![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatJust finished marathoning Terriers - which was bloody brilliant, and will most likely be canceled after this year. Brilliant tv shows that thrill me tend to get canceled (not always, but quite often), while tv shows that put me to sleep stay on forever and a day (*cough*Hawaii50*cough*). Which basically goes to show you that my taste and the general mainstream American public's aren't exactly in sync 85% of the time.
Speaking of being in sync...did see the Harry Potter flick today, after church. Yes, I realize I'm behind everyone else online - who basically saw it when it first came out - ie. opening weekend. (Which begs the question - Do you guys like crowds?) The theater wasn't crowded at all today. But after looking at the audience, mostly kids with cell phones, I opted for the first row of the bleacher seats - granted the screen was a bit bigger from that position than I'm used to, but the cell phones were blessedly behind me along with the heads. It wasn't always like this - by the way. In the 1970s-1990s - it was actually pleasant to see a movie. People might chat a bit, or crunch on their nachos...but outside of that? They were fairly polite. Now? They text on their cell phones, check the time on their cell phones, check for messages, and kick the seats in front of them. Sigh. Folks? Seriously? Turn off your cell phone before a movie starts and keep it off. And yes, that includes texting, twittering, and anything else. Turning a cell phone on in a movie theater is like shining a flashlight and blinding everyone behind and beside you. Turn it off! If you can't handle doing that? Don't go to a movie theater to see a movie. Stay home. It's not tv that ruined movies for me, it's cell phones. Cell phones have turned ordinarily nice people into rude assholes.
But, thankfully, the cell nitwits did not ruin this movie for me. Because I sat in front of them.
The movie was quite enjoyable. Better paced than the book. Although I kept waiting for the scene that had the letter regarding Snape's undying love for Lily Potter...until I realized, no, that was in another book. My problem with Harry Potter is I can never remember when certain things happened. Not the major events, the more minor character moments. Did the Snape back-story happen in Half-blood Prince? Or was that truncated - ie, left out of the film version of Half-Blood Prince? Oh well, should be happy that I remember it all - considering I only read the books once.
What works so well in these films is the brilliant casting choices. Bill Nighy as The Minister of Magic (the good one), Alan Rickman as Severus Snape, Ralph Fiennes as Voldmort, Helena Bonheme-Carter as Bellatrix Black, and the list of A-list British Theater and Film Thespians goes on.
Plus the actors cast as Harry, Hermoine, and Ron are fantastic. Considering they had relatively little acting background prior to being cast in these roles in the beginning - that's rather amazing.
In some respects - I like the films better than the books, or rather the latter ones - which were less interested in duplicating everything in the books to the exact detail. JK Rowlings - god love her, overwrites. And needs an editor. But all writers do. The publishing industry just has gotten quite lax in that area of late. It's not that books used to be written better than the ones out now, it's that they had better editors.
Rather you like the books or not, may have a lot to do with how much you liked Ronald Dahl's children's books. Rowlings reminds me of Ronald Dahl light, she has that same dark somewhat sardonic British wit - which I adore. Except not quite as sharp as Dahl and Jonathan Swift in the satire department. The films - admittedly - aren't quite as satirical or witty, which is something that I do miss.
Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows - was quicker paced than the books, hitting all the high marks rather fast. In the book, for example, we spent more time in certain locations, and a lot of time discussing Dumbledor's back story and whether Harry really knew him. It got a bit repetitive.
Also certain sequences work better on film than they did in the book - such as the air-battle,
and being chased by Nagini. I could, however, have done without the 3D bits - I didn't see it in 3D, but it was obviously made with 3D in mind - we have at least three scenes with items jumping out at you from the screen - which I find head-ach inducing. Always have. It's what I don't like about 3D. The films that did not do this - were actually a bit better from a cinematography perspective. (Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Akzban continues to be the best film by a long shot.) That said, this is in some respects a lot better than the last two. Less busy, and more focused. Also a lot darker. And it's better than the book - which I found a bit long in places. I remember skipping ahead a lot with the book. The camping trip seemed to go on forever.
Quite a few people die - and far too rapidly - for me to care. But I cared more here than I did in the book. In the book, it just felt like bang, bang, bang. Here, there was a bit more build up.
Hedwig and Doby's deaths we do see and realize their impact. But Mad-Eye's seems to be barely mentioned. Can't remember how she dealt with it in the books. Possibly in the same way. Rowlings slaughtered secondary supporting characters in that book - she basically made Joss Whedon and Tolkien look like pussycats in comparison. But since I never re-read the books...I lost track of a lot of the supporting characters, and so wasn't fazed. Nor did it bother me that much. Character deaths don't tend to bug me - I've watched and read too many serials that kill people off only to bring them back again - depending on the situation. I figure the character is fictional, it lives on in my head regardless of what the author does. I'll give Rowlings credit for not bringing people back after she's killed them.
What is interesting about Deathly Hallows - is the story focuses a great deal on Dumbledor, who is dead. Dumbledor actually is a major character, if not the second lead. He's used as a foil for Voldemort or comparison. A Wizard who sought great power...and suffered it's cost, and wisely chose not to weild that power. The story at it's heart is about power, the abuse of power and the use of it. Like pretty much all action/fantasy/adventure tales these days. As I told my aunt over Thanksgiving, there are no original plots or themes, just original characters. I don't care all that much about plot and theme - which is why I don't wast all that much time on analyzing them - but characters fascinate me. IF there aren't any interesting characters in a story I'm gone.
Harry Potter has them in spades. As does Terriers - great characters, portrayed by excellent character actors in that story. The plot? I've seen before. Although it is rather interesting in what it is revealing in regards to the characters. The twist in the episode written by Tim Minear - regarding Hank's loss of his badge and marriage was not all that interesting in of itself - I'd seen it done before - but in regards to Hank and his behavior - it was fascinating.
Hank loses his badge and his marriage, because he's drinking and as a result of his alcohol abuse, he misreads a situation and accuses the wrong man. Letting the one who actually committed the crime go free. His partner, Britt, meanwhile, does more or less the same thing - beats up the wrong man. The basic plot - catching a rapist - is pretty boilerplate, but the character interaction and how it affects them...inspired.
My problem with Hawaii-5-0 is the characters don't interest me. Pretty people playing the roles, but boring as all get out. Terriers on the other hand doesn't have "pretty" people, but guys and gals who well look like your average bloke from off the street - yet they become quite attractive as we progress and incredibly interesting.
Which is why it always annoys me when people want a plot synopsis...you should be asking who the characters are. The plot is only as good as the characters that propell it. What makes Harry Potter so much fun is the relationship and dynamics between Ron, Hermonine and Harry.
As well as everyone else they interact with. If you have interesting characters...the plot is easy.
Overall? Terriers? A, Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows? A - for fun.
Off to bed.
Speaking of being in sync...did see the Harry Potter flick today, after church. Yes, I realize I'm behind everyone else online - who basically saw it when it first came out - ie. opening weekend. (Which begs the question - Do you guys like crowds?) The theater wasn't crowded at all today. But after looking at the audience, mostly kids with cell phones, I opted for the first row of the bleacher seats - granted the screen was a bit bigger from that position than I'm used to, but the cell phones were blessedly behind me along with the heads. It wasn't always like this - by the way. In the 1970s-1990s - it was actually pleasant to see a movie. People might chat a bit, or crunch on their nachos...but outside of that? They were fairly polite. Now? They text on their cell phones, check the time on their cell phones, check for messages, and kick the seats in front of them. Sigh. Folks? Seriously? Turn off your cell phone before a movie starts and keep it off. And yes, that includes texting, twittering, and anything else. Turning a cell phone on in a movie theater is like shining a flashlight and blinding everyone behind and beside you. Turn it off! If you can't handle doing that? Don't go to a movie theater to see a movie. Stay home. It's not tv that ruined movies for me, it's cell phones. Cell phones have turned ordinarily nice people into rude assholes.
But, thankfully, the cell nitwits did not ruin this movie for me. Because I sat in front of them.
The movie was quite enjoyable. Better paced than the book. Although I kept waiting for the scene that had the letter regarding Snape's undying love for Lily Potter...until I realized, no, that was in another book. My problem with Harry Potter is I can never remember when certain things happened. Not the major events, the more minor character moments. Did the Snape back-story happen in Half-blood Prince? Or was that truncated - ie, left out of the film version of Half-Blood Prince? Oh well, should be happy that I remember it all - considering I only read the books once.
What works so well in these films is the brilliant casting choices. Bill Nighy as The Minister of Magic (the good one), Alan Rickman as Severus Snape, Ralph Fiennes as Voldmort, Helena Bonheme-Carter as Bellatrix Black, and the list of A-list British Theater and Film Thespians goes on.
Plus the actors cast as Harry, Hermoine, and Ron are fantastic. Considering they had relatively little acting background prior to being cast in these roles in the beginning - that's rather amazing.
In some respects - I like the films better than the books, or rather the latter ones - which were less interested in duplicating everything in the books to the exact detail. JK Rowlings - god love her, overwrites. And needs an editor. But all writers do. The publishing industry just has gotten quite lax in that area of late. It's not that books used to be written better than the ones out now, it's that they had better editors.
Rather you like the books or not, may have a lot to do with how much you liked Ronald Dahl's children's books. Rowlings reminds me of Ronald Dahl light, she has that same dark somewhat sardonic British wit - which I adore. Except not quite as sharp as Dahl and Jonathan Swift in the satire department. The films - admittedly - aren't quite as satirical or witty, which is something that I do miss.
Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows - was quicker paced than the books, hitting all the high marks rather fast. In the book, for example, we spent more time in certain locations, and a lot of time discussing Dumbledor's back story and whether Harry really knew him. It got a bit repetitive.
Also certain sequences work better on film than they did in the book - such as the air-battle,
and being chased by Nagini. I could, however, have done without the 3D bits - I didn't see it in 3D, but it was obviously made with 3D in mind - we have at least three scenes with items jumping out at you from the screen - which I find head-ach inducing. Always have. It's what I don't like about 3D. The films that did not do this - were actually a bit better from a cinematography perspective. (Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Akzban continues to be the best film by a long shot.) That said, this is in some respects a lot better than the last two. Less busy, and more focused. Also a lot darker. And it's better than the book - which I found a bit long in places. I remember skipping ahead a lot with the book. The camping trip seemed to go on forever.
Quite a few people die - and far too rapidly - for me to care. But I cared more here than I did in the book. In the book, it just felt like bang, bang, bang. Here, there was a bit more build up.
Hedwig and Doby's deaths we do see and realize their impact. But Mad-Eye's seems to be barely mentioned. Can't remember how she dealt with it in the books. Possibly in the same way. Rowlings slaughtered secondary supporting characters in that book - she basically made Joss Whedon and Tolkien look like pussycats in comparison. But since I never re-read the books...I lost track of a lot of the supporting characters, and so wasn't fazed. Nor did it bother me that much. Character deaths don't tend to bug me - I've watched and read too many serials that kill people off only to bring them back again - depending on the situation. I figure the character is fictional, it lives on in my head regardless of what the author does. I'll give Rowlings credit for not bringing people back after she's killed them.
What is interesting about Deathly Hallows - is the story focuses a great deal on Dumbledor, who is dead. Dumbledor actually is a major character, if not the second lead. He's used as a foil for Voldemort or comparison. A Wizard who sought great power...and suffered it's cost, and wisely chose not to weild that power. The story at it's heart is about power, the abuse of power and the use of it. Like pretty much all action/fantasy/adventure tales these days. As I told my aunt over Thanksgiving, there are no original plots or themes, just original characters. I don't care all that much about plot and theme - which is why I don't wast all that much time on analyzing them - but characters fascinate me. IF there aren't any interesting characters in a story I'm gone.
Harry Potter has them in spades. As does Terriers - great characters, portrayed by excellent character actors in that story. The plot? I've seen before. Although it is rather interesting in what it is revealing in regards to the characters. The twist in the episode written by Tim Minear - regarding Hank's loss of his badge and marriage was not all that interesting in of itself - I'd seen it done before - but in regards to Hank and his behavior - it was fascinating.
Hank loses his badge and his marriage, because he's drinking and as a result of his alcohol abuse, he misreads a situation and accuses the wrong man. Letting the one who actually committed the crime go free. His partner, Britt, meanwhile, does more or less the same thing - beats up the wrong man. The basic plot - catching a rapist - is pretty boilerplate, but the character interaction and how it affects them...inspired.
My problem with Hawaii-5-0 is the characters don't interest me. Pretty people playing the roles, but boring as all get out. Terriers on the other hand doesn't have "pretty" people, but guys and gals who well look like your average bloke from off the street - yet they become quite attractive as we progress and incredibly interesting.
Which is why it always annoys me when people want a plot synopsis...you should be asking who the characters are. The plot is only as good as the characters that propell it. What makes Harry Potter so much fun is the relationship and dynamics between Ron, Hermonine and Harry.
As well as everyone else they interact with. If you have interesting characters...the plot is easy.
Overall? Terriers? A, Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows? A - for fun.
Off to bed.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-11-29 05:04 am (UTC)Actually, we've got a cinema near us that does reserved seating, so we bought our tickets a week early. Costs $2 more than the other theaters around here, but, hey, reserved seats, validated parking, and they don't run 20 minutes of commercials before the movies. State of the art equipment, too. Frankly, if we didn't have that available to us, I think we probably still wouldn't have seen it.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-29 05:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-29 05:06 am (UTC)And I also agree about Terriers, however I'm actually a little behind on that, I need to watch them on my DVR (I've been too busy reading those 'Hunger Games' books to watch TV lately).
no subject
Date: 2010-11-29 05:57 pm (UTC)Snape wrote to Lily or something, can't remember exactly.)
I'm guessing whatever it was - they cut it out of the films. Makes sense - since reading a letter in a book is a lot more interesting than it is in a film. Ditto for Rita Skeever's Dumbledore biography.
The last three episodes of Terriers are very good! A lot happens rather quickly.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-29 07:32 pm (UTC)I'm sure you're right, that they cut the letter because it would be dull seeing Harry reading a letter in the movie, but they'll find a different way to show how much Snape loved Lily at the end of Deathly Hallows (in part 2 of the movies).
no subject
Date: 2010-11-29 05:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-29 06:01 pm (UTC)I agree - it's a lot better than it used to be. In the past, you couldn't watch a film made for a 3D audience in regular format, you'd see all the red/blue colorations. (Example: Hondo with John Wayne - classic Western done in rudimentary 3D).
Here, it's actually more natural. Apparently AVATAR was similar.
So they've definitely improved the technology, no question about that.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-30 02:32 am (UTC)That said? Voyage was my favorite of the novels and by far the best. Next to Lion, Witch and The Wardrobe - so I can't not see it. Don't remember The Silver Chair. And the Magician's Nephew was...well, it pissed me off once I figured out what the heck it meant.