![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
More on OotP
Jul. 16th, 2007 01:52 amThis entry should've come sooner on the heels of the last one, but I've been busy with family stuff for the last night and day.
Seeing it in IMAX was fun. However, I did feel a bit cheated since the segment when the IMAX glasses image flashed for us to put on the 3-D glasses to when we could take them off again lasted perhaps 20 minutes. Good god. I thought the point of IMAX was for the WHOLE movie to be filled to the brim with visual effects (via the filming/editing process for IMAX) that required the 3-D glasses throughout the film! *grumbles*
However: the scenes which were in 3-D were trés, trés cool. I really liked how they worked out the design for the Ministry of Magic, though it did depart from the way that the MoM is described in the HP books.
I also liked the way that they pared down some of the subplots in the screen adaptation of OotP. Since there is no way to depict the novel in its entirety in film format, abridgment is a necessity, and I agreed with most of the choices.
I HATED the acting done by Katie Leung as Cho Chang. She just came off as even younger and more immature than Dan Radcliffe as Harry Potter, yet she's supposed to be OLDER. Ugh. Poor showing for Asian women. (Yes, yes, I should not set Leung as representative of Asian minorities; it's unfair to her.)
I also disagreed with the physical blocking in how Harry interacted with Ron and Hermione. While he is the protagonist, the blocking set him apart unnecessarily.
Additionally, I think the screenplay, or perhaps Radcliffe's acting/timing, or Yates' direction, made Harry seem too passive for someone who is the protagonist of the story. There were a number of times when Harry just stood around while other people acted/reacted. That inaction on Harry's part made him seem almost extraneous, and that's never a good plot move for the protagonist.
However, a MAJOR plot/film inconsistency that incited TOTAL annoyance was the depiction of apparition/disapparition. There is the early display by the Wesaley twins (yum!) and the later representation by the adults in the fight at MoM. The latter just comes out so wrong for the plot and narrative. If apparition really worked that way all the time, then there's no way for anyone to fight! It was so absurd! The film representation made it appear as though the adults were super-wizards/witches!
And speaking of the fight at the MoM, can we say: Star Wars??? WTF?! Here is a moment in the film adaptation of the book that the director and visual effects people could've totally run with, and instead it just looks like they ran out of money! Argh! What a disappointment! C'était horrible!
Seeing it in IMAX was fun. However, I did feel a bit cheated since the segment when the IMAX glasses image flashed for us to put on the 3-D glasses to when we could take them off again lasted perhaps 20 minutes. Good god. I thought the point of IMAX was for the WHOLE movie to be filled to the brim with visual effects (via the filming/editing process for IMAX) that required the 3-D glasses throughout the film! *grumbles*
However: the scenes which were in 3-D were trés, trés cool. I really liked how they worked out the design for the Ministry of Magic, though it did depart from the way that the MoM is described in the HP books.
I also liked the way that they pared down some of the subplots in the screen adaptation of OotP. Since there is no way to depict the novel in its entirety in film format, abridgment is a necessity, and I agreed with most of the choices.
I HATED the acting done by Katie Leung as Cho Chang. She just came off as even younger and more immature than Dan Radcliffe as Harry Potter, yet she's supposed to be OLDER. Ugh. Poor showing for Asian women. (Yes, yes, I should not set Leung as representative of Asian minorities; it's unfair to her.)
I also disagreed with the physical blocking in how Harry interacted with Ron and Hermione. While he is the protagonist, the blocking set him apart unnecessarily.
Additionally, I think the screenplay, or perhaps Radcliffe's acting/timing, or Yates' direction, made Harry seem too passive for someone who is the protagonist of the story. There were a number of times when Harry just stood around while other people acted/reacted. That inaction on Harry's part made him seem almost extraneous, and that's never a good plot move for the protagonist.
However, a MAJOR plot/film inconsistency that incited TOTAL annoyance was the depiction of apparition/disapparition. There is the early display by the Wesaley twins (yum!) and the later representation by the adults in the fight at MoM. The latter just comes out so wrong for the plot and narrative. If apparition really worked that way all the time, then there's no way for anyone to fight! It was so absurd! The film representation made it appear as though the adults were super-wizards/witches!
And speaking of the fight at the MoM, can we say: Star Wars??? WTF?! Here is a moment in the film adaptation of the book that the director and visual effects people could've totally run with, and instead it just looks like they ran out of money! Argh! What a disappointment! C'était horrible!
