Inconsistent Aspects of the Movies: Everything Changes When the Director Changes

*thethirdman* · #**121** February 14th, 2009, 9:41 pm

This doesn't seem like such a big deal to me. I don't care if there's consistency between two different directors. I'm more interested in seeing the director's vision unimpaired by someone else's vision. I don't care if Columbus preferred Flitwick with white hair and Cuaron liked him with black. I'm here to see how they tell the story.

*Pearl_Took* · #**122** February 15th, 2009, 12:21 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by thethirdman

I don't care if Columbus preferred Flitwick with white hair and Cuaron liked him with black. I'm here to see how they tell the story.

Exactly.

Well said!

*snapes_witch* · #**123** February 15th, 2009, 2:44 am

One inconsistency I'm delighted with -- the redesigned D. E. robes in OotP!

_____________________

eta: Reading the previous pages this week, I remember someone mentioned that canon Hermione was ugly. In defense of my next-to-favorite character she is never described as ugly: no, not ever! In fact IIRC her big teeth (BTW, not buck teeth) and bushy (possibly frizzy too) hair are all we know about her appearance. So, I'd say Hermione is just an ordinary looking child in the early books. Apparently by the time she's 18 though (DH), she has developed into an attractive young lady as she does get wolf whistles from men on Tottenham Road. Just had to set the record straight!

Back to the inconsistencies of the movies . . .

*mactheknife* · #**124** February 27th, 2009, 11:31 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Electricfeel

Yeah, in the first two films it was right next to the castle. It all seemed like it was on just a flat lawn, so I'm glad they put it when it was in PoA onwards.

fair enough if you prefer the location, however in the books harry is able to see Hagrids hut from the window in Gryffindor Common Room...which is impossible to do since Cuaron had it moved down a rocky hillside?? i just feel that it was an un neccesary change!

aside from pointing out differences from book to film...these are a few of the inconsistencies that bug me ....

1.) Flitwick change from whispy and white, to black side-shade with moustache (neither of which i like)
2.)Tom the Landlord of the leaky cauldron...just don't see the need to change him
3.)Harris to Gambon!..i know i know, it was unavoidable, i just wish Gambon acted more like Dumbledore..rather than sum maniac (GoF)
4.)the changing of the set and landscape...sorry to the people who agree with the changes...i dont!
5.)Draco's hair from film to film....nah that was a jokethat doesnt bother me:P

*Pearl_Took* · #**125** February 27th, 2009, 12:07 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mactheknife

fair enough if you prefer the location, however in the books harry is able to see Hagrids hut from the window in Gryffindor Common Room...which is impossible to do since Cuaron had it moved down a rocky hillside?? i just feel that it was an un neccesary change!

I have no idea why this matters ...

Quote:

1.) Flitwick change from whispy and white, to black side-shade with moustache [b](neither of which i like

)

Flitwick is a minor character. I'm sure I couldn't tell you what he looked like just from memory. Anyway, Jo didn't like their design for Flitwick in the first two films so they changed his appearance on her suggestion, I believe.

Quote:

2.)Tom the Landlord of the leaky cauldron...just don't see the need to change him

I don't actually remember Tom from the book

(it's about 10 years since I read PoA) but I thought he was hilarious in the film.

Quote:

3.)Harris to Gambon!..i know i know, it was unavoidable, i just wish Gambon acted more like Dumbledore..rather than sum maniac

Well, it was unavoidable because poor Richard Harris died ...

Anyway, my liking for Gambon's portrayal is already well documented here.

*mactheknife* · #**126** February 27th, 2009, 5:25 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pearl_Took

I have no idea why this matters ...

it matters because its wrong from the details given in the book....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pearl_Took

Anyway, Jo didn't like their design for Flitwick in the first two films so they changed his appearance on her suggestion, I believe.

i don't believe she would have told the design team to give the new Flitwick a Black side-shade and large moustache....she knows what Flitwick looks like, as she herself described him originally

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pearl_Took

I don't actually remember Tom from the book

(it's about 10 years since I read PoA) but I thought he was hilarious in the film.

i agree with you that he was hilarious in the film however this thread is about "inconsistent" aspects of the movies...and that is a big one

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pearl_Took

Well, it was unavoidable because poor Richard Harris died ...

Anyway, my liking for Gambon's portrayal is already well documented here.

i understand that you and many others like Gambons dumbledore (i myself do not) even so his portrayal is inconsistent with the original performance

tking · #**127** February 27th, 2009, 6:17 pm

I remember Rowling saying herself that Flitwick's look in the first two films surprised her - she actually just saw him as a very small man. (ie. none of the goblin connotations). So in fact the Flitwick of PoA-onwards is definitely more canon.

Inconsistencies are bound to happen in films when a new director comes on board. In fact it would be quite disturbing imo if there weren't, as each director is supposed to input their interpretations to have effective storytelling.

**Hes** · #**128** February 27th, 2009, 8:02 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mactheknife

i agree with you that he was hilarious in the film

however this thread is about "inconsistent" aspects of the movies...and that is a big one

Tom is an incredibly minor character with hardly any influence on the plot. So personally to me, it hardly matters what he looks like.

Quote:

i understand that you and many others like Gambons dumbledore (i myself do not

) even so his portrayal is inconsistent with the original performance

No actor acts 100% the same as their predecessor. Besides Dumbledore as a character develops imo from a quiet reasonable person towards someone who gets increasingly more worried about Voldemorts antics. In the end however the actor, scriptwriter and director are responsible for the end result. In my view they did as well as could be expected.

*mactheknife* · #**129** February 27th, 2009, 11:52 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hes

Tom is an incredibly minor character with hardly any influence on the plot. So personally to me, it hardly matters what he looks like.

it may not matter to you, and thats fair enough

...but it matters to me, as it is unfaithful to the description of him in the book...which the first film got almost right with his look....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hes

No actor acts 100% the same as their predecessor. Besides Dumbledore as a character develops imo from a quiet reasonable person towards someone who gets increasingly more worried about Voldemorts antics. In the end however the actor, scriptwriter and director are responsible for the end result. In my view they did as well as could be expected.

well even if Gambon didnt want to act like his predecessor, he could have acted more like dumbledore from the book!...in my view he could have been cast better

mrfutterman · #**130** February 28th, 2009, 12:08 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by mactheknife

it may not matter to you, and thats fair enough

...but it matters to me, as it is unfaithful to the description of him in the book...which the first film got almost right with his look....

With regard to book -> film adaptations in general... "unfaithful to the description of him in the book" prompts the response: so what?

In Shawshank Redemption (short story) Red is white; in the film he is played by a black actor, Morgan Freeman. That is pretty unfaithful! Does it matter? No.

Another point: does Stephen King object to this "unfaithfulness"? It doesn't matter whether he does or he does not. He sold the film rights to his story, and the film-makers have no business paying attention to anything he says, wants or does not want. It is no longer his concern.

*MasterOfDeath* · #**131** February 28th, 2009, 12:10 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrfutterman

With regard to book -> film adaptations in general... "unfaithful to the description of him in the book" prompts the response: so what?

In Shawshank Redemption (short story) Red is white; in the film he is played by a black actor, Morgan Freeman. That is pretty unfaithful! Does it matter? No.

Another point: does Stephen King object to this "unfaithfulness"? It doesn't matter whether he does or he does not. He sold the film rights to his story, and the film-makers have no business paying attention to anything he says, wants or does not want. It is no longer his concern.

Maybe you should just let the people vent their complaints?

This is an open forum. We don't need a public service announcement about how our opinions mean nothing all the time, thanks.

mrfutterman · #**132** February 28th, 2009, 12:19 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterOfDeath

Maybe you should just let the people vent their complaints?

This is an open forum. We don't need a public service announcement about how our opinions mean nothing all the time, thanks.

I am not stopping the poster from venting her complaint: how could I?

I am just asking why such a detail matters, given the example I have given of a much greater "inaccuracy" which has not marred a far greater film than any in this franchise.

My point is not a frivolous one: why are changes and "inaccuracies" considered to be negative?

*MasterOfDeath* · #**133** February 28th, 2009, 12:22 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrfutterman

I am not stopping the poster from venting her complaint: how could I?

I am just asking why such a detail matters, given the example I have given of a much greater "inaccuracy" which has not marred a far greater film than any in this franchise.

I'm referring to your last post. You keep repeating how it doesn't matter. You list other films that have adapted from books and changed things. But this is a HP forum, and there are some fans who cringe even when they change minor details. (not myself.)

They don't have to defend why they feel the way they do. They are expressing their disappointments is all.

*willfitz* · #**134** February 28th, 2009, 12:22 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrfutterman

I am not stopping the poster from venting her complaint: how could I?

I am just asking why such a detail matters, given the example I have given of a much greater "inaccuracy" which has not marred a far greater film than any in this franchise.

Well, if it is your opinion that this film was much greater, then it obviously wasn't that big of a deal. But if an inaccuracy can cause people do be disappointed with a movie, then it becomes an issue. The detail matters simply because people care, which is pretty obvious given many of the posts on this thread.

*JustAnIllusion* · #**135** February 28th, 2009, 1:55 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterOfDeath

Maybe you should just let the people vent their complaints?

This is an open forum. We don't need a public service announcement about how our opinions mean nothing all the time, thanks.

Well, the forum is called "Inconsistent Aspects of the Movies," but that isn't limited to listing what our complaints are

. It could also describe whether or not we believe inconsistency will mar the franchise and the films within it. I think that in order for discussion, some people have to disagree with certain points, and thus, we can then proceed to defend why we feel the way we do. Further, if the poster doesn't wish to respond to the questions posted about his/her opinions, then he/she doesn't have to.

JMHO

*MasterOfDeath* · #**136** February 28th, 2009, 2:11 am

Point taken. Maybe I was wrong.

Move along, sorry to interrupt..

*willfitz* · #**137** February 28th, 2009, 2:50 am

I know a lot has been made of the flying-smoke-apparition, but the strange thing is this: the DE's arrive at the graveyard in GoF using this, which means that it probably is apparition. However, Fred and George apparate in the beginning of OotP without any smoke. Are the directors confused about what they want to make of apparition?

*DeathlyH* · #**138** February 28th, 2009, 3:15 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by willfitz

I know a lot has been made of the flying-smoke-apparition, but the strange thing is this: the DE's arrive at the graveyard in GoF using this, which means that it probably is apparition. However, Fred and George apparate in the beginning of OotP without any smoke. Are the directors confused about what they want to make of apparition?

I think it would look really weird if Fred and George arrived in Harry and Ron's bedroom amid a cloud of black smoke.

So I think that they just add the black smoke when Death Eaters/bad characters Dis/Apparate, to create an effect. Of course that doesn't actually happen though.

*willfitz* · #**139** February 28th, 2009, 8:13 am

Yes, but I thought I'd point out that the directors even have inconsistencies within one movie.

On a completely pointless note, they would probably have emerged in white smoke, probably.

I am really just not a fan of the smoke apparition at all.

*mactheknife* · #**140** February 28th, 2009, 8:46 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterOfDeath

Maybe you should just let the people vent their complaints?

This is an open forum. We don't need a public service announcement about how our opinions mean nothing all the time, thanks.

well said!

To mrfutterman....the fact is this is a thread about inconsistencies of the movies...and those which i pointed out bug me! i dont see the point in changing things later in the series when it doesnt benefit the movies!...the same way u dont care about the changes!

IF i had read Shawshank Redemption before watching the film, then YES it would have annoyed me that they changed Red so dramatically! even though i enjoyed his performance!...

I am not stopping the poster from venting her complaint: how could I?

im a guy!!!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

	Contact Us - MuggleNet.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Original content is Copyright © MMII - MMVIII, CoSForums.com. All Rights Reserved. Other content (posts, images, etc) is Copyright © its respective owners.