Re: [mythsoc] Harry Potter films-- boring?
- At 08:07 AM 11/18/2002 , Meredith wrote:
>I, too found the film of HP1 suprisingly boring. ButThat's why I was so thoroughly uninvolved by the first Indiana Jones movie.
>I'm not sure if it is because it dragged or for
>another reason. I have wondered if it is boring
>because there is so little down time. A plot that
>maintains the attention of the audience well has peaks
>and valleys of excitement, so to speak. It builds in
>intensity, then lets you down part way for a slight
>rest before building to another peak of excitement.
>This pattern of dips and peaks that keep getting
>higher works very well, but the film of HP1 is not at
>all like this in plot structure. For the most part it
>maintains a high level of excitement the whole way
>through. There is only one break, when the change of
>seasons is shown, and I found myself strangely
>delighted-- almost relieved-- by it.
"Boring" wasn't the word for that one: "enervating" was the word I used.
If what you say about dips and peaks is true - and I think it is - I wonder
why it didn't seem to apply to the first Harry Potter book. It had no dips
and peaks any more than the film did, and hurled forward at a blinding pace
- yet it was exhilerating rather than boring or enervating, at least I
found it so.
>I think what happened is that all of the moments whichMagnificent? For a limited meaning of the word, yes. It looked like the
>should have been down time were filled with highly
>stimulating world-building scenes, with Rowling's
>world admittedly magnificently brought to life.
Hogwarts theme park. Except - interestingly - for those scenes filmed
directly in genuine medieval buildings without the addition of special effects.
>Does the film of HP2 do this? I haven't seen it yet--Most of the reviews I've seen suggest that HP2 looks better than HP1, but
>I'll probably wait to rent it, and use my money to see
>The Two Towers twice.
that as a film it's even more rushed and less good. But then I thought the
book less good than its predecessor, too.
- David Bratman