Prisoner of Azkaban - Book vs. Movie

In this episode of The Literary Machine, the host discusses her favorite books in the Harry Potter series, with "Prisoner of Azkaban" being her top pick. She also shares her thoughts on the movie adaptations, ranking "Order of the Phoenix" as her favorite. However, she criticizes some narrative choices and lack of internal logic in the "Prisoner of Azkaban" film. She feels that certain scenes were unnecessary or rushed, and highlights issues with the design of the Whomping Willow. Overall, she enjoys the series but has some reservations about certain aspects. Good day, everybody, and welcome to The Literary Machine. I'm your host, Kay Olin, and if you're unfamiliar with this podcast, I dive in stories of popular media and analyze how effective the storytelling is, focusing on both the good and the bad. I post a new podcast every other Wednesday, with ten episodes in a season. Be sure to subscribe on my website to be notified when the next episode drops. If you're a supporter on my Patreon, you'll get every episode a week before it airs. In this episode, I will be tackling Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, the book versus the movie. For those who haven't read the books or seen the movies, I solemnly swear that there are spoilers ahead. Okay, the first thing I would like to get out of the way is to give you the list of my favorite books to least favorite in the series. I will go in order from most favorite to least favorite, and I will address some of the reasons after the list. Prisoner of Azkaban, Sorcerer's Stone, Goblet of Fire slash Deathly Hallows, Chamber of Secrets, The Half-Blood Prince, and finally, The Order of the Phoenix. Prisoner of Azkaban is far and away my favorite of all of the Harry Potter books. I read my copy of the book so much that the binding lost its stickiness and my book literally fell into two pieces. Very sad. The story itself was charming, it was packed with meaning, full of lore, and it finally fleshed out some of the histories of Hogwarts and Harry's parents. For the Sorcerer's Stone, I think a good deal of its placement there has more to do with nostalgia than anything else, but it has some of my favorite firsts, like seeing Diagon Alley and Hogwarts for the first time. The Goblet of Fire and the Deathly Hallows are on subsequent readthroughs, about even at 3 and 4. Don't ask me to rate either one over the other. I think they're good, solid stories. For anyone who might be shocked about Deathly Hallows, yes, there are things that are pretty bad with Deathly Hallows that I'd love to address at some point, but the overall story structure, the deviation from the traditional Hogwarts year structure, and the fact that it had a pretty well-executed ending which brought out a lot of bittersweet emotions, I'm happy to excuse some bad aspects for how well the story was told overall. Fifth favorite is The Chamber of Secrets. It was an acceptable story, but it wasn't quite up to the caliber that the first book was, and definitely doesn't trump some of the other meatier, more sophisticated plots. The Half-Blood Prince and then The Order of the Phoenix. The Half-Blood Prince and The Order of the Phoenix I have only read once each. For the sixth book, I enjoyed learning about the history of Voldemort in Half-Blood Prince, but I had no strong feelings about this one. It's a shame, because I liked Dumbledore as a character, but I was disappointed that this didn't actually seem to do much for his character. Seeing as I grew up with the books, Order of the Phoenix came out during my prime high school years, which, as you can imagine, were miserable enough, but then Harry and Umbridge just battered me with more negativity and the book left a sour taste in my mouth, especially since I really liked Sirius and did not appreciate him dying. Such a waste of a good character. I do very much enjoy this series as a whole, and it will always hold a special place in my heart. I do mean specifically the first seven books and their adaptations, not any other books or films signed off by she-who-must-not-be-named. Now for the movies. Interestingly enough, there's a bit of a flip with the movie adaptations, just like with the books. I'm going to give you my most favorite to least favorite. Order of the Phoenix, The Sorcerer's Stone, The Chamber of Secrets, Deadly Hollows Part 2, Deadly Hollows Part 1, Half-Blood Prince, Prisoner of Azkaban, Goblet of Fire. Yes, Order of the Phoenix is actually my very favorite Harry Potter film. Given that it's been more than a decade since I read the book, I have a feeling it's not terribly faithful to it, but I'm happy to let that slide given my opinion of the book. Then The Sorcerer's Stone is once again second. Now this one takes a spot not only for nostalgia reasons. I think it's honestly the most faithful adaptation of all of these. As far as set design and vision go, Chris Columbus absolutely nailed it. I don't care if it is cheesy and kiddy, it's wonderful and still very much holds up. The rest of these are quite a lot harder to place. Chamber of Secrets is third for, again, that faithfulness that came very close to matching the books. Deathly Hallows Part 2, largely for that epic endgame. I mean, this is where the real emotional punches come in and they land because of all the previous installments. Deathly Hallows Part 1. It's all set up so this mostly inspires indifference. Very much indifferent to Half-Blood Prince, the touch of annoyance at obvious romantic elements. Then Prisoner of Azkaban and then Goblet of Fire did last for obvious reasons. I personally think that Goblet of Fire was by far the most poorly adapted of the entire series. I could probably spend a different podcast going over its weaknesses, and I likely will. But the Prisoner of Azkaban ranks seventh in my movie adaptation list, yet the fanbase collectively agrees that this is the best adaptation. I might get pummeled for this, but I disagree. This isn't just a case of me re-watching the movies as an adult and deciding that Azkaban is way worse than I remember. Oh no, I didn't like it from the first time I saw it in the theater. I will wholly admit that my not liking film Prisoner of Azkaban almost certainly is in large part due to expectations mismatch. Given that Prisoner of Azkaban is my favorite book, my expectations for the film were astronomical. On the opposite end, I hated Order of the Phoenix, so the bar was practically on the floor and the film more than cleared it. For those unfamiliar with the podcast, I like to give a brief overview of the story. I'm confident that most people listening are familiar with Prisoner of Azkaban. It's Harry's third year at Hogwarts, and he starts off having a crappy summer at the Dursleys, but he runs away and gets to spend the rest of the summer at Diagon Alley, which just sounds baller as hell. He learns that a wizard named Sirius Black escaped from the wizard prison, Azkaban. Formerly a supporter of Voldemort, it quickly becomes apparent that Harry is the target. While Sirius Black does seem to loom large as a threat, the Azkaban guards called Dementors are even more threatening and attack Harry more frequently. Harry has to learn how to combat Dementors, deal with the horrible memories that they inflict upon him, and try to keep out of Sirius' clutches. In the end, there's a twist! Sirius was thought to have killed a dozen muggles and Peter Pettigrew, but apparently Peter killed the muggles and turned into a rat to escape justice. He then found himself a home at the Weasleys and, with uncanny luck, ended up staying in the same dorm as Harry, acting as Ron's pet. In perfect position to strike and kill Harry should Voldemort ever return. He's also the person who betrayed James and Lily Potter, not Sirius. Unfortunately for Harry and Sirius, shenanigans ensue. Peter escapes, and Harry ends up having to bust Sirius, who is actually his godfather, out of Hogwarts. You know, typical wizard things. All in all, it's a pretty tightly woven narrative. There's very little that wasn't necessary for the ending to make sense. I think my favorite thing about Prisoner of Azkaban is that this is the first real step up in a more serious tone. Not only that, its foundation relies pretty heavily on the lore and world building of the Harry Potter world. We get our first real sense of significance and history because Harry is able to reconnect with two of his dad's friends, and he shares an uncomfortable amount of time with the treacherous third friend. I am by no means saying the story is perfect. There is a questionable scene here or there, and I'll get to those when I'm wrapping up. Now, let's move on to the movie. I personally don't think my complaints about it are merely nitpicks. I want to say I'm not one of those uberfans who needs the books reflected exactly. However, I'd say the Prisoner of Azkaban had some really lazy moments that got on my nerves. The movie immediately starts with one of these lazy moments. There's a brief scene where Harry is using his wand to try to do his homework for a silly comedic bit. The world of Harry Potter has a few simple rules, and one of the major rules is that magic can't be used outside of school. It makes this rule breach even more galling when it's a freaking major plot point not five minutes later. The movie would have been better served if the opening scene had just been cut and we went straight to Aunt Marge walking through the door. Given how much story was cut from Prisoner of Azkaban, why did they start with an absolutely superfluous scene? It's something I'll never understand. Yet another bout of laziness is a sequence that happens much later in the movie. It's when Harry is up late at night looking at the map, and he sees Peter Pettigrew's name, so he decides to investigate in the middle of the night without his invisibility cloak. The movie completely ignores the fact that under school rules, if Harry met any teacher in the halls after curfew, he'd have detention. Yet he meets Snape, of all people, and somehow gets away without getting detention, even though that wouldn't be possible. It's an awkward way to shoehorn the scene where the map makes fun of Snape for, again, comedy purposes. I don't necessarily disagree with the sequence as a whole, because it does lead to Lupin telling Harry that he's familiar with the parchment being a map. Given how badly the movie handled The Path of the Martyrs, which is to say left it out almost entirely, this scene might not have been such a terrible way for Lupin to mention how prongs was Harry's father. Maybe, if you were still intent about preserving the surprise of Sirius's relationship with Lupin, you could have Lupin breeze right by Padfoot being Sirius, and use that to set up the moment when he helps Sirius like he's betraying Harry. Given the circumstances of that scene, there is no earthly way that Snape would have simply let Harry go with Lupin without a detention. It relies on Harry being a total dunce for it to work. Like, yes, he is following Peter Pettigrew on the map, and he might be focused on it to his detriment, but he'd at least do his best to run from Snape. Ideally, in order to hint at Sirius's true intent, I would rather they have preserved the scenario where Ron wakes up to Sirius standing over him with a knife. That would give Ron a much-needed character boost, seen as the film's routinely dump on him, and allow him to take center stage for a moment. I'd rather the scene where Snape and Harry have an encounter be cut altogether, given how illogical it is. Maybe, instead of Snape finding him in the corridors at night, Lupin does. Lupin would recognize the map instantly and immediately confiscate it. I call these moments lazy, but what it really is is a lack of internal logic. What is internal logic? Internal logic constitutes the rules of the genre and the rules of the world in which the story takes place all at once. Yes, these are more like guidelines than actual rules, except for the part where Harry breaks rules and fails to get punished for them. You can't have a comedy film and then halfway through make it a horror film. Yes, you can have comedic horror film, but that is established at the very beginning. It's like that meme that shows the size of the Lord of the Rings trilogy books and then says, the Lord of the Rings, if Legolas has a sniper rifle, and then shows a significantly smaller book. It makes for a good joke, but if actually created, most people would be furious at the idea because it takes away from the original story. While the Prisoner of Azkaban film is not nearly egregious in its offenses against internal logic, it's still quite annoying. The movie as a whole isn't terrible, but some of the narrative choices they make are absolutely baffling. For expediency's sake, during the single Quidditch match in the game, Harry sees a cloud shape that looks like the Grimm. Given that we learn later that the black dog he was seeing was actually Sirius, him seeing the cloud shape is silly, especially since in the book it's almost certainly Sirius he saw in the sands, because Sirius later compliments him on his flying skills. I realize that the way the sands were constructed in the first two movies made putting a black dog in them a near impossibility, but when did consistency actually stop them? In the books, Hagrid's hut is on a flat expanse of grass away from the castle, but in the movie of the third book, going down to Hagrid's becomes inexplicably rocky and hilly. What the hell? Why the sudden environment change? For accuracy? I realize Skalin is known to be pretty mountainous, but this was jarring. So if they just expect us to ignore the fact that the entire terrain around Hogwarts suddenly changed, then they can rework the Quidditch pitch to have stands that would have empty spaces where a dog could be. Last, but certainly not least, the pacing of the third movie drove me absolutely nuts. It lingered too long on scenes of little consequence, such as the night bus. Did we really need all that to get a real sense of the night bus? The bit where Harry was talking to Stan about Sirius Black, and maybe the part where the bus squeezes between two other buses to emphasize how magical and unique it was, is about all that was really necessary. Or what about the Toad Choir scene, which is not an element that was ever present in the book? I know that in the Universal Studios, the Toad Choir is an event, and I wouldn't be surprised if the scene was created specifically because Warner Brothers wanted more theme park elements. The fat lady scene, where she's screaming in an attempt to break a glass. Why do we need this scene? For levity? These are 20-second scenes that could have been better spent elsewhere. There's a huge amount of story to tell, not to mention they blatantly change the fat lady from an older, polite, aristocratic woman to an obnoxious opera singer. They completely cut Circadogon, but I guess that's easy when you cut the part where Sirius sneaks into the boys' dormitory. Why are there so many useless scenes? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure I have a good idea of why. It's because this is a kids movie. It's honestly a bit surprising the difference between the way Hollywood treats kids and what gets published in young adult books. A mass murderer who wipes out entire families and has details like torturing people to insanity? Approved. Children murdering like gladiators for the amusement of an audience? Greenlit for publishing. I know this isn't a book, but Avatar the Last Airbender had topics of genocide, war, torture, enslavement, injustice. It ran the gamut. But oh no, we're adopting a young adult book for a film. We can't take the subject material too seriously or it might blow the children's fragile minds. Let's instead stuff it full of useless comedic scenes because we can't have it be too serious. I also don't particularly like the revelation scene where Harry learns that Sirius Black is his godfather and was supposedly the one who sold out his parents. The actual revelation is fine and about as faithful as they could get it, but Harry's reaction is so dramatic and overwrought. In the books, he's just stunned and glum for a time. I know, I know, it's a movie. We're limited on film time here, so Harry isn't allowed to have the time to process his feelings of shock, so let's make him angry and rash and scream dramatic things like, I'm going to kill him! It would have been nice if we got the book scene where Hermione and Ron talk to Harry and work to persuade him not to go after Sirius Black. It would have been a good character building moment for Ron and Hermione, particularly Ron, and further remind us why we like these three characters together, but we're on a tight schedule here. Ain't no room for quiet emotional scenes in a kids movie. We need action. The entire last third of the movie for Prisoner of Azkaban is headache-inducing. After the trio leave Hager's hut, so much of the following scenes feel rushed, except the Whomping Willow. Oh no, we have to spend two minutes on a contrived and silly action sequence where Harry and Hermione get under the tree, but then the reveal, Lupin showing up, Snape showing up. The actors do the best that they can, but it feels like the director was standing off camera, tapping his watch furiously to indicate for them to hurry the hell up. There was never an explanation about the martyrs, their animagus forms, the history of the Shrieking Shack, none of it. Instead, they rushed everything so they could have another extended action scene with Lupin as a werewolf. This is a brief summary of what happens in the book when Lupin becomes a werewolf. Sirius changes into his dog form. He grabs Lupin by the neck and drags him off into the forest. Peter Pettigrew transforms into Scabbers and runs away. Harry and Hermione hear Sirius yelp in pain and they run after him. Sirius winds up on the shore with the Dementors closing in. Harry and Hermione fail to produce Patronus' arms powerful enough to thin off the Dementors and they pass out. There is no back and forth where Harry nearly gets himself bitten by Lupin. Lupin doesn't even attack Snape. Werewolf Lupin is dealt with immediately and basically off camera. Frankly, that's how it should have been done in the movies, to make more time for the important stuff. And while I'm at it, I have the same complaints about the Lupin werewolf sequence with Harry and Hermione after the time travel bit. That wasn't in the book. Harry has the forethought that Lupin is going to head into the forest so he, Hermione, and Buffy go back to the safety of Hagrid's cabin because Hagrid's not there. That's it. Clearly, that's not exciting enough for a movie. Gotta spice that up, especially since it's a kids movie. And since I tangentially touched upon it, I'd like to talk about The Whomping Willow. I mentioned already that I thought Chris Columbus's version for the first and the second movie was damn near perfect. The Whomping Willow is where it is considerably less than perfect. How do you take the description for a willow that moves and design it so that it has huge, awkwardly moving stumps? Is this because they were desperately trying to use a set to avoid CGI? It looks awful. Absolutely terrible. You're supposed to have some branches that are thick but whippy, not barely moving stumps. At the very least, the third movie makes The Whomping Willow's design a bit more in line with the books, at least, and I do credit it for that. While I'm on the subject of creature design, I really like Buckbeak's design. I thought he was cute and fierce and also pretty close to lifelike, or as close as you can get with mythical creatures. For anyone wondering, yes, I would have preferred that Harry's flying sequence with Buckbeak had been cut a bit shorter to make room for story, but it's not as terrible as some of the other scenes I mentioned. It gives us a unique sky view of the surroundings, so it helps to give the world more context, at least. Cut the monster book a monster scene. It's not important. Its importance relies solely on the welcome surprise that Hagrid is the care of magical creature professor, but the scene completely fails to convey that. It's entirely comedic and, yes, pointless. The visuals and the aesthetics of the movie were solid. I have to admit, I wasn't terribly crazy about the time motif in the design of so many things throughout the movie, because it wasn't in the book, but when I rewatched it, it did grow on me. I think it's pretty neat, and obviously, it fits with the ending of the movie. Michael Gambon, of course, replaced Richard Harris as Dumbledore. I did really enjoy Richard Harris's performance and would have liked to have seen how it worked through all eight movies. Sadly, that was not to be. Rest in peace, sir. It took a while for Michael Gambon to really grow on me, as Dumbledore, especially after the infamous, DID YOU PUT YOUR NAME IN AND I'M ON A FIRE, Dumbledore asks calmly. I realize he didn't read the books, but he already played the character for one movie. I just don't see how he could believe Dumbledore exploding in rage and practically attacking Harry to be in character. That is the bulk of my complaints for the movie. I know it's a lot, and probably does make me look like one of those Harry Potter fans that expects 100% faithfulness, but it just felt too much like the movie let the story fall by the wayside to put emphasis on the wrong things, namely the comedy. I've heard similar complaints about Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, which I don't disagree with. I'm there for the meat of the story, not really teenage shenanigans. If you had to choose between properly conveying the story and teenage shenanigans, the shenanigans should have been downplayed, not removed, just minimized, because obviously the teenage shenanigans are an important facet of Harry's, Ron's, and Hermione's lives. Now, normally on a podcast like this, where I want to compare the book and the movie, it would be a little bit more even-handed, but I admit I can hardly think of anything that's wrong with the book. I will say that in hindsight, it's wild that Lupin didn't speak with Harry at length about his shared history with James and Lily Potter. There's enough going on that this detail slips by, but I would put this down to a plot contrivance to, of course, preserve the shock that Lupin knew Sirius and also that he appeared to be helping him. It's silly. I mean, Harry does call Lupin on the fact that he must have known Sirius if he knew his father, but Harry doesn't seem to think much of Lupin having knowledge of his dad, and it's a failing of his character to not try to pick his brain, given that he's been hungry for this information his entire life. Other than that, though, the rest of my complaints are largely subjective and are not necessarily indicative of bad storytelling. Are there things I dislike about it? Sure. I don't like Hermione's attitude towards Crookshanks being a pain in the butt to Ron's rat. Just because cats eat rats doesn't mean Crookshanks gets a pass for trying to kill Ron's rat. Hermione gets an F for bad pet ownership. I also don't understand why she would think it's okay if a cat eats another student's pet. That seems out of character for her, but I guess Hermione needs some flaws. I wasn't exactly thrilled by the Buckbeak plotline, where he's being sentenced to death, but given that it's a huge part of the ending, you can't exactly cut it and just accept it. Besides, it all works out. Though, I will say I don't understand how Malfoy got away with having his arm in a sling for, what, two months? Madame Pomfrey would definitely call bullcrap, but I guess she had to keep her mouth shut lest she get Lucius Malfoy breathing down her neck. I didn't like the way Ron and Harry blew up at Hermione over the firebolt, when she was right to be concerned even if her concerns were ultimately unfounded. I also didn't appreciate how much of a dunce Harry was sneaking out to Hogsmeade. You have a map that shows everyone in Hogwarts. Why didn't you check it out before climbing out of the statue and running into Snape, you dummy? But that's just it. Those plot elements aren't incorrect storytelling. Me not liking them is strictly a matter of personal preference. They're all still in character, and it is meant to show the difficulties, struggles, and stupidities that come with being a teenager. And just so it's out there, I was deeply disappointed that the game between Gryffnor and Slytherin didn't make it into the film. Obviously, it was a side plot at best and didn't contribute to the main story and would not have been a good addition to the runtime of the film. I do understand how ridiculous it is to have to squeeze in Quidditch games, but it was just so much fun reading about the buildup and then the game itself. I would have liked to have seen that. At the end of the day, if you like Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, the movie, more power to you. I can't take that enjoyment away, and I certainly wouldn't want to, but I hope you understand why I think it has some issues. It's really not bad, and I appreciate that the filmmakers did their best to keep the relatively high quality of the film, it's just that I don't think they had their priorities quite right. Not to mention the expectations gap that they had to bridge, which is technically my problem to deal with, but I'm allowed to not like a movie. I hope you enjoyed this episode of The Literary Machine. If you did, be sure to check out my Patreon, which will be linked in the description. For one dollar a month, you get access to all my podcasts episodes, get to vote on the next podcast to air, and share your thoughts about the series and any other media. Thank you for listening. Until next time, this is KayoLynn, signing out.