Dan Radcliffe on Harry Potter Book Purists and Fans of the Films
January 10, 2009, 04:51 PM
The Australian Herald Sun has released a new interview with Dan Radcliffe, where the Harry Potter gives his thoughts about the upcoming Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, and the two Deathly Hallows films. Of HBP he says he thinks they have struck a type of balance between the darker, intensity found in the sixth book and a bit of humor. Dan says "I mean, the one thing when I read the script I could always yearn
for was more darkness and more of that real intense stuff, because I
enjoy doing that more, but hopefully this time we have struck a balance
between that darkness and a certain comedy in this film. "And what I think we've managed to do is not make it that kind of comedy that is farcical and pulling faces.
"It's not that kind of comedy at all, it's much more subtle than
that and hopefully people will find it funny - that's the aim anyway.''
Of particular interest are Dan Radcliffe's comments on the the two Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows films, and book purists feelings about the Harry Potter films. Quotage: "I think when the fans came on to the first film there would have
been a section of the audience that didn't want to like it because they
were the purists of the book,'' he says.
"There are still those people out there, but you are never going to change their minds so just don't even try.
I think the majority of the people out there, because the fan base has
grown at about the rate the films have come out, we've managed to keep
making them darker and dark enough to maintain the interests of these
"And I think actually through making the films darker
we've gained a lot. And also through people like (director) David Yates
directing them, a certain amount of respect has been gained for the
films as cinema.''
Loz, I didn’t know the Herald Sun was a man! How can a newspaper have a man-crush…..? LOL!
Another good interview from Dan. WB should be on their knees thanking the gods that they hired the right people to be in these movies. It takes energy and endless patience to do the job and put up with the fans and the press!
Thank god, I’m not a purist. They can be so annoying with their nitpicking sometimes.
I’m not a purist ,I don’t mind if they change the movies up and stuff, i know they are two different things. I just don’t like the movies because they suck, not because they are different from the books. All i want is a good movie, with good acting (some of the actors performances are perfect, but some are just cringeworthy)
I must admit that I’m a purist and sometimes get a bit put out when important things are taken out of the HP films and unnecessary things are put in. After all, look how Peter Jackson managed to make such perfect adaptations of LotR. Yes, they were different from the books but nothing truly important was left out like they were with the Potter films. That said, no matter how much I wish they were longer and more true to the books, I still love them and watch them regularly. They are my comfort films. The ones I go to when I’ve had the worst day or am sick and need something to make me feel better. Of course I rag on them constantly but it’s done out of love and I couldn’t imagine not having them there for me.
First time posting here, so I hope people don’t mind a new comer jumping in :)
I really like the way Dan put it. I love the books and absolutely understand the disappointment at having certain scenes changed or deleted. The first time I saw OOTP that’s what threw me, but I agree that you have to view the films and the books separately. Sometimes what’s written down simply doesn’t flow the same way on screen (that and filming all of that book with no cuts would have meant a 5 hour long movie!). Keeping that in mind, I saw OOTP again with a different group of friends, and it has since eclipsed Azkaban as my favorite Potter film :)
oh that dan….
I just hope that, expecially the Deathly Hallows two, the films are the most similar to the books as possible. sorry for my english, i’m italian and sooo tired tonight.
man the DAMN movies suck . if u cant put it all in its just SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“Sometimes what’s written down simply doesn’t flow the same way on screen” posted by HGRHfan
I totally agree. I think that with certain scenes from GOF (a couple of tasks) and OOtP (Ministry) especially. So I am generally ok with changes made.
The one thing I don’t like about the films though is when they change things unnecessarily, for example the Quidditch World Cup forest scene (the forest that appears in DH too) was changed into something else, just as long a scene but a totally different one. And adding extra meaningless scenes like in POA Buckbeak flying across the lake and the crying on the rock scenes.
I’m just going to chime in quickly here. I’ve posted about this issue before, but I’ll try to do a quick recap. A lot of people seem upset about the idea of putting in new scenes at all in a film adaptation of the Potter books. They don’t mind losing a little bit of story in order to fit a time-frame, but are furious if that lost bit of story is replaced by something new or altered. Now, I subscribe to the belief that if all a person wants up on the screen is exactly what is in the book, then they should simply read the book. I understand that some people want non-Potter fans to understand why they love the series, and believe that forcing more and more information down an audiences throat would allow them to basically experience the book itself. Not really true. A non-book fan will only appreciate the series on a certain level, that’s just the way it is. So why not at least make it enjoyable for that non-book fan? I, personally, love to see new scenes added to the story, partly because if I wanted to see an exact film version of the book I would simply gaze into my own mind while I was reading the book…those mental images would constitute an exact interpretation. Also, the idea of adding a new scene in place of older material is not always just some cheap ploy…sometimes, if a screenwriter is adapting some material to film form, and they realize that they can’t include a number of scenes because of a time issue, they form a completely new scene that does the job of combining the revelation of all the plot points from the other scenes. That means it will be different than the book, condensed and diluted, but still contain all the necessary information. If you want to show the audience that the wizarding world is engaged in all out war with Voldemort now, but can’t include the Prime Minister scene with Fudge, or all the news reports of disappearances and attacks, or all the expository scenes where it is revealed what the bad guys are up to, you can simply fashion a new scene, like the attack on the burrow, which showcases all of those ideas. It’s simplified, yes. It’s not very subtle, true. But it gets the job done, and sad to say, that’s what most movies have to do…get the job done, fairly quickly and efficiently. They are a visual medium and always have been…if a character in a book is sad and lonely, we can spend three or four pages seeing that characters internal thoughts, their dreams and wishes…but in a movie, if a character is sad and lonely, they either have to say out loud “I’m sad and lonely” (which sounds like blatent exposition), or we have to hear their thoughts in an echoey way, or, what happens most of the time, is that the screenwriter writes, “Harry looks sad and lonely”, and the director films Daniel Radcliffe looking sad and lonely, and what was once three pages of the book now becomes 10 seconds long. That’s how the transition works. As to those who say Peter Jackson is the perfect guy to do an adaptation, hmm…some of you haven’t been to the Lord of the Rings fans websites. There are many LOTR fans who were perfectly outraged by the changes or shortcuts Jackson made to the book, just like the Potter fans. They were upset that a character portrayed as being able to resist temptation in the books, Faramir, couldn’t do so in the movie. They were upset at the addition of many facets of Arwen’s character, who doesn’t do much of anything in the books but is all over the place in the films. So, just so you guys realize that.
Just a quick little addition to the above post. There are a few scenes that I felt should have been in the films in some form, that I was upset about. I personally feel that the worst omission happened in Prisoner of Azkaban, where it is never revealed how Mooney, Padfoot, Wormtail and Prongs are (that would have taken about 10 seconds at the end, if Lupin pointed out as he was packing his things that he had helped create the map with Harry’s father, Sirius and Peter. And right after that moment, once Harry learned that his father’s nickname had been Prongs, either he or Lupin could have made the connection between that and Harry’s stag patronus. That would have taken about 30 seconds, tops, and it wouldn’t have overburdened the average audience member. That’s one scene that, for the life of me, I can’t understand them removing.
I plan to reserve judgement on the new burrow scene until I’ve actually seen it. What I hope they avoid are the pointless scenes (cough cough POA). Let’s not waste valuable time with closeups of the whomping willow or random crows. Just because a shot looks good doesn’t mean you should use it.
i’m a book purist, and i know that the movies can’t really satisfy the people like us. But i have to say i really like the movies, and even though i wish they could add other stuff in them it’s really hard to fit big books in 2 hour movies (max.) so i think everyone should respect the whole-package that comes in making a book-based movie.
And now I am completely confused. How can this movie be that dark and still be only PG rated?
The Herald is up to it’s usual incorrect form – How the Prince’s book “seemingly explains the past that will help him battle with Lord Voldemort” I’ll never know
Thanks fairfax media – once again, your thorough research pays off! How can we trust the rest of the article when you can’t even get basic plot facts correct?
PLEASE feel free to shoot me down – if anyone can explain how Harry ever thought Advanced Potion Making (even the Prince’s copy) would help him defeat Mouldyvort – please let me know!
I know this seems like a trifle compared to the massive movie vs. book debate currently going here (which i might add has been done to death anyway, and I say “each to their own!! If we all like the same stuff the world would be a totally boring place to be”)
HOWEVER I still stick to the one remark – how can we trust the rest of the article?
Have they misquoted Dan? do they really understand what he is trying to get across in his message? what snippets of the interview ended up on the editing floor. I myself have interviewed a famous person (not as lofty as Dan’s profile, but most UK people would know him) and there was alot of back and forth on it, trying to clarify context, get quotes right and decide what stays and what goes. How do we trust any cutting and rearranging done by those who have “lost the plot” so to speak? How do we know the most intersting parts of the article (to Potter Fans, not regular Muggles) aren’t edited out??…..