# Latest Harry Potter Movie



## AceHBK

Has anyone seen it yet?  Your thoughts on it?


I just got done listening to the audiobook again to refresh my memory.  That may have been a bad thing cause I know I will be pissed if I feel they left something important out but that is how it goes with books made into movies.
I am going to see it tonight in IMAX 3D, I hope it is worth the $15.


----------



## arnisador

We liked it! My brother saw the 3D and said it wasn't really worth it for the short section that was in 3D.


----------



## MA-Caver

Haven't seen it but plan to after the furor over it has died down... which probably has by now since it fell rapidly from it's #1 spot to #2 in less than two weeks... and this is a cgi movie about hamsters who are secret agents. 

To me 3-D movies are over-rated. Probably because I've yet to find a pair of specs that will fit comfortably inside or over my own glasses and thus making it really hard to enjoy the effects. Also usually the 3D effects are for specified things in the movie and not throughout which should give one the impression that they are actually in the movie or watching it as an outsider in real life. Guess technology hasn't gotten there yet... it'll probably will .... someday. 

I finished reading the book to update myself on what's what and who's who. Yet I've learned since POA (the 3rd movie) not to expect EVERYTHING to be shown. 
I'm still of the opinion that they should've taken a cue from Peter Jackson's LOTR's and gone back to reshoot and add in scenes ... at least for the DVD release to help fill in the blanks. Seems that nobody who hasn't read the books realizes that Rita Skinner (from GOF... #4) was a mid-level character that got regulated to a minor one for the sake of screen time. 

Anyway, still looking forward to it. Madly disappointed that one has to wait 3 more years for the final movie (in two parts no less) to come out. Sheesh.


----------



## AceHBK

Ok I just saw it.  The theater had a total of about 15 people in it which shocked me.

The 3D part wasn't worth it at all.  There was better 3D in the previews than in the 15 minutes of the beginning of the movie.  Waiting all this time I should have just seen it in a regular theatre.

This book is *LOOSELY BASED* upon the novel.  I was sooo disappointed I almost got up and walked out of the film.  I know everything can't be taken from the book and put into the movie but this was down right appalling.  I can't believe WB allows David Yates to continue to direct the series.  I am upset JK Rowling gave her blessing on this film.

Again I am a HP fan and have the audiobooks and have listened to them 4x from book 1 to book 7 and just got done refreshing myself on Book 6 just to remind myself.  I of course will be a hard critic but this movie is plain.....garbage.

I have so many gripes I can't figure out where to begin.  I don't want to give out spoilers so I will stay quite.  I will say Yates changed a lot of key things in the movie and at one point just made up a whole scene that was flat out NOT in the book.


----------



## stickarts

my wife and I enjoyed it. Thought it was one of the best in the series.


----------



## punisher73

Movie wise it is a good movie and fits in with the rest of the movie series.

BUT, if you are a big fan of the HP books, then like almost all of them you will be disappointed because there is SOOO much that is in the books that wasn't in the movie.


----------



## girlbug2

I haven't seen it yet, but I'm taking the attitude that it's a movie and it should stand alone as such. I've learned the hard way that going into a movie based on a book, not to expect it to conform. That's just Hollywood's way. Best not to read the book first if you can't mentally separate it from the movie.

Of course if Peter Jackson hadn't done such a wonderful job with LOTR I probably would've ranted about it nonstop for a week .


----------



## AceHBK

girlbug2 said:


> Of course if Peter Jackson hadn't done such a wonderful job with LOTR I probably would've ranted about it nonstop for a week .


 
I never read LOTR but I heard people who read the books say that he did a pretty good job converting it to the big screen.

You know it takes a director who is a fan of the book or even comic book to do it justice when they put it on the big screen.  Peter Jackson was a huge LOTR fan and therefore wanted to give it justice.  Sam Raimi is a huge Spider-Man fan and has been pretty damn good with his Spider Man movies.

David Yates cannot be a serious fan with this chop job of a movie.  And is it me or has the acting gotten worse???


----------



## AceHBK

punisher73 said:


> BUT, if you are a big fan of the HP books, then like almost all of them you will be disappointed because there is SOOO much that is in the books that wasn't in the movie.


 
I agree.  I understand things will be left out and they have to shorten it BUT when you put things in the movie that NEVER happened and you start retelling the story different from the book in which could change the whole thing, I have a huge problem.

Last...

when the hell did everyone start flying without broomsticks!?!?!?!?

Thos had me irate.  Found this on imdb.com  It takes all my strength not to get up and find David Yates and choke him myself.

_The original script included all of Dumbledore's memories about Voldemort as outlined in the source novel, but the director insisted on trimming them down as, according to Steve Kloves, "..he wanted to showcase Voldemort's rise without getting overly involved with his past as Riddle."_
_ 


_


----------



## zDom

AceHBK said:


> I agree.  I understand things will be left out and they have to shorten it BUT when you put things in the movie that NEVER happened and you start retelling the story different from the book in which could change the whole thing, I have a huge problem.



Jackson did the same thing with LoTR, but it still gets rave reviews.

Raimi did the same thing with Spidey, same rave reviews.

I don't like it when directors/script writers think THEIR "vision" is better for a movie that what was originally written (other than trimming down to fit into a motion picture length) but what can we do about?

Definitely disgruntles me, though


----------



## CoryKS

It was one of my least favorite movies of the series.  I can accept making _some_ changes if it makes for a stronger movie, but there were a lot of changes and some of them made no sense.  Also, there were editing problems.  It's a shame because it had a lot of potential, and the kids are becoming pretty good actors.  The kid who played Malfoy did a great job.  Overall, it was just meh.


----------



## Empty Hands

It was pretty and well shot, but kind of boring.  As noted above, the 3D was disappointing.  I was expecting a big 3D battle scene at the end like OotP.


----------



## Omar B

zDom said:


> Jackson did the same thing with LoTR, but it still gets rave reviews.
> Raimi did the same thing with Spidey, same rave reviews.
> I don't like it when directors/script writers think THEIR "vision" is better for a movie that what was originally written (other than trimming down to fit into a motion picture length) but what can we do about?
> Definitely disgruntles me, though



I am no Harry Potter fan but I must comment on the Peter Jackson as well as Raimi thing.

Firstly, LOTR was a good adaptation, but it is nowhere near the books.  Huge swaths of story just done away with, characters gone and their lines given to other people (Tom Bombadil anyone?), events moved out of sequence.  Heck, my favorite chapter, The Sacking Of The Shire was just not in the movie at all!  Decent movies but in no way as good an adaptation as people would like to belive.

As for Raimi, I love and respect his work as a director but he did things with Spider-Man that went completely counter to who Peter is and showed he has little udnerstanding of his characterization further than nerd with powers.  Giving Peter organic web shooters?  The whole point of Pete inventing his web shooters and the disolving web was to set up early in the story what a great genius the kid was.  A genius never even fully capitalized upon in any of the stories.  Pete's a guy who's genius is right up there with Reed Richards and Tony Stark, he invents a stronger than steel liquid in his aunt's basement!

As for Raimi's work adapting Terry Goodkind's Sword Of Truth series into a TV series it clearly shows that he has little care for source material since he's runnign roughshod over such great works.  Leads me to belive Sam likes huge properties rather than doing faithful adaptations.


----------



## arnisador

CoryKS said:


> Also, there were editing problems.



Yeah, that was pretty obvious.


----------



## MA-Caver

As best as they may have or COULD have been LOTR, HP, Spiderman, and all the other adaptations have been pretty good. Even the Hulk which was yet another re-telling of the story of Dr. Banner's plight. Same with the X-men and so on. 
Jackson's LOTR has to be watched in the expanded version to get an appreciation for what the entire CREW of the films did. They all agreed to come and shoot additonal scenes and this was from fans outcrying the lack the original versions were showing. So Jackson being the consumate fan that he was asked the crew if they wouldn't mind staying on in Oz to shoot additonal and re-do other scenes... thankfully they all agreed. Not to mention the additonal CGI work that had to be done. So even a die-hard fan like myself (who has read the entire series ... including the Hobbit once a year for the last 20 sumpthin years) can be pleased with what's given. 
Yes I bemoan the lack of Bombadil, and the Scourging of the Shire (which was shown actually in Gladadriel's mirror for a few moments by Frodo instead of Samwise... but the quality of the film and the story-telling allowed for such forgiving errors. They could've skipped the long trek by Sam and Frodo to Mt. Doom by jumping from the Morgoth tower to the base of the volcano but he didn't.  The man (Jackson AND the entire crew) deserves highest praise for their monumental work.

Anyway this is about HP... Granted that the films could only condense into two hours a week or two worth of reading of the books. After POA the books grew into monsterous proportions of story telling. Trying to squeeze that much into just barely over 2 hours was hard enough. Which is why (again) I wished the cast and crew followed Jackson's example.


----------



## seasoned

I can take it or leave it.


----------



## Omar B

I've said it before and I'll keep saying it, books are better served as mini-series or full series.  One of the best book to screen adaptations to date is still Sci-Fi's Dune.


----------



## zDom

Squeezing a novel into a movie is something filmmakers have struggled with since, well, films were invented!

So do so marvelously, others.. not so much.

My objection is, specifically, where the filmmaker pretty much rewrites the story.

I'm re-reading the book right now and there are a long list of decisions (I won't do the spoiler thing) where basic plot tentpoles were handled completely differently in the movie than the book &#8212; and for no apparent reason!!

Brevity was CLEARLY not the reason as hitting those same plot tentpoles could have been achieved in the same amount of time that was dedicated to hitting alternate plot tentpoles.

So WHY?? The ONLY answer that presents itself is: filmmaker EGO. They think THEIR story is BETTER than the book as written. And I almost always disagree, almost always preferring the original storyline.


----------



## AceHBK

Omar...you are correct about the Peter Parker thing.  He doesn't come off as the genius that he is in the comics.  I wasn't upset over the web thing cause I saw that as something minor.  They could have made him seem more smarter than he is.  I am able to live with it though. 

I have never read any of the Lord of the Rings books.  I wonder how different they are.  I did watch the movies and made sure to watch the collectors edition which had all of the extra scenes and all..

Never read or saw Dune....


----------



## AceHBK

zDom said:


> Squeezing a novel into a movie is something filmmakers have struggled with since, well, films were invented!
> 
> So do so marvelously, others.. not so much.
> 
> My objection is, specifically, where the filmmaker pretty much rewrites the story.
> 
> I'm re-reading the book right now and there are a long list of decisions (I won't do the spoiler thing) where basic plot tentpoles were handled completely differently in the movie than the book  and for no apparent reason!!
> 
> Brevity was CLEARLY not the reason as hitting those same plot tentpoles could have been achieved in the same amount of time that was dedicated to hitting alternate plot tentpoles.
> 
> So WHY?? The ONLY answer that presents itself is: filmmaker EGO. They think THEIR story is BETTER than the book as written. And I almost always disagree, almost always preferring the original storyline.


 
Yeah brother...once you go back and read the book and compare it to the movie you see my gripe.

It's not them cutting things out per se.  It is totally rewriting the whole movie is what kills me.  Harry looked like such a scared little boy.  A stark contrast to how he is in the book.

Yeah Yates ego ran wild and it showed in how this movie was made.

I forgave him for using the spell "levicorpus" in Order of the Phoenix despite the spell not being learned until the Half Blood Prince.....I let it go!!  lol  (It isn't a hoovering charm either Yates...read the book!!!)


But this movie irked me every minute I sat through it.  With so much changed in it, I don't see how in the world they can try and explain everything in the last movie.  Too much has been re-written or flat out taken out.


----------



## Omar B

AceHBK said:


> Never read or saw Dune....



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


----------



## MA-Caver

Omar B said:


> 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

blindsage said:


> 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

AceHBK said:


> 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

Randy Strausbaugh said:


> 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

Randy Strausbaugh said:


> 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

zDom said:


> 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

Archangel M said:


> 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 &#8212; 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 &#8212; 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

Archangel M said:


> 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

Archangel M said:


> 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

Tez3 said:


> 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

MA-Caver said:


> 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

zDom said:


> 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...


----------



## CoryKS

Tez3 said:


> 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.


 
No, you're wrong.  Magic _is_ real, there's an actual school called Hogwarts, and the characters are drawn from real people but the names have been changed to protect the innocent.  

Nobody's taking the story "too seriously", we're expressing opinions on how the movie was done.  Everybody envisions the story differently when reading a book, but we all see the same thing in the movie and so the director/writers are always going to get some flack for what they come up with.  

Chronicles of Narnia, now _there_ was a children's movie that people took waaay too seriously.  I guess when the author intends the book to be a Christian allegory, people tend to fuss if the movie doesn't bludgeon people over the head with it.


----------



## zDom

MA-Caver said:


> Harry meeting Dumbledore at a train station rather at his Uncle Vernon's house



... which would have made a great comedic scene for the movie. At least I thought it was funny in the book.


----------



## Tez3

The chronicles of Narnia are only a Christian allegory to Christians, not everyone takes the same view.

http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/ge...hristianity/Modern/?view=usa&ci=9780195313871

The man who wrote this book was on a documentary the other week, he makes a very convincing argument.


----------



## AceHBK

zDom said:


> ... which would have made a great comedic scene for the movie. At least I thought it was funny in the book.


 
Yea I was looking fwd to it myself and felt bad when it wasn't in there.

After everything in the movie, seeing Harry under the stairs hide was the nail in the coffin for me. When did Harry start listening to Snape? No fight from him whatsoever. No fight in the castle after Dumbledore's death was another nail in the coffin. 

It isn't a big deal but would have been nice to hear "Weasley is our king" after the Quidditch match rather than the "Ron" chants that we got.

Movies portray Harry as a nice,warm loving kid. In the books he is a hot head and quite determined to do what he wants despite the warning of others. I think he acts more of his age in the books than in the movie but it isn't a big deal to me.


Oh and read that in the movie, while Ginny and Harry are in the room of requirement, you can see the harp and chess piece from the 1st Harry Potter movie.  I feel this was plain dumb.  Why not AT LEAST show Ravenclaw's crown on the bust of a statute???  Could of had at least Harry see it so in the last movie he can recall that memory.  But yet again I have the feeling they will have Ginny "remembering that she saw a crown as she hid Harry's potion book."  I may place bets on this theory.


----------



## Archangel M

Tez3 said:


> The chronicles of Narnia are only a Christian allegory to Christians, not everyone takes the same view.




Uhhh...are you familiar with CS Lewis and what he wrote about? The Lion who is the "son of the King from over the sea", sacrifices his life and is resurrected. In the last book he leads the "faithful" to salvation as the world is destroyed....it's so blatant that I would hesitate to even call it allegory.


----------



## Tez3

Archangel M said:


> Uhhh...are you familiar with CS Lewis and what he wrote about? The Lion who is the "son of the King from over the sea", sacrifices his life and is resurrected. In the last book he leads the "faithful" to salvation as the world is destroyed....it's so blatant that I would hesitate to even call it allegory.


 
Of course I'm aware of the comon perception of it but this guy, a vicar btw, has done a great deal of research into CS Lewis before writing this book. The resurrection myth is actually a common one to many cultures and religions, it's not restricted to the Christian faith.


----------



## Archangel M

I'd rather base an opinion on what the author SAYS. Lewis agrees..its not a Christian Allegory. He called it a Christian Parallel.



> If Aslan represented the immaterial Deity in the same way in which Giant Despair [a character in _The Pilgrim's Progress_] represents despair, he would be an allegorical figure. In reality, however, he is an invention giving an imaginary answer to the question, 'What might Christ become like if there really were a world like Narnia, and He chose to be incarnate and die and rise again in that world as He actually has done in ours?' This is not allegory at all. -CS Lewis


----------



## CoryKS

Allegory or not, it's still a children's story and people do take it way too seriously.  I just used it as for comparison to show that all we are doing is giving opinion about the relative merits of the Potter books v. the movies.


----------



## shesulsa

One could consider ANY heroic literary figure and declare some sort of applied theistic parallel ... though I will concede Lewis did say specifically he constructed his tale from the story of Jesus Christ.


----------



## Tez3

shesulsa said:


> One could consider ANY heroic literary figure and declare some sort of applied theistic parallel ... though I will concede Lewis did say specifically he constructed his tale from the story of Jesus Christ.


 
the chap who wrote the book has a theory that CS lewis was actually much more secretive thatn people believed and he only said that about it being a Christian story to avoid ridicule from some and to wind others up. I don't know if he's found 'the truth' of it or not, I do know I read the books many years ago when I was young and found them boring, I was (and secretly still am) into the Chalet School books, they mirrored my school quite a lot and my friends and I identified with the characters, only my school lacked the adventures lol!


----------



## MA-Caver

zDom said:


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


The only reason I started in with spoilers is because the movie was spoilt anyway... but also the fact I went to see it on a FRIDAY night (big movie night you would think eh?) and at around 8:00... the audience consisted of only myself, a lovey dovey couple (thankfully not Lavender and Won-Won) and a family of 3... what does that tell you? The movie grossly disappointed enough that folks aren't coming out in droves. Irregardless of the fantastic opening weekend which broke previous HP movie records (mainly because ticket prices are higher... mine cost $9.25) ... folks are becoming disappointed with the changes as zDom (and others ... including myself) have pointed out. 

Swats director, screenwriter, and JKRwowling for allowing it to happen.


----------



## AceHBK

MA-Caver said:


> The only reason I started in with spoilers is because the movie was spoilt anyway... but also the fact I went to see it on a FRIDAY night (big movie night you would think eh?) and at around 8:00... the audience consisted of only myself, a lovey dovey couple (thankfully not Lavender and Won-Won) and a family of 3... what does that tell you? The movie grossly disappointed enough that folks aren't coming out in droves. Irregardless of the fantastic opening weekend which broke previous HP movie records (mainly because ticket prices are higher... mine cost $9.25) ... folks are becoming disappointed with the changes as zDom (and others ... including myself) have pointed out.
> 
> Swats director, screenwriter, and JKRwowling for allowing it to happen.



There were about 12 people in my theatre and I was shocked myself.  I bought mine online thinking it would be packed...

You are right, it does speak volumes about the movie.


----------



## Tez3

AceHBK said:


> There were about 12 people in my theatre and I was shocked myself. I bought mine online thinking it would be packed...
> 
> You are right, it does speak volumes about the movie.


 
People aren't going to the pictures (thats what they're called here lol) so much here now anyway as you can get DVD copies of films almost as soon as the film is released for much cheaper than a trip to see it and pay a lot of money. It's nicer to watch at home to, you don't have so much noise or grief, one lady had bleach poured on her by youths here when she asked them to be quiet during a film. I haven't been for years.
With the size and quality of televisions these days people just aren't bothering going out much to watch films.


----------



## Archangel M

Heres hoping that the last book is a bit truer to the story...seeing that they are supposedly breaking it up into two films to do it justice.

There is also going to have to be a LOT of dancing around to get back into the story line after this last chop-fest.


----------



## Tez3

Anyone know of a film that was true to the book it came from?


----------



## Chris Parker

I think The Princess Bride was pretty accurate. And Neverending Story was only limited by technology of the day... although that was only the first half of Michael Ende's book. And Mel Gibson will say The Passion Of The Christ was pretty accurate... from a certain point of view, I guess...


----------



## dancingalone

Tez3 said:


> Anyone know of a film that was true to the book it came from?



The Watchmen movie followed the graphic novel pretty well IMO.


----------



## Tez3

dancingalone said:


> The Watchmen movie followed the graphic novel pretty well IMO.


 
Just got that on my computer but haven't had time to watch it yet.


----------



## Omar B

dancingalone said:


> The Watchmen movie followed the graphic novel pretty well IMO.



It was close but not.  Since it left out the giant squid and all the plot development leading up to it.  It also blamed Dr Manhattan for explosions all over the world which again did not happen in the book.  

I was say it's about 75% there as far as adaptations go.  Watchmen's my 3# book of all time by the way, I can't even tell how many times I've read it in my life.


----------



## AceHBK

I read that the guy who wrote the graphic novel for Watchmen didn't help nor wanted to help in the making of the movie.  He totally didn't want it done and wanted no parts of it.


----------



## Omar B

No, Alan Moore has nothing to do with the Watchmen movie.  How can you adapt something and change the ending?  Everything leading up to that new ending has to be subtly or wholly changed or left the hell out.  Watchmen was an interesting case because the movie starts pretty good, but as it goes on the changes start to creep in.  It was like rewriting Sherlock Holmes with a different ending so you have to do away with all the old clues.  As the movie itself proved, it cannot be adapted.  He's (Alan) is stickler for literary work staying literary because there is a rhythm and timing on the page that cannot be done on screen.

Plus every one of his other books adapted turned into a giant mess by no fault of his.  V For vendetta, From Hell, League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Hellblazer (named Constantine for the movie audiences), Swamp Thing.  As much as I would love to see his _Batman: The Killing Joke_ onscreen I know that the rape and crippling of Batgirl, the torture of Gordon, the murder of an entire bus filled with children will never be put onscreen.  In fact there has never been a Batman movie nearly half as brutal as the books are.  

Check this out - 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/mar/16/alan-moore-watchmen-lost-girls
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20213004,00.html
http://www.totalfilm.com/features/exclusive-why-alan-moore-hates-comic-book-movies
http://blogs.amctv.com/scifi-scanner/2009/03/alan-moore-movies.php


----------



## zDom

Tez3 said:


> People aren't going to the pictures (thats what they're called here lol) so much here now anyway *as you can get DVD copies of films almost as soon as the film is released for much cheaper than a trip to see it and pay a lot of money. It's nicer to watch at home* to, you don't have so much noise or grief, one lady had bleach poured on her by youths here when she asked them to be quiet during a film. I haven't been for years.
> With the size and quality of televisions these days people just aren't bothering going out much to watch films.



(I bolded in the above quote)

Not to highjack the thread, but the reason I'm willing to see SOME movies at the cinema is because of the HUGE screen  for SOME movies, it is worth the money just to view it on the big screen.

The GF and I always ask ourselves: will this be just as good at home (for the first time), or do we want to see THIS one on the big screen while we have a chance?

Cinema surround sound (yea, yea..I know SOME folks have this at home, but we don't yet) is also a factor.. although lately (last two viewings) the local theater has been setting their sound levels PAINFULLY high.. so they are about to start losing out on our money.


----------



## AceHBK

zDom said:


> (I bolded in the above quote)
> 
> Not to highjack the thread, but the reason I'm willing to see SOME movies at the cinema is because of the HUGE screen  for SOME movies, it is worth the money just to view it on the big screen.
> 
> The GF and I always ask ourselves: will this be just as good at home (for the first time), or do we want to see THIS one on the big screen while we have a chance?
> 
> Cinema surround sound (yea, yea..I know SOME folks have this at home, but we don't yet) is also a factor.. although lately (last two viewings) the local theater has been setting their sound levels PAINFULLY high.. so they are about to start losing out on our money.


 
You know I agree with you on this.  Some movies which I look REALLY fwd to seeing, I will spend the $5 to see it at the theatre.  Any other regular movie I will wait for.


----------

