harry potter
POSTED BY: kayleesthegreatest
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 20:39
VIEWED: 8218
PAGE 3 of 3
i totaly agree cause i wanted to see hermione and luna helping all the house elves. I WOulDNT MIND A THREE HOUR HARRY POTTER MOVIE
Someday the verse will spit in your soup but at least they gave you soup.
one day
one plan
one mission
one army of browncoats
june 23rd serenity day
-Our mission as browncoats is to make us known.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Kaylee is the greatest but Potter is not. There are so many better examples of Fantasy out there it amazes me that this B grade tripe makes it through. Read a David Gemmell book. They are a simple read but not as pussy as Potter. David Eddings is good also but my current favorite is Alistair Reynolds. It's more Sci-fi though. Stay Shiny!
It's All Gravy Baby!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I finished reading the seventh book. It is the best book out of the whole series.
I hope they do a better job with the last 2 movies than they did with The Order of the Phoenix.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thy should make Harry Potter toilet paper..... For obvious reasons.
It's All Gravy Baby!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
They need to do what Lord of the Rings did. A 2 hour theatrical release, and a 4 hour DVD.
---------------------------------------------
How many Jaynes does it take to change a light bulb?
Two. One to try to put it in and another to find a bigger hammer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You are absolutly right!
And for my take on the movie: It's my second fav one (my fav is the third) I don't really mind the differences. I just see the book as one story, and the movie as a diffrent story with the same setting and the same -sort of- plot. The book, obviously, is longer and more involved. The movie lends a visual element for those not equiped with a good imagination.
I really like how they wrote Luna in the movie. They made her weirdness more of a good thing rather than a laughable thing. And the casting for the Deloris part was perfect!
I don't like the Dumbledoor cast very much -the old Dumbledoor was much better!
All in all, though, I have to say I prefer the movie.
That's my stand on this topic.
And here's a cute pic:
By the way, I luv your joke!!
River: "The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds, given adequate vaccuuming systems."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
A note to all out there who have not read the books:
** Please stop watching the movies. **
Go check out the books from the library and read them in order.
The movies are tributes to the books but just cannot compare to the books, which are loads and loads of fun to read. The books are just screamingly funny and imaginative, and a lot of that humor would not translate to the screen no matter how gifted the filmmakers. There's just so much more there.
Yes.
I consider the Harry Potter movies and books to be entirely different entities. If I watched the movies trying to conceive them as the film version of the books I would be bitterly disappointed but if I view them asa completely different series they are kind of okay, perhaps slightly above average.
They are, however, adaptions. For adaptions to succeed, they must stay true to the original material but also develop their own identity and attempt to provide something the original didn't. In this way, the movies did NOT succeed. Therefore, people are better off trying not to think about the books when watching the movies. The only reason I have really gone to see the movies is out of curiosity more than anything.
The casting is okay but the characters of the movies are not those of the books, sometimes they even tend to stray away from the characters actual personalities.
Mike Gambon needs to chill.
I heard Joss expressed interest in directing the last movie. This, I think would be excellent. Not only because it would probably vastly improve the movie franchise but also because I think Deathly Hallows is the most suited Harry Potter book to Joss. I could see him making a wicked adaption.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I must be a little weird, because I seem to have an opposite take on the movies than most of the people here!
I look at the first four movies this way (but not the fifth, because I haven't seen it yet):
First one: Not as bad as it could have been. I'd give it three out of five stars both as a movie on its own and as an adaptation of the book. I've seen better fantasy flicks by far, but it was cute, fun, kept the nice twisty plot in, and though it didn't move me much as a film, it was close to as faithful as they could have made it and still kept it under three hours long. An OK adaptation, but not nearly as good as the book, but really, the movie version of ANYTHING rarely are, and considering it was directed by the Home Alone guy, I say we count our blessings that it wasn't a lot more dumbed-down.
Second one: I thought this was an IMPROVEMENT. Maybe it was just the fact that there was less need to worldbuild in this one (as opposed to the first one, which is meant to be an introduction to the series), or maybe it was the newly-darkened lighting or whatever, or maybe Chris Columbus just got a little better at directing or something, but I liked this better. My only real complaint is a key scene - without which the accidental trip into Knockturn Alley was rather pointless - was inexplicably left out of the theatrical release, even though they clearly FILMED it, as it's on the DVD as a deleted scene. Weird. I'd give it about a half star higher in terms of film and in terms of adaptation.
Third one: My absolute favorite. The first movie in the ENTIRE SERIES that felt like a film to me as opposed to just The Movie of The Book. Fans who more nitpicky than I am complained about "muggle clothes" being too common, etc., by but honestly my only complaint is that Remus Lupin couldn't take ten seconds to explain the Marauders to Harry, yargh! All in all, felt like a 90-minute film instead of the two and half hours it (and the other films) actually were. It was well-paced and also beautifully-filmed, as well as the younger actors feeling a little more comfortable in their roles this time. I credit Alfonso Cuaron for that, as the screenwriter and cast were the same as the first two, but it's markedly different. As a film, I give it about 4.5 out of five stars, as an adaptation... 4. It has more ambience, but it still left out one or two details I felt should have been left in.
Fourth: It was nicely-filmed and all, but felt horribly, HORRIBLY like a chopped up, slapped-together, cliff's notes version of the book, which didn't even bother to include a number of important details, and only vaguely addressed a number of subplots - including the arguably REALLY important Rita Skeeter subplot (which subsequently seems to rob Hermione of one of her shining moments in figuring out how Skeeter got all that gossip and outsmarted her, grrrr!), even though it vaguely introduces and then abandons subplots like Skeeter jumping at the chance to portray Hermione's relationship with Harry as romantic. With no rhyme or reason. Annoyed the CRAP out of me. They cut SO MUCH, with no apparent reason behind it whatsoever. As a film, 2.5 out of five TOPS, and as an adaptation, a 1. Screw Mike whatshisface! Bring back Cuaron!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
