|
|
Post by SpiritBomb on Jun 5, 2004 16:37:26 GMT -5
Discuss it..i'll throw in my opinion later
|
|
|
|
Post by zackarotto on Jun 5, 2004 17:52:07 GMT -5
Read the book, loved it, might be my favorite of the books! Didn't see the movie, don't intend to, just like I didn't see the second one.
I don't know, the first movie didn't interest me as much as it could have... so I'm saving my money. ^^
|
|
|
|
Post by Jerseymilk on Jun 5, 2004 19:12:41 GMT -5
Not sure whether to go see this one. I loved the first one, but was greatly disappointed by the second. I'm guarded concerning the latest, especially since this is where the books start to get a lot darker and more complicated plot-wise, so to accomplish the task of to pulling off a faithful movie adaptation is now going to be much more difficult. I've read all the books of course and love them and The Prisoner of Azkaban is my favourite one along with The Goblet of Fire, so I'm particularly interested in seeing how this movie turns out.
|
|
chibiwoosh
Advanced Newbie
Damn you........*rolls away*
Posts: 156
|
Post by chibiwoosh on Jun 5, 2004 19:52:43 GMT -5
I want to go see it, I just haven't had the chance too. I think it will be good. ;D  |
|
Random
Newbie
Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate.
Posts: 69
|
Post by Random on Jun 5, 2004 20:17:49 GMT -5
I'm (with luck) going to see it tomorrow afternoon/night, and I'm excited about it. I've heard very good things about this one -- it's supposed to be much better than the first two, and more "like what the movies should be". There is, however, reportedly a consistency error in the very first scene (Harry is practicing spells in his bedroom, when underage wizards aren't allowed to do magic out of school), and it's generally agreed that Lupin's actor looks nothing like Lupin, but his acting is supposed to be very good. Dumbledore's new actor is also supposed to be a little "grating", and there are apparently a lot of little speeches that start to get gratitious, but the general consensus is that overall, it's very good. Must say, the trailers for it are what really made me want to see it -- they're extremely well done. (Sort of sad how I've started noticing this since I took that advert class. :  They're very powerful and suspenseful -- was anyone else struck by that? They clearly hired some very talented people to make those trailers.  Jo Rowling has this to say about the movie: "...I loved it immediately: it is my favourite Harry Potter film so far..." (The rest of her update is about the premiere and the fangirls that wouldn't leave Dan Radcliffe alone  poor kid.) Link: www.jkrowling.net/textonly/news_view.cfm?id=76So, uh. That's my thoughts on it for now. You're all probably going to be treated to a long review of it come Sunday night.  But for now I have my History paper to go back to... ETA: Delayed to Monday; Mummy says it'll be too crowded Sunday night. Annoying.  |
|
|
|
Post by zackarotto on Jun 5, 2004 20:19:24 GMT -5
Rowling has some sort of blog type thing? Really...
|
|
Random
Newbie
Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate.
Posts: 69
|
Post by Random on Jun 5, 2004 20:32:37 GMT -5
She might, but I think it's just her website -- the address is, naturally, www.jkrowling.net. It's really very interesting; it has things like cut scenes and characters, Jo's reaction to certain fandom theories, and an account of the time she went into MuggleNet's chatroom and started giving out book seven theories, only no one would listen to her, so she eventually gave up and joined in their discussion of Spongebob Squarepants. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Jerseymilk on Jun 5, 2004 20:35:21 GMT -5
Hmmmm, I wonder if we should offer our services to Daniel Radcliffe? |
|
|
|
Post by SunWukong on Jun 6, 2004 10:24:26 GMT -5
Saw it on Friday night. Great movie, too short (roughly 2 hrs), too much cut out. 'nuff said
BTW, Harry almost turns SSJ infront of his aunt, or so it seems he's about to. God, I'm such a nerd
|
|
|
|
Post by Jerseymilk on Jun 6, 2004 12:30:11 GMT -5
It's only 2 hours?  The other two that were based on much shorter books were practically 3 hours! And they cut the longer story down to just two? Boy, I can't wait to see what they do with the latest book!  |
|
|
|
Post by zackarotto on Jun 6, 2004 14:05:47 GMT -5
Yeah, the books get longer while the movies can't. Can't promise much for quality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jerseymilk on Jun 6, 2004 14:26:12 GMT -5
Oh well, they can't ever top the books anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mochi on Jun 6, 2004 17:32:53 GMT -5
I haven't read the books.... They're too long for me. O__o And I've only seen the first movie... So after I see it, I'll see the third.  |
|
|
|
Post by Xyex on Jun 6, 2004 19:06:08 GMT -5
I'm looking forward to seeing this sometime soon I hope. It's been so long since I've read the books.... I have all of them, I think... I can't even remember which ones I do have.  |
|
Dayspring
Super Regular
Five cans short of sixpack and the sixth's can's crushed.
Posts: 776
|
Post by Dayspring on Jun 6, 2004 19:47:32 GMT -5
I can't remember the flow of books 3+4 anymore either. I bet I'll forget 5 before 6 comes out. |
|
Random
Newbie
Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate.
Posts: 69
|
Post by Random on Jun 7, 2004 0:37:09 GMT -5
They cut it down to two hours? Man, I knew they took artistic license to it, but now I'm scared. It was apparently released a while ago that the Goblet of Fire would only be one movie, rather than two as had originally been planned. It better not be just two hours, though, that'd mean they cut too much out... As a stupid random trivia note, Jo says that book six will be shorter than book five. If the books went up in size each volume, seven will be about "the weight of a baby hippopotamus". And now I leave you with this: RULE #1 OF BTM: The books are always better than the movie. (I nearly cried when I saw Ella Enchanted. They killed my favorite childhood book.  and I still want to know who the hell thought that snake was a good idea...) |
|
Dayspring
Super Regular
Five cans short of sixpack and the sixth's can's crushed.
Posts: 776
|
Post by Dayspring on Jun 7, 2004 16:34:50 GMT -5
I believe the movie version of whale rider's supposed to be a shitload better than the book. The book is some 80pager aimed for 12 year-olds. The movie was so good that it's main chara's actress was nominated for the youngest best actress EVER. |
|
|
|
Post by Xyex on Jun 7, 2004 18:25:41 GMT -5
Indeed, BTM dosen't always suck. There are the rare instances of greatness. (Any novel I ever make that gets made into a movie will require my aproval of EVERYTHING or they can forget it.)
Now, GTM or MTG, those have a higher suckage rate. The Die Hard games blew, Enter the Matrix is crap, the Total Recall game for NES was worthless. And going in the reverse direction: Mortal Kombat was OK but Anihilation was bad, Tekken anyone?, Um... can't think of many others off the top of my head...
|
|
|
|
Post by SpiritBomb on Jun 7, 2004 18:41:49 GMT -5
I felt as if they tooked my book, hacked it down and burnt it! DAMN YOU ELLA ENCHANTED PEOPLE!
As for Harry Potter, they screwed it up. Too short. They moved too fast and the new director tried to make it funny a little too much. But, it was good in other ways, but not if your really attached to the books. The third was my favourite, it actually had a happy ending. No Voldemort meeting,too.
|
|
Gohan
Advanced Newbie
IT'S GOHAN!!
Posts: 233
|
Post by Gohan on Jun 11, 2004 21:37:14 GMT -5
The third Harry Potter movie was too mundane for me. I mean, the only spells that I remember them casting were the "Ridiculous" spell and the "Expecto Patronum" spell; though, I do have to admit, they did the Expecto Patronum well. Another thing that I really didn't like about it was some of the new music in it. The jazzy stuff is NOT Harry Potter music, I'm sorry. The Night Bus music and the Boggart music for Lupins class just didn't go with what the series is. If you remember in the book, Lupin gives Harry some chocolate after he gets attacked by a dementor, and Madame Pomfrey says something like, "Finally we have a professor that knows what he's doing," but in the movie, all he does is give out chocolate and says, "Eat this." lol Don't get me wrong, I liked the movie, but I liked the first two under the old director a lot better. |
|
|
|
Post by SpiritBomb on Jun 12, 2004 22:26:11 GMT -5
The bright side is, this will likely be the last Harry Potter film that Mr.I-Cant-Make-A-Movie-Stick-To-The-Book will be directing. I read that the 4th movie will be directed by someonelse. Dont worry, the TV guide is faithful.
|
|
Gohan
Advanced Newbie
IT'S GOHAN!!
Posts: 233
|
Post by Gohan on Jun 22, 2004 20:55:00 GMT -5
;D[glow=red,2,300]Yay![/glow];D
|
|
Dayspring
Super Regular
Five cans short of sixpack and the sixth's can's crushed.
Posts: 776
|
Post by Dayspring on Jun 23, 2004 14:22:16 GMT -5
The bright side is, this will likely be the last Harry Potter film that Mr.I-Cant-Make-A-Movie-Stick-To-The-Book will be directing. I read that the 4th movie will be directed by someonelse. Dont worry, the TV guide is faithful. People who have signed on for movie 4: Actor of Harry, Director of movie 3. |
|
|
|
Post by Jerseymilk on Jun 23, 2004 21:20:29 GMT -5
(sigh) As much as I like Daniel Radcliffe, it's getting ridiculous. He was already too old to be in the third film, now he's doing the fourth? And I think at this point I'll give up on the movie versions now that the stupid director for movie 3 is doing movie 4. Oh well, I still have the books. ^_^
|
|
|
|
Post by SpiritBomb on Jun 23, 2004 22:12:53 GMT -5
Daniel Radcliffe is no problem to me,but Tom Felton, who plays Draco, is turning 17!!!!
|
|
poor kid.) Link: 
But for now I have my History paper to go back to...
The other two that were based on much shorter books were practically 3 hours! And they cut the longer story down to just two? Boy, I can't wait to see what they do with the latest book! 
and I still want to know who the hell thought that snake was a good idea...)