What was the last movie you've seen?

[indecks]

if you are saying the Potter books would have worked better as hour long episodes with books broken up into seasons, I think I agree.

Otherwise you are making a false equivalency argument.

Are you serious?

You're arguing that the Potter movies are too convoluted and 'too much' when they clock in at 17 hours or so in total and are based on a series of children's books. But if you've kept up with Game of Thrones and have finished the 3rd season you've watched THIRTY HOURS of a MUCH more detailed universe than Potter ever was, with another FORTY+ HOURS planned, and you still haven't 'lost interest'.

If you don't like sitting for two hours, you can always pause the damn DVD player every 60 minutes. The argument here isn't which is better, or which is worse. Your argument against 'tolerating' Potter versus being a fan of GoT because of this is completely and utterly invalid because of simple mathematics.

Wow. Where to start?

Instead of trying to tackle this full force, I'll just reiterate that adapting/writing for the small screen is not the same as adapting/writing for the big screen. Some stories work better in one medium over another.

I can't believe it took me this long to realize you're just trolling, lol. Either that or you're refusing to acknowledge your argument isn't working.

OK never mind.

[MrPopo]

Why is it whenever someone disagrees with someone else, one of them must be trolling?

I think Dave's argument is perfectly sound. The different mediums have different strengths and weaknesses and can be better at portraying one thing over another.

Another possibility is that HP is a poorly done adaptation, while GoT is a well done adaptation (note that I have seen neither). That would allow Dave to find GoT watchable and HP not, even if both original sources have a similar level of "convolutedness".

[dsheinem]

I can't believe it took me this long to realize you're just trolling, lol. Either that or you're refusing to acknowledge your argument isn't working.

OK never mind.

Sigh. Not trolling.

Ok, let me spell it out carefully.

I said that "I can't think of any series of books or films that tell one story over so many installments that ever have [held my interest]. It's just too much." That is true. I've not ever read a series of books or watched a series of films that have held my interest over 8 installments or more, especially if they tell one story.

Game of Thrones the TV show holds my interest, in part, because of the episodic/seasonal nature of the series. It is well written TV. You can't just slap 2-3 episodes together and say "that's a GoT film". It doesn't work that way.

An interesting comparison, since we're talking about fantasy book adaptations, might be the LoTR films. Those are books I have devoured many times since I was in elementary school. I loved Jackson's adaptations, though to me they all feel a bit "short" because of the stuff they had to leave out. I felt that he did a good job making judicious cuts/changes to fit the medium, and they remain great films. Game of Thrones the TV show, as I understand it, is generally well received by those who have read the books for the same reason. By contrast, the Potter films are far more divisive by aficionados of the book, in large part because the medium (film) forced too many cuts and changes .

An even better comparison might be the general response by fans of Dune the book to the Dune miniseries (loved) vs the Dune film (reviled).

I m not saying no one can or should enjoy the Potter films. That's insane. I am saying I think the reason I lost interest was because of length and scope of the plot, which just became to much for me to care about.

EDIT: tldr: what MrPopo said

[indecks]

Why is it whenever someone disagrees with someone else, one of them must be trolling?

I think Dave's argument is perfectly sound. The different mediums have different strengths and weaknesses and can be better at portraying one thing over another.

Another possibility is that HP is a poorly done adaptation, while GoT is a well done adaptation (note that I have seen neither). That would allow Dave to find GoT watchable and HP not, even if both original sources have a similar level of "convolutedness".

The thing is, the argument is against itself.

Item A is too convoluted, and just way too long. I mean 8 movies, 17 hours is too long for me to stay interested.

Item B, although more convoluted, longer, more detailed, and even more drawn out than Item A isn't 'too much.'

So which is it?

A friend of mine recently watched Man of Steel. He didn't like it, which is acceptable to me. You dont like it, you dont like it. Fine.

But his argument was:

There was too much action.
It wasn't as good as Superman 78
Lois Lane's relationship with Clark/Superman was changed from "the comics" (we'll get to this in a bit)
Clark wasn't a bumbling nerd like "in the comics"

But in reality, he's not all that familiar with the comics. When he says "from the comics" he's actually saying "like Superman 78 the only frame of reference I have." Which he has already admitted he hated, and was crappy because:

there wasn't too much action
too much focus on Lois and Clark's relationship.
Clark was too nerdy.

WHICH IS IT MAN? His argument doesn't hold up.

[prfsnl_gmr]

OK...I am going to settle this...

HP & The Sorceror's Stone = meh
HP & The Chamber of Secrets = good
HP & The Prisoner of Azkaban = great
HP & The Goblet of Fire = bad
HP & The Order of the Phoenix = meh
HP & The Half-Blood Prince = good
HP & The Deathly Hallows Pt. 1 = better
HP & The Deathly Hallows Pt. 2 = great

I read all of the books before watching the movies, however, and I think that helped my comprehension of events in an unconscious way. The films might not make as much sense without adequate preparation. (I would not know, however, because I read the books first.)

If the producers were starting from scratch - or rebooting the franchise - I would recomment breaking HP & The Goblet of Fire and HP & The Order of the Phoenix into two parts. Those books are both very long; the events within each of them are crucial to the rest of the series; and entirely too much happens in each of them for one film.

[MrPopo]

The thing is, the argument is against itself.

Item A is too convoluted, and just way too long. I mean 8 movies, 17 hours is too long for me to stay interested.

Item B, although more convoluted, longer, more detailed, and even more drawn out than Item A isn't 'too much.'

So which is it?

Alright, let me break it down for you:

MOVIES ARE NOT THE SAME AS TV.

Therefore, it is quite possible for a series of movies to be harder to digest then a TV series that has more running minutes.

[indecks]

I m not saying no one can or should enjoy the Potter films. That's insane. I am saying I think the reason I lost interest was because of length and scope of the plot, which just became to much for me to care about.

EDIT: tldr: what MrPopo said

lol I cant wait until they do the HBO version of a Feast for Crows. The book has none of the characters from the previous books. In fact, Martin even wrote a small forward saying "I know what you're thinking... where are all these characters I know and love..."

As I've said, Ice and Fire/Thrones whatever one wants to call it, is infinitely more complex than Harry Potter. It makes no sense for one to be confused about "Harry turns 11, finds out hes a wizard, finds out there's a bad guy out there that killed his parents, and grows up to be the guy that takes him down."

Where as Throne has WAY more "stuff" in it that is convoluted.

I'm sorry man, no disrespect, but your argument just doesn't hold up. Regardless if you're watchng TV or a film.

[indecks]

MOVIES ARE NOT THE SAME AS TV.

Therefore, it is quite possible for a series of movies to be harder to digest then a TV series that has more running minutes.

This would be an acceptable argument if it weren't for the fact that the Home Box Office channel is making the show. Each episode is like a stand-alone mini-movie. The production costs and scope are there, just like a film.

[dsheinem]

MOVIES ARE NOT THE SAME AS TV.

Therefore, it is quite possible for a series of movies to be harder to digest then a TV series that has more running minutes.

This would be an acceptable argument if it weren't for the fact that the Home Box Office channel is making the show. Each episode is like a stand-alone mini-movie. The production costs and scope are there, just like a film.

*beating own head to pulp.gif*

[indecks]

*beating own head to pulp.gif*

I know how you feel, because your argument makes no sense. You don't want a hamburger because there's beef in it, but you really want some beef.