Showbits

Harry Potter's sixth of seven books will release to theaters this November 21st — but it will not be his penultimate movie.

CNN reports that the series' conclusion, The Deathly Hallows, will be divided across two films. "Unlike every other book, you cannot remove elements of this book," said producer David Heyman. The article also states that "the two final Potter films will be shot concurrently… The first film is slated for release in November 2010, with part two following in May 2011."

Right — because such a release schedule worked so well for The Matrix sequels. Here's an idea: how about the director cut from the middle of the book the hundreds of pages of pointless, inert camping? It didn't make for riveting storytelling in print; now imagine as their tenting explodes across the screen! Sheesh.

I don't approve of how The Golden Compass ended prematurely compared to the book. I hope Rowling's work doesn't suffer a similar ignominy.

The Half-Blood Prince was the only Harry Potter book that left me looking forward to the sequel. But before I take that step forward this coming weekend, I took a step back and watched the film adaptation of the series' most boring entry, The Order of the Phoenix.

The movie's opening is fashioned after one of the novels' most lamentable traits: a complete lack of introduction or context. Anyone who is just a casual fan of the series — that is, those who read the books only once each — will have trouble recognizing Dudley Dursley or Nymphadora Tonks in the opening scenes. Indeed, many characters' roles have been reduced, Potter's love interest is of little note, and the titular Order is rarely seen or referenced.

Most disappointing than these cuts, necessary to adapt this behemoth of a book to film, is that the parts cut were the parts I liked. Ginny Weasley speaks not a single word in the entire film, whereas in the novel, she provided a helpful connection between Potter's current dilemma and the one she faced in The Chamber of Secrets. Potter's hesitancy to pursue lessons with Snape is absent, yet that motivation is vital to understand the depth of Voldemort's manipulation. And though we know the Dark Lord is seeking a weapon, but the movie never solidifies what the weapon is, or its value and implications (including to Neville Longbottom and Professor Trelawney).

The Potter films often serve as a useful refresher to anyone who hasn't memorized the source material, and in this case, I was hoping to be satisfied by the movie in a way I wasn't by the book. Though the film was well-acted and had some nifty special effects, its lack of detail — or rather, its choice of detail — left me hoping the silver screen has not overwritten my memories of the original text.

C. S. Lewis's Prince Caspian, the second book in the Chronicles of Narnia, will be adapted to the silver screen in time for a May 16th, 2008 release, say the IMDb and Wikipedia.

I learned of this upcoming film only from an offhand comment in a completely unrelated blog post. I'm surprised only that I haven't heard more news about it, not that it's in development: with every Harry Potter book making its way to Hollywood, to tap only the first entry in Lewis' classic fantasy series without considering its sequels would've been unnatural. But I'm concerned at the rate of adaptation. The Potter books progressed rather rapidly, with only 18 months or so between each release. There's twice that between the first two Narnia films, which is a long time for its young cast (which is indeed returning for the sequel) to grow up. Kids age faster than adults, if you know what I mean, so I wonder how long this cast will be feasible. OTOH, the cast of the Narnia books is more mutable than the Potter novels. Future sequels will not contain the same characters, so without resorting to recasting, they can still cycle in fresh, young faces as the series progresses.

It's something to look forward to — as if next month's Potter plethora weren't enough. Which series do you prefer?

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, the film to be released on July 13th, will be followed eight days later with the literary franchise's seventh and final installment: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

Naturally, I'm looking forward to the book more than the movie. As I previously commented, the fifth book was more voluminous than it needed to be, serving as a dull but perhaps necessary bridge in the series. Its successor, on the other hand, was my favorite of them all (with Goblet of Fire running a close second), with an ending that left me eager and excited for the next book — something none of the other five books had done.

I'm one of the rare few who has read each book only once, though, so I will likely see the movie anyway, just to refresh my memory as to some of the vital details of which Rowling is fond of not reminding her audience. Watching the film will certainly be a succincter reminder than rereading the book.

But it won't be the only such film vying for audience's attention this year. I remember in March 2000, when I first told someone about the Harry Potter books, she thickly asked, "Is it about a bunch of rabbits?" Apparently, Hollywood has finally realized the opportunity to cash in on that confusion.