Latest Harry Potter Movie

[Omar B]

Never read or saw Dune....

Dude, you need to run out and read that. No really.

 

[MA-Caver]

Dude, you need to run out and read that. No really.

Totally agree with this. :uhyeah:

 

[blindsage]

When I see movies that stray from the book significantly it bothers me somewhat, but I've mostly gotten over it. The new HP was enjoyable, but the book wasn't real fresh in my mind when I saw it.

I do think it's ridiculous though to say you couldn't stand it and then use Raimi as an example of somebody who loved the material and then made a good movie. Raimi admitted when signing on for the first one that he hadn't read a Spider-Man comic since he was a kid. His movies are ok, but they are not good homages to the source material by any means. The only way you might think so is if you haven't read the comic since 1979 or you've never read it. If you liked the Spider-Man movies a lot it's because you didn't really know the source material, if you then complain about the HP movies not being true to the source material and that's what makes them bad, it's kind of an oxymoron.

And Omar I agree. Most book adaptations should be series. Sci-Fi's Dune was really good (I'm reading God Emperor right now).

 

[AceHBK]

When I see movies that stray from the book significantly it bothers me somewhat, but I've mostly gotten over it. The new HP was enjoyable, but the book wasn't real fresh in my mind when I saw it.

I do think it's ridiculous though to say you couldn't stand it and then use Raimi as an example of somebody who loved the material and then made a good movie. Raimi admitted when signing on for the first one that he hadn't read a Spider-Man comic since he was a kid. His movies are ok, but they are not good homages to the source material by any means. The only way you might think so is if you haven't read the comic since 1979 or you've never read it. If you liked the Spider-Man movies a lot it's because you didn't really know the source material, if you then complain about the HP movies not being true to the source material and that's what makes them bad, it's kind of an oxymoron.

And Omar I agree. Most book adaptations should be series. Sci-Fi's Dune was really good (I'm reading God Emperor right now).

If you go back and read the book and then go back and watch the movie you will see you are watching 2 totally different stories. The plot has been changed. That is my gripe.

I think the Spider-Man movies weren't that bad. I think the 1st one was the best out of all of them. Yes Sam did change things but it didn't take away from the movie being enjoyable. It got it somewhat right and it was stuff you could gripe about but wasn't too big of a deal.

 

[Satt]

I am upset JK Rowling gave her blessing on this film.

This makes me think all that really matters to her is the $$$.

 

[Randy Strausbaugh]

One of the problems with these movies is that the books are presented as a series. Things which happen in one affect things in other subsequent books. When the filmmakers started leaving things out, they had to then leave the things which were later affected out as well. It's a sort of snowball effect. To give an example while at the same time avoiding spoilers- there apparantly won't be any wedding at the Burrow. Who's getting married? A French chick and a badly scarred guy. Who scarred him? The bad werewolf. Who? See what I mean? They left out Dobby and his new job, the E.L.F, Rita Skeeter's special gift, and tons more. I agree that a mini-series is the way to go to adapt a novel (or seven).

 

[zDom]

One of the problems with these movies is that the books are presented as a series. Things which happen in one affect things in other subsequent books. When the filmmakers started leaving things out, they had to then leave the things which were later affected out as well. It's a sort of snowball effect. To give an example while at the same time avoiding spoilers- there apparantly won't be any wedding at the Burrow. Who's getting married? A French chick and a badly scarred guy. Who scarred him? The bad werewolf. Who? See what I mean? They left out Dobby and his new job, the E.L.F, Rita Skeeter's special gift, and tons more. I agree that a mini-series is the way to go to adapt a novel (or seven).

Especially a seven book series. At the rate movies get made, actors and actresses age faster than the characters.

 

[AceHBK]

One of the problems with these movies is that the books are presented as a series. Things which happen in one affect things in other subsequent books. When the filmmakers started leaving things out, they had to then leave the things which were later affected out as well. It's a sort of snowball effect. To give an example while at the same time avoiding spoilers- there apparantly won't be any wedding at the Burrow. Who's getting married? A French chick and a badly scarred guy. Who scarred him? The bad werewolf. Who? See what I mean? They left out Dobby and his new job, the E.L.F, Rita Skeeter's special gift, and tons more. I agree that a mini-series is the way to go to adapt a novel (or seven).

That is true.
How Harry finds the Horcruxe's in the movie is the biggest mystery going into the next film. Has has no clue what he is looking for due to the way they told the story in the film. Word is the wedding is in the next film...how will they explain it?? No earthly clue.

I almost fell over in my chair when Harry was trying to find out what a horcrux is without knowing the name!!!! Walked in blind and "got lucky".


Maybe I will get lucky and they will do a mini series but I won't hold my breath.

 

[Archangel M]

This move was "overly chopped"...all "movie adaptation" stuff aside.

The burning down of the burrow still sticks in my craw.....

 

[AceHBK]

Especially a seven book series. At the rate movies get made, actors and actresses age faster than the characters.

lol...I read that and fell out laughing. I keep thinking of the movie Funny People when Leo says....

"I just came back from the new Harry Potter movie. Harry's getting old. They should start calling him Harold Potter. What is he getting...his PhD in wizardy?"

 

[Archangel M]

Eh..Radcliffe is only 20. There have been much older actors playing younger roles.

 

[zDom]

This move was "overly chopped"...all "movie adaptation" stuff aside.

The burning down of the burrow still sticks in my craw.....

(since we are doing spoilers, now ...)


Yep — especially since if they REALLY felt the need for a burning building scene, the book had the Death Eaters burning down Hagrid's place on their escape from Hogwarts!!

I'm sure movie fans would be just as upset about Hagrid losing his home as the Weasly's losing theirs — so WHY?? It is senseless changes like this I just don't understand. Not only a paring down, but a re-writing for no good reason.

I mean, it didn't save ANY time: they INVENTED that scene just for the movie! (the death eaters showing up at the Weasly home).

Or why change Ginny and Harry's first kiss from the post-Quidditch match celebration to the Room of Requirement?

Another complete re-write! In the book, Ginny didn't compel Harry to hide it from himself there and then reward him with a kiss; Harry was hiding it from Snape after doing "dark magic" slicey-dicey spell on Malfoy in the bathroom! Why the rewrite??

And, as many others have pointed out, WHY rewrite to have Harry hiding and watching under the stairs instead of frozen by a spell from Dumbledore and UNABLE to stop the Fatal Conflict between Dumbledore/Malfoy/Snape??

Again, WHY?? None of these changes SHORTEN the movie length; they just change the story in significant ways without good reason!


I understand when, in LOTR, they eliminate Tom Bombadil, for example: it isn't really necessary to the plot, is kind of a useless (but fun, in the book) tangent. But WHY rewrite the charater of Faramir?? Faramir was supposed to be a contrast to Boromir. JRRT's version was better.

Ditto for Harry Potter movie: the book was not only more in depth; the story was better.

Bad filmmaker! BAD FILMMAKER!! (swats nose with a newspaper)

 

[Tez3]

Love all the adults commenting about Harry Potter! They are kid's books you know!

 

[Archangel M]

A good book is a good book...and a good story is a good story. The adults I see reading HP and all the adults who conveniently "have to" take their kids to see these pixar "kids movies" are testament to that. The world could use more adults able to relax and enjoy some "kid stories" every now and then.

 

[MA-Caver]

A good book is a good book...and a good story is a good story. The adults I see reading HP and all the adults who conveniently "have to" take their kids to see these pixar "kids movies" are testament to that. The world could use more adults able to relax and enjoy some "kid stories" every now and then.

Very true, very true. These books were originally written for children and young adults as it were since we follow the 3 main characters from age 11 to their 17th year. Harry is the central piece of course but with Ron and Hermione taking their place at either side of him. A lot of adult things happen to Harry, albeit most of them not very nice. Either way they're bloody brilliant as Ron would say.

Just came home from the movie and basically (to me) it was just the "highlights" of the book. True several things happened that did NOT happen in the books (burning of the Burrow and the attack in the fields), and things did not happen that should've happened to help with continuity... Introduction of the new Minister of Magic, Hagrid's resentment towards the three for dropping his class and the impending death and burial of Aragog also the memory of Voldemort's 1/2 uncle showing the affair between Voldy's mother and father, as well as the (first) battle at Hogwarts during Dumbledore's death. Things were changed as well. Harry meeting Dumbledore at a train station rather at his Uncle Vernon's house and Dumbledore request to the Dursley's for Harry to stay another year is missing, Bellatrix suggesting the unbreakable vow and saying the spell which binds Snape to it.
Also missed Dumbledore's funeral (which might be covered in the next film).

Ah well... such is Hollywood.

 

[CoryKS]

A good book is a good book...and a good story is a good story. The adults I see reading HP and all the adults who conveniently "have to" take their kids to see these pixar "kids movies" are testament to that. The world could use more adults able to relax and enjoy some "kid stories" every now and then.

qft

 

[Tez3]

Sure a good story is a good story but it's just that - a story. Enjoying it is one thing, taking it way too seriously is another lol!

Ron's mother would tell him off if she heard him say 'bloody', it's still a swear word lol!

 

[MA-Caver]

Sure a good story is a good story but it's just that - a story. Enjoying it is one thing, taking it way too seriously is another lol!

Ron's mother would tell him off if she heard him say 'bloody', it's still a swear word lol!

Aye she probably would but as a friend of mine where I work (an Irish import), it's not as BAD as a swear word as say... Bugger. :lol: But a swear word is a swear word is a swear word... so I degress to making an apology. :asian:

Who takes what too seriously... the craft of film making?

 

[Tez3]

Aye she probably would but as a friend of mine where I work (an Irish import), it's not as BAD as a swear word as say... Bugger. :lol: But a swear word is a swear word is a swear word... so I degress to making an apology. :asian:

Who takes what too seriously... the craft of film making?

LOL! it depends where you come from, here in Yorkshire 'bugger' is a term of affection and not a swear word however if I said it in London I'd get dirty looks!
People are taking the whole thing too seriously, the books and the films were made to entertain and amuse not to impart deep meaningful thoughts to the world at large. It's a story not reality, it's there to give us relief from reality not impinge on it.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hi,

Haven't seen the new film yet, nor read the books (it's on my list!), but as LOTR has been mentioned a few times, I might comment on those adaptions.

Huge fan of the books and Peter Jacksons films, but I came away with similar comments. Then I went through the Directors Commentary on the Extended DVDs, and believe it or not, that explained quite a bit. Things such as the sped-up timeline, changing certain characters ages, and a number of other things were explained quite well, including the altering of Faramir in The Two Towers.

In essence, Peter and his team looked at what the most important things to get across were, and one of the top of the list were the corrupting power of the Ring. In the film, however, if we followed the book exactly, the Ring itself is barely present, and the ominous feel of Fellowship isn't there. This is due to the fact that there are far fewer people in contact with the Ring, so there are fewer characters to tempt. If Faramir immediately refused the Ring (as Aragorn did at the end of Fellowship), it would have reduced/removed the impact of the Ring as a force of evil, as it could be refused so easily.

So the decision was made to have Faramir be tempted in his own way, not with the power of the Ring, but with a way to mend his relationship with Denethor, his father. But when he sees the destruction the Ring brings, he comes back to the true-hearted stalwart of the book, sending Frodo and the Ring on towards Mount Doom, showing his quality, and the potential quality of the Race of Men, after all.

This is just one example of a change being made that may irk fans, but there is a deeper reason behind. Hopefully there will be such explanations with this film as well when the DVD and BD are released. We can but hope...