For the Greater Good: Lessons for Deathly Hallows from Lord of the Rings (2/23/08)

[blaqlives]

Discussion of The Burrow article For the Greater Good: Lessons for Deathly Hallows from Lord of the Rings by Peter Wagner (Wimsey on CoS Forums).

---

ATTENTION ALL POTTER FANATICS! We've only received one editorial for March's Burrow topic on the three Hallows. Read about the topic here and submit your ideas (we obviously prefer slightly longer editorials to a paragraph of thoughts off the top of your head) to theburrow@staff.mugglenet.com. Thanks!
-Sara and Amy

[mugglepants]

Okay, I really had mixed feelings about this editorial. I liked the idea of suggesting that the writers of DH stick to the real point of the story. However, I don't feel that drastically changing elements of the story for the sake of condensing is the way to go. Sure, the movie would be shorter if the trio just found the locket at Grimuald place, but at the same time, wouldn't that just be too easy? And I can already hear the angry shouts of potter fans when they see this drastic change in the story. Sure, it would not affect the ultimate outcome of the story, but it would greatly change the journey. ANd the problem is that this one small change would lead to another small change and another small change, and eventually, the end result is story completely different from the one that JKR imagined. See, LotR and HP are different in that while Tolkien didn't start with a clear sequence of events (as you stated in your editorial), Rowling did. Therefore, it is easier to change LotR for the sake of the movie than HP. Also, while you say that LoTR and HP are very similar, the fact still remains that they are two completely different stories, and what works for one may not always work for the other.

[FishEByrd]

You, sir, have written a superb editorial. Forget what I said last week! I'm with you! Do you hear this, Steve Kloves??

Just two little details need to be brought up. One is - you know it was Faramir, not Harry, who questioned the hobbits. You might want to ask Amy or Sara to fix that little slip of the fingers.

The other is - the analogy to the Matrix trilogy is flawed, because it wasn't actually conceived as a trilogy. Like "Back to the Future," it was conceived as a single, standalone film...then proved so successful that the studio asked the writers to throw together a second and third film and make it a trilogy. When you follow a procedure like that, it would take a miracle to avoid slack passages where the writers are vamping until they figure out where the story should go next.

[silver_phoenix]

Excellent editorial. Steve Kloves needs to read this and do exactly what you say. I really can't stand the idea of the movie being spilt. I don't see how they can split one good book and get two good movies. Your idea of how the movie should be presented is much. much better.

[Eriskay]

Oh, help me. I'm one of those people who thinks that nothing could really be cut. You just gave me a real eyeopener. Stuff actually has to be cut. You're right.
Just don't force me to pic what to cut. The only thing I'm sure of regarding that is that I don't really like the idea of making people take each other's parts. Ron knowing about Gregorovitch is ok I guess, but I think that Bill and Fleur should have their wedding. We don't need to put focus on them as long as someone just drops a line of how everyone are rushing of into marriages now that there is a war, because that is what they represent (even though they might be made for each other and so on). Remus and Tonks are illustrating Remus furry little problem and how he struggles with the world's reaction to that and with his own acceptance of it. Sort of. They're not a typical "omg, war, marry!" couple, their part of the plot is something else.
But say we had the wedding. No preperations or such, they say I do and sit down to party. Ron and Hermione are of dancing and Mrs Weasley drops a line about how the wedding was all hurried and stuff. Tonks says she wished they could have had a party at their wedding. They talk about that wedding which has already happened and we see that something fishy is going on there - not all is well between Remus and Tonks. Then we get any other information we might need to show at the wedding since lots of people are intived and they could know anything. That way, other smaller details regarding how Harry gets information might be cut. Not sure what though.

That's my problem right there - I want it all in, but that's impossible. So that's my conclusion of the day. I'm not really capable of deciding what should go out, but I know that you're right and that stuff has to be cut AND, here it comes, changed. I just have a hard time accepting that. I think that I'll have to try to appreciate the story in the movies and how it (hopefully) is well told, like you were saying, and wait for the TV series.
Well, right, no one has said anything about a TV series, but who knows... In 30 years, perhaps. Just in time for the 20th anniversary of the Scottish book. One series per book - 25 episodes. Nothing gets cut. Yaaaaay!
(Yeah, I know, I'm dreaming. Don't wake me up again, though. I like this dream.)

[dweaselqueen]

I like the idea of this editorial. I think you're absolutely right that is important to stay true to the story, and not the details. I was a fan who went into LotR and was shocked that a lot of the details I liked were cut. But, they were necessary and the movies were so good, that I didn't care. The same thing happened with the Princess Diaries movie, which was 1 movie based on 3 books. There are countless elements wrong, but I still love the movie, because in the end, the theme is the same. It's about a teenage girl who only wants to be normal having to come to grips with an identity that is decidedly abnormal and learning to overcome her shyness and insecurities. The movie retained that.

While my HP fan heart gasps and faints at the sound of the changes you are suggesting, another part realizes that this may be what is needed to make the movies a success. So far, we have been getting movies that try to stick religiously to the books, but so far, have not succeeded. Perhaps it's time to try something new.

[inkling7]

Yes I know things will have to be cut and some things changed but what works for the LOTR won't necessarily work for DH. I hope they don't take your advice because some of the changes you mentioned aren't necessary and could still be represented in the film as they were written in the book - just in a slightly abbreviated way.

[House_of_Black]

I like all of your ideas and hope the screenwriter reads this site. Also, I hope the screenwriter reads that interview with JKR when she says that it is Bellatrix who kills Tonks. That should be shown in the movie in order for the audience to really understand Molly's psycho rage when she kills Bellatrix. After all, Molly really loved Tonks, and poor Tonks had just had a baby too. I'm sure JKR had this in mind when she made Molly so full of rage when she saw Bellatrix chase Ginny.

[sailorv983]

I actually really like the idea of putting the wedding and shell cottage on Tonks and Lupin if they won't be bringing back Fleur and bringing in Bill. This also makes their deaths during the Battle of Hogwarts much more effective because we have spent more time with them in the movie, they haven't just been passing characters that people who have not read the books don't know (there were people who didn't remember Lupin from movie three to five). This way the non readers are reaquainted with them and get to know more about them and develop some attachment to them and their new baby.

[OrionsGuard]

So I'll totally start raising funds for you if you get cracking on the screenplay.

I do like your ideas, and cutting is absolutely necessary to the movie. Accentuating what's left is the only option (and one not done particularly well in the other movies) if we are to maintain the lessons learned in this book.

The last two movies have been seriously lacking. GoF was so one dimensional, it felt like Harry didn't make any choices or live through the school year at all. And they definitely highlighted the more interesting scenes (the way too long dragon bit that moviegoers so enjoyed). OotP did the exact opposite, compositing five second clips of almost every scene in the book, while not taking the time

What I liked best about what you said was bringing the most important characters in Harry's decision making process into the light. Ginny and Snape were both crucially missing from the book (which I was upset by at the time, but realized it was Harry's story). Movie audiences are not going to be as forgiving, especially after the cliffhanger in HBP (for both characters, but especially Snape). Since Snape and Ginny are such strong influences in Harry's final moments before facing Voldemort in the woods, they will need the spotlight throughout the movie.

I also agree with making sure McGonagall has screen time. I was extraordinarily happy with her role in the book, and mostly, I don't want the movie makers to cut it because her role in the school needs to be shown, she is taking over for Dumbledore in leading Hogwarts, but she still trusts Harry enough to follow his lead. Also, in the movies, we have never been introduced to Bill (the photo in PoA hardly counts), and Fleur had all of three lines in GoF. We need to feel connected with Lupin and Tonks so that their deaths will mean something (which they didn't to me when I read the book the first time).

It would not be too easy for Harry to find the Horcrux at Grimmauld Place (in response to another post), because after HBP, he will still have to figure out the clue. In fact, the only thing I would change in what the editorial said is eliminating the Gringotts scene. It was an unnecessary adventure in my opinion, and Act IV can be just as exciting without it. The cup can be found with Bella at Malfoy manor, and they can go from there to Shell Cottage (with Lupin and Tonks waiting), have an emotional climax with Dobby's death and burial, and then go from there to Hogwarts, with a nice "Inside Voldemort's head" clip for the translation.

Not only do they need to make sure they can please casual movie seers, but also maybe give hard hitting book fans a chance to relearn what they were meant to the first time around. Great editorial, and thanks for writing.

[Shewoman]

Oh, thank you, Wimsey! I think you made excellent suggestions--particularly where Snape is concerned. And, while the LOTR and HP books are different, they do both have a) an epic quality and b) obsessive fans who will notice the most minute changes. I was upset with how Faramir was presented at the end of Two Towers, but ultimately that made for a stronger character and movie. And I think there's probably close to univeral agreement that Return of the King had way too many endings--based, I'm sure, on the feeling that everything except the Scouring of the Shire had to be in there.

I particularly affirm your suggestion of using Tonks and Lupin for at least some of Bill and Fleur's scenes. We know the former couple better by now; for most of the series, Bill's been the cool brother in Egypt whom we haven't really gotten to know.

Bottom line: I would prefer a movie that focuses on (and explains) the really important action to one that tries to reproduce the book. I've already read that.

[square634]

I think the Ministry scene is important because once again Harry chooses to do what is right in saving all the innocent people instead of just taking the easy way out and slipping out of the Ministry. Also, I think it could be a very vivid parallel to Nazi Germany or the Inquisition if the scene is done correctly.

[inkling7]

I also think the ministry scene is important for the reasons square634 says so I hope they don't alter that too much but the development of characters should be shown in the movies also so they have to be careful on what parts they alter so the whole storyline isn't changed or they might as well call it by a different name.

[blaqlives]

Originally Posted by FishEByrd

Just two little details need to be brought up. One is - you know it was Faramir, not Harry, who questioned the hobbits. You might want to ask Amy or Sara to fix that little slip of the fingers.

Thanks for catching that. I'd seen it going through the editorial but was so intent on punctuation I forgot to go back and fix it. That would've been cool though...Harry talking to Frodo.

[Ellen]

Oh, good editorial! And I agree. They need to know when to make changes and when to add or cut.

A thought on Dobby's death. I hate to say it but I think Dobby should be cut. Kreacher should be the one who dies saving Harry. It's one less character to deal with. Then, we only need to have it established that Kreacher went to Hogwarts after Harry and the others had to leave Grimmauld Place (we don't actually need this, but it would allow the attacking House Elves at the end to rally around "Kreacher's Harry Potter" or "Kreacher's Master," if they need a rallying cry).

To be honest, I think Kreacher's death would also have more impact. Kreacher wouldn't have been involved if Harry hadn't won him over. Dobby was involved in fighting Voldemort and protecting Harry before Harry even met him. So, Kreacher's death carries clearer guilt issues and also would bring up questions about greater good versus personal good - Harry's seeing a death that his focus on the greater good - instead of running away to Australia for his personal good - has brought about.

Another possible with Snape and Ginny (just tossing ideas around).

One of the other events at Hogwarts is Hagrid having to make a run for it. We also know that Ginny was assigned a detention in the Forbidden Forest (we assume with Hagrid). If we're going to bring in Ginny, it might be good to combine these. Ginny is given her detention but, before going, learns that Hagrid is going to be rounded up (perhaps Ginny is going to be rounded up as well, and the detention seems to be an attempt to simply get the two of them away from the sight of teachers and students when this happens).

[ladykrystyna]

Wimsey, at the risk of sounding ridiculous, I LOVE YOU!

Seriously, even though I never finished the LOTR books (got halfway through TTT - I may go back and finish), I LOVED the movies. I learned later some of what was cut or changed, but in the end, it seemed like only details that didn't matter because the STORY was told.

I remember thinking that PJ, if he was interested, should do the Dune books, because not one movie-maker (whether it be feature film or TV) has actually gotten it yet.

I even brought up PJ for Harry and someone listed the reasons why not.

But reading your editorial proves to me that even if PJ is not the EXACT person, his style of adaptation is SPOT ON 100%.

When I heard that DH may be in 2 parts I wanted to rip my hair out! It's completely unnecessary. Not only for some of the reasons you gave - like cutting certain scenes, which I totally agree with - but also because the purpose of DH was to tie up lots of loose ends for the book series that simply do not exist for the movie series since those plot lines and details have already been cut.

To include EVERYTHING in the DH movie would mean including stuff that would make no sense and likely contradict things that happened in the movies, but not in the books.

All of your suggestions I agree with in a general sense (rather than on details). I've already said my piece on this on the DH movie discussion thread, so I won't reiterate here.

And, yes, I hope that Heyman reads your editorial (I've heard that he does go to the fan websites from time to time) and realizes what a monumental mistake it will be to split this story.

Hey, how much would it cost to make this editorial an open letter to Heyman, published in a British newspaper, or even sent to the studio addressed to him? I would be willing to put up some money for that and I think it should also be in the form of a petition so they can see how many real, die-hard fans would be really really really upset if they ruined this one.

I was really hoping that this last film would be the best one yet, to really close on a high note, rather than kind of fade away like the last Matrix movie or even like the Star Wars prequels.

[Midwife_witch]

Very interesting editorial. As a now-devout LOTR book fan who (dare I say it?) couldn't get through the books until I fell in love with the movies, you've given me a lot to think about.

One question for you and everyone else: Until I read your article, it seemed to me that the HP movie folks made a huge mistake in leaving out of OOTP what, in retrospect, turns out to be the most important part of the "Snape's worst memory" sequence (i.e. Snape rejecting Lily and calling her a mudblood). In your view, is there some way to Arwenize some other plot point in order to make Snape's love for Lily ring true? Otherwise, it seems to me that it's going to come out of nowhere at unsuspecting movie viewers and not make sense to them.

On a side note, I hold out very little hope for any of the HP movies rising to LOTR movie standards - Peter Jackson and Co. had a reverence for Tolkien's work that I don't think Heyman et al have for the Potter books if only because they can ring Jo up and cajole her on plot points.

[Night Owl]

Wonderful editorial! I love how you defined your terms.

I agree with you on many points, although not all exactly - JKR put each scene/adventure in there for a reason, and it is important to extract that reason before deleting the scene. Poor Xenophilius, it is true, his only reasons for being in the story are 1) to tell the story of the hallows, which we can get elsewhere, and 2) to tell of Luna's disappearance, which can come from a stray newspaper.

The ministry adventure adds to the very important imagery of the muggle licensing. However, unlike in the book, we don't need to go into the building with the trio to see it. If that adventure is cut, then we should see scenes of general muggle harrassment throughout the movie. I do think we really need to see that, either through Harry's eyes directly, or just through the camera's.

I think it is very important to keep at least a few adventures where nothing is gained. The middle scenes of the book were wonderfully depressing with nothing working for a very long time. We need to feel that gloom, culminating in Godric's Hollow.

I think Narcissa is important, depending on how much Movie 6 goes into the theme of the mother's love for her child. Lily for Harry, Molly for her nest, Narcissa for Draco, in comparison with Merope for Tom Riddle. If Narcissa is in Movie 6, then, yeah she should be in 7. I think JKR does a direct comparison of the mothers in the book (fathers too, but in a different way), and that can really resonate in the movies too if they choose to put time into it. I think if Narcissa is the one to keep Harry's being alive secret, then it might also remind people of Lily and will still be in the mind several scenes later when Molly fights Bellatrix. (But Lucius would still be OK.)

I think it would go very badly if the movie were split into two - my poor non-HP friends barely can follow the story as it is. Put the plot explanation and the climax into two different movies, and the whole thing has the danger of being very confusing, losing all the main themes by the wayside.

[Wimsey]

Greetings all, and a) thanks for slogging through my "will-my-plane-ever-get-here"-stream-of-consciousness (please blame all editting mistakes on that and my own hasty "cut and paste" and word-trimming afterwards, not the editors!), and, b) for comments: as another fictional hero of mine was wont to say, "My blushes!"

Originally Posted by FishEByrd

One is - you know it was Faramir, not Harry, who questioned the hobbits.

Yeah, Harry and Faramir: right, right, I did mean the one who prefers blonde, not the one who prefers ginger. That being said: um, what are the other differences again?

Originally Posted by FishEByrd

The other is - the analogy to the Matrix trilogy is flawed, because it wasn't actually conceived as a trilogy....then proved so successful that the studio asked the writers to throw together a second and third film and make it a trilogy.

My understanding is that it went beyond this: Matrix 2 and 3 was that they initially planned as a single sequel film, but they broke it into two films after production commenced. I will be neither the first nor the last to say that it could and should have been one film, and the single film could easily have been better than than the two that we got. Moreover, my real point (which was not well articulated: I was wearing down at the end!) is that Revolutions sold half of the tickets that Reloaded did. I would fear something similar for Hallows B, and it would be a shame if HP bowed out so meekly. Rage, rage against the dying of the night and all of that!

Originally Posted by square634

I think the Ministry scene is important because once again Harry chooses to do what is right in saving all the innocent people instead of just taking the easy way out and slipping out of the Ministry.

I agree with you that this particular element should be in the film. However, one of the lessons of Rings and other quality adaptations is that important story elements can be included without including the scene that originally presented that element. Here is (I think) a really good analogue from Rings: the very memorable conversation between Frodo and Gandalf in Moria, which really summarizes the basis of the whole story. The film iced the cake by replaying the key lines at the end, when Frodo steels himself to set off for Mordor alone: even after those stunning action sequences, the film drags it all back to Tolkien's point, or at least to what Jackson, Walsh & Boyens thought Tolkien's point was.

In contrast, the book presents of three things very early (second chapter!) in a rather casual fireside chat. This was fine in the book: but it would have happened before the audience has seen Frodo witness just how "wrong" the Ring is. It simply would not have had much impact on the audience coming 25 minutes into the movie as it did coming 120 minutes into the movie.

I see the same problem and the same solution with the "freeing of the Muggleborns" in Hallows: it happens too early in the book to work on screen. If this is placed later in the film, after a point where Harry has openly wrestled with the concept of the Greater Good and his place in it, then it will carry much more impact and do a much better job of contributing to the story.

The other problem is that although "freeing of the Muggleborns" is a nice contribution to the story, it is not the primary point of the scene: that is getting the Locket. The primary point delays the plot rather than furthering it and that is what would register on the audience. That would cause many people to forget about the thematic point!

So, here is a simple solution (possibly one of many): keep the seconday point and jettison the main one (or the main lack of one!). Moreover, Rowling left a great place to do it: Malfoy Manor, where Harry once again frees several "other" people. Just add a few more prisoners captured by Death Eaters and arrange it so that freeing them decreases the chances of Harry saving Hermione and the Sword. Have them openly disagree about whether Dumbledore would have done the same.

(Of course, one could cut the Muggle-freeing completely and not change the story; however, it is like a regular cappuccino vs. a cappuccino with an extra shot of espresso: both are cappuccino's, but one makes its point a lot more emphatically! )

Originally Posted by Midwife_witch

One question for you and everyone else: Until I read your article, it seemed to me that the HP movie folks made a huge mistake in leaving out of OOTP what, in retrospect, turns out to be the most important part of the "Snape's worst memory" sequence (i.e. Snape rejecting Lily and calling her a mudblood). In your view, is there some way to Arwenize some other plot point in order to make Snape's love for Lily ring true?

Ah, the ever contentious Snape+Lily note! I would redirect it slightly and use an example from the current (and every prior) presidential race in the U.S. The issues before the presidential candidates this week are not the same as they were 3 months ago or even 1 month ago. Why? It is not because those problems were solved, nor is it that we Yanks are that much more forgetful than everyone else is. Instead, it is that people focus on the here and now. Even if Snape had shouted "I love you, Lily Evans" in Order, that will have been 3 years before: and if people cannot remember political issues for 1 month, then I would not trust them to remember something like that for 36 months! So, some hints must be left within this movie itself: and I think that they might have to manufacture one or two. That is why I pointed to the "Faramir" model: it is not dissimilar to what was done with him. (Rings did it with Aragorn, too, but in a more prolonged fashion.)

As for other comments, well, again: (The airport delay still <bleeped> however!)

[Chas]

Wimsey, thank you for an excellent editorial; I remain a fan of your analysis and insights. Much appreciated!

I'd just like to add something in defense of Dobby and Kreacher. Although both are house elves, their roles are starkly different. Dobby is a character that represents an aspect of Harry's childhood, and (like Hedwig and the Firebolt) he must die as part of Harry's literary passage into adulthood. Kreacher, OTOH, is a caricature of Harry's maturing. He needs to rise into some prominence as Harry reconciles himself to the complexities of adult life. That said, there is no need to treat them the same in the movie as they were treated in the books.

As the movie develops from the book, I hope some of those symbolic elements continue to be present in one way or another.