Harry Potter And The Movie Franchise

Harry Potter And The Movie Franchise

Even though I've talked so much shit about the Twilight franchise, I still am pretty unembarrassed by the fact that I am a Harry Potter fan. What can I say, it's something that, while I was already an adult when the first book came out, still was a good read for me. And before you get on your high horse about how this is a child's book, just remember that the first book came out in 1997. Those little kids who grew up on this have aged 13 years by now.

It's a little tough to believe that after two more films, the Harry Potter franchise will be dead and buried. Well, that is until we get another cash grab in the form of Harry Potter: The Next Generation books. Hey, it happened with Star Wars, do you think your little wizard is safe from it?

So we're left with the new Harry Potter film. Where were we? Oh yes, Voldemort now has control over the Ministry of Magic and Hogwarts. Which leaves Harry, Ron and Hermione to go out on an adventure to finish up Dumbledore's duties of finding the rest of the Horcruxes in an attempt to defeat the Dark Lord.



If you aren't aware from the marketing, this is the first part of a two part piece which makes up the final installment of the book series. My guess is that they'll stop right around chapter 8 and we'll get the second part in early summer next year.

Now you may be thinking that this whole splitting the films up into two parts is just a silly money grab. While I'm normally one to be all against capitalistic gains by the system, I do work in the industry and I find this far less offensive than the whole 3D marketing of any and everything these days.



Possible the best news about the film is that the whole concept of getting put out in 3D was dropped since the quality wasn't up to par after being converted into 3D. I have to say that this was a very smart choice for them. Now that's $5 you can put into your pocket and not have to blow on it. I also hate when shit is forced like this. If a film wasn't filmed in 3D, don't try to squeeze a few more bucks from me by up converting it.

Besides that, if any movie can benefit from getting split in two it's the Harry Potter books. I wish every movie since Goblet of Fire would have been split into two. Not only would they all benefit from not being terrible cliff notes of the books, but that's how they originally were planned to be released.



The first half of Goblet was to be released at Thanksgiving and the second at Christmas. It was such a good idea as well as an amazing way to make more money off half of a movie that I can't believe they blew it. I wouldn't complain that the films were butchered up versions of the books lacking so much important material that is important in later films and they would have made twice as much money.

Goblet of Fire was probably the worst film in the series. It was at best a clip show. The only scene worth its weight was the graveyard scene. Everything else was just total shit. The worse offense in the film was when Dumbledore charged across the room and slammed Harry up against the wall yelling "DID YOU PUT YOUR NAME IN THAT CUP!?!?". The whole scene was so completely out of character and the complete opposite of how it played out in the book. But given the fact that Gambon never read the books and just plays Dumbledore how he thinks he should be played, I shouldn't be surprised.



Then the whole Quidditch World Cup match was summed up with a speech and a flash of light. Really? REALLY?! That's all you show? How about in Half Blood Prince there was an exchange between Harry and Snape that you don't really get and appreciate until you read Deathly Hollows, and they were almost entirely cut out in the film.

Though I do have to give them credit for this last film on one major thing. Take a look at the two following posters for the first film.....



And now for the last film..



They have a theme going on there for them. You get to see Hogwarts as it was when the kids first get there and how the remains look after they leave.. Goes to show you that kids these days can't take care of anything. I have to say that the poster really was well made.

Then we got the first look of the film during the MTV movie awards way back when.



After that first trailer came out I wondered if we could create some magic wand to have us go back in time and get David Yates to direct the entire series from the get go. Even if many folks were confused as to why in the teaser released back a couple of months they showed footage of what would be the final battle. The obvious answer there is that since they filmed both movies at the same time, they just stuck clips from part 1 and part 2 into it.

The trailer also made it seem like Harry let Hedwig go instead of dying. I really do hope that's the case as Hedwig's death was sure as hell shocking and it seemed like J.K. just did it to get the ball rolling in that book laying down the rest of the flow that it was going to be a dark as hell book.

So for no other reason other than she could. Fred's death also really struck me like that. As much as I don't want them to sugarcoat the books, I have to say, that last book was fucking brutal and dark for the first half. I'm seriously concerned that kids are going to want to kill themselves or at least listen to My Chemical Romance after seeing it.



Book 6th and 7th were over all a let down. Considering in the 7th book Rowlings felt she needed to kill half of the characters for no other reason other than to show how mature and adult the story has become. Like Lupin and his gal - was there really a reason to kill him off? You already killed Sirius, so with Lupin gone that takes out all of the competent wizards of the previous generation dead and buried.

But maybe the films being over is for the best. I really can't say I was a huge fan of the last movie. Much like the other films, it skipped a lot of stuff, and in fact, it felt like they glossed over a shit ton more than normally. It sort of felt like it didn't have any soul and was simply going through the motions of the events that happened in the book. But while still skipping a lot of it at the same time.

I mean, that's really the big fault I have with the films. The first few films skipped over a lot of smaller stuff that would in later books be really important. So by not introducing those pieces in them because at the time they looked like they could be over looked, they missed out on laying down the ground work for the future films. So you have a situation where you have to shoehorn in a lot of new shit because you're playing catch up. I hear Dobby's story gets a lot more stuff in this new film because he was glossed over in the previous films.



Then again, maybe the films are just visual candy for the people who did read the books instead of being a movie version of the book. It sure as hell isn't the route that Lord of the Rings took. How would you have liked that for Potter, having extended editions of each film that actually covers the events that happened in the book. I know that would have helped Goblet of Fire a great deal.

To be honest, my favorite Harry Potter character has and always will be Snape. Even if it's mainly due to the fact that I really like Alan Rickman, I think he's the most interesting character, possibly due to the fantastic job he does with the role. It's a shame that he's only been in about 20 minutes of the last three films. Especially given the fact on why the last book was named the way it was.

Just goes to show you how they gloss over the minor stuff in the earlier books and it effects the later films. The entire series they have Snape want to be the Defense against the dark arts teacher badly. Then in the previous book he gets it and in the movie they don't have one single fucking scene of him teaching it. Bull-fucking-shit!



Also, I have to complain about one more thing before I go on to some praise of the marketing aspect.. The magic in this wizard world. I always was annoyed with it. They never handled it well. You had this system of back and forth magic spells and what does J.K. do? She puts in these end all curses that end a wizard duel in two seconds.

Did you really need to put in Avada Kedavra's? First off, just because it sounds cool in Latin doesn't mean that you have to make every spell Latin sounding, if not specifically taken from the Latin translation. It seems that the only reason Voldamort was so powerful was because he aced his Latin class.

It really screwed up the dynamic in the battles. It would be like making a Star Wars Force power to instantly kill someone instead of fleshing out a light saber battle. Learn how to make a good battle system and then I'll actually care when two wizards face off. As it stands, it's the first person who throws the killing curse on the other.. and it's usually the villain who resorts to that so quickly.



So now that the franchise is done, it's only a question of what comes next.. or at least what the fans have to look forward to now that the series is about to be over. I don't know about you, but I look forward to one day going to Universal Studios Florida again. Let me just leave some pictures from the theme park opening in here.

I don't know about you, but it looks really fun. It's been a good eight or nine years since I went to Universal Studios: Island of Adventure. It was really fun and filled with a lot of Marvel theme rides but they sure as hell didn't have BUTTER BEER there when I went.



I sort of imagined it tasting like rootbeer and cream soda mixed into one. I wonder what it actually taste like and if it's how it's described in the book. Or maybe it's just cream soda labeled with the name Butter Beer. Here's hoping it's some sort of carbonated butterscotch.

At the theme park you can get real drinks at Hogshead, which I find entirely exciting and intriguing. Yes, I am a nerd. You knew that when you first started reading this blog. You have no one to blame but yourself for doing so.



So I'm sure that those who grew up with the book will eventually be able to take their children to these theme park attractions and relive the adventure and fun of Harry Potter. Then there's just me who wants to run around a theme park in Florida humidity like a crack head in a police evidence locker.

And while I'm sure the movie will leave a lot out and be horribly depressing, much like how the first half of the last book was, I'm still going to try to catch it this weekend.. Just not at a midnight release or in the crazy masses this weekend. Besides, it's not like there's a rush, the second part doesn't come out till Summer.

Which would be right around the time when Emma's shaved head will finally grow back to some respectable length.

Where The Wild Things Are Is An Awful Book

Where The Wild Things Are Is An Awful Book

There, I said it. It had to be said and well, I'm more than happy to do so. Where The Wild Things Are was an awful book. And no, I wasn't beaten or neglected as a child. No one hurt me. I just feel that the book was really bad and teaches nothing to children. Not one single positive lesson can be learned from this book. It really is an awful book on all levels.

I didn't always feel this way. I actually loved the book as a child. Why wouldn't I? It was reaffirming my crazy notions that I am right and my parents were wrong all along. Ha! That will show them! In their face, I should always allow the wild rumpus to begin! Hell, I even did one of my finals in Television broadcasting class based around a sort of Mister Rogers setting reading all nine sentences of Where The Wild Things Are in College.



But maybe that was the problem. I had nostalgic memories attached to this one and then picking up the book again and reading it, I just realized how much of a big pile of shit this book actually was. It didn't contain any lessons to learn for life. The grammar in it was terrible and not a very good teaching tool for children and most of all, the lesson to be learned from this book are something I wouldn't want my non-existent children to even entertain.

Oh, it must be a while since you last picked up this book, so let me take you down memory lane. In the book Max is a complete little shit. He starts off chasing the dog with a fork. Only to get busted for that and sent to his room without supper. Good, you should teach your children not to run around with sharp objects threatening to eat the dog.



Then when he's in his room stewing over what he did, his answer isn't to sit and think about what he did wrong and correct his clearly deranged and potential future murderous behavior. No, it's to make up some imaginary land to sail off to where there's other monsters like himself to hang out with and endorse his behavior.

Only, they're a lot meaner with bigger eyes and larger teeth! Oh my. Maybe now he will realize he was being a little shit and behave, much like Hansel and Gretel before they were tossed in the oven. A little tough love to teach a lesson. No. He scares them and makes them believe he's the king of the wild monsters. Way to go and teach kids to be the biggest dick around to be accepted.



Then when he's used these monsters for all that they were good for, he decides that he wants to blow this taco joint. On the threat of their alpha-prick leaving, these monsters are not all that thrilled with the idea and try to bargain with him to not leave with promises that they'll eat him right up if he doesn't leave. Way to teach kids bartering skills. No wonder the art of haggling is only still alive in Glendale.

We get to the worse part of the book, the lack of lesson learned from all this. When Max finally arrives back home from his land of make-believe there's a warm meal and a huge slice of cake waiting for him. What.The.Fuck! What kind of shitty parenting is that? Who gets a big piece of cake after chasing their dog with a god damn fork? Hell, who gets a big piece of cake after even being good? What is this, his fucking birthday? He was a complete and utter piece of shit to any and everyone in the story and he gets a prize and we're suppose to give this example to our children? No fucking way!



This book wouldn't be so highly remembered if it wasn't for the art. That's the only saving grace that this book has going for it. The art is top notch. If it wasn't for the art that Maurice Sendak created, I'd say it would have been lost in the time line of history and never missed. The story, I'll say it yet again, is just that bad. It's as if the book was translated from a different language into English since it's so poorly written.

This kid is a real dick who mouths off to both his mother, the monsters and anyone else. Stares these monsters down and acts like a complete asshole. So I suppose that's the appeal when I was younger to the book. On the whole, Kids books are terrible. They're written by adults who want to write adult books but are awful at it and have to write something for someone a whole lot dumber. I should know, I used to want to write children books.



Then you have those who are grasping on to this book as if their childhood depends on it being a masterpiece. Whenever I boil down the story to Kid gets in trouble for being a brat, goes to imaginary world and acts like a brat with monsters, gets bored and comes back home they insist that there's some deeper meaning to the book. This is a taste of the deep meaningful shit I get.

It's simpler and more complex at the same time. At its core, the story is basically "kid goes to bed an angry little shit, calms down, and realizes his mom loves him." The journey to the land of the wild things is basically an allegory for dealing with anger - he masters his anger (staring down the wild things), revels in it (acts as king of the wild things), and finally calms down and accepts things (returns to the real world), finding that despite his awful behavior his mom still loves him. The book has little in the way of an explicit plot, but more character development than some novels. There's quite a bit of material for a good writer to develop there. The interesting part won't be seeing the very simple plot of the book on screen - it'll be how Jonze, Eggers, and company handle the characterization, allegory, and everything besides plot.

It's like I'm in Art school all over again with people pulling shit out of their ass. Where the hell does one get this idea that it's all about his mother showing him that he's loved most of all? How did you get such a deep meaningful description based off NINE sentences and a whole bunch of pictures of them horsing around? Don't get me wrong, I like Maurice Sendak's In The Night Kitchen.... Well, I did. I haven't actually picked up that book since I was a child. Fuck! Don't tell me I'm going to go through the same thing with that as I did this book. Picking it up and soon realizing that it's a huge pile of shit as well.

Now I'm concerned. Maurice Sendak's books were always out there, I'll give you that, they seem to have some serious undertones in there His book Outside Over There is based around a surreal kidnapping, has undertones of child sexual abuse, and was turned into the movie Labyrinth. But Where The Wild Things Are was not one of those. Even if it was originally banned in a few schools. Though, I'm sure they could easily have banned it because of the clearly terrible example it gives kids to act like Wild Things and be proud of it.


Hmm.. yup, I should just let those happy memories stay happy back there.

So this brings up a serious conflict of interest. You see, I really love Spike Jonze. Love every music video he has done and his flicks are great. But I'm torn about seeing a film about a book I no longer give two shits about and really, think is awful. So should I see the movie? Yes, I thought it was great as kid, but then again, I wanted to drive a fire truck when I was a kid. Doesn't mean I should have. Allowing me to indulge in terrible actions would have just made my already absent parents just that much worse.

It's often the case that one loves a book and then it gets turned into a film and it's utterly a piece of shit compared to the book. In this case, I'm guessing that it would virtually be impossible for the book to be better than the movie. Even if they shot Max in the head at the end, I would think that it would be an improvement. Mainly because Max is such an awful piece of shit character that I find Vincent, from Choke, a character I can more relate to than Max.


I actually have all these god damn toys.

Where's the outrage that was around when they made The Cat In The Hat into a film? Wasn't it a situation that everyone complained that you can't make a two hour film about a ten page book? This is a ten sentence book with a completely lacking plot. I'm seriously confused on how they're going to be able to stretch the story out anymore than Max and Wild Things fucking around in the wilderness. And even that isn't much of an interesting story that doesn't get boring after ten minutes of viewing it.

I may be in for a boring venture but it wouldn't be called a morbid curiosity if it wasn't morbid. So maybe I will see the movie. I owe it to myself to have some closure. Besides that, I know I'm going to talk shit about the book when it's brought up in conversation and I should be an informed conversationalist and be able to give an honest opinion about the film based on my very strong feelings towards the book. It's not like Maurice Sendak doesn't have an opinion already.

"I love this film very much, and I hope you like it too. If not, then you can go straight to hell."
-Maurice Sendak

Pretty sharp tongue for a Children's book writer. But hey, Walt Disney was anti-Semitic so it's all good, right? Doesn't change the fact that this book was awful.