[olePigeon]

Wow, it looks really good. The last movie was annoying because they seemed to cut out too much. So far this one looks to highlight all the important parts, and doesn't skimp. I'm glad they brought back Quidditch in this film after completely cutting it from the last one... including the World Cup. Ugh.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/har...lfbloodprince/

[rickey939]

Have you heard about the exhibition that was created around Harry Potter and debuting in Chicago this month? Looks awesome!

http://www.harrypotterexhibition.com

[Mac User #001]

I was really worried about the PG rating it was given, but that doesn't seem to have affected the movie and its darker tone at all. I also questioned their reasoning on removing a certain scene or two from the movie that was pretty big in the book, but when I read their reasoning, I understood.

 

Certain scene or two being the castle battle and the funeral of Dumbledore.

I am REALLY looking forward to the movie though. It looks amazing and I've loved all the others. I can't wait to hear the soundtrack.

[olePigeon]

Too bad I'm on the other side of the country.

I missed out on the Alien War when they opened in San Francisco temporarily for the AvP Requiem movie (absolutely horrible film.)

I love going to those shows and exhibitions, you get to see a lot of original props up close. Lots of movie swag, too. I did make it to one of the Sean of the Dead U.S. premiers by accident, I won a raffle at my University for tickets. I didn't win the signed cricket bat, but everyone got an Aim for the Head beanie and a few posters.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I'm glad they brought back Quidditch in this film after completely cutting it from the last one... including the World Cup. Ugh.

Thank goodness they did! I'm actually surprised it's back in this movie considering how de-emphasised that non-sport is in the later books.

[shifuimam]

I really this one is better than OOtP.

The last one flat-out sucked. I was incredibly disappointed at the scenes near the end, in the Ministry of Magic and the Department of Mysteries - I remember when I first read the book, I thought about how badass they could make that whole chapter in the movie, with awesome special effects - and it was reduced to almost nothing.

The part where Sirius dies, however, and Harry's reaction - very well done cinema right there. Makes me cry every time.

I was not happy to hear that David Yates (who did OOtP) had won the bid to do the last two books (aka the last three movies). Maybe he'll redeem himself with this one.

I'm looking forward to it. I forgot about OOtP and missed it in the theatre - hopefully I'll remember to actually go to this one.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Mac User #001 

I was really worried about the PG rating it was given, but that doesn't seem to have affected the movie and its darker tone at all. I also questioned their reasoning on removing a certain scene or two from the movie that was pretty big in the book, but when I read their reasoning, I understood.

 

Certain scene or two being the castle battle and the funeral of Dumbledore.

I am REALLY looking forward to the movie though. It looks amazing and I've loved all the others. I can't wait to hear the soundtrack.

WAT? That's retarded.

They should have rated it PG-13 and kept in elements from the book.

I don't really think the HP movies are the kind of thing that should be rewritten for film. The books were amazing on their own and, like the Chronicles of Narnia or the Lord of the Rings series, the films should stay as close to the plot as possible.

I would totally buy a four-hour extended edition of any of the HP movies if it existed. Instead, they just cut out all kinds of crap. Boo.

Also: just saw the rickey's post about the Chicago exhibit. Definitely going to that.

[olePigeon]

I'd rather they bring back Alfonso Cuarón to direct, and John Williams for the music. Irks me that Jo Rowling's creative control extended to her wanting an all-British cast and crew. Two of the best things to happen to those movies were Cuarón and Williams.

Prisoner of Azkaban still remains my favorite so far. We'll see how this new one goes.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I'd rather they bring back Alfonso Cuarón to direct, and John Williams for the music. Irks me that Jo Rowling's creative control extended to her wanting an all-British cast and crew. Two of the best things to happen to those movies were Cuarón and Williams.

Prisoner of Azkaban still remains my favorite so far. We'll see how this new one goes.

YES YES YES.

Alfonso's direction was incredible. He was absolutely perfect to do an HP movie, and it killed me to find out he wasn't coming back. Azkaban is by far the best movie. It completely captures the feel of the Harry Potter books and stays true to the plot (although the omission of Crookshanks as a Kneazle could have been avoided, if you ask me), and the score was incredible.

Why the hell they dropped John Williams for some B-list composer is beyond me. It's John effing Williams! That's like telling Mozart to go blow himself while you get some crackhead from Sicily to write your next opera.

Whatever...Yates and what's his name who did the score for OOtP (which, I thought, also sucked and totally did not match the feel of the score from the first four movies) are already signed on to finish out the series. Pity.

P.S. At least Tom Felton and Jason Isaacs were sexy as hell in OOtP.

[Mac User #001]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I really hope this one is better than OOtP.

The last one flat-out sucked. I was incredibly disappointed at the scenes near the end, in the Ministry of Magic and the Department of Mysteries - I remember when I first read the book, I thought about how badass they could make that whole chapter in the movie, with awesome special effects - and it was reduced to almost nothing.

The part where Sirius dies, however, and Harry's reaction - very well done cinema right there. Makes me cry every time.

I was not happy to hear that David Yates (who did OOtP) had won the bid to do the last two books (aka the last three movies). Maybe he'll redeem himself with this one.

I'm looking forward to it. I forgot about OOtP and missed it in the theatre - hopefully I'll remember to actually go to this one.

OOtP was probably the worst. It just cut parts you wish were there. Oddly enough, its the highest grossing one next to the first.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

WAT? That's retarded.

They should have rated it PG-13 and kept in elements from the book.

I don't really think the HP movies are the kind of thing that should be rewritten for film. The books were amazing on their own and, like the Chronicles of Narnia or the Lord of the Rings series, the films should stay as close to the plot as possible.

I would totally buy a four-hour extended edition of any of the HP movies if it existed. Instead, they just cut out all kinds of crap. Boo.

Also: just saw the rickey's post about the Chicago exhibit. Definitely going to that.

 

The battle scene was cut because it happens again in Book 7, so they didn't want movies 6 and then 7+8 all having castlegrounds battles.
The funeral was cut because many of the characters who attended were never even introduced in the movies.

And I'd love to go to the exhibit. Chicago is really close, I just have to make it happen.

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I'd rather they bring back Alfonso Cuarón to direct, and John Williams for the music. Irks me that Jo Rowling's creative control extended to her wanting an all-British cast and crew. Two of the best things to happen to those movies were Cuarón and Williams.

Prisoner of Azkaban still remains my favorite so far. We'll see how this new one goes.

I've got to agree on John Williams (Though Nicholas Hooper was also really good), but as for the director, its hard to say. I actually sort of like David Yates.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

YES YES YES.

Alfonso's direction was incredible. He was absolutely perfect to do an HP movie, and it killed me to find out he wasn't coming back. Azkaban is by far the best movie. It completely captures the feel of the Harry Potter books and stays true to the plot (although the omission of Crookshanks as a Kneazle could have been avoided, if you ask me), and the score was incredible.

I think the one thing that Alfonso brought to the movies was a sense of realism. I mean, yeah, the kids are in a boarding school of sorts, but they're not supposed to be in their school uniforms 24/7. I liked that the kids untucked their shirts, loosened their ties, actually wore normal cloths outside of class. It brought the movie into a realm where kids could really relate instead of it being completely out of reach. Emily Watson did an exceptional job in Azkaban and was severely underused in Order of the Phoenix. She's turned out to be a really good actress.

Part of the success to a great adventure story or movie is being able to relate with the characters. If you can't do that, you lose the audience. Probably why I like Firefly so much, you actually care what happens to the characters. I think that's an important distinction between a great movie, and only a good movie. Lucas Nuked the Fridge with Episodes I, II, & III when he basically told millions of kids and kids-at-heart that, no, you can't be a Jedi because the Force is really just a bunch of parasites.


Plus, I was looking forward to Pigwidgeon. All the Pigwidgeon scenes were cut. You can only find promo and post stills, and they're not even included on the DVDs.

[amazing]

Well, any of the books were way better than any of the movies: you simply can't compress the breadth of Rowling's vision into a short movie. You miss all the sly humor, much of the incredible imagination and mind-bending comparisons between the muggle world and the magical world. When you watch the movies, you're really watching thru the lens of having read the books. As a scene comes up, you yourself are setting the scene in context of all the happenings of the books.

Plenty of people watch the movies without having read the books, but they really "see" less detail in the movies because their own imaginations aren't supplying all the background details.

If you haven't tried them yet, you should get the unabridged readings of the books (library'll have all of them): Jim Dale received awards for the quality of his readings, supplying a unique voice and accent for every character. Great listening for any road trip or long commute (or while playing games.) And you also find yourself picking up details that you hadn't noticed before, clues of future developments, explanations and background for later plot details!

Plus, if you're studying a foreign language, you can get those readings--and that will help you enormously with fluency! After all, you already know the story quite well, and when you hear the German reading, for example, your mind will supply the context and happenings, whereupon you'll pick up the foreign language quite naturally. It's a bit ridiculous how long-winded the German translation is, but your Germany fluency will go sky-high (and you'll be listening to something you really enjoy, rather than boring German language tapes.)

[olePigeon]

I've read all of them already, I also bought the audio book CDs (not Audible, I can't stand Audible.)

I just thought Cuarón did the best job at bringing the books to the screen. I know you can't include all of it, but his team did a great job in making sure they brought in the parts that mattered along with enough of the wit and comedy that helps define the Harry Potter stories.

[Chuckit]

I hate Cuaron for one reason: casting that godawful Michael Gambon as Dumbledore. Richard Harris wasn't perfect, but Gambon isn't even trying. Worst thing in the movies by far, and that's including Emma Watson's acting in the first film.

[amazing]

Yes, the replacement Dumbledore doesn't fit well, at all. Remarkable miscasting.

What bothers me most about the films is that the remarkable humor in the books isn't offered in the films. Goes along with the decline of humor in general, lately. I go to look for comedies to watch, and the humor is really not there--like it's been atrophied. What is passed off as humor is so mean-spirited and spiteful!

[olePigeon]

Richard Harris couldn't continue after suffering a fatal case of death. Who would you have casted as Dumbledore?

I think in the 3rd DVD there's an interview with Emma Watson. She commented on how horrible she thought she did in the first movie, and only marginally better in the second. Between the second and third movies she took a lot of extra classes, studied film, etc.

[shifuimam]

Hmm...I like Gambon as Dumbledore. I didn't like Richard Harris all that much.

Harris felt too much like a friendly old Santa Claus type. It's pretty clear throughout the books that while Dumbledore is a pretty good guy, he's by no means perfect and has his own dark side to deal with. I think Gambon conveys that better.

I also really like the costuming for Gambon, but that's kind of irrelevant to his acting.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Richard Harris couldn't continue after suffering a fatal case of death. Who would you have casted as Dumbledore?

I know I'm a jerk for criticizing without having a good suggestion of my own, but I'm not familiar enough with old-man actors to say. It's hard to imagine there was anybody worse who auditioned for the role, though, so I'm going to say pretty much anyone who's not Michael Gambon.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Hmm...I like Gambon as Dumbledore. I didn't like Richard Harris all that much.

Harris felt too much like a friendly old Santa Claus type. It's pretty clear throughout the books that while Dumbledore is a pretty good guy, he's by no means perfect and has his own dark side to deal with. I think Gambon conveys that better.

Sure, but Gambon utterly fails at portraying any of the traits people normally associate with Dumbledore. He doesn't seem wise, kind, silly, caring or any of that — he just seems really grumpy all the time. My sister always says, "I think Dumbledore kidnaps and eats the students." Because he always seems to have this seething hatred for everyone, which really does not describe Dumbledore from the books.

[olePigeon]

All I know is that Christopher Lee would be perfect for Grindelwald.

What about Michael Caine for Dumbledore?

[Mac User #001]

It's too late for recasting at this point anyways, but yes, I do dislike Michael Gambon as Dumbledore very much. Maybe it only bothers those of who pay attention to these things. I saw the 3rd movie in theaters with my family and none of them even noticed Dumbledore had changed.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I hate Cuaron for one reason: casting that godawful Michael Gambon as Dumbledore. Richard Harris wasn't perfect, but Gambon isn't even trying. Worst thing in the movies by far, and that's including Emma Watson's acting in the first film.

This. Gambon is the biggest reason (there are others, but he's the biggest) I haven't seen the past three movies in full. He's just completely ruined Dumbledore.

There's a good reason Harris "felt like a friendly, old Santa Claus type": that's how Dumbledore is in the first book. I don't know how well Harris would have fared in some of the scenes where Dumbledore is really pissed off and energetic—Gambon might possibly do better in those particular scenes, since grumpy and angry seem to be all the emotions he's good at portraying—but for everything else, Harris was infinitely better than Gambon.

I loved the first movie, was okay with the second, and pretty much hated number three, four, and five. Going by the trailer alone, number six doesn't seem much better. And it may just be too long ago since I last read it, but about half the trailer seems to be made up of people and/or scenes that I don't recognise at all. Did they add lots of new stuff as well?!?

[Chuckit]

I actually liked movie five. They cut out a lot that I liked in the book, but it was a very coherent film without being five hours long (and half of what they cut out was Dumbledore stuff, so less Gambon, yay). And I loved Evanna Lynch as Luna — that was the most perfect casting in the series.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I actually liked movie five. They cut out a lot that I liked in the book, but it was a very coherent film without being five hours long (and half of what they cut out was Dumbledore stuff, so less Gambon, yay). And I loved Evanna Lynch as Luna — that was the most perfect casting in the series.

I disagree. The book describes Luna as being relatively unattractive with large, bulbous eyes.

Of course, given that it's a movie, they wouldn't cast an actual ugly girl for the part.

Her affected high-pitched voice got annoying after awhile, too. I mean, she played a ditz pretty well, but what the heck was up with that voice? It sounded unnatural.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by sfsunny 

we are dealing in the manufacturing of all kinds of metal buttons,such as prong snap button,spring snap button,ring snap button.if you will be interested in our items,welcome to our website: *snip*

Harry Potter => metal buttons.

This spam operates on a higher level of logic.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I disagree. The book describes Luna as being relatively unattractive with large, bulbous eyes.

When does it say she's ugly? I've read OOTP more than any other book in the series and I always imagined her looking a little weird but not really ugly or anything, and I think that describes Evanna's Luna pretty well.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Her affected high-pitched voice got annoying after awhile, too. I mean, she played a ditz pretty well, but what the heck was up with that voice? It sounded unnatural.

Rowling obviously liked it. She said Evanna's voice was the only one that she actually heard as the character's voice in her head when she was writing the novels.

[shifuimam]

I was thinking mostly of her "protuberant" eyes and "scraggly" hair. But hey, if Rowling picked her, she must have been appropriate for the part (I mean that mostly seriously, although I still think her choice to nix John Williams for not being British was pretty stupid).

I also just realized, in flipping through my copy of OOtP for that reference, that the movie completely ignored the fact than Ron and Hermione were made Gryffindor Prefects.

IIRC, Ron's appointment as Prefect was a big point of contention between him and Harry. Too bad they left that out of the movie - I wonder if they'll fit it into the next one somehow.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I also just realized, in flipping through my copy of OOtP for that reference, that the movie completely ignored the fact than Ron and Hermione were made Gryffindor Prefects.

Cut scene, and not even included in the DVD extras. If you look closely both Hermione and Ron are actually waring "P" Prefect badges.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

IIRC, Ron's appointment as Prefect was a big point of contention between him and Harry. Too bad they left that out of the movie - I wonder if they'll fit it into the next one somehow.

Getting Prefect and then when he helps to win the House Cup as Keeper are the two important changing points for Ron. Ron's always overshadowed by his brothers and even his friends. Judging from the trailer, it looks like they actually cover the Quidditch match.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I was thinking mostly of her "protuberant" eyes and "scraggly" hair.

It's weird, the actress's hair is naturally a dirty blond like Luna's is described in the book, but they changed it for the movie. I guess they wanted her to look more ethereal or something.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

IIRC, Ron's appointment as Prefect was a big point of contention between him and Harry. Too bad they left that out of the movie - I wonder if they'll fit it into the next one somehow.

They cut most of the Harry-hates-the-world stuff from the movie, even though that was practically the whole point of the book. Like I said, it was severely chopped, but I think it had to be — it's a mistake to try and cram a whole 800-page novel into a <2 hour movie.

[Oisín]

From the pictures Google shows me, Luna does look a bit too pretty-girl-ish for her part. I imagined her as being not ugly, but rather plain, and the kind of girl you’d expect to have a pencil always behind her ear. She looks more like a Patil sister (apart from not being Indian, of course) in the pictures I could find with a quick search.

[Mac User #001]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I also just realized, in flipping through my copy of OOtP for that reference, that the movie completely ignored the fact than Ron and Hermione were made Gryffindor Prefects.

I'll admit, I play all the HP video games too, and its amazing how many little details like this the movies miss but the games pick up.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Mac User #001 

I'll admit, I play all the HP video games too, and its amazing how many little details like this the movies miss but the games pick up.

That's because the game has more than two hours to fit everything into.

[amazing]

Just watched the Order of the Phoenix DVD. Gambon really stands out as awfully miscast--leaden acting throughout, with only one characterization, namely anger (as already pointed out above.) Absolutely no range of emotional characterization, which severely hampers the story.

On top of that, I was extremely disappointed with the script. It took 21 minutes to get to the beginning of the court scene, way too long, should've been severely cut back. Then, other crucial elements were omitted, such as the Quibbler article: Surely that's more important than much of the 21 minutes leading up to the trial? I also couldn't see why the King's Cross private chat between Harry and Sirius was included, it was pretty leaden.

So, if the Half-Blood Prince is similarly mis-scripted, it'll be another disappointment.

[Chuckit]

The King's Cross scene was there to help establish the emotional connection between Harry and Sirius, which is probably the most important element in book or movie. It was also to convey the sense of dread that Voldemort evokes, which is why the Order exists in defiance of the Ministry and why Harry has to go through all the crap he does in the movie.

Opinion time: Literary adaptations shouldn't be viewed as literary adaptations — that leads to the idea of trying to cram in as much stuff from the book as possible, which usually leads to terrible movies (it just makes it feel like a redacted book). This is the reason why the most popular and IMO best Jane Austin adaptation ever was Clueless. Every other version has stuck so religiously to the source material that it didn't work as a film. Sure, Austin fanatics probably liked the others better, but they would have been happy with no movie at all.

So I think it's better to ask yourself, "What effect does this have on the movie and film series as a whole?" I don't think OOTP was done perfectly, but I felt like it cohered better than the last one.

[ctt1wbw]

Yes, Prisoner of Azkaban is my favorite one so far. And I think I'm the only person who likes the movies better than the books.

[amazing]

I felt the relationship between Harry and Sirius was already well-established, the Kings Cross episode felt unnecessary. And I felt the Quibler interview with PoisonPen Sweety really should've been there to establish the head-in-the-sand mentality of the Ministry.

Rowling has really researched the historical trends around the appeasement of WWII, and has quite obviously included them in the novels, hence the significance of the Quibler article. This historical research is even more apparent in the Hallows, where all the measures against non-pure-bloods are exactly the measures that were taken against the Jewish population. Jewish researchers were told that their results and prominent research were stolen from research by Aryan coworkers (even when these same coworkers were adamant that this was rubbish--the honest coworkers were threatened with very dire consequences to shut up; many books written about this...)

It's astonishing what Rowling has incorporated into the novels!