I'm glad you appreciated HBP. I was so disappointed in it that I waited a week after the DH 1 premiere to go and see that one due to lack of enthusiasm. Luckily it was much better, albeit not on par with OotP which excelled at focusing on Harry. Interestingly, the films with the strongest characterization of Harry (PoA, OotP and DH 2) are my favourites.
Who would have thought!
I dunno, it always surprises me that so few list Harry as their favourite character even though the entire series is centered around him and his choices.
Yeah. And really I think that's a pretty good way to gauge fans and their opinions of the films. The books have a lot more going on aside from Harry's story, because they can, they're books, they're allowed to frequently deviate from the core plot but a film is on borrowed time and must adhere to said core plot.
My problem with Half-Blood Prince isn't that they not only axed most of Voldemort's backstory, it's that the material in relation to that-- the strengthening of Harry and Dumbledore's companionship, the atmosphere-- all of that was lost as well. I just think it was a serious narrative misstep despite how well made it was.
I frequently point out how silly it is to compare a book and a movie because even if they miss some stuff or rush through some stuff, they generally get what needs to be there on screen. With Half-Blood, I would say that the film doesn't do that particular story any justice at all.
So it wasn't just a matter of losing the backstory, but through that a lot of Harry and Dumbledore's relationship was lost as well, and they didn't jump at the opportunity to delve into some history and do some, like I said earlier, some period piece influenced sequences. It would have seriously made that film one of the best, if not arguably the best.
Like imagine that in a Harry Potter film, some memory sequences where we see people on horseback in little villages decades upon decades ago, places like where Tom Riddle was born and raised, seeing how very odd his family is, and so on. It would have been incredibly compelling and unique.
Also, Heyman's logic was incredibly borked, and to some extent I suppose Yates' was as well. Their argument was that you can't push a story forward if you're going back but that is complete bullshit considering the content that was in the "going back" material. It develops the CENTRAL ANTAGONIST as well as explaining and shedding more light on the Horcruxes, which is what the entirety of Deathly Hallows is about. But they only very briefly talk about it in rushed scenes in HBP.
To me, Half-Blood Prince was like the Sorcerer's Stone for Voldemort. Sorcerer's Stone introduces Harry Potter and shows how bad of an upbringing he had, and then Half-Blood Prince turns around and argues, well hey guess what, Tom's was even worse. It was a direct parallel to the very first installment only it was about Voldemort. Having those memory sequences would have seriously worked wonders in almost every single imaginable way.
Well, too many memories would have been very repetitive, but instead of finding a way to present most of Tom Riddle's story on screen in cinematically compelling way, they just cut most of it.
THAT BEING SAID I think the film turned out very well, I certainly don't dislike it but it's probably the only adaptation that really makes me wish it had a different team of visionaries behind it. I think Yates' directing would have been amazing but he had to be behind that particular direction, and it doesn't seem like he was.
Well, too many memories would have been very repetitive, but instead of finding a way to present most of Tom Riddle's story on screen in cinematically compelling way, they just cut most of it.
Not sure if I agree. I mean, instead you get Ron and Lavender stuff which was utterly pointless, all the humor and love scenes, and so on. It wouldn't have been repetitive because each memory would be totally different from the last.
If they had cut the Burrow Christmas scenes then they could have shown the Riddle teacher interview flashback (i.e. the most important one after the Horcrux flashback).
That is something i will never forgive. The job interview was arguably the moment of the book, and i know for sure that it would have been intense on screen. I actually thought that since Tom was older at this point, Christian would have been the ideal choice for the one scene. As for the repetition, you could say that a montage similar to TPT was something of sufficient quality, if made well. Anything to replace either that cafe scene or the poor Burrow attack.
THAT BEING SAID I think the film turned out very well, I certainly don't dislike it but it's probably the only adaptation that really makes me wish it had a different team of visionaries behind it. I think Yates' directing would have been amazing but he had to be behind that particular direction, and it doesn't seem like he was.
Yates, while doing a decent job, was not suited to adapt HBP in my opinion. They should have brought back Cuaron. He directed the Lupin/Harry scenes so well. The chemistry between Dumbledore and Harry seemed forced (cave scene excepted) as opposed to the genuine emotions between Lupin and Harry.
However that would mean no Yates directed Deathly Hallows, so I can easily accept the mistake of having him direct HBP. Cuaron would probably have done a great job with DH, but that doesn't mean it would have been better. And if anyone else had directed it, especially someone who has not worked on the series before, it could have turned out loads worse than what we got.
I prefer Half-Blood to Order as well, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't have been improved. That being said, I think that while the film did not treat its source material with respect, it was so expertly crafted it almost made me forgot about the plot. Just a really well-made film. Breathtaking every time.
Half-Blood Prince, overall, is an extremely complicated film.
It's very transitional from a character POV, but it also provides lots of insight and crucial information for the main conflict in the series. Furthermore, the film works as a massive setup for the big finale.
Ever since I read the book, I knew this was going to be a complicated adaptation.
An almost perfect balance between the lighter and darker elements of the book was fundamental. On one hand you've got the characters living their teenage lives and on the other hand you've got vital information about the main antagonist and conflict.
Apart from that, there are quite a few subplots that MUST be integrated to the main narrative- Voldemort getting stronger, threatening the muggle world; Harry obsessing over an old book and Draco Malfoy; etc.
You always get to hear fans complaining about the "large" amount of romantic scenes in the film. If you go back and read the book you'll realize that romance is one of its main aspects, without a doubt. Romantic thoughts constantly cross Harry's mind, Ron and Hermione are mad at each other for half of the book.
I remember that someone here calculated the amount of romantic content in the HBP film, and it turned out to be like 18-19 minutes. That's great, if you ask me. Besides, the romance wasn't very "fluffy" or exaggerated. It was subtle and atmospheric. Yes, there was some snogging, but most of it was awkward looks and interactions.
Personally, I think HBP is the funniest of the Potter films. The humor was executed pretty well. (Thank God that Yates removed the Harry Dimpleton joke) Cormac/Hermione was hilarious. Awkward stares during the Slug Club Dinner Party and Hermione "escaping" during the Christmas Party.
I think that's one of the things I love most about HBP. It's very, very natural. I can relate to it so much because I see my favourite characters being regular teenagers. Ron/Harry talking about girls, Harry comforting Hermione, and couples coming together.
That doesn't mean that I think that the adaptation is perfect, because it is not.
The filmmakers had to combine so many different elements that at times, the film feels disjointed. It doesn't focus on one single narrative, and that's quite troubling because you don't get to attach yourself to the story 100%.
The atmosphere is spot-on, though. Hogwarts is so deliciously haunting throughout the entire film, I love it.
There is another aspect of the film that has to be discussed: Riddle Memories.
Let me just say that these fragments of Voldemort's past were my favourite part of the Half-Blood Prince book. I loved every second of them, and thought it was utterly sublime to get to "know" him so well. His story was so very devastating and somber, I was fascinated. I think Jo did an impeccable job showing us how Tom Riddle became Lord Voldemort.
When I learned that the filmmakers were going to cut some of the memories, my house trembled. I was extremely mad. How on earth were they going to eliminate some of the best parts in the book?!
Then I started realizing why were they going to do it. I re-read the book with a different mentality. Focusing on the stuff that was vital to the main narrative. Unfortunately, some of my precious memories weren't that important. The memories' main goal was to explain the Horcruxes, that's it.
Yes, we got to know more about Voldemort and his past, but Harry didn't need that information when he was going to leave for his quest. The Horcruxes were his main priority.
Some details could have been explained better, no doubt. More context about the nature of the Horcruxes would have been great. I really wanted Harry to know about Voldemort carefully selecting these objects based on the Hogwarts Founders.
Like some of you previously mentioned, I think that having two big memory montages (a la Prince's Tale) would have been absolutely phenomenal.
We could have been able to see the Gaunt's house, the interview, Voldemort stealing the cup ... the mere thought gives me chills.
So yes, I think that the Half-Blood Prince film managed to get the point across. Everything that was needed was explained, but they could've expanded a bit more, definitely.
I think we can all agree that the film's technical aspects were impeccable. From direction to cinematography, from score to production design; everything was absolutely smashing. Every time I watch the film, I end up in awe.
One last thing- I think that the climax is simply beautiful.
The cave scene is so atmospheric and chilling, one of the best scenes in the entire series. This is one of my favourite shots of all time: It's like a painting. A gorgeous, timeless painting.
Also, Dumbledore's farewell never fails to bring a tear to my eye.
Well the movie is very subjective because people can love one part of the book that they found great, entertaining... but because it doesn't matter to the story, they erased it from the movie and just for this one scene, people can get frustrated from the movies and then hate it all day long.
Yes, the film is technically well-made, but that alone doesn't make it a good film. Production values don't matter much when I don't feel engaged through the film. And the climax was not a big step above the rest of the film. The cave scene certainly was, but it ended too abruptedly and there was not enough build-up to Dumbledore's death. The death and aftermath was a bit flat emotionally.
Yes, the film is technically well-made, but that alone doesn't make it a good film. Production values don't matter much when I don't feel engaged through the film. And the climax was not a big step above the rest of the film. The cave scene certainly was, but it ended too abruptedly and there was not enough build-up to Dumbledore's death. The death and aftermath was a bit flat emotionally.
Even though I don't completely agree with you, I understand where you're coming from.
The filmmakers had to combine so many different elements that at times, the film feels disjointed. It doesn't focus on one single narrative, and that's quite troubling because you don't get to attach yourself to the story 100%.
I think if there was one problem I had with the film, it's that there wasn't enough of Tom Riddle's backstory in the film. The Gaunt family weren't even mentioned, and at the end of the day the lack of explanation at all concerning Tom Riddle's past makes the film version of Voldemort's motives unclear. I wouldn't have minded at all if they just skipped all the romance stuff and focused on that, I mean, how many times do we need to be reminded that Hermione is crushing on Ron?
I love HBP, it's my favorite of the series before DH2. But I can't say it's perfect. The script is far from great. There shoud've been a more satisfying climax to build up to Dumbledore's death and there should be more about Voldemort's backstory.
I think if there was one problem I had with the film, it's that there wasn't enough of Tom Riddle's backstory in the film. The Gaunt family weren't even mentioned, and at the end of the day the lack of explanation at all concerning Tom Riddle's past makes the film version of Voldemort's motives unclear. I wouldn't have minded at all if they just skipped all the romance stuff and focused on that, I mean, how many times do we need to be reminded that Hermione is crushing on Ron?
Comments
My problem with Half-Blood Prince isn't that they not only axed most of Voldemort's backstory, it's that the material in relation to that-- the strengthening of Harry and Dumbledore's companionship, the atmosphere-- all of that was lost as well. I just think it was a serious narrative misstep despite how well made it was.
I frequently point out how silly it is to compare a book and a movie because even if they miss some stuff or rush through some stuff, they generally get what needs to be there on screen. With Half-Blood, I would say that the film doesn't do that particular story any justice at all.
Lord Stafford.
Mysterious thing time.
However that would mean no Yates directed Deathly Hallows, so I can easily accept the mistake of having him direct HBP. Cuaron would probably have done a great job with DH, but that doesn't mean it would have been better. And if anyone else had directed it, especially someone who has not worked on the series before, it could have turned out loads worse than what we got.
complicated film.
It's very transitional from a character POV,
but it also provides lots of insight and crucial
information for the main conflict in the series.
Furthermore, the film works as a massive
setup for the big finale.
Ever since I read the book, I knew this was
going to be a complicated adaptation.
An almost perfect balance between the
lighter and darker elements of the book
was fundamental. On one hand you've got
the characters living their teenage lives and
on the other hand you've got vital information
about the main antagonist and conflict.
G.G.
that MUST be integrated to the main narrative-
Voldemort getting stronger, threatening the
muggle world; Harry obsessing over an old
book and Draco Malfoy; etc.
You always get to hear fans complaining about
the "large" amount of romantic scenes in the
film. If you go back and read the book you'll
realize that romance is one of its main aspects,
without a doubt. Romantic thoughts constantly
cross Harry's mind, Ron and Hermione are mad
at each other for half of the book.
G.G.
amount of romantic content in the HBP film,
and it turned out to be like 18-19 minutes.
That's great, if you ask me. Besides, the romance
wasn't very "fluffy" or exaggerated. It was subtle
and atmospheric. Yes, there was some snogging,
but most of it was awkward looks and interactions.
Personally, I think HBP is the funniest of the Potter
films. The humor was executed pretty well.
(Thank God that Yates removed the Harry Dimpleton joke)
Cormac/Hermione was hilarious. Awkward stares
during the Slug Club Dinner Party and Hermione
"escaping" during the Christmas Party.
I think that's one of the things I love most about HBP.
It's very, very natural. I can relate to it so much because
I see my favourite characters being regular teenagers.
Ron/Harry talking about girls, Harry comforting Hermione,
and couples coming together.
G.G.
the adaptation is perfect, because
it is not.
The filmmakers had to combine so
many different elements that at times,
the film feels disjointed. It doesn't
focus on one single narrative, and
that's quite troubling because you don't
get to attach yourself to the story 100%.
The atmosphere is spot-on, though.
Hogwarts is so deliciously haunting
throughout the entire film, I love it.
G.G.
that has to be discussed: Riddle Memories.
Let me just say that these fragments of
Voldemort's past were my favourite part
of the Half-Blood Prince book. I loved
every second of them, and thought it
was utterly sublime to get to "know" him
so well. His story was so very devastating
and somber, I was fascinated. I think Jo did
an impeccable job showing us how Tom
Riddle became Lord Voldemort.
When I learned that the filmmakers were going
to cut some of the memories, my house trembled.
I was extremely mad. How on earth were they going
to eliminate some of the best parts in the book?!
Then I started realizing why were they going to
do it. I re-read the book with a different mentality.
Focusing on the stuff that was vital to the main
narrative. Unfortunately, some of my precious
memories weren't that important. The memories'
main goal was to explain the Horcruxes, that's it.
Yes, we got to know more about Voldemort and
his past, but Harry didn't need that information
when he was going to leave for his quest. The
Horcruxes were his main priority.
G.G.
better, no doubt. More context about the
nature of the Horcruxes would have been
great. I really wanted Harry to know about
Voldemort carefully selecting these objects
based on the Hogwarts Founders.
Like some of you previously mentioned,
I think that having two big memory montages
(a la Prince's Tale) would have been absolutely
phenomenal.
We could have been able to see the Gaunt's
house, the interview, Voldemort stealing
the cup ... the mere thought gives me chills.
So yes, I think that the Half-Blood Prince
film managed to get the point across.
Everything that was needed was explained,
but they could've expanded a bit more,
definitely.
G.G.
technical aspects were impeccable.
From direction to cinematography, from
score to production design; everything
was absolutely smashing. Every time I watch
the film, I end up in awe.
Half-Blood Prince is extremely well-made. Period.
G.G.
Sorry, guys
G.G.
I think that the climax is simply beautiful.
The cave scene is so atmospheric and chilling,
one of the best scenes in the entire series.
This is one of my favourite shots of all time:
It's like a painting. A gorgeous, timeless painting.
Also, Dumbledore's farewell never fails to
bring a tear to my eye.
G.G.
"It all ends here... "
with you, I understand where you're
coming from.
The filmmakers had to combine so
many different elements that at times,
the film feels disjointed. It doesn't
focus on one single narrative, and
that's quite troubling because you don't
get to attach yourself to the story 100%.
G.G.
But I can't say it's perfect. The script is far from great. There shoud've been a more satisfying climax to build up to Dumbledore's death and there should be more about Voldemort's backstory.
Lord Stafford.