film Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them fills me with a great deal of joy.
I have written earlier about some of my concerns with the play. I don't think, however, that I have written much about the film.
I watched Fantastic Beasts for only the second time last week. I read the script when it originally came out and then bought the Blu Ray of the film when it was released. I have pretty good equipment at home (50" 4K UHD TV and a topline Blu Ray player) so I figure I got about as good an experience of the film as I could possibly have, outside seeing it in iMax 3D or something.
And I was not impressed.
The story is overly complicated and yet meanders, the characters are sketchily drawn and the special effects, while at times impressive, remind me more of the original Ghost Busters than anything else. The CGI 1920s New York City looks about as fake as the CGI 19th Century Toronto of CBC TV's relatively low budget success The Murdoch Mysteries.
The film also seems to lack a sense of itself. Half the time, it comes across as a middle grade comic adventure (at the level of, say, The Philosopher's Stone) and the other half it is gritty and nasty and violent (The Deathly Hallows).
If that weren't bad enough, Rowling indulges in a great deal of revision of the world she herself created. For example, if I'm not mistaken, in the books, a Legilimens has to look into the eyes of the person whose mind they are invading -- in this film, Queenie can invade minds without even being particularly close to people. This power is played for cute in the movie but it's use here undermines its frightening power in the novels.
And then there is the character of Percival Graves. A highly placed and respected member of the MACUSA, identified as an auror on various websites, Graves has significant magical powers that go way beyond what the average witch or wizard exhibits, reminding the viewer of, well, Voldemort and his powers.
SPOILER ALERT: It turns out that Graves is, in fact, Gellert Grindelwald who, at the film's opening, is the subject of a world-wide search after he disappears in Europe. In the film, we see Newt Scamander cast a spell on Graves and watch as Graves (a dark haired Colin Farrell) dissolves into Grindelwald (a white haired Johnny Depp).
So we must conclude that Grindelwald is, at all times, Graves and that Graves did not have an independent existence before Grindlewald arrived in the US. Which raises the question, how did Graves rise to such a high, trusted position in a MACUSA organization that is, self-admittedly, on the brink of open war with No-Majs (Muggles in America), in JUST A FEW DAYS?
Grindelwald had just disappeared as Newt was arriving in New York with his bag of tricks. We see Graves already in a significant position in MACUSA almost as soon as Tina arrests Newt. Tina arrests NEWT on his first day in New York. That means Grindelwald created Graves and rose to a lofty position in MACUSA in a matter of days, if not hours.
Sure, you could argue that Grindelwald killed an already existing, highly placed auror named Graves when Grindelwald first arrived in America and assumed his physical appearance and his identity but how was he able to fool so many people without knowing anything about Graves' life, character, behaviour? And why wasn't his impersonation spotted, especially in an organisation as security conscious as MACUSA?
The plot is full of holes, I tell you. It's poorly designed, horribly paced and weakly presented.
I may still own the Blu Ray of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them but I doubt I will ever watch it again.
I have written earlier about some of my concerns with the play. I don't think, however, that I have written much about the film.
I watched Fantastic Beasts for only the second time last week. I read the script when it originally came out and then bought the Blu Ray of the film when it was released. I have pretty good equipment at home (50" 4K UHD TV and a topline Blu Ray player) so I figure I got about as good an experience of the film as I could possibly have, outside seeing it in iMax 3D or something.
And I was not impressed.
The story is overly complicated and yet meanders, the characters are sketchily drawn and the special effects, while at times impressive, remind me more of the original Ghost Busters than anything else. The CGI 1920s New York City looks about as fake as the CGI 19th Century Toronto of CBC TV's relatively low budget success The Murdoch Mysteries.
The film also seems to lack a sense of itself. Half the time, it comes across as a middle grade comic adventure (at the level of, say, The Philosopher's Stone) and the other half it is gritty and nasty and violent (The Deathly Hallows).
If that weren't bad enough, Rowling indulges in a great deal of revision of the world she herself created. For example, if I'm not mistaken, in the books, a Legilimens has to look into the eyes of the person whose mind they are invading -- in this film, Queenie can invade minds without even being particularly close to people. This power is played for cute in the movie but it's use here undermines its frightening power in the novels.
And then there is the character of Percival Graves. A highly placed and respected member of the MACUSA, identified as an auror on various websites, Graves has significant magical powers that go way beyond what the average witch or wizard exhibits, reminding the viewer of, well, Voldemort and his powers.
SPOILER ALERT: It turns out that Graves is, in fact, Gellert Grindelwald who, at the film's opening, is the subject of a world-wide search after he disappears in Europe. In the film, we see Newt Scamander cast a spell on Graves and watch as Graves (a dark haired Colin Farrell) dissolves into Grindelwald (a white haired Johnny Depp).
So we must conclude that Grindelwald is, at all times, Graves and that Graves did not have an independent existence before Grindlewald arrived in the US. Which raises the question, how did Graves rise to such a high, trusted position in a MACUSA organization that is, self-admittedly, on the brink of open war with No-Majs (Muggles in America), in JUST A FEW DAYS?
Grindelwald had just disappeared as Newt was arriving in New York with his bag of tricks. We see Graves already in a significant position in MACUSA almost as soon as Tina arrests Newt. Tina arrests NEWT on his first day in New York. That means Grindelwald created Graves and rose to a lofty position in MACUSA in a matter of days, if not hours.
Sure, you could argue that Grindelwald killed an already existing, highly placed auror named Graves when Grindelwald first arrived in America and assumed his physical appearance and his identity but how was he able to fool so many people without knowing anything about Graves' life, character, behaviour? And why wasn't his impersonation spotted, especially in an organisation as security conscious as MACUSA?
The plot is full of holes, I tell you. It's poorly designed, horribly paced and weakly presented.
I may still own the Blu Ray of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them but I doubt I will ever watch it again.
Sunday, November 2, 2014
Pottermore posts not on my radar
So J.K. has put up some more "essays" on Pottermore, offering further information on various aspects of the Harry Potter world. I understand that one of them involves giving a history of Hogwarts and its headmasters, for example.
Note my use of "understand". I say "I understand" because, to be honest, I don't really know on account of the fact that I have not bothered to go read these new pieces of Potterana.
I'm not sure how I feel about them, to be honest.
I think my apathy is real and not driven by some nasty side of my personality, like jealousy, envy or spite. I think I really really don't care about these extra bits Ms. Rowling keeps throwing out into the world.
This is coming from someone who has read each volume in the Harry Potter series of novels at least 20 times. This is from someone who has already owned the eight movies both in DVD and Blu-Ray format and yet still will stop to watch them whenever they appear on regular TV. This is from someone who has become something of a resource in the lives of the Harry Potter fans among his friends and acquaintances.
In some ways, it makes me feel kind of sad that J.K. is still tossing bits of bread out onto the waters with regard to Harry Potter and hoping we will all snap them up.
I wonder why she can't either:
1. "let it go" and accept that her Harry Potter days are over and she should now focus on her really quite wonderful Galbraith novels; or
2. "suck it up", admit that she, like us, is addicted to Harry Potter and sit down to write another full length novel. I have no doubt that she could write some exciting books detailing Harry's adventures as an Auror, supplemented by plots involving Ron, Hermione and the others as they attempt to find their way in a post-Voldemort world.
The little tidbits she keeps offering seem pathetic, to be honest. Indecisive and sad.
And so I will choose not to read them anymore. And still treasure the seven spectacular Harry Potter novels I do read.
Note my use of "understand". I say "I understand" because, to be honest, I don't really know on account of the fact that I have not bothered to go read these new pieces of Potterana.
I'm not sure how I feel about them, to be honest.
I think my apathy is real and not driven by some nasty side of my personality, like jealousy, envy or spite. I think I really really don't care about these extra bits Ms. Rowling keeps throwing out into the world.
This is coming from someone who has read each volume in the Harry Potter series of novels at least 20 times. This is from someone who has already owned the eight movies both in DVD and Blu-Ray format and yet still will stop to watch them whenever they appear on regular TV. This is from someone who has become something of a resource in the lives of the Harry Potter fans among his friends and acquaintances.
In some ways, it makes me feel kind of sad that J.K. is still tossing bits of bread out onto the waters with regard to Harry Potter and hoping we will all snap them up.
I wonder why she can't either:
1. "let it go" and accept that her Harry Potter days are over and she should now focus on her really quite wonderful Galbraith novels; or
2. "suck it up", admit that she, like us, is addicted to Harry Potter and sit down to write another full length novel. I have no doubt that she could write some exciting books detailing Harry's adventures as an Auror, supplemented by plots involving Ron, Hermione and the others as they attempt to find their way in a post-Voldemort world.
The little tidbits she keeps offering seem pathetic, to be honest. Indecisive and sad.
And so I will choose not to read them anymore. And still treasure the seven spectacular Harry Potter novels I do read.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)