Movie: Harry Potter 4 [Archive]

XanBcoo

Mon, 11-14-2005, 04:47 PM

The trailer looks awesome. The 4th book was really cool and they've got a lot to work with - I hope they can pull it off substance-wise. But what they're sporting in the trailers and such looks great.

Though...I've lost my faith in the HP movies due to the fact that they screwed over my favorite book in the series (the 3rd)...werewolf looked like fucking Scooby-Doo...

Also, they're introducing a few new girls (mainly Cho and Fleur) in this movie and have casted appropriately cute actresses to play them IMO. Jolly good show.

darkmetal505

Mon, 11-14-2005, 10:12 PM

well

1) fleur and cho arent as "hot" as described in the book
2) they took out some stuff like SPEW and harry sees bagman jr's face while hes conjuring the dark mark.

Munsu

Mon, 11-14-2005, 10:34 PM

Man, what kind of lazy title for a thread that is... fix that shit up...

darkmetal505

Tue, 11-15-2005, 12:32 AM

Originally posted by: Budweineken
Man, what kind of lazy title for a thread that is... fix that shit up...

cant find how to do it

XanBcoo

Tue, 11-15-2005, 12:50 AM

Edit the first post to change the title.

More about the trailer:
It looks like they've made Beauxbatons an all-girls school (the lovely ladies of Beauxbatons).
Cho doesn't look asian in that one scene, but I know she is (sadly - I don't like asians)
LOL at how Dumbledor calls out Harry's name from the Goblet: "HARRY POTTER!!!"
Madeye looks fucking awesome. Almost exactly how I imagined him - but I didn't know he was Irish.
That shot of Voldemort at the end is so damn creepy. Love it.

nests

Tue, 11-15-2005, 01:37 AM

This might be the first harry potter that I see at the theater. it looks cool. Also doesnt it remind you guys of the naruto chunnin exam

aznroyale

Tue, 11-15-2005, 10:41 PM

im gonna watch this movie

aznimperialx

Thu, 11-17-2005, 05:06 PM

i just don't see why Harry Potter attracts so many people

PSJ

Thu, 11-17-2005, 07:02 PM

The movies are overrated in my opinion, the books are alot better. The first movie screwed up how i imagined things.

Thu, 11-17-2005, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by: PSJ
the books are alot better.

Agreed, the books are WAY better than the movies, but they are fun to watch. Perfect case where the books > the movies is the third movie. Prisoner of Azkaban just felt like the scenes were just switching from one to the next, they just didn't flow properly like in the first one.

darkmetal505

Thu, 11-17-2005, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by: aznimperialx
i just don't see why Harry Potter attracts so many people

"you get to go into a fantasy world!"

aznimperialx

Thu, 11-17-2005, 11:35 PM

God that vauldermoth should freaking stay dead and introduce a new villian

darkmetal505

Fri, 11-18-2005, 12:06 AM

Originally posted by: aznimperialx
God that vauldermoth should freaking stay dead and introduce a new villian

but hes the best character, he actually kills some people

XanBcoo

Fri, 11-18-2005, 01:25 AM

Originally posted by: NarutoMaster

Originally posted by: PSJ
the books are alot better.

Agreed, the books are WAY better than the movies, but they are fun to watch. Perfect case where the books > the movies is the third movie. Prisoner of Azkaban just felt like the scenes were just switching from one to the next, they just didn't flow properly like in the first one.

Doubly agreed. Like I said in my first post in this topic, I feel like they screwed up the 3rd movie so much. Aside from the shitty casting of Lupin, crappy crappy CRAPPY acting on Radcliffe's part, and the dumbass Scooby-werewolf, it also suffered from what you described - poor transition of events. The whole thing felt like an "episode". No care went into it at all. This is true for most of the movies. But then again, any book is usually better than its movie counterpart.

Originally posted by: aznimperialx
God that vauldermoth should freaking stay dead and introduce a new villian
Why? This isn't a shounen anime. A new baddie doesn't show up every "arc". And seeing how most of the books so far have built up to Voldemort's return, it would be pretty damn useless to throw him out now...

ChiaCheese

Fri, 11-18-2005, 07:57 AM

i have seen this movie and i would have to say that it is probably my least favorite of all of them. not to say it's all bad, i really enjoyed it until the ending just takes a shit on the first 90% of it.
SPOILERS probably.
Ok, the last movie had a real "What the fuck?" ending with Harry seeing himself as a reindeer and thinking it's his father. I guess at some point they forgot to establish that Harry's dad is fuckin' Blitzen. But WTF aside, the ending at least provided some closure. This new movie again gives that WTF feeling but offers NO closure what so ever. you have all this build up for this tournament and meet all these new characters and watch Harry endure through these trials and then BAM! they throw this voldemort guy at us and he turns out to be nothing but a cross between the emperor of star wars episode 3 and a bad Bond villain (complete with villain monologue and uneccesarily complicated scheme). Basically all that happens from there is Harry narrowly escapes of course and then it just ends! I'm fine that they leave the voldemort thing open but we just spent the first 2 hours of the movie watching this tournament and then they end it like the tournament never happened. who won? who lost? was it cancelled? postponed? who fuckin knows!! well, maybe the people who read the books, but i certainly don't.
The other thing that bothered me about this movie is it fallowed the same pattern as the other movies where there's a traitorous insider and a red herring. Which isn't the problem, i can see that as just being a "Harry Potter" style of story. The problem was they did a poor job of really getting you to bite on the red herring. And to make matters worse, they drop too many obvious hints as to who the real traitor is, especially where you go from one scene where an investigator is eyeing this guy suspiciously to the next scene where this investigator suddenly turns up dead. And the topper of it all is the traitor, as it turns out, that this new dark arts professor isn't who he seems to be. Just like in all the other Harry Potter movies!! I mean who hires these guys? don't they do back ground checks anymore?
Bottom line is most of the movie is fun and enjoyable and it offers alotta neat shiny effects to oggle at but ultimately has an ending that leaves a bad taste in your mouth. I'd say there's still enough to make it worth seeing and it offers alot to enjoy, just know that the ending is frustrating and like me you'll probably be forced to turn to your friends that read the book to know what exactly happened.

Knives122

Fri, 11-18-2005, 02:21 PM

well if you want to blame anyone blame JK Rowling, b/c you just made me realise that 'every single book' has the same formula of "theres a traitor in them there hills" i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif

I havent see the movie yet but I'll say what I thought about it when I do. (oh and theres a whole little back story on why there's always a new Defense against the Dark Arts teacher every year)

XanBcoo

Fri, 11-18-2005, 04:52 PM

Actually, the only book out of the 4 I've read where the DATDA teacher was a traitor was the first.

In Chamber of Secrets he was a moron
In POA he was a good guy (my favorite charactere FUCKED UP by shitty casting - seriously, the guy was a dork)
And in the 4th movie, I don't recall Madeye being a bad guy.

So what are you talking about ChiaCheese??

Also, the stag/dad thing in the 3rd movie has a story behind it, but the movie left it out.

ChiaCheese

Fri, 11-18-2005, 05:21 PM

i wasn't trying to infere he's always the bad guy, it's just he's never who he seems to be. it's mostly just a generalization to help drive in my point. also, my review is from a movie goer perspective only, i haven't read the books so all i can draw on is what they give me in the movie.

ChaosK

Fri, 11-18-2005, 05:26 PM

mad-eye wasnt a bad guy, but mad-eye wasnt the one teaching now was he?

ChiaCheese

Fri, 11-18-2005, 06:28 PM

nope, i guess he wasn't who he seemed to be.

XanBcoo

Fri, 11-18-2005, 09:34 PM

A friend just saw the movie and he said it was probably the one out of the 4 that followed the book most closely. Cool. Perhaps it has something to do with the new Director.

ChaosK

Fri, 11-18-2005, 10:52 PM

well i personally thought this book was one of the best, i think it had the most intense fighting (or very close, its a competition between book 4 and 5) so if it follows that storyline we'll get to see a lot of cool action.

aznroyale

Fri, 11-18-2005, 11:02 PM

i heard that in Manhatten in NY had Harry Potter at 12 midnight yesterday or tonight only for 1 day o.O

XanBcoo

Fri, 11-18-2005, 11:57 PM

I am so gonna read the 5th book after I see this movie. My Harry Potter fandom is slowly returning.

darkmetal505

Sat, 11-19-2005, 12:17 AM

wow, this movie sucked compared to the book

PSJ

Sat, 11-19-2005, 01:49 PM

aznimperialx

Sat, 11-19-2005, 05:56 PM

saw it today. It was pretty decent but alot of the new characters were useless

Deblas

Sat, 11-19-2005, 06:33 PM

So how much was cut? I figure that they had to remove huge amounts of parts from the book since it's freakin huge.

XanBcoo

Sat, 11-19-2005, 07:12 PM

I've heard there is absolutely no mention of the House Elves. I'm not sure on the rest though.

It'd be nice if people who actually saw the movie and have read the books could add more to the discussion.

ChaosK

Sat, 11-19-2005, 07:57 PM

well thats kinda gay, S.P.E.W. is kinda what drives hermonie to make the D.A. in the 5th book (think about the S.P.E.W. organization) and also, her making of weird wool thingys.

XanBcoo

Sat, 11-19-2005, 08:10 PM

Just talked to the same friend (and hard core HP fan) who saw the movie yesterday:

Some differences he listed:
1. The world cup is never actually shown. Just the beginning, and then after the victory before the Death Eaters show up and start fucking things up.
2. The Triwizard Tourney starts immediately after their arrival at Hogwarts, just after the sorting.
3. The first task is cut down a lot. You don't see anyone injured, and you only see Harry's dragon, and the miniature of Fleur's.
4. Neville gives Harry the Gillyweed instead of Doby.
5. They never reveal Rita Skeeter as an Animagus, and the whole side-story of Hermione trying to outsmart her is missing.
6. The maze has been changed quite a bit. There are no obstacles like the Sphinx.
7. A few characters are missing, like the house elves and Ludo Bagman.

And in general, they seem to skip from task to task, leaving out a lot of in between stuff. But that's probably for time purposes.

darkmetal505

Sat, 11-19-2005, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by: XanBcoo
Just talked to the same friend (and hard core HP fan) who saw the movie yesterday:

Some differences he listed:
1. The world cup is never actually shown. Just the beginning, and then after the victory before the Death Eaters show up and start fucking things up.
2. The Triwizard Tourney starts immediately after their arrival at Hogwarts, just after the sorting.
3. The first task is cut down a lot. You don't see anyone injured, and you only see Harry's dragon, and the miniature of Fleur's.
4. Neville gives Harry the Gillyweed instead of Doby.
5. They never reveal Rita Skeeter as an Animagus, and the whole side-story of Hermione trying to outsmart her is missing.
6. The maze has been changed quite a bit. There are no obstacles like the Sphinx.
7. A few characters are missing, like the house elves and Ludo Bagman.

And in general, they seem to skip from task to task, leaving out a lot of in between stuff. But that's probably for time purposes.

yes, also barty crouch jr. is put in very early and is shown in the riddle house. There was no "school", the whole movie practically revolved around the Triwizard Tournament (except Moody's lesson). Harry flies out of everyones view in the first task. The third task is crap because there is no obstacles except hedges. Harry wakes up at the Weasley's house instead of having them pick them up at his aunt and uncle's house. A lot of things were cut. I understand this was for time constraints, but I would have rather seen a 4 hour movie with all the cool stuff.

aznimperialx

Sat, 11-19-2005, 10:44 PM

Wasn't the movie just 3hours?

XanBcoo

Sat, 11-19-2005, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by: aznimperialx
Wasn't the movie just 3hours?

Reread his post.

I too would prefer the movie to be longer, but that's speaking from the point of view of someone who has read and respects the books. Your average movie-goer who hasn't read the books doesn't give a shit, and just wants to see the story progress with all the cool stuff.

All the other changes that are not for time-constraint purposes...are just beyond me. Why did they decide to change stuff? Who knows.

Psyke

Sun, 11-20-2005, 07:03 AM

Just returned from the movie. I've seen the previous films, but never read any of the books. This movie seems to have lost some of the magic the previous movies had, such as the speeding bus and the flying car. I must say that the pacing of the movie seems rushed at times, and some scenes were totally boring, such as the ball, which I expected more laughs from. The only scene I thought was great was the second task underwater. The scene was great and would frighten any small kids in the theater. On the whole I was kinda disappointed with the movie, not because of the story but more of how the story is told and the pacing of the plot.

darkmetal505

Sun, 11-20-2005, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by: XanBcoo

Originally posted by: aznimperialx
Wasn't the movie just 3hours?

Reread his post.

I too would prefer the movie to be longer, but that's speaking from the point of view of someone who has read and respects the books. Your average movie-goer who hasn't read the books doesn't give a shit, and just wants to see the story progress with all the cool stuff.

All the other changes that are not for time-constraint purposes...are just beyond me. Why did they decide to change stuff? Who knows.

exactly, even when they did change it around for timing, it progressed so fast that if you had not read the books it would be difficult to understand (people who just watched the movie, go read the book, you missed a lot of important stuff, especially the explaination of everything).

Xollence

Mon, 11-21-2005, 02:59 PM

I thought the movie was okay, but they left a lot of things out and didn't follow through with some of the characters, like the Asian girl. What ever happens to her?

aznimperialx

Mon, 11-21-2005, 03:22 PM

she was a useless character in the movie

6Zabuza9

Mon, 11-21-2005, 11:39 PM

i watched it and the movie was decent i guess, but i got hella bored at the end. They skipped a hella lot of parts and i think "ava kadabra"(one hit kill to anyone with a wave of a hand and they drop dead) is such a freaking rigged spell, its like naruto's kyuubi power.

ChaosK

Tue, 11-22-2005, 06:39 PM

avada kerdavada? well, its a "unforgiveable" for a reason, besides pretty much u have to dodge it, u see a beam of light rushing towards u, waht do u do? you jump out of the way.

XanBcoo

Wed, 11-23-2005, 03:40 AM

The Avada Kedavra probably isn't all that easy to do either. Spells in HP aren't just a "flick of the wrist". Think back to the first book, Ron even had trouble making a feather float.

As far as Cho, I really think she becomes more important in the 5th book. For reasons explained in this movie.

ChaosK

Thu, 11-24-2005, 08:39 PM

WOW, this movie was pretty fuuuuuucked uuuup teh asSS! first of all,

WHERE THE HELL DID THE HOSUE ELVES GO?!
WHY WAS THE CRURUCATIUS WHATEVER SPELL SOOOOO STUPID?! HARRY MERELY GROANED LIKE HE WAS GETTING HEAD! WTF THAT SPELL IS NOT FOR HEAD GIVING!
WHY DIDNT WE GET TO SEE ANY OF HERMONIE'S ASS?!
WHY WERE THE TWINS SO FUCKING WEIRD IN THIS ONE?
WHY DID THIS O NLY COVER HALF THE BOOK?
WHY AM I POSTING WHILE DRUNK?
WHY DIDNT WE SEE ANY OTHER DRAGONS?
WHY DIDNT WE SEE FLEUR'S ASS?
WHY IS GINNY STILL LIKE 10 WHILE THE OTHERS ARE LIKE 20?
WHY WAS VIKTOR KRUM SO MESSED UP?
WHY WAS CHO SO UGLY?!

Splash!

Fri, 11-25-2005, 03:08 PM

nobody got the spelling right!
Its Avada Kedavra!!!!!!!

2:25

Fri, 11-25-2005, 04:10 PM

Saw the movie last night, and wow, it's fast paced. Basically, the director only focused on the Triwizard Tournament. Still, I think it's the best movie out of all 4.

Originally posted by: darkmetal505

Originally posted by: XanBcoo
Just talked to the same friend (and hard core HP fan) who saw the movie yesterday:

Some differences he listed:
1. The world cup is never actually shown. Just the beginning, and then after the victory before the Death Eaters show up and start fucking things up.
2. The Triwizard Tourney starts immediately after their arrival at Hogwarts, just after the sorting.
3. The first task is cut down a lot. You don't see anyone injured, and you only see Harry's dragon, and the miniature of Fleur's.
4. Neville gives Harry the Gillyweed instead of Doby.
5. They never reveal Rita Skeeter as an Animagus, and the whole side-story of Hermione trying to outsmart her is missing.
6. The maze has been changed quite a bit. There are no obstacles like the Sphinx.
7. A few characters are missing, like the house elves and Ludo Bagman.

And in general, they seem to skip from task to task, leaving out a lot of in between stuff. But that's probably for time purposes.

yes, also barty crouch jr. is put in very early and is shown in the riddle house. There was no "school", the whole movie practically revolved around the Triwizard Tournament (except Moody's lesson). Harry flies out of everyones view in the first task. The third task is crap because there is no obstacles except hedges. Harry wakes up at the Weasley's house instead of having them pick them up at his aunt and uncle's house. A lot of things were cut. I understand this was for time constraints, but I would have rather seen a 4 hour movie with all the cool stuff.

Originally posted by: Chaoskiddo
WHERE THE HELL DID THE HOSUE ELVES GO?!

More differences between the book and the movie (somewhat spoilers):

-the movie only lighted touched on the romance stuff
-no Dursleys at all
-the whole thing about Weasley's Wizard Wheezes wasn't included (actually, the movie mentions it once by showing Fred and George selling stuff during the tournament).
- Harry and Sirus only talked once
-Chapter 10: "Mayhem at the Ministry" was gone
- Harry never learned how to fight the Imperius curse
-Rita, the reporter, was less annoying + her role was cut to a bare minimum.
-no S.P.E.W
-barely mentioned Harry's classes
-Chapter 18: "The Weighting of the Wands" was gone
-never mentioned + emphasised the importance of Madame Maxime being a giant
-no Cornelius Fudge in the ending (therefore we don't get to see him arguing with Dumbledore)
-overall, there's not a lot of character development (actually, a lot of characters' roles were reduced. Eg: Ginny, Ron's mom, Malfoy, etc...)

XanBcoo

Sat, 11-26-2005, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by: 2:25

-no Cornelius Fudge in the ending (therefore we don't get to see him arguing with Dumbledore)
-overall, there's not a lot of character development (actually, a lot of characters' roles were reduced. Eg: Ginny, Ron's mom, Malfoy, etc...)

Those two are what bother me the most. I can take all the other stuff being left out, but character development is important, and the last scene with Fudge is a HUGE plot point. Now no one who has read the books knows that Dumbledore is basically against the entire Ministry of Magic now.

Other than that, yeah, this was the best movie so far. Just the way it was handled was very good I think. I think the romance was dealt with very well, as I could sense a lot of tension between basically everyone. Each of the tasks was great, especially the first, and fucking Voldemort...wow. It left out a lot, which is damn annoying, but overall I think the movie was good - at least to someone who's read the books. My brother hasn't and he didn't know wtf was going on half the time.

I also have to say that throughout the movies I've had the way I imagined the characters ruined by the actors (like LUPIN), but I much prefer the actors who played the Weasly Twins to the images I had of them in my head. They're so fucking great, and probably the funniest parts in the movie come from them (and Ron).

And Emma Watson was fucking hot at the Yule Ball.

darkmetal505

Sat, 11-26-2005, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by: XanBcoo

And Emma Watson was fucking hot at the Yule Ball.

yea she was.

kAi

Mon, 11-28-2005, 06:51 PM

I watched this movie a couple days ago, and enjoyed, it pisses me off that we have to wait like 2 years for the next film.

XanBcoo

Mon, 11-28-2005, 07:17 PM

Honestly, it can't take THAT long to leave out piles of key plot points, characters, and dialogue.

ChiaCheese

Tue, 11-29-2005, 04:29 AM

Originally posted by: Chaoskiddo

WHY DIDNT WE SEE FLEUR'S ASS?

Direct download links.
http://wwtdd.com/media/fleur.mov
http://wwtdd.com/media/fleur1.mov

Knives122

Tue, 11-29-2005, 05:31 PM

I saw the movie on Friday and I have to say that it's a very close first(with COS being my favorite). I was actually glad they didn't focus on S.P.E.W b/c I think overall it was stupid to begin with. I wasn't upset with the fact that they only did the TW tournament, nor was I mad that we didnt get to see the other dragons and how Fleur/Victor/Cedric handled them(you can either read the book or go to wikipedia).

Something that made me glad to be watching this movie was the fact that they focused on the others characters alot more then normal. The Weasley twins had more screen time then the other three movies combineda(sort've) and giving more screen time made you that more attached to them when stuff happened(like with Cedric).

Voldemort(from how I pictured him too look) somewhat disappointed me. Why did he look like a turtle? and Wasn't he supposed to use Avada Kedavra on Harry when they "crossed wands"? What the hell was that white stuff?

Over all the movie was fantastic and it imo has the best ending out of the four. Hopefully the fifth movie(which we wont get till the middle/end of 07) will be longer and better.

ps: Seeing Fleurs entire body is better then just seeing her ass i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif

XanBcoo

Tue, 11-29-2005, 06:20 PM

lol @ those clips of Fleur...wow.

Something that made me glad to be watching this movie was the fact that they focused on the others characters alot more then normal. The Weasley twins had more screen time then the other three movies combineda(sort've) and giving more screen time made you that more attached to them when stuff happened(like with Cedric).
I agree with that. In fact I think that's what made this movie better than the other 3. It showed a lot of character development, and I really felt attached to them at the end (not as much as in the books of course, but morso than in the other 3 movies).

About Voldemort, he appeared in the movie pretty much as he was described in the book - that is, snakelike, with a bald head and no nose. The only thing different was that his eyes were supposed to have been red. He was a little different than I imagined, but I think the actor (the guy from Red Dragon) did an awesome job portraying him, even if he was a little...jaunty. And he does use the Avada Kedavra on Harry (he shouts it quickly), but the spells to do not form a "golden thread" or a dome as they do in the book.

ChaosK

Tue, 11-29-2005, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by: ChiaCheese

Originally posted by: Chaoskiddo

WHY DIDNT WE SEE FLEUR'S ASS?

Direct download links.
http://wwtdd.com/media/fleur.mov
http://wwtdd.com/media/fleur1.mov

i changed my mind, this movie was fine.

aznroyale

Tue, 11-29-2005, 07:12 PM

omg i want to watch the movie

Knives122

Tue, 11-29-2005, 09:03 PM

the movie is called "Bienvenue chez les Rozes". Im pretty sure none of us will be able to find it +_+

ChaosK

Tue, 11-29-2005, 09:42 PM

im not sure if he was referring to the harry potter movie or that one knives lol.

darkmetal505

Wed, 11-30-2005, 12:15 AM

oh that was good stuff (not the hp 4)

Raven

Thu, 12-01-2005, 09:32 AM

I can acknowledge that they left a shitload of stuff out of the book. I can also acknowledge that a few key plot points were changed. But still, the movie worked, and worked damned well.

A person who hadn't read the book should be able to follow it easily if they listen carefully. I went with several who hadn't and they were fine. While watching I tried to pretend I didn't already know what was going to happen so I could test the stability of the plot, and it was adequate in my view. Anyone who didn't know what was going on probably wasn't paying enough attention.

Overall, I loved it, largely due to the fact that the whole thing was cast perfectly and virtually all the characters looked and seemed exactly how I imagined them, especially Voldemort. One thing that really bugged me though was Dumbledore. Throughout the series he's supposed to be gentle and polite, but during this movie he raised his voice much more than he spoke normally, and at once point he actually roughly grabbed Harry around the shoulders and asked him a harsh question ... Dumbledore would NEVER EVER do that in the books.

In a way too, due to the fast paced scenes of the movie (which is understandable due to the friggin' size of the book) it seemed a bit like Ron and Hermione and even Malfoy were pushed back as side characters - Malfoy had like 2 lines in the entire thing.

el_boss

Thu, 12-01-2005, 07:25 PM

Good god, that was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The plot was incoherent and inane and the acting was horrible. The characters were extremely awful, I mean there is no nuances. The good guys are good and the bad guya are bad, there's no in between. I actually guessed the whole plot within the first five minutes, that's how shallow it is.

The worst thing about the entire movie was this:

"Something evil must have put Harry Potter name in the goblet"
"I say, it can't be that bad. Let Harry compete and we will see what happens"
"OMG something has gone terribly wrong, what's-his-face is back"
"I shoudn't have let you do that Harry"

Can it get any more stupid.

aznroyale

Thu, 12-01-2005, 07:38 PM

just finished downloading it, have to watch on my free time

XanBcoo

Thu, 12-01-2005, 08:02 PM

I'm assuming el_boss has never read the books. My bro didn't like the movie for the same reason. Although I do admit to the plot being a little too black and white, the whole series is fucking awesome. And NOT because of the movies.

I can acknowledge that they left a shitload of stuff out of the book. I can also acknowledge that a few key plot points were changed. But still, the movie worked, and worked damned well.
This is pretty much my take on the movie.

darkmetal505

Thu, 12-01-2005, 08:33 PM

maybe im too much a hardcore fan of the books

Raven

Thu, 12-01-2005, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by: darkmetal505
maybe im too much a hardcore fan of the books
I am too - I still appreciated this movie for what it is though. It will be better when we can watch all 7 movies in a row. It had a bit of an episode feel to it, slightly.

Another thing I noticed - the movie didn't really explain clearly why Neville was so torn up about seeing the curse. In Dumbledore's memory they mentioned the curse being used on Neville's parents very briefly but the books went into it a lot more, about how they went mad, etc.

Btw, Neville is so tall and thin now. He's no longer the little fat kid, but he's still bucktoothed unfortunately.

aznimperialx

Thu, 12-01-2005, 10:54 PM

they all grow so fast.

XanBcoo

Fri, 12-02-2005, 12:18 AM

Apparently that might be a problem...

By the time the 7th movie comes out, they might all be too old to play their respective parts, and there has been talk of replacing the current trio by then. They've all been confirmed for the 5th movie, but past that, even the actors themselves have doubts. Dan isn't sure, and Emma wants to start college. I hope they stay throughout the 7 movies, as it would ruin the continuity otherwise.

If they're replaced, I will be sad to see Emma Watson go...

Also, I completely forgot about Neville's parents. Thanks for the reminder Raven.

Knives122

Fri, 12-02-2005, 12:54 AM

they'll be 20ish which will sort've be what they are in the book(I think Harry will be 17)

el_boss

Fri, 12-02-2005, 05:00 AM

It would be great if they replaced them. They were ok child-actors, but they just don't cut it as "grown-ups". Think how much easier everything would have been if it was animated instead, well I guess 90% of the movies are animated already.

Teh XYZ

Fri, 12-02-2005, 05:13 PM

not emma! stay emma! knives, they're all supposed to be 18 i think (remember harry turned "age" whichi s 17 in book 6) so 18-20 isnt that far off.

aznimperialx

Fri, 12-02-2005, 05:31 PM

In the 4th movie isnt Harry supposed to be like 14?

ChaosK

Fri, 12-02-2005, 07:35 PM

hmm Teh XYZ your not right with your calculation, harry explained in book 6 that he had a late birthday, which is why he couldnt take the apparation test. which means he would turn 17 in july of book 7. or of book 6 but the book ends before that. aznimperialx yeah harry is supposed to be 14.

el_boss

Wed, 12-14-2005, 07:57 AM

Harry Potter is gay (http://www.heavy.com/heavy.php?videoPath=/content/carnage/flash_video/GayHarryPotter?partner=aff10) <- Film

anphorus

Wed, 12-14-2005, 08:24 AM

I find it pretty easy to remember their ages (Well, Harry's at least) because the second digit is the same as the book number. (Book1 = 11, Book2 = 12 etc)

And I dont think the actors will all be too old, the movies have been coming out once a year, and if I remember the stuff I read when the first movie came out. Daniel = Same age as Harry. Rupert = 1 Year older. Emma = 1 year younger, so it should all work out.

Raven

Wed, 12-14-2005, 07:44 PM

Er, the movies have been coming out once a year? You might wanna check that.

Zidarri the Exile

Sun, 03-26-2006, 02:52 PM

I don't really find the Harry Potter series very good, but I had seen the first three movies, so I decided to read the 6 books that are out. Once finished, Movie 4, The Goblet of Fire came out a week later. IT SUCKED. It only made sense because I had read the book. But the movie itself doesn't even fit together.

gr3atfull

Sun, 03-26-2006, 04:46 PM

I found that all the movies were horrible compare to the books, but I still go see them just for fun.

Zidarri the Exile

Sun, 03-26-2006, 05:21 PM

I think the books suck as well. But meh. I need something to do with my lack of a social-life.

darkmetal505

Sun, 03-26-2006, 06:16 PM

The latter movies sucked because they tried to rush through it. I heard the Order of the Pheonix is going to be 2 movies.

Xollence

Mon, 03-27-2006, 12:00 PM

Yeah I agree, the 4th one wasn't as good as the first two. Will this be the last movie? I heard some of the actors don't want to do it anymore.

Knives122

Mon, 03-27-2006, 12:05 PM

I thought the 4th was the best one. the first two felt like scooby doo movies, and if I wanted to see that I would've watched a scooby doo movie.

and there's suppose to be seven in all. and I haven't heard anything about the actors not wanting to do it anymore.

Munsu

Mon, 03-27-2006, 12:16 PM

Yeah, last I heard they were going to make 7 movies...

If someone doesn't want to do it anymore, I would guess it would be some of the older actors, I can't imagine any of the young ones complaining since this is pretty much the biggest movies they'll ever do.

Zidarri the Exile

Mon, 03-27-2006, 12:55 PM

Knives122, the movie had no depth, no . . . story. It was just random parts of the book put together to make an hour and a half movie. Not only did they leave out to many important parts, but they also changed to much.

Also, Harry Potter is for kids 13 and under. So of course, a couple of the books are gonna be Scooby-Doo-ish. The fact that they actually had someone die was utterly surprising to me, because of the age-range for the books.

Movie 4 was an absolute atroscity, compared to the first three. It's even worse because Harry Potter sucks, in general.

Augury

Tue, 03-28-2006, 01:01 AM

The Short:

The movie isn't too good because it's forced.

The Long:

The Harry Potter movies all suffer because of time restraints. The initial, rigid idea of doing one movie per year burns out the people involved in its production. Rowling's storytelling style of introducing many small elements and weaving them together in a long book also becomes a problem since each movie isn't going to go much longer than three hours - there's only so much material that can be covered. As a result, the movies really fall short because the people who haven't read the books tend to not understand what's going on from what's left out, and the people who have read the books often feel that not enough is covered or the material that is covered is done inadequately. However, most of the people who rated the movie as okay or better are the book-readers and are able to link together anything that might've been missed from low-tone conversations or quick references in the movie. There are also casting issues: Dumbledore and Lupin have been mentioned and they seem to be the worst offenders.

One of my professors once said that a Chinese director in the 1950s Communist China was given the impossible job of making a film about the Opium War (History Sidenote: China was totally dominated by the British in this "conflict," and a directive from Mao for this film means that it required a positive spin). I'd say that the director of the Harry Potter films was given an impossible job, so naturally we're seeing lots of thumbs-down opinions.

In the end though, I am also disappointed in the movies but I think they do hit some good points. Some characters are well-casted in contrast to Dumbledore or Lupin, and the film captures transitions certain elements of Rowling's fantasy world to film nicely, such as scenery and magical creatures. I saw Harry Potter 4 last December and I actually stopped watching it part way through (having watched the file that my brother downloaded, being the pirates that we are), although I finished the rest of the movie later.

Zidarri the Exile

Tue, 03-28-2006, 05:29 AM

I concur!

The main problem is that the series IS targeted to pre-teens, yet most of the fans of it are 15-40.

One reason I hate the series is because it's such a hokus-pokus style of magic. There is no depth to anything she has written in the series except in book 5, which was my favorite book. She tries to make depth now, in the later books, but it fails, horribly. Explain how the magic works slowly, but surely, I say, and you will have a series that is even more popular than this.

I can't stand this series, because of the lack of depth. Where's the fun in reading about a boy who, SOMEHOW, survived the STRONGEST spell from the STRONGEST wizard. Fuck that. No, make it so that the boy did survive, but that the one who tried to kill him was only a weak pawn, and his master, the real strongest one, the one you least except.

>< Harry Potter, a boy of eleven years, has grown up in a shitty household where his aunt, uncle, and cousin abuse him. He finds out that he is a wizard, and his parents were killed by an evil one, while he believed they died in a car crash. Incedently, the one who killed his parents also left Harry an unusual scar. It looks like a bolt of lightning, right on his forehead. He is famous for surviving this wizard's most atrocous spell.

Beware, Harry Potter, for the one you trust beyond all others, is your true enemy.><

And you find out that Dumbledore is the master behind the one who killed his parents, and he knows Harry is the boy he needs to kill, but he has come to love him like a true student of Hogwarts, and in the end, destroys himself on accident because he couldn't kill his only survivor.

Now, that, would be a sickening plot twist, one that would grab hold of your throat, and choke you to within an inch of your life.