![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
furtechOn the recent roadtrip I had the opportunity to "read" (audio book) the third installment of the Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling in one sitting. I had previously only read the first two books: the first after seeing the film and the second before the film. I soon fell behind and never caught up in my reading. There's something contagious about reading a book when everyone else is also-- and just as dulling to enthusiasm when you're out-of-sync.
Has anyone but my -not- read/seen the film of PoA yet?? Just to be polite and safe:
Prisoner of Azkaban is my favorite book and film of the series (aside from the first). I've seen all movies to date, but only have "read" the first three books. The story is filled with werewolves and grims and betrayal and redemption. Great stuff. Rowling does a particularly fine job of manipulating the reader's emotions. Sirius is my favorite character of the series and his fate is probably a big reason I lost enthusiasm with the books. Only McGonagall comes close to him as far as favorites go-- she reminds me of some favorite teachers I've had (I'm going to be very upset if she dies in the series).
I loved hearing-reading PoA: the reader did a decent job with character voices and had a easy-to-listen-to voice (now I want to hear the UK version of the audiobooks!). I found the way the book was adapted (the first of the BIG BOOKS that HP evolved into) fascinating and noticed how they streamlined the story without. Seeing the movie first caused me to be a more impatient reader than usual-- if this had been a physical book I would have jumped around to read how things happened. I am far less patient with the pace of the story when I've already seen the film: I could not get into the author's sense of pacing.
As for the film, my only complaints are with how Padfoot, and particularly the werewolf, were depicted. The description in the book is very clear: why did they make Lupin's beast form so lanky and skinny? Like a twisted, mangey greyhound. Combined with the CG quality, the effect was not very impressive.
My only two quibbles with the book are the watch (too much of a deus ex machina--though they did a good job working this in the film) and that Sirius gave Harry the new broom-- he was out of his mind nutcase! Rowling made it sound like-- in the midst of this insanity-- Sirius suddenly went catalog shopping (we now return you to your insanity). Wouldn't Gringots have been just a bit suspicious when he withdrew those funds?!?
I still wonder whether it is better to read the book or see the film first. I was blown away by the first film (I had no visual in my head to be disappointed by the realization); I enjoyed the second book immensely (but the film was kind of "eh"-- but more for the direction than anything). I think it depends on the film and the skill of the director: to hedge my enjoyment I'd say read the book first. You only spend a couple of hours with the movie; a book is a considerable investment in time by comparison. Focus on the media that brings you the most pleasure for the longest time.
Has anyone but my -not- read/seen the film of PoA yet?? Just to be polite and safe:
Prisoner of Azkaban is my favorite book and film of the series (aside from the first). I've seen all movies to date, but only have "read" the first three books. The story is filled with werewolves and grims and betrayal and redemption. Great stuff. Rowling does a particularly fine job of manipulating the reader's emotions. Sirius is my favorite character of the series and his fate is probably a big reason I lost enthusiasm with the books. Only McGonagall comes close to him as far as favorites go-- she reminds me of some favorite teachers I've had (I'm going to be very upset if she dies in the series).
I loved hearing-reading PoA: the reader did a decent job with character voices and had a easy-to-listen-to voice (now I want to hear the UK version of the audiobooks!). I found the way the book was adapted (the first of the BIG BOOKS that HP evolved into) fascinating and noticed how they streamlined the story without. Seeing the movie first caused me to be a more impatient reader than usual-- if this had been a physical book I would have jumped around to read how things happened. I am far less patient with the pace of the story when I've already seen the film: I could not get into the author's sense of pacing.
As for the film, my only complaints are with how Padfoot, and particularly the werewolf, were depicted. The description in the book is very clear: why did they make Lupin's beast form so lanky and skinny? Like a twisted, mangey greyhound. Combined with the CG quality, the effect was not very impressive.
My only two quibbles with the book are the watch (too much of a deus ex machina--though they did a good job working this in the film) and that Sirius gave Harry the new broom-- he was out of his mind nutcase! Rowling made it sound like-- in the midst of this insanity-- Sirius suddenly went catalog shopping (we now return you to your insanity). Wouldn't Gringots have been just a bit suspicious when he withdrew those funds?!?
I still wonder whether it is better to read the book or see the film first. I was blown away by the first film (I had no visual in my head to be disappointed by the realization); I enjoyed the second book immensely (but the film was kind of "eh"-- but more for the direction than anything). I think it depends on the film and the skill of the director: to hedge my enjoyment I'd say read the book first. You only spend a couple of hours with the movie; a book is a considerable investment in time by comparison. Focus on the media that brings you the most pleasure for the longest time.
