Comments:
19
That's pretty much how I felt about it. I started out with warm fuzzies, then the Hogwarts Express jumped the tracks and I stopped thinking of it as a Harry Potter story. Which might be why I enjoyed it as much as I did. It wasn't really HP to me, so I didn't get angry at what was done with the characters. *shrug* I'd still go see it, too.
I had to constantly remind myself that I was reading a play. Part of what makes the Harry Potter universe so wonderful for me is Rowling's ability to completely immerse me in the universe she creates. That atmosphere just can't be created with this platform. At the end of the day, I still was underwhelmed by the entire story. I came away from it feeling like I had been robbed. It just didn't recreate any of that original Harry Potter magic. Even those horrid fan fiction James Potter books were slightly better.
I swear they created the plot just to showcase the special effects that are outlined in the script. The whole thing felt like it catered way more to visuals that it did to plotting. Which, I suppose, it part of modern day playwriting for something as big as HP...
I borrowed this from a colleague and I need to read it. It's still sitting on my shelf. :(
I'll be interested to hear your thoughts when you do. I didn't hate it, but I can clearly see why people felt robbed (as Sorry kids... said above) There's a level of story telling that readers have come to expect from Rowling and HP that just isn't here; the characters felt authentic (most of them - NOT Dumbledore - or Harry, actually, imo) but the plot/story doesn't.
I'll try and start it once I finish The Tropic of Serpents. I really do need to read it (and give it back...).
Just finished it. If it weren't 3am I would try and write my review just now, but it will have to wait. On the whole, tho, it felt wrong on so many levels. It was like SPECTRE meets Back To The Future but in the Potterverse.
Oh, and the characters of McGonagall and Snape were off, too. In addition to Harry, Dumbledore, and Draco.
Hah! That's a good analogy. TBH, Scorpius was the only character who felt like a genuine Rowling creation to me. The rest felt like totally different people.
Scorpius was the only thing I liked about the book. :(
Scorpius was AWESOME. I thought Ron wasn't too far off - what he'd be like if he'd had confidence as a kid. I thought McGonagall was pretty close though - the dry sarcasm was there anyway (thinking mostly of the scenes in her office when everyone came through the flue). Harry and Dumbledore though... they were imposters.
The real McGonagall was not as impractical as the one in this book. She stood her own and while she was devoted to Dumbledore, she didn't live in his shadow when she became headmistress. This one did, like every thing she did was weighed against what Dumbledore would have done - and this is supposed to be 19 years after the Battle.
I think I missed that; I remember at the end a comment that felt odd at the time, something about 'damn what dumbledore would do!' kind of thing, but the rest (that parts that would have given this context) must have sailed right over my head. That's a worry... :P
And alternative H. becoming a misanthropist because she didn't find love at the Yule ball? Really?
Yeah, no. I thought the whole Hermione thing was stupid. Even current Hermione failed to sell me. But I cut a little slack for that in my head, because we never get to know Hermione in the books themselves. We only ever see her through the eyes of the boys and her interactions with them. Not a lot to work with, I figured.
Very true. H was ok. I figured that my impression of H would not apply because the lapse of time may have mellowed her. I mean 19 years with Ron is bound to. So, that was ok.
I did like that A. and Rose became their own people, not following in their parents' footsteps.
lol, I loved how Rose handled Scropius. That's a woman who knows herself!
She does! :)
Log in:
register: