Harry Potter

[Thorn07]

I just got back from seeing the new movie and I just wanted to say that it sux, for the most part anyways. Sooo many things were just skipped over in the movie from the book, if you havent read the book I doubt you would even be able to grasps the meaning of many things mentioned and the overall plot, not to mention the obvios mistakes that were made in filming, at one point snape uses a modern projector screen and fountains have modern pumps that are plainly obvios. The new dumbledore is just way to diffrient in personality to the original, yet it more to the descriptio of the book. I deteste this new movie and cant believe J.K would let this happen, the new director just doesnt live up to the expectations of true HP fans!!! Fell free to post your own opnions!!!

[JD@reptiles]

i think it was a new producer.. and i heard it was stupid and they messed up. too bad.. they had a great thing going.

[Removed_2815]

Well, first off, don't judge me guys - I'll read anything.
I have read these books numerous times with young family members and on my own time (call it a fixation with "pop-culture" if you will).
I have a few points to address before I see the movie (I will be going tomorrow with my neice).

Originally posted by Thorn07
Sooo many things were just skipped over in the movie from the book
Uh huh... Of course parts will be glossed over and condensed, that is why they have screenplay writers - the written word does not transfer to other mediums as easily as it might appear. There is a lot of information in Prisoner of Azkaban and in order to fit it into an appropriate length of time numerous parts will invariably be excised. There is not a single adapted movie out there that contains everything the book had in it. I, personally, would not want to sit through a 10-hour movie just so they could cover all bases.

Originally posted by Thorn07
if you havent read the book I doubt you would even be able to grasps the meaning of many things mentioned and the overall plot
Great! I hate movies that feel the need to "hold everyone's hand." Perhaps people will have to pay attention and think for this movie (or perhaps go out and read the book).

Originally posted by Thorn07
not to mention the obvios mistakes that were made in filming, at one point snape uses a modern projector screen and fountains have modern pumps that are plainly obvios
Not sure what you are getting at here. It's not like spotting a Metallica t-shirt in Titanic. These books occur in the present, in which we use said devices.

Originally posted by Thorn07
The new dumbledore is just way to diffrient in personality to the original, yet it more to the descriptio of the book.
Michael Gambon and everyone involved with this movie had it as their intention to avoid mimicking Richard Harris' performance, it is in an actor's nature to play a character as he/she interprets him/her. Incidentally, Richard Harris was a horrible Dumbledore in my opinion, he did not do the character justice - however good his performance was. Dumbledore is full of dry-wit and tongue-in-cheek humour, Harris failed to capture this (in my opinion).

Originally posted by Thorn07
the new director just doesnt live up to the expectations of true HP fans!!!
I'll let you know tomorrow ;)

Cheers,
R

[Thorn07]

Of course a movie is going to skip but it skips parts where beneficial information is suppose to be given then later that said info is mentioned and if you havent read the book you would have no-clue what they are talking about. The movie is suppose to take place in a magical world wheremodern convinces do not exist therefore they should not be in the movie, none of these mistakes were made in the first two movies, you can definatrly tell the diffrience in the first two and this one and I hope they improve the fourth. I agree with you about harris, he didnt capture the true character of dumbledore in the first 2 movies but he made a new lovable charchter that the audience grew accumstom to and to just smash it doesnt work very well, but I do like the new dumbdores performance better.

[Derrick]

well I've never read the books and so my opinion is based just on the 2 previous movies and I would have to say this was the best of the 3. Its good enough that I'm actually going to pay to see it and thats a rareity.

[mykee]

"I, personally, would not want to sit through a 10-hour movie just so they could cover all bases."

Did ya' see the Lord of the Rings trilogy??

THAT'S what happens when all the bases get covered.

[Removed_2815]

Originally posted by mykee
Did ya' see the Lord of the Rings trilogy??

THAT'S what happens when all the bases get covered.
Yeah...
The three adaptations combined would be around 10 hours but for those who have read the books would have to agree that all the bases were definitely not covered....

[Derrick]

Ya there was a ton left out and tweaked in LOTR. As someone who's read those books numerous times I found each film disapointing on first screening. Each succesive time I've watched them I've learned to apreciated for what they truly are...cinematic master pieces.

[Removed_2815]

Originally posted by Derrick
I've learned to apreciated for what they truly are...cinematic master pieces.
Yes I agree. I think you've alluded to an important point here, that people must learn to separate books from movies (to a point) and appreciate them independently. If people hate a movie because it's a bad movie then I can respect that, but if people hate a movie because it's not exactly like the book then those people are missing the whole point.
Cheers,
R

[lovielover19]

I just came back from seeing. There were many mistakes. It was night, and Harry walks into the classroom, and there is a bright light coming through the windows.

[nita]

Always watch the movie then read the book. Movies never live up to the book very few ever come close. A few that were good, The Dead Zone (Stephen King), LOTR (still in the process of reading these) Thats about it I haven't read the HP books yet either but so far most movies leave out to much so I watch then cover all bases in the book other wise I hate the movies.

[Thorn07]

I think the authors of the books should have way more to do with the making of the movies, like in interview with a vampire and queen of the damned they totally slaughtered anne rices books, QOTD more then IWAV. QOTD was just tottally wrong and maybr incorperated two chapters of the actual book. IWAV was more just stupid mistakes like the hair color of the charachters[know that sounds stupid but its important in the books] and other little stuff. Point being if the authors had more to do with the making of the movies they would turn out better, J.K Rowling did have alot to do with the first movie, which I think stayed truest to the actual book I dont know if she had anything to do with the 2nd or 3rd.

[Derrick]

Originally posted by Thorn07
I think the authors of the books should have way more to do with the making of the movies,

I would have to disagree with that to some degree. Whats need is good script writers and directors. People who know how to take a good book and translate it into a good movie like Peter Jackson did with LOTR. As well as a studio that will back it up financially. Authors write books with detail to create images in your mind. You need someone who can condense the essence of a book into 1.5 hours. Not an easy task when working with any book let alone epics like Harry Potter or LOTR. This is the reason books often fail as movies, not just to fans of the books.

[MartinW]

I agree with RMBolton. Don't hate the movie just because it doesn't follow exactly the book. Make your decision based on the movie alone.

[Thorn07]

I disagree I think when a movie is mad eof a book, every effort should be taken to make it as simular as possible, Peter Jackson did a wonderfull example with LOTR the movie only cut out the things that were just simply irrelevant.
You need someone who can condense the essence of a book into 1.5 hours.
I disagree again I think a good movie last for hours, I like a good 4 hour movie, but thats just me!!

[Big Mike]

Originally posted by Thorn07
[B]I disagree I think when a movie is mad eof a book, every effort should be taken to make it as simular as possible, Peter Jackson did a wonderfull example with LOTR the movie only cut out the things that were just simply irrelevant.
You need someone who can condense the essence of a book into 1.5 hours.


I disagree. The main fault of the first Harry Potter movie was exactly that...they followed the books too close. Still a fairly good movie though. You can't just take a novel and make a movie. This is why most screen writers don't write novels and visa versa.

About Peter Jackson and LOTR...Those were some of the best movies ever made but I still believe that the adaptation from the book was one of the weak points. It's not so much the parts they left out (that was inevitable) but it's some of the additions that were off base.

I have read LOTR many, many times. I have also read quite a bit of the background stuff that was published posthumously. I have a fairly clear opinion of how LOTR should be portrayed. I think that Peter, Philipa and Fran (the screen writers) did a very good job with the difficult task of bringing this to the screen. They didn't just follow the books but took the theme and story and gave their own version.

Back to H.P. I haven't seen the new movie yet. I have read the books a few times. It would be impossible to make the later books into movies with the same style as the first two. Just look at the length of the first two books...they made three hour movies. Harry Potter may have a special circumstance because it can be assumed that most of the viewing audience has read the book. This is a dangerous way to make a movie because you may loose the viewers. I have to wait until I see the new one to really find out if they did that.

There are always mistakes in movies...you just hope that there are not too many of them.