Why Is Harry Potter Important To Columbus's Movies?
As the Harry Potter phenomenon grasped the world, movie adaptations sprang to life. However, with these movie adaptations came questions and how a book should be adapted into a movie. Personally, I feel that directors should have some degree of freedom to be creative; that is what they are meant to do. At the same time, I think it is important to stick to the major plotlines of book adaptations. I do agree with the argument “Columbus’s movies are like historical reenactments, the films of [later directors] are dynamic and make us see the origionals anew,” but I do not think that is a bad thing. To examine this idea, I will compare and contrast Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone and Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and see how they differ
…show more content…
Director Chris Columbus interpreted Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone quite literally. He does a great job at preserving every major and sub plotline that was seen in the books while changing a few scenes to add his own flair and comedy. For example: when Ron and Harry were late to McGonagall’s class, she transformed from a cat to a human and gave them a mini lecture; Seamus Finnigan’s water exploded in his face when he tried to turn it into rum; Ron being hit in the face by his broom during the class’ first flying lesson. All the aforementioned scenes never appeared in the books, but were added for a bit of comedy. Other scenes (like Quirrell’s mountain troll and Snape’s potion riddle) were likely omitted for the sake of time and fluidity. The only scene that was not true to the book and caused some confusion was when Harry saw the plaque that said James Potter …show more content…
I think the later movies had to take a take a more liberal stance on reimagining the books in a film settings because of this. There is no way 700+ pages of text are going to fit in a less than two hour movie. Thus, in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, director Mike Newell made changes that added more dynamic to scenes, but left out plotlines that would be considered “filler” in a movie. For example, in the books when Dumbledore found Harry’s name in the Goblet of Fire, he remained calm; but in the movie, his reaction was completely different as he yelled at Harry. Another dramatization was Barty Crouch Jr.’s main plotline. In the books, it was more of a blindside when we found out Moody wasn’t really Moody, but in the movie, Crouch Jr. does a weird tongue thing that gives a major hint to the viewers. Additionally, House-elves were largely left out of the movies—there was no mention of Dobby until a later movie, no Winky, no Society of the Promotion of Elfish Welfare (S.P.E.W.). This book skipped over and shortened many more minor plot points (Quidditch World Cup, awkward Viktor Krum, Rita Skeeter as an animagus, the whole subplot about Barty Crouch Jr.’s back story, etc.), but to be fair, it was a large book to cram into a movie. And while many plot points were lost, the movie did add more depth and dimension to the scenes it kept. The first task of the
Director Chris Columbus interpreted Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone quite literally. He does a great job at preserving every major and sub plotline that was seen in the books while changing a few scenes to add his own flair and comedy. For example: when Ron and Harry were late to McGonagall’s class, she transformed from a cat to a human and gave them a mini lecture; Seamus Finnigan’s water exploded in his face when he tried to turn it into rum; Ron being hit in the face by his broom during the class’ first flying lesson. All the aforementioned scenes never appeared in the books, but were added for a bit of comedy. Other scenes (like Quirrell’s mountain troll and Snape’s potion riddle) were likely omitted for the sake of time and fluidity. The only scene that was not true to the book and caused some confusion was when Harry saw the plaque that said James Potter …show more content…
I think the later movies had to take a take a more liberal stance on reimagining the books in a film settings because of this. There is no way 700+ pages of text are going to fit in a less than two hour movie. Thus, in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, director Mike Newell made changes that added more dynamic to scenes, but left out plotlines that would be considered “filler” in a movie. For example, in the books when Dumbledore found Harry’s name in the Goblet of Fire, he remained calm; but in the movie, his reaction was completely different as he yelled at Harry. Another dramatization was Barty Crouch Jr.’s main plotline. In the books, it was more of a blindside when we found out Moody wasn’t really Moody, but in the movie, Crouch Jr. does a weird tongue thing that gives a major hint to the viewers. Additionally, House-elves were largely left out of the movies—there was no mention of Dobby until a later movie, no Winky, no Society of the Promotion of Elfish Welfare (S.P.E.W.). This book skipped over and shortened many more minor plot points (Quidditch World Cup, awkward Viktor Krum, Rita Skeeter as an animagus, the whole subplot about Barty Crouch Jr.’s back story, etc.), but to be fair, it was a large book to cram into a movie. And while many plot points were lost, the movie did add more depth and dimension to the scenes it kept. The first task of the