MovieChat Forums > Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) Discussion > Too Faithful to the book

Too Faithful to the book

posted 11 years ago by ComicNerd
31 replies | jump to latest

I think the movie was going to be a massive success because of the popularity of the books , but I wonder if the books weren't a phenomenon if the 1st movie would have done so well.

There is such a thing as being too faithful to a book to the point that it sucks the life out of the adaption. HPSS is so concerned with fitting the book in that it feels like a highlight reel of the book. Columbus is an average director with not much visual flair and this movie shows how inexperienced he is with this type of movie. The POV shot when the trio see Fluffy looks like it belongs in Home Alone. Most of the visual effects are poor for a production this size, the troll, Neville riding the broom and let's not mention the quiditch match. It looks like someone painted a tarp of the quiditch background and the actors performed in front of it.

Now it's not all bad, Columbus and the team get credit for visualizing Hogwarts and casting the kids who ended up being pretty good.

I know some people wanted to Columbus to direct them all ,but I don't think he honestly would have had the skills to pull off the remaining books.

[–] SteveMoonlightAllaby 11 years ago

I disagree. I read all the books and seen the movies and I think Columbus did a good job. I don't see how it is too faithful to the book. It is A very entertaining film.

[–] PotterFan1029 11 years ago

I agree, Columbus was a good choice for the first two, but I also agree with the OP that they were right to go with different directors as the series continued

[–] peachtea18 11 years ago

I do often wonder what the series would have been like if they'd kept Columbus for the rest of them though. Boring to look at and visually unappealing? Maybe. But I think they also would have kept a lot of the heart of the books that got lost throughout the series from directors not even knowing what was supposed to be happening, and instead imprinting their own ideas of what should happen.

I've never fooled anyone. I've let people fool themselves.

[–] MicahFish 10 years ago

Columbus knew how to keep the world magical. The other Directors were too 2D.

[–] indy_go_blue44 8 years ago

But I think they also would have kept a lot of the heart of the books that got lost throughout the series from directors not even knowing what was supposed to be happening, and instead imprinting their own ideas of what should happen.

Please recall that the books were still being written at the time many of the movies were being made, and the ultimate outcome was still a guarded secret in Jo Rawling's mind.

She did advise Alan Rickman (Snape) that the ultimate reason for his loathing of Harry was because he had been in love with Lily and hated James, reasons we don't see until the 6th movie. James was a bully and almost killed Snapes, though IMO that's not a good reason for him to have treated Harry the way he did.

[–] KymLey 8 years ago

It wasn't really a choice that the producer decided to go with a different director. Columbus didn't want to direct anymore; more to do with the length of shooting - it was basically two years on non stop working and flying back and forth between the UK and the USA to see his family.

He needed a break and he stayed on as a Producer for HP&TPA

[–] liquidsouther 10 years ago

I don't see people complaining about Game of Thrones being to faithful to the book. Anyway, yes, HP1 is still the best Potter movie ever, at least in my humble opinion.

"He drank. He fought. He made his ancestors proud!"

[–] SkittlesMilly 11 years ago

What is the point of making an adaptation of a book if it is not going to be faithful to the books, though? It has to follow the storyline and the book otherwise there will be details skipped out that are supposed to support later facts of the books and handling the storyline as it should be.

The CGI and effects of the film aren't going to seem much now but they were great for when it was released. Having watched it today as it was on television channels, I do agree that the effects are a bit shoddy but they will appear to be in today's day and age.

[–] ComicNerd 11 years ago

The CGI and effects of the film aren't going to seem much now but they were great for when it was released.

I disagree with this , The 1st Harry Potter's special effects were always dodgy, yes it was 2001 but compare the scenes like quiditch to what was done in LOTR or even The Phantom Menace 2 years before.

The 2nd Harry Potter had miles better special effects. Columbus actually acknowledged this and shot the VFX heavy scenes first to give more time to complete the effects.

Books are a different medium then film, what works on paper doesn't always flow on screen.

I find the 1st Harry Potter to feel like a highlight reel of the books chapters rather then a consist story that flows naturally.

[–] DavidTL 10 years ago

I re-watched Phantom Meance reacently, and today watched this film. This films effects are much better than Phantom Menace. And they are good for the time, reason I say that, is there has been much worser effects for big budgeted movies made nowadays. But this film has better effects than Phantom Menace. I didn't realise how much greenscreen there was in it. At one point in that film the grass was fully flat. The backgrounds static. The Quiditch scenes probably had the worst background, but the flying was pretty good. But the background was still better than some of the backgrounds in Phantom Menace

[–] bufster3 9 years ago

I agree SkittlesMilly!

Before people jump all over me, I preface my post with this: everyone has the right to their own tastes. I'm not criticizing anyone for their taste in movies, or for their opinions. I honor everyone's right to like what ever they like. Live and let live.

That said, I completely disagree with saying that the first couple of films are too faithful to the books. How ridiculous. All of the films that followed were made by directors who didn't care to read the books, or have any idea of how the story went. They left out so much that they made no sense. They didn't care about the story, and it's a great story.

I love the books, and enjoy reading them, however movies need to be able to stand on their own, and viewers shouldn't have to have read the books before seeing the movies in order to understand the story.

And as for the first two movies being visually boring and unappealing, they look better than the much of the rest of the movies which were all grey. I found that boring and visually unappealing. It's one thing to use darkness and grey as a color palette for certain scenes. But to make the entirety of the movies grey and dark left me flat.

The stories do get dark, but it is a world of magic and color that still has vibrance, and should have different facets, light, and color. Not just all flat, dark, and grey.

I'm so disappointed that Yates is directing Fantastic Beasts, I didn't like anything about how he directed OotP-DH2.

[–] Oddark123 11 years ago

I'm not sure how far of a film fanboy you have to be to think "too faithful to the book" is an actual appropriate.

Film by it's very nature and definition is always going to be the far more limited medium than a book. This of course doesn't mean films can't be good, most often are, but to say that a film trying to do a story as close to the source material that is clearly the intended form and it's fuller form, is just plain ridiculous.

While i'm in the camp that often prefers the books, if you want to be so stuck up on film, then at least admit how limited it is. Filming any book (let alone a Harry Potter book) verbatim is often far too daunting, so that is why you adapt. But in general the film should clearly be trying to keep a lot of what made the book what it was. You can't really fine it for that.

You don't find many arguments where people are going to say the film told the story better and the vast number of ones that do, had the story's creator at the helm or damn near close to it. An adapter going willy nilly can go either way. It can sometimes murder it's source but still make good movies (Disney films are a prime example of this) or it can make it an abomination that lots of people rip apart at it's faults that quite frankly could have been avoided if the adaptor didn't fool with it.

The Harry potter film series is a great series but again they made some changes a lot of us probably would have prefered not to have, but regardless judging them on their own still leaves a good movie, but since often we are talking and more caring about the story itself, we have many who will compare and contrast a book vs a film for which presentation they prefered.

Since after all the art of telling a story long predates writing them in books or filming them on screen. And given that one medium just is "write whatever the hell you want' and another has to deal with far more practicalities, it's no wonder why a lot of people think a book tells the better story.

But we shouldn't let that prevent us from enjoying the film on it's own. But when it comes to thinking and discussion, often the story over rides the mediums and it becomes a comparison to which is better. Thus where we pretty much go in every single movie thread that came from another source. Such is life.

Gamefaqs has a far worse population than IMDB

[–] TwoThousandOneMark 11 years ago

Released in 2001, production had to have begun in 2000.

It's now 2013 & ppl complaining about visuals?? Stop.

[–] SisterSuzy101 (349) 4 years ago

Might have been worth your while reading the entire thread...

[–] R_Kane (15828) 2 years ago

But that would have taken, y’know, effort and literacy. C’mon! It’s the Internet! We all imagine that we’re all equals here and that all ideas and statements are equally valid! Didn’t you read Kurt Vonnegut’s short story, Harrison Bergeron? Or at least see some Mom’s basement-dwelling asshole’s YouTube discussion of it?

[–] DarksIayer 11 years ago

This was defintely the best HP movie because it was so faithful to the books. That's why I hated 3-6, they barely followed the books. I wish Columbus had directed all 8 HP movies.

[–] PaladinNJ (20310) 3 years ago

One of problems I had with Order of the Phoenix was that it was not faithful to the book. I once commented to my friends that I thought the screen writer took a quick look at the cliff notes and said that's good enough for me. They agreed with me.

[–] manchof1 10 years ago

Since when is being too faithful to the book a bad thing?

[–] user2334 10 years ago

Lol I remember when people where really pissed with shrunken head on the knight bus and the colour of Hermione's dress. (But everyone forgot that the colour of Harry's suit was wrong too, but it wasn't Daniels fault that he was allergic to the green contact lenses.)

[–] ObamaWinz 10 years ago

lol sure

[–] jajceboy 10 years ago

It is to faithful yes, and that is the problem. The other films are better because they have directors who made the films their own and who weren't afraid to piss some people off in order to tell the story the way they wanted to tell it.
Chris Columbus was a safe choice. He makes the film into a sucees but he hasn't a style of his own, nor a vision. He's films are also cosy and nice, and that wouldn't fit the darker themes in the later films. He did a decent job but it's good they replaced him. The other films would have been so much drier with him at the helm.

it is never a good idea to be to faithful to the book. Just look at the "DaVinci Code". You're meant to make a film,not a visual retelling of the story. The fans already have read the book, we don't need a re-telling of it. Going by the book can actually slow the film down. The phrase "show me, don't tell me" applies here.
Compare LOTR with first HP. Both came out in the same year but LOTR is more memorable. The reason could be that Jackson wasn't to faithful towards the book. He kept the parts that worked, and changed the parts that didn't work. He even invented some new characters and events that weren't in the book.And he deleted some characters as well
What in the book took 100 pages to tell took Jackson 15 minutes to show. And that's what makes it work.

[–] annedoe 9 years ago

That's just it-a director should *ONLY* direct what he is GIVEN and not make it *his own*. All 6 movies related to Lord of the Rings had the same director and it stayed the same in a sense.

[–] SisterSuzy101 (349) 5 years ago

Not only are you wrong in many ways, but you also completely missed the point!

[–] balbindersmith 9 years ago

Personally I thought it was appropriately faithful to the book, I was actually quite impressed.