Harry Potter & The Emperor's New Clothes

All drama is conflict, and conflict is drama...

That's a long-held truism dating as far back as Aristotle. Shame the film-makers chose to ignore it then, when making Harry Potter & The Half Blood Prince.

Where was the conflict?

For sure, it was full of acres of very well drawn character-profiles and teen angst sub-plots revolving around unrequited love and infatuation, and a few other side-issues; if that's conflict, it's so subtle as to have a limited impact on the film's main plot. But there was a definite shortage of the major, this-is-the-film's-main-dramatic-objective conflict where supernatural good, battles supernatural evil.

Why?

Because the Harry Potter franchise is all about life in a magical world. And without magic, it's the sort of depressing stuff we get in the real world, so where's the escapism in that? In fact, for a magical movie, there was hardly any magic in it at all! I'm a Muggle -- I freely admit it -- and I understand the rules that control the Muggle world; what I really want to learn about are the rules in the Wizarding world.

Every scene in a screenplay/film must move the plot forward or develop character; and any scenes that are remotely 'off-spine' will just die on the screen... Why? Because they go nowhere. You invest time in following a story thread, and it takes you down a cul-de-sac! How frustrating is that!? See how many off-spine/dead scenes you can count when you watch it! BTW, scenes which resolve in a later movie is cheating! They have to resolve during the film in which they were introduced; this isn't TV!

Okay, let's be positive for a second; it's quite witty... it's very well filmed... the SFX are very credible and er... um...

Even Alan Rickman, whose performances are normally outstanding, seems more bored than menacing this time. Maybe that was because he just wasn't given anything on which he could build. And that's a waste. Ditto Maggie Smith. Ditto Helena Bonham Carter. Ditto Robbie Coltrane.

However, there is one exception to all this negativity; Jim Broadbent just stole every scene that he was in; talk about upstaging everybody. Not even Michael Gambon could get close as he gave us the quirky Professor Slughorn.

Now, having said all that, this is going to be (one of) the biggest grossing film of 2009. But that's got nothing to do with the film-makers; that's all down to J.K. Rowling. So many people have read, and enjoyed, her book and they want to see the big screen adaptation. And leaving the cinema last night, I heard 3 or 4 conversations from different patrons who were all disappointed with the quality of the adaptation.

And this is my point...

At what stage in the creative process do people become blasé about delivering a good product to their customers? The answer, I'd guess, is they don't; complacency just happens by degrees. But in any event, millions of people will go and watch this movie and the film-makers will think it's because they made a great product.

It isn't!

It's because one very talented author produced a ground-breaking series of novels -- the source-material, the blueprint -- that the film-makers couldn't even follow!

I haven't read the book, but everyone else who I went with last night, had. It didn't work for them as an adaptation because so much was cut out, and it didn't work for me as a movie in its own right.

Message?

Too many creatives spoil the process, I'll bet! I'd love to read the first draft that Steve Kloves, the writer, turned in before he started getting 'notes'. I'll bet is was far better than what was finally filmed. Probably longer, but at some 150 mins (2hrs 30mins) this is a long movie anyway, and would benefit by having a good 30-40 mins edited from it. That would inject some pacing and progression into it, and get us to the end a bit quicker.

Ah yes, the ending...

No satisfying denouement, here. No, series-of-obstacles that our hero (HP?) must overcome in order to prepare himself to defeat his antagonist in the final battle between what he thinks is right, and what his opponent thinks is right.

Instead, this felt more like an episode in a continuous TV drama series; the main purpose of which was to set up the next episode. When movies become episodic, it shows a lack of commitment to the audience by the film-makers. What they're saying is, "Come back next time if you want to learn what happens." The sub-text to that is, "Come back next time, we need the revenue."

And that's the trouble with franchises; maintaining quality control.

Why is why, the film-makers have resorted to sleight-of-hand; you look one way (the humour, the teen-angst and the long drawn out set-up) and don't notice the fact that the plot is, well, not very well told.

But the movie-going audiences are smarter than that. They'll go, but -- because their franchise has been devalued -- they'll criticise.

Loudly.

The film doesn't really get going until about the 1hr 45mins point. Sure there are a couple of fast-paced sequences, but they tend to go nowhere; and there is a very nice twist at the end. But apart from that, the story is told on a mono-tone. Without any conflict.

And before long, some little kid is going to shout, "But he's not wearing any clothes."

Ooops!

Movie/TV Series Remakes

You know, there are some movies or Tv series that Hollywood just shouldn't mess with...

Casablanca, The Godfather, The Usual Suspects... and

Hong Kong Phooey is on its way to a big screen near you, eventually. Damn! I thought, at last -- I loved the animated TV series when I was a kid but wait...

This is gonna be live action!

I kid you not!

http://screenrant.com/hong-kong-phooey-movie-big-screen-ross-16974/

Why not do a live action Thunderbirds? Oh, wait. Somebody did and look what happened to that! How do you spell tanked!?

With animation techniques today better than ever before, it's just stupidity. How to burn $xmillion on an ego-trip!

Anyone got a match!

Graphic Novels

The Graphic Novel is on the verge of coming-of-age.

Why?

The pace of 21st century life is so demanding, people are so time-poor, they don’t have the time to commit to reading too many regular novels.

But they still need entertaining; humankind has always craved stories with pictures — just look at some of the earliest Aboriginal cave-paintings in Australia or Neanderthal paintings in Europe or Native North American Indian cave-paintings.

Movies costing upwards of $50, $80, $100m — studios can’t afford to make too many every year.

Costing just a fraction of the budget to originate, Graphic Novels offer the ideal compromise.

Just because it has pictures, doesn't mean it can't be thought-provoking; if you're not sure what I mean, go and read THE WATCHMEN or FROM HELL both written by Alan Moore.