Harry Potter Movies

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

The movie is called Sorcerer's Stone, bob.

[Mik 0]

Only in the United States.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

Last time I checked Bob lived in the United States.

[Mik 0]

I thought he lived in Canada. Oh well.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

Really? Why is he always in NY wearing that old Nets hat?

[bob_barron 0]

I went to school in Canada, but now live in the US.

 

I refer to the movie as Philosopher's Stone, because that is the official title of the book. It was only changed to Sorcerer's because Scholastic thought American kids were stupid

[vivalaultra 0]

I just got back from seeing the midnite showing of OotP. I found it to be the weakest of the films, but still quite good. The pacing of the movie, I thought, was generally bad, with the entire first 2/3 of the movie being a lot of plotting and talking. The last 10-15 minutes of the movie tried to fit in the last 200 pages of the book and the whole thing came off as rushed as certain 'key' elements of the book (

Sirius's death, Dumbledore dueling with Voldemort, the whole meaning of the Prophecy

) not being explained well or given what I would think to be proper justice. Other developments in the book (

most of Neville's involvement, various members of the Order, the Centaurs and the Giants, Percy and Bill Weasly, Kreacher, etc.

) were either hurried along or not mentioned at all. Mainly, I think this movie fails where the other movies succeeded because of the fact that, as the books progress and get longer in length and scope, it gets really hard to go over everything, even in a 2 and a half-hour movie. Also, I think David Yates is an inferior director compared to Chris Columbus, Alfonso Cuaron, and Mike Newell. Still, even though it's easily the worst of the five movies thus far, it's still a quality movie and I enjoyed it; I'm just worried about what's going to be left out or rushed in the next two movies.

[Anakin Flair 0]

Just remember: Yates is comming back to do The Half-blood Prince as well.

[bob_barron 0]

I loved it. As of now, probably my second favourite of the five. Imelda Staunton was fantastic, and I loved how they finally played off and mentioned key events from the other movies/books.

 

A bit rushed at times, but I thought David Yates did a great job making the film his own

[Maztinho 0]

I think it was very, very good. Some of the more interesting side stories where touched on, but you can't flesh them all out on screen (i.e. Neville's parents). It managed to get all of the key points that needed to be touched on out there and I throughly enjoyed it.

 

Imelda Staunton... Umbridge? If so, I concur. She was fantastic.

[Mik 0]

I hope they did justice to Fred and George's farewell to Hogwarts.

 

Did they?

[bob_barron 0]

Yes, they did.

 

I had a few quibbles, but this was such a great movie. I can't wait to see it again and again.

 

Imelda Stauntin was Dolores Umbridge. She was previously nominated for an Oscar for Vera Drake, which she was fantastic in

[bob_barron 0]

The movie made 12 million off the midnight showings. That's beyond insane.

 

I'm hoping to see it again before the weekend is out, I want to see how the final 20 minutes are in regular format. I loved the 3-D stuff but it did make things a bit hard to follow.

 

And Helena Bonham Carter was also great

[Craig Th 0]

Yuck.

 

They REALLLLLY need to split these movies up. There was just so much they got rid of and then they add shit which wasn't even in the book.

Sirius talking to Harry in the train station.

Lestrange breaking out of jail (not to mention they said her name wrong. I always thought you didn't say strange, but the other way).

Voldy in the train station.

Sirius calling Harry James during the fight scene. And most of all, Lestrange using the Avada Kedavra against Sirius. Why do that? Just have what they did in the book, why change it?????

 

And then they switch everything around

Harry doing occulmency RIGHT after Dumby leaves.

Cho being the snitch (was it SO HARD to leave her friend in there?).

Having the whole family tree scene during X-Mas (Harry asks Sirius if he lived here. He didn't know that 4 months before?).

Fred and George's firework shit during O.W.L.S.

Umbridge busting a whole into the Room of Requirement. Why do it that way? Just have Dobby there or something. I'm guessing they'll have to fix it because Malfoy uses it in HPB.

When Voldy goes into Harry's body, Harry does all that friend shit. THAT NEVER HAPPENED. WHY CHANGE IT?? Jesus.

 

I understand why they can't keep the "Wesley is our King" stuff because that is a HUGE chunk of the book and doesn't really do much to the plot, other than developing Ron's character.

 

I wish I could completely forget the books when I see the movies because they just piss me off. Why change shit? I know I would LOVE the movie if I didn't read the book about 10 times. I would like to see the last 20 minutes though. It was pretty damn sick.

 

B+ as a movie.

 

D as a Harry Potter book.

 

Those who haven't read the book yet are going to be very disappointed. It is just sooooooooooooooo much better.

[bob_barron 0]

Interesting perspective mole.

 

They thought of splitting up Goblet but they couldn't find a good way to properly cut it in two. I think there were rumblings about Azkaban also going two parts, since the first two movies were page for page adaptations, but Cuaron changed all that.

 

But you can't keep everything in or else the movies get bogged down and start to drag. There's just a huge difference between a book and a movie that tons of stuff has to get cut out.

 

I will try to read the book next week. I usually like to see the movie two-three times, then delve into the book and then see the movie a few more times to really get my fix in.

[Craig Th 0]

I understand they can't keep EVERYTHING the same, but why add shit?

[bob_barron 0]

I liked all the scenes you mentioned, so no problems there. I really like that ever since Cuaron, they've not been afraid to tinker with what they've been given and have fun making each movie its own thing.

 

I do understand why passionate fans of the book would be upset by the changes. I probably would be too.

 

Also, I met Emma Watson today. Very nice looking in person.

[Craig Th 0]

It sucks because they are good movies. Like I said, I wish I can forget the books before I watch them.

 

Now I am REALLLLLLYYYY pumped for the 7th book.

[bob_barron 0]

That's one of the reasons I like my movies first-books second way

[Brett Favre 0]

Mole, you're stressing out too much. There's no way they fit in everything, and there's no way they'll do everything by the book. It's cool if they add stuff. As long as it's good.

 

I liked it best out of the 5 so far, and

I thought Voldemort at the end was a beast. The reason they had to do Avada Kedavra was because if they didn't, they'd have to explain the whole falling into that thing means you're dead stuff, so this just shortens that. I thought the death eater masks were really cool, especially that each had their own style to them. I pronounce "strange" in Bellatrix Lestrange. She was really good in the movie too. Luna Lovegood and Umbridge were spot on IMO. Good movie.

[the max 0]

We're seeing this on sunday, when all of the hayseeds are in church. 11am time starts before it gets dark in the theatres as well, which is always a problem.

[Craig Th 0]

Mole, you're stressing out too much. There's no way they fit in everything, and there's no way they'll do everything by the book. It's cool if they add stuff. As long as it's good.

 

I liked it best out of the 5 so far, and

I thought Voldemort at the end was a beast. The reason they had to do Avada Kedavra was because if they didn't, they'd have to explain the whole falling into that thing means you're dead stuff, so this just shortens that. I thought the death eater masks were really cool, especially that each had their own style to them. I pronounce "strange" in Bellatrix Lestrange. She was really good in the movie too. Luna Lovegood and Umbridge were spot on IMO. Good movie.

I'm not saying fit everything, but why change stuff?

 

Whatever, I don't want to an argument about it. It didn't do the book justice.

 

The first two did really well, not the last 3.

[bob_barron 0]

You really can't make that argument about the first two v. the last three.

 

The first two books are relatively short compared to the length of the last three. If the first two books were as long as the others, you'd find a lot to bitch about there too.

 

The movies aren't about doing the book justice- they're adaptations, not regurgitations.

 

And to answer the why change stuff? Because it makes for a better movie. What's entertaining on page, is not always entertaining on screen

[Maztinho 0]

Also I've read the book, and every complaint you made didn't bother me. It fit the context of the movie, and told the stories needed.

Cho's friend being the rat could have been done easily, but none the less, not that bad.

[Craig Th 0]

Well, I was very disappointed.

 

And why won't it be entertaining in the movie? It worked in the book, it can work in the movie. And I understand they can't include everything, they just don't need to change stuff.

 

Book was much better and they could have done a better job. That is all I'm saying.

[MDH257 0]

Saw it at Midnight on Tuesday night and I think this might just have been the best of the movies. I love how much darker and more intense the series gets as it goes on. After seeing it, I'm happy David Yates is coming back for the next one.

 

Regarding Mole's complaints (and for the record, I've only seen the movies. I have the first book, but have never gotten around to reading it.), it made me think of some comments Nicholas Pileggi made. He was the author of Wiseguy, the book that Goodfellas was based on. He adapted the book himself and said that one of the toughest things for him to deal with was that the book is the book and the movie is the movie. Making sure the script was completely faithful to the book wasn't what was best for the movie in terms of story and plot. No matter what he or Scorsese did, the movie wasn't going to be the book. It can't be the book and feeling bad over every detail that gets changed is just falling into a trap you can't get out of because some things will have to change.

[EricMM 0]

The thing is that apparently this was a shorter movie than the previous two, but the book is longer than the previous two.

 

They really COULD have split the movies in two. Really, seriously could have. Release one movie now and one movie a month later or something.

 

Thats just more dollars. I don't understand why they do not do this.

[bob_barron 0]

Because then the movie would take forever to film, and go way overbudget, and also suck.

[DMann2003 0]

Plus who wants to be told, hey want to see this movie, you have to pay TWICE- Sure the die-hard never change anything Potterheads might do it, but the rest of the movie going public would be pissed.

 

Having read OOTP, I didn't have any problem with the changes and condensing of the book, oddly enough the one thing I missed was

Molly Weasly dealing with the boggart, always thought it was a great character moment, her greatest fear being her family dying

But maybe that'll be a deleted scene.

[bob_barron 0]

Warner's "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" earned an estimated $44.755 million on Wednesday making it the biggest Wednesday single-day gross in box-office history (this figure appropriately includes $12 million from midnight showings that started within Wednesday). This bested the incredible performance of Sony's "Spider-Man 2" which held the record since 2004 with its $40.442 million take on Wednesday, June 30 of that year.

 

--showbizdata.com