07-24-2004, 04:43 PM
Utterly loyal? Man, I didn't think so and I LOVE the books. I didn't really like "Sorcerer's Stone the Movie", but taste is taste. What can be argued is whether or not it was faithful -- and I say NO, Mr. Theory. Two major changes in the first twenty minutes affected the whole movie: 1. Harry Potter was not emaciated or even very much bothered by the abuse he'd received from the Dursleys and 2. Ron Weasley was not a fast-witted hot tempered kid, but a low-energy self involved type.
These two changes in the beginning just snow-balled through the whole movie. Dudley had no life and was written as a half-wit, not an evil problem child. Ron has almost no personality when he's supposed to be one of my favorite characters. The movie makes these things that were so exciting in the books into pretty boring stuff. I kept thinking the movie played like the "after-school special" version of the books-- all the juice had been seeped out. That's the part of an adaptation that needs to be the most "Utterly Loyal" -- if the spirit and feeling of the original isn't in the adaptation, then what kind of loyalty is that?
On the other hand, the rest of the journal entry is top-notch stuff. Thanks for that.
These two changes in the beginning just snow-balled through the whole movie. Dudley had no life and was written as a half-wit, not an evil problem child. Ron has almost no personality when he's supposed to be one of my favorite characters. The movie makes these things that were so exciting in the books into pretty boring stuff. I kept thinking the movie played like the "after-school special" version of the books-- all the juice had been seeped out. That's the part of an adaptation that needs to be the most "Utterly Loyal" -- if the spirit and feeling of the original isn't in the adaptation, then what kind of loyalty is that?
On the other hand, the rest of the journal entry is top-notch stuff. Thanks for that.