I've always been a book kind of person reading the story and imagining what characters look like and what their settings are supposed to be before I go and watch the movie and have that image destroyed by someone else's picture. I never thought it was a huge deal, until the Harry Potter franchise. Now, I'm from that generation that grew up while all the Hogwarts kids were growing up, when I was eleven I read the first book, when I was twelve I read the second, etc. until the final book came out when I was seventeen.
The movies didn't start coming out until I was about thirteen (a couple years after they were filmed) and by then I'd formed my own image of what Harry should look like. Daniel Radcliffe, as much as he is what J.K. Rowling and the producers might have imagined and wanted him to look like, was not my choice for Harry. I don't know of any actor of this generation that would have made a good Harry for what I first imagined him to be. But that's because I don't remember what I imagined him to look like.
When the movie posters and trailers came out they were everywhere; Harry Potter was one of the biggest series and stood to make a lot of money. But what that did for my imagination was take the kid I'd created and replaced him with this real person that didn't exactly fit how I interpreted the book. Looking back at it, I'm annoyed. But I enjoyed the movies and I enjoyed the books, for different reasons.
The books were heavier on the relationships and what it means to grow up in a world you never knew existed. They dealt with Peeves and his antics, yet he was an accepted part of Hogwarts--everyone has a place where they can belong and feel at home--in fact the story wouldn't be the same without the prankster ghost. The books dealt with Harry's insecurities and he had more alone time to delve into his own thoughts.
The films were more action-oriented and focused more on the savior aspect. Harry was no longer just a kid growing up and dealing with his demons; he became the boy who would save the wizarding world from Voldemort. Harry wasn't allowed to have as many weaknesses, or to work through them. Yet the movies are still great stories (I'm still a little peeved that the origin of the Marauder's Map didn't make it into the third movie).
In general I become frustrated when movies are made out of books, yet I understand the mentality behind it. I have always enjoyed Jane Austen, and the movies of her stories have both made the books more accessible and visible. But, to me, her stories seem less dependent on the details than the interactions--Elizabeth Bennett doesn't have to wear Regency attire to be judgemental of Darcy when she first meets him, the
Lizzie Bennet Diaries proved that. But when movies leave out important details, like why the Potters chose Peter Pettigrew to be their secret keeper rather than Sirius and the connection between the four friends, they leave out important parts that make the story so remarkable. The Potters weren't betrayed because the information was beaten out of someone, it was given over freely and Sirius was betrayed as much as anyone else after suggesting it. These details color the entire story and take some of the magic when they're glossed over.
Some movies based on books are great, others not so much. And while I enjoy both the movies and books in the Harry Potter franchise, I will always hold the books more dear for the magic they were in my life.
Just a thought...
Stephie
