![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
There was a large article in the paper about the staying power of the Harry Potter movies. It's here, but I'm not sure I'd bother. Basically the columnist questions whether the series can stand up to time like classics like the Wizard of Oz, The Lord of the Rings films and so on.
His point of contention is that the HP films are too slavish to the books, which I would agree are superior to the movies. He likes the liberties that were taken in filming the Wizard of Oz, Willy Wonka and so on to give them a life of their own. He mentioned the axing of Tom Bombadil from The Fellowship of the Ring as a wise editorial decision and I'd have to agree. I read The Hobbit first which develops from slapstick cartoonish to very serious. After that running into another silly character like Tom Bombadil early in FoR was very annoying.
But I have to say that the LotR films while much anticipated probably aren't going to stand up all that well either, its shiny Oscar wins notwithstanding. The one thing that the LotR books do well is paint characters. The only thing the movies do well is paint fantasy battles. Frankly in watching the movies together now, after The Two Towers I'm sick and tried of fantasy battles.The only characters that show up well in the movies are Gandalf, (and I think even his character lacks depth in the movie), Eowyn and Gollum. Everyone else is cut from rich cardboard. Frodo is a snivelling rodent, and Sam, who to me seems clever, even shrewd in the book, is a blubbering country bumpkin. Frankly when seen together now the LotR movies are boring. (To be honest, the books are a bit boring, too!) I think in the future they could be remade and improved to the point the current movies will be largely forgotten.
I find I can rewatch the HP movies with interest. That doesn't mean they will be classics forever, but I think it does mean they have some staying power even if they aren't Oscar winners in the present.
His point of contention is that the HP films are too slavish to the books, which I would agree are superior to the movies. He likes the liberties that were taken in filming the Wizard of Oz, Willy Wonka and so on to give them a life of their own. He mentioned the axing of Tom Bombadil from The Fellowship of the Ring as a wise editorial decision and I'd have to agree. I read The Hobbit first which develops from slapstick cartoonish to very serious. After that running into another silly character like Tom Bombadil early in FoR was very annoying.
But I have to say that the LotR films while much anticipated probably aren't going to stand up all that well either, its shiny Oscar wins notwithstanding. The one thing that the LotR books do well is paint characters. The only thing the movies do well is paint fantasy battles. Frankly in watching the movies together now, after The Two Towers I'm sick and tried of fantasy battles.The only characters that show up well in the movies are Gandalf, (and I think even his character lacks depth in the movie), Eowyn and Gollum. Everyone else is cut from rich cardboard. Frodo is a snivelling rodent, and Sam, who to me seems clever, even shrewd in the book, is a blubbering country bumpkin. Frankly when seen together now the LotR movies are boring. (To be honest, the books are a bit boring, too!) I think in the future they could be remade and improved to the point the current movies will be largely forgotten.
I find I can rewatch the HP movies with interest. That doesn't mean they will be classics forever, but I think it does mean they have some staying power even if they aren't Oscar winners in the present.