Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (SPOILERS) [Archive]

innerSpaceman

07-12-2007, 01:51 AM

Well, I unabashedly loved it. I think I was just so relieved it had some directorial style, and managed to convey the story while obviously cutting out tons of stuff and changing things a bit.

Wow, the cast is getting big. Everyone in every Potter movie was in this one for at least a moment. Sheesh. On top of that, some great characters were added. Luna Lovegood = fabulous. Imelda Stuanton was, as I expected, perfect as Umbridge. And I want a spinoff series about Beatrix LaStrange!

Um, the Hogwarts kiddies are getting a little long in the tooth, though. It's looking a bit like those old (and alas, current) shows where 28 year-olds are playing high school students. Krikey, how much did Nevelle age! And, yeah, the twins are cute ... for 37-year-olds!

Emma and Rupert are looking mighty cute this time around, from a very gauky stage they were both in for the last film, imo. But, ugh, Daniel Radcliff seems to have long past his prime cuteness. He does a pretty good job as cranky Harry, though ... and I think it's a good thing the script toned down his grumpy prissyness from the book.

This is not you papa's Harry Potter ... the first truly dark and complely non-happy entry of the series. But on those terms, I thought it was a great movie, and it looked wonderful, and had some pinache to the proceedings.

Easily my second favorite Potter film (after the very stylish and decidely happy Prisoner of Azkaban.)

Bravo.

Now, if I can only brave the next book in 10 days. I was pleasantly surprised by the movie. Here's to hope that Rowling pulls off a similar nice surprise.

Chernabog

07-12-2007, 07:00 AM

Well, I unabashedly loved it. I think I was just so relieved it had some directorial style, and managed to convey the story while obviously cutting out tons of stuff and changing things a bit.

Wow. Did we see the same movie?

Granted, Book 5 IMHO was the absolute worst of the books. Long and boring; it was the first HP book that was a chore to get through. The ending, especially, felt forced and convoluted.

And that's basically how the movie was. It had good individual SCENES (Imelda Staunton completely stole the show here in every scene she was in) but the movie did not gel. Not at all. The chemistry of the Ron-Hermione-Harry friendship was not there at all. There was no sentiment to this picture. It was moviemaking (and scriptwriting) simply by the numbers. I'm surprised the producers didn't get Chris Columbus back if they wanted such rote directing.

The wonder of the world they are in has lost its wonder in this movie. And I'm not just talking about the fact that it was dark and depressing. The overarching story for book 5 is just.... dull and uninspired. It isn't really a set-up for anything in the same way that the 6th book was.

Oh and let's not forget the "Ed Wood" style things that happen. One minute they're in a room with Umbridge with lots of people. Next they are inexpliciably alone with Umbridge at night. Next scene they're on their way back from being with Umbridge and it's day again (and was it just me or did it look like they also changed clothes??). Flip-flip-flip. It was like scenes were missing -- and I'm not just talking about scenes from the book, which obviously they have to cut to make the movie into a watchable time period. I'm talking, connecting scenes that would have made the last half-hour of the movie watchable.

How did they know where to go in the Ministry of Magic? How'd they get in with NOBODY there? Again it was like flip-flip-flip connection scenes missing, let's just get right to it. It would be like watching Lord of the Rings and all the people are going from Rohan to Helms Deep in the daytime, and suddently it would cut to the orcs attacking at Helm's Deep at nighttime with nothing in between. It sure sucked all logical sense and the ability of one to follow what was going on. And I *knew* what was happening only because I read the books.

Was it just me or did the Voldemort/Dumbledore fight ACTUALLY have a light-saber noise happen when they were light-sabering???

Totally devolved into a Transformers-style ME SOCKEM DEATH EATER BOOM BOOM mindless CGI battle scene.

If they were going to mention the prophecy, then why didn't they mention a) it was by Trelawney and b) why the f*ck Voldemort needed it to begin with. I mean, if that WAS what V was going after, why did Harry care if it never explained why it was significant?

Oh and why'd they bother explaining about the Thestrals when everyone was going to ride them later in the film, even those that couldn't see them?

Anyway, my favorite of the movies was, oddly, book 4. It had an overarching story in and of itself, it was fun, and the relationships gelled. (My favorite of the books, however, was book 3).

Harry IS adorable though in Order of the Phoenix. All those sweaty Voldemort-dreams were funny... I turned to my friend and said, "wow they really DID up the adult-factor.... what's with all the masturbation scenes???" :evil:

Ghoulish Delight

07-12-2007, 07:14 AM

He does a pretty good job as cranky Harry, though ... and I think it's a good thing the script toned down his grumpy prissyness from the book.Oh yeah, it's that book.

LSPoorEeyorick

07-12-2007, 07:48 AM

I actually thought, as far as urgent plot points and condensed pages conveyed, this was the strongest of the movies. One of the things I liked best about it was that the screenwriter got out of the way of JKR's dialogue (including the "teaspoon" line among others) whereas the previous screenwriter seemed to rewrite the dialogue in an unpleasing way every time.

It wasn't so terribly unhappy. The D.A. scenes were lovely (and, as in the book, for me, nearly made up for Harry's grumpiness.) I guess I was surprised because Phoenix is my least favorite book, and I enjoyed the movie so much. We speculated that this is because the book lends itself to massive cuts in length. While reading, it takes (at least two full) days to read Harry's ALL CAPS YELLING and Umbridge's cruelty and all the while, you feel as lost as Harry without Dumbledore's presence. But it can be more easily stomached in the short form.

What's more, it was joyous to watch Umbridge because Staunton (love her!) had a performance that was so much what I'd envisioned, from the "hem, hems" to the condescending classes to the horrifying detention "lines" scene. The abstract Umbridge was painful to read, but I loved-to-hate Umbridge-in-the-flesh.

This director certainly has a way with actors-- it seemed like everyone brought their A game. Including the recently LoT-maligned Rupert Grint, who had some incredibly natural scenes. No mugging in this one. Radcliffe (still cute, no matter what you say, iSm) gave a complex, real portrayal of Angry Young Man, and his work in the climax was, I thought, quite good. BTW, iSm, the kids were 16 when this was shot-- just a year older than they're supposed to be. I didn't think they looked too old; I thought that they well-represented what can only be expressed by behavior and complexity of each new novel: these are no longer children. They're nearly adults.

Hurrah for subtlety. Their handling of Ginny (her potential as an excellent witch and her future love) was subtle, just enough for those who know the next book. Even little things, like Neville using "petrificus totalus," had resonance.

My only gripe, really, was their rearrangement of a few facts. Why was Cho to blame? At least they gave her the 'veritaserum' excuse, but I thought it was unfair to the character. I suppose they didn't want to introduce anyone else, but I rather wish they had. Also, wasn't that keen on the prophecy reveal-- I don't understand their choice to have it reveal itself before the Death Eaters arrived; I thought that the hundreds of other prophecies drowning the key one out was very cinematic and I wish they'd gone with it.

And for me, the "unresolved clue" that *I* missed was the mirrors. JKR says they'll come into play later, but now I wonder how true that will be.

All in all, a lovely cinematic outing, and served (as well as the re-read of Half-Blood Prince) as quite a build in excitement for next Friday. NEXT FRIDAY!!!

Cadaverous Pallor

07-12-2007, 07:52 AM

I kind of want to skip this one just because I hated the book so much. All of what Cherny is saying is how I felt about the book and just reading that made me remember how awful that experience was.

ETA- just read LSPE's post and it's made me feel a little better about it...

Snowflake

07-12-2007, 08:03 AM

I like what I'm reading and I'm going, maybe Sunday night. Why wait? SF Silent Film Festival starts Friday and I'll be fully immersed in that all weekend, so if my tush is not permanently molded into a seat at the Castro.....Kabuki Theatre, here I come!

But Like LSPE, I'm waiting for the b-o-o-k

innerSpaceman

07-12-2007, 08:23 AM

Yeah, much of what Cherny says is right. First off, this is a horrible book ... and perhaps I'm just amazed they fished as good a movie out of this as they did.

Yes, the main trio was at its absolute worst. There was really nothing to it this time out. That's the story, sorry. The filmmakers didn't write it. Despite that, with so very little to do, Rupert Grint comes off the best he has in the entire series. And I think there's enough Harry and Hermoine to match up with any of the entries.

But yes, there were simply too many characters for any of them to shine too brightly or have enough business. Certainly Ron Weasely suffered in this regard, while room was given for Umbridge and Lovegood to be featured more prominently. This was, in fact, the shortest of all the films to date (heheh, clocking in at 2 hours 18 minutes!)

I don't think the movie was individual scenes any more than the rest of them (save film 3). That's all the books ever were. This one, alas, goes back to the same format as the first two ... blah, blah, school, blah - and a big wizarding "contest" for Harry at the end. Rowling's a crappy writer, but I've always excused it for being "juevenile fiction."

Perhaps the magic Cherny was missing was the lack of happy ... but I think the world of wizarding was well portrayed in the story and in the visuals. It wasn't chummy or sweet, but that's this story. Yeah, not my favorite book .... but miles better than the one which followed it (and I'm almost terrified to read the last one, considering the trend of suckitude).

Anyway, I'm anxious to see it again, perhaps with clearer eyes. I'm probably going to see it in Imax 3-D this weekend. Harry's masturbation scenes should be a revelation in that format. ;)

xharryb

07-12-2007, 10:12 AM

BTW, iSm, the kids were 16 when this was shot-- just a year older than they're supposed to be. I didn't think they looked too old; I thought that they well-represented what can only be expressed by behavior and complexity of each new novel: these are no longer children. They're nearly adults.

Exactly what I was gonna come point out. 5th year, as they refer to it, is the equivilent of sophomore year in American high school. That puts the age of the characters at 15/16, and the actors (the main trio anyway) were all 16-17 during filming. I'd say they're just right for the films. With film 6 already in the scripting/casting stages, I'd think there's a good chance they can get all 7 filmed by the time the trio hits 20/21ish. Which is way better than most "teen" films and TV shows manage when casting a single film, let alone a series of 7.

I don't get to see this movie until Saturday though, so I can't offer any other opinions at this time.

innerSpaceman

07-12-2007, 10:34 AM

No, no, I'm not complaining about the main trio. Their ages seem right (and I'm glad Emma and Rupert, as I said, seem to have passed nicely through what I consider their awkward-looking stage in Goblet of Fire).

But Neville, omg, he looks old. And who's the Irish kid, the one who's no longer a kid? And the Twins, lordy they look like old men. Sorry, just one boy's opinion.

While we're at it, hurry up and film before Maggie Smith dies! Alan Rickman's not getting any younger either. (Young Snape, however, was a doll. Let's have a spin-off with Beatrix LaStrange going back in time to James Potter / Snape-era Hogwarts and reeking havoc!)

xharryb

07-12-2007, 12:42 PM

While we're at it, hurry up and film before Maggie Smith dies! Alan Rickman's not getting any younger either.

:eek: Don't even speak such things! I can't possibly imagine the series without those two!

flippyshark

07-12-2007, 12:55 PM

My feelings on the movie - It was a mercifully brief summary of a book I didn't like. It was more fun than I thought it would be, largely thanks to Imelda Staunton's frightening performance as Dick Cheney, um, I mean Delores Umbridge.

I'm curious how this will play to those who didn't read the book. The entire Cho storyline is down to one major scene and a couple of brief appearances. Now, in the book, that subplot was pure torture, so I don't mind it being shortened, but given it's treatment here, it seems like an irrelevance. (I didn't mind Cho being used as a shorthand stand-in for another character, though. It saved time.)

I really hope that last book is ravishing, because I agree with those who found volumes five and six tedious. (Half Blood Prince was a slight improvement, but still felt like marking time to me.)

figment1986

07-12-2007, 01:11 PM

Tonks was done nicely, though they dropped part of the story with her...

The visual effects were nice, but maybe over done... (how many Sfxs companies did they need, ILM, Movie, and some other british company...)

Sure, they chopped the story to the main story line ignoring 99% of the extraneous facts, but they probably only did it because 95% of them are not in the next movies... or they will revisit them in the next movie if needed.

Yes it did feel chopped up, perhaps they filmed more and those scenes will appear in a cut next holiday season? if not, well... it was done well, but too many Sfxs needed for transitions!

It was not entirely bad, just could use more improvements like fill in some missing scenes as stated before, and did anyone notice..

when they focused on the black family tree that they kept the camera on "Regulus A. Black" or did I imagine it?

thats all..

innerSpaceman

07-12-2007, 02:49 PM

I'm curious how this will play to those who didn't read the book.
zapppop is the only person I know in the whole wide world who doesn't read the books, but loves the movies.

In an important way, he is experiencing the films in a manner which no one else I know can. (Or rather no one else I know who will is following the film series). I'm anxious to get his reaction to the movie, and we're going to see it together Friday night (somewhere behind the Orange Curtain, if anyone would care to join).

I'm glad my first time was at the Chinese in Hollywood. It was an unimportant but neet touch to have Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint's recently imprinted hand, feet and wand prints on prominent display before the film.

:snap:

figment1986

07-12-2007, 03:35 PM

My sister hasn't read or herd the books on tape (yet) and follows the movies and likes them, haven't got her opinion on the latest movie yet.

libraryvixen

07-12-2007, 04:44 PM

So much to say, so little time.

I would have loved to see Ron do the horsey "clip clop" noise around Umbridge and have her freak out. Also... what of the DA coins? The ones that announce the time and date of the DA meetings?

I loved young Snape. I wish they would have shown young Lily as well.

Cho got a bad rap. They didn't really show her again after the Umbridge sadistic quill writing incident. I really wanted to see their date at Madame Puddifoot's.

Also, in the book, Sirius was hit by a red beam from Bellatrix's wand. There was no A.K curse tacked onto it. Neville was the one who dropped Harry's prophecy, but I'm glad that Lucius was the one who was butter fingers.

xharryb

07-12-2007, 05:37 PM

zapppop is the only person I know in the whole wide world who doesn't read the books, but loves the movies.

I actually haven't read any of the books yet. I didn't get interested in the series until watching the first couple of films on DVD. But as the series has progressed I've gotten more and more interested. Film 4 was actually the first one I went out and saw in theaters (though 3 has recently earned the title as my favorite thus far). I have plans to see 5 on Saturday, and I'll offer my thoughts from a nonreader at that time.

Mousey Girl

07-12-2007, 08:14 PM

We took my sister with us and saw it this afternoon. I really liked it, but... I don't know. I always feel a bit let down when my favorite parts of the books are left out of the movies.

CoasterMatt

07-12-2007, 08:38 PM

zapppop is the only person I know in the whole wide world who doesn't read the books, but loves the movies.
So I suppose you don't know me? See if you ever get invited to watch any movies here :p

Alex

07-12-2007, 08:46 PM

I also have seen all four of the previous movies and have never so much as opened one of the books. I think I might actually have made this far without even touching one.

But unlike zapppop, after the first one (which I did enjoy) I have found each pretty unlikable. If I can get through this weekend without Lani bringing it up I think I'll finally be off the hook.

innerSpaceman

07-12-2007, 08:57 PM

Sorry, CM ... didn't know that about you. Alex, likewise.

I'm surprised at your reaction to the series though, because - oddly enough - we seem to share eerily similar tastes in film.

I'm really only wild about Prisoner of Azkaban, and I kinda like the others the way I like Star Wars movies - - lotsa stuff in 'em that I like, but not very good films as such.

A great quote from a review of the new film in the L.A. Weekly that perfectly sums up why Order of the Phoenix is now my second fave HP movie:
The darkest and most menacing of the five Potter films, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is also the only series entry outside the third, Alfonso Cuaron's Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, that feels like the product of a vivid cinematic imagination and not just a slavishly faithful transposition of a runaway kid-lit best-seller.

CoasterMatt

07-12-2007, 09:05 PM

Prisoner of Azkaban was a great film, even for a non HP reader like me.

mousepod

07-13-2007, 08:27 PM

Count me as another HP non-reader and fan of the movie series. We saw Order at a matinée today, and other than the family that brought the crying infant into the theater, it was an entirely pleasurable experience.

While my favorite movie so far was Azkaban (I think), this was also lots of fun. I think I enjoyed this one because the "villain" for most of the piece was bureaucratic paranoia, which resonated just a bit with us newspaper readers.

Heather and I had a conversation after the movie (which we are wont to do), and it occurred to us that they really didn't mention in this flick what would happen to the world if Voldemort actually wins. Yes, I'm sure they discussed it at great length in previous films, but it seems that as a non-reader it would make sense if they would at least toss in a line or two about the dire consequences that the world would experience should Voldemort vanquish our hero.

innerSpaceman

07-13-2007, 08:34 PM

Oh, I dunno ... is it ever mentioned ... when the villain is a dark master of magical powers?

I think it's always assumed to be a general reign of terror, with no-fair magic used as a tool of the evil regime to be ushered in under the principal baddie.

I'm not particularly familiar with fantasy literature ... but in thinking of, say, Lord of the Rings, I don't think it's ever spelled out why Sauron getting ahold of the One Ring would be a really bad idea. And it didn't need to be.

* * * * *

The HP books go into a bit of what the prior regime of Voldie was about - - mostly how his minions, the Death Eaters, were really obnoxious to the day-to-day witches and warlocks. But I don't think it was ever specified what was so bad about Voldemort himself.

Perhaps someone who actually remembers the books a few years after reading them could elaborate.

€uroMeinke

07-13-2007, 08:39 PM

Meanwhile, I was delighted this morning listening to NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11945354)'s account of the Chinese fake Harry Potter Sequels - is that government sponsored fanfic?

innerSpaceman

07-14-2007, 10:36 PM

:snap: Even better the second time!

A terrific Potter movie. Great performances from an amazing cast, creme of England's best and brightest actors. Some are great with amazing subtlety (e.g., Alan Rickman as Snape); others terrific with over-the-top overacting (i.e., Helena Bonham Carter's Bellatrix LaStrange).

The pacing is perfect, the entertainment value consistently high, the tone pitched particularly well. The kids were great, newcomers and old hands alike ... and held their own with, have I mentioned, the creme of England's best and brightest actors.

Even the minor complaints I at first agreed with Chernabog on have evaporated upon a second viewing. There's no choppiness. Yeah, they cut a bit of business in getting into the prophesy storage room at the mintistry, but every step of their easier arrival was shown in proper film montage.

They didn't have to say who gave the prophesy, since it was clearly Sybil Trelauny's voice intoning it in the film.

And though there wasn't much in the plot about the main threesome's friendship ... I was surprised how often it informed the film and how very many scenes involved their bond just below the main action.

It certainly doesn't hurt the film's effect on me that each member of the threesome is more attractive than they were in Goblet of Fire. Emma Watson is thankfully beautiful again (and she's legal now, isn't she??).

But Rupert Grint is a revelation. With few words and no starring moments, he comes across as a surprising presence ... and omg, whod'a thunk it - - Ronald Weasley turned out to be a very beautiful boy ... and frankly dead sexy in many of his scenes. Hubba Hubba.

If anyone had told me my new Harry Potter crush would be Ronald Weasley, I'd have said they were daft.
:)

A fantastic Harry Potter Movie! I am soooo pleased!

Prudence

07-14-2007, 10:56 PM

Rupert is hotter in this movie?! Aw, man, and I have to wait until Friday to see it.

Gemini Cricket

07-14-2007, 11:10 PM

I saw HPATOOTP tonight. I loved it.
I think it ranks second for me with Azkaban being first.
Imelda Staunton is wonderful in this film. Sweetly evil.
The Weasley Twins' rebellion scene is fantastic. Well done.
I really have no big complaints about this film. They skipped over the business with Sirius' mom's portrait and the whole statue thing in the Ministry but I liked it.
What bugged me with the story (which is from the book) is that they never really explained the archway very well and what it was or why Black is now dead because he fell into it. Or maybe they did explain it and I don't remember... I don't know.
One thing I kept thinking was how amazing it would be to be on the set when they shot the Trelanwey's expulsion scene... Emma Thompson, Maggie Smith, Imelda Staunton and Michael Gambon on set all at the same time. What heaven that would be. :)

And the Weasley twins were cute cute cute. Rupert Grint is a cutie too.
:)

I teared up a couple of times during this one, too. When Sirius called Harry "James" it made me all misty eyed.

wendybeth

07-14-2007, 11:41 PM

I think we ought to put a spoiler warning on this thread, so we don't spill anything that others may want to discover on their own. I'm going to go ahead, so if anyone objects just let me know and I'll change it back.

lashbear

07-14-2007, 11:45 PM

I agree. (now guess with which ones)

I missed the Madame Puddifoots, St Mungos & especially seeing nevilles parents now, shame about losing the cameo by Lockhart, I thought there was insufficient stand-alone reason given for the centaurs to be so brutal with Umbridge (unless you knew about fienze teaching divination etc from the book), and unless they introduce Weazleys Wizard Wheezes in the next movie, looks like Fered & George won't get their shop in Diagon Alley. Nowhere did Harry reference giving them to money to start up the business (or did he mention it in the last one? now I'm unsure)

I think as it's becoming less of a childrens story and more of an adult movie they could afford to fil more detail and wind it out to 3 hours (or even more, after all, they did it with Gone With The Wand, oops, Wind.)

Loved all the special effects and the music. Dudders is also getting hunkier (in a beary way) and the weasley twins really make me want to go tame my dragon (if you've seen the SNL Hapy Potter spoof, you'll know what I mean).

Speaking of which:

SNL Harry Potter Spoof starring Lindsay Lohan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdUpjv3uhHg)

Go here to find all 5 parts of OOTP Behind The Magic (http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=Oz92)

wendybeth

07-14-2007, 11:48 PM

Okay, now anyone who ventures in here is warned.:D

GC- they changed the curse from a vague, red-light stunner to an Avada Kedavra curse, and had him die before he even fell through, thereby effectively removing any hope that he may have somehow survived. No need to explain the veil now- he's dead. :rolleyes: One of several plot changes that I am not especially happy with. Another that bothered me was the scene after Harry brings Dudders home- no mention of Aunt Petunia's curious knowledge of wizard stuff, or her prior contact with Dumbledore. ("Remember my last, Petunia!") Still, I liked the movie and will probably see it again tomorrow.

Morrigoon

07-15-2007, 01:29 AM

It left SO MUCH out, and changed so much!

Personally, I would rather a longer movie that follows the book more closely.

Those items aside, however, and taken on its own (without comparison to the book), I liked it. Thought it was a very enjoyable film.

lashbear

07-15-2007, 07:27 AM

....and a hitchhiking Nargle will follow you home !

I'm still in love with Luna Lovegood and (yes, it's true) Umbridge.

In fact, Umbridge may rank right up there with the classic Disney Villainesses !!

innerSpaceman

07-15-2007, 08:00 AM

they changed the curse from a vague, red-light stunner to an Avada Kedavra curse, and had him die before he even fell through, thereby effectively removing any hope that he may have somehow survived. No need to explain the veil now- he's dead.
Yes, much more definitely dead in the movie.

But then why does Luna, immediately after consoling Harry about Sirius' death, go on to say that things have a way of coming back to you in completely unexpected ways?? She was purportedly talking about her shoes and stuff ... but in film language, that was clear foreshadowing about a potential return of Sirius Black in some form.

Was that bit in the book??

* * * * *

With no offense meant to those who are miffed about the things left out from the 870-page book, I find one of the strengths of this movie is that it doesn't slavishly transpose the novel. Like the other great Potter film (Prisoner of Azkaban), it is a very cinematic adaptation.

Speakling as someone who only vaguely remembers the book, there were no unclear motivations. Hagrid's line about the Ministry restricting the Centaurs' range was quite sufficient to make sense of their hostility toward Umbridge. This or that other thing may have been omitted, even some stuff that would have taken merely seconds of screen time to include .... but I can't fault the filmmakers for a tightly-paced piece of work where everything made complete sense on its own terms.

They managed to put lots of stuff from the book in the background (so familiar readers could spot it and smile, while not bogging down the proceedings with unnecessary detail.)

In fact, I just advised a friend who's planning on reading Order of the Phoenix before seeing Movie 5 NOT TO. It seems all the people I've known who are most familiar with the book are most displeased with the movie. (Instead, I advised him to, if anything, read the prior book as a lead in the current movie ... and, as I am doing, to read OotP after seeing the film.

At 870-pages, I likely won't finish it before I have to start in on Deathly Hollows in less than a week. But re-familiarizing myself with the novel after having seen the film is a way for me to thoroughly enjoy both.

Gemini Cricket

07-15-2007, 08:57 AM

I forgot to say that I loved Luna. The casting of Potter characters have been spot on. :)

I haven't felt this way since the first movie, but everything in this film is exactly like how I envisioned it in my head. The Ministry, the room the Army practiced in, Umbridge... So very cool.

flippyshark

07-15-2007, 09:59 AM

Okay, dumb geeknerd question. If your home had a "Room of Requirement," (a room which magically provides exactly what you need at any given time), what would yours contain?

Today, mine would feature a Dole Whip dispenser, a shark tank and maybe a perfect recreation of CBGB's, with Television, Talking Heads, and the Ramones playing.

wendybeth

07-15-2007, 11:03 AM

I'm thinking Flippy and I would be sharing a room.;)

Of course, Blondie would be there as well.

flippyshark

07-15-2007, 11:09 AM

It occurs to me that this is an obnoxious derail. So, let me add to my previous post:

Yes, I also thought the Room of Requirement was perfect, just like I had pictured when I read the book.

innerSpaceman

07-15-2007, 05:03 PM

Question: In the movie version of Goblet of Fire, didn't they drop the whole notion of Cho being Cedric's girlfriend? I mean, her and Harry were flirting as a running joke, and um, were she and Cedric like ever together? Did they attend the Yule Ball together??

Because in the Order of the Phoenix movie, there's a scene where Cho is clearly implicated to have had a special relationship with dearly departed Cedric. Did I miss something in Goblet of Fire, or is this a continuity error??

Oh, and I still think Ronald Weasley has developed into quite the hotty, and I'm sure I'm going to hell for it.

wendybeth

07-15-2007, 06:20 PM

iSm, Cho had to turn Harry down in the GOF because she was already going with Cedric. (Rmember the scene in the Owlery?)

Well, saw it again today, and liked it even better. Did anyone catch how only Luna and Harry could hear the voices and see the veil? Hermione said it was just an empty archway. It seems obvious that it's some sort of confluence point between death and life, but perhaps it's something else?

lashbear

07-15-2007, 06:40 PM

But then why does Luna, immediately after consoling Harry about Sirius' death, go on to say that things have a way of coming back to you in completely unexpected ways?? She was purportedly talking about her shoes and stuff ... but in film language, that was clear foreshadowing about a potential return of Sirius Black in some form..

AHA !! Another thing left ouit of the film (and thus unlikely to ever happen in Deathly Hallows) is Sirius' Mirror that he gave Harry, which would have enabled him to speak to Sirius without using the fire (which also went no-where... no umbridge hand patting amongst the ashes).

Therefore, I believe that all hope of contacting sirius is gone, unless there's also a painting of him somewhere about that Kreacher's hidden.

Oh, and I thought that Lunas statement was also a hint for the last book.

katiesue

07-16-2007, 09:30 AM

AHA !! Another thing left ouit of the film (and thus unlikely to ever happen in Deathly Hallows) is Sirius' Mirror that he gave Harry, which would have enabled him to speak to Sirius without using the fire (which also went no-where... no umbridge hand patting amongst the ashes).

Therefore, I believe that all hope of contacting sirius is gone, unless there's also a painting of him somewhere about that Kreacher's hidden.

Oh, and I thought that Lunas statement was also a hint for the last book.

Harry tried the mirror at the end of the book. It didn't work and he smashed it. (Just finished reading it yesterday).

xharryb

07-16-2007, 11:41 AM

Emma Watson is thankfully beautiful again (and she's legal now, isn't she??).

Not quite yet. Only just turned 17.

I finally saw the new film on Saturday. I deffinitely liked it, and loved some parts of it, but overall didn't love the whole film. I think they would have only needed to add about 20 minutes or so, and things would have been clearer and less rushed for me.

Casting continued to be fabulous, and I agree with most here that the younger cast members are improving with each performance.

I think my favortie moment of the film was Harry and Sirius fighting side by side. My biggest dissapointment was a lack of emotional impact, for me anyway, when Sirius died. He's one of my favorite characters in the franchise, so I should have felt something there, but I didn't. Wether it was poorly set up over the course of the film or rushed in the moment it happened I'm not sure, but something was deffinitely missing for me.

innerSpaceman

07-16-2007, 12:37 PM

Yeah, that did not have the emotional wallop it should have. I don't know why. They set up Harry and Black's relationship just fine, I thought. The audience seems to like Sirius Black. The muted-sound Harry screaming reaction was trite, but somewhat tried and and true. I just don't get why it wasn't more of an ooomph.

Perhaps if they'd portrayed the gateway more as it was in the book, and had Sirius slip through it without being killed first ... I guess there would have been the same uncertainty in the movie as in the books about his death, but I believe there would have been more of an emotional reaction to his mysterious disappearance than there was to his actual murder.

Stan4dSteph

07-16-2007, 01:00 PM

Count me in the ranks who haven't read the books but generally enjoy the films.

I agree with the questions about the arch. It didn't seem to be explained as to what it was. I have no idea of its significance.

I really liked the actress' portrayal of Luna.

katiesue

07-16-2007, 01:14 PM

I agree with the questions about the arch. It didn't seem to be explained as to what it was. I have no idea of its significance.

It's not really explained in the book either, but you get the feeling it will be.

Chernabog

07-16-2007, 01:56 PM

It's not really explained in the book either, but you get the feeling it will be.

What, you mean like Harry is gonna jump in there and retrieve Sirius? I guess that is a possibility.

flippyshark

07-16-2007, 02:14 PM

katiesue

07-16-2007, 02:47 PM

Right my understanding was once you went beyond the veil you were gone. But since Harry and Luna could hear voices maybe you can communicate with them?

blueerica

07-16-2007, 02:49 PM

Can I get away with a "ditto" :?:

I actually really liked the books, though Order was certainly the most difficult to read. I was so frustrated, but I do think that was a part of the intent... to further illustrate the mood of Harry.

Like others, I felt like the book hit a lot of the big points, but missed some of the juicier bits that I loved from the book. I remember that after reading Order, I thought for sure they were going to have to do the movie in two parts. I know, expensive, but there is just so much that I know had I been charged with adapting it into a screenplay, I wouldn't know what to cut and what to keep. I really wished they could have shown more about Bellatrix. What I think they did well with was showing fantastic interpretations of scenes that I almost couldn't imagine, mostly, the climactic battle in the Department of Mystery. It was nice to see it.

Chernabog

07-16-2007, 02:53 PM

In the book, that arch is literally "the veil" as in "beyond the veil." One co-worker remarked to me, after reading the bok, that he thought it rather silly that Sirius was killed by a metaphor. (In the book , Bellatrix did not use the Avada Kedavra spell. She just zapped him through the arch, hence pushing him beyond the veil. Gosh, it does sound kind of silly as I type it here.)

It is silly. Order of the Phoenix was a terrible, frustrating, mindless, bloated, unnecessary book. I was looking on Wikipedia at an article that details the differences between the book and the movie, and it brought back memories of how maddeningly stupid OotP the book was. I'm glad they chopped most of it to make it a semi-watchable movie, but they were unfortunately stuck with the general plot.

That still doesn't excuse the sloppy filmmaking 101 stuff that they failed to do, like remember how to coherently connect scenes together (or explain the POINT of the prophecy!!! It would be like Indiana Jones racing against the Nazis for the Ark of the Covenant without ever explaining what it was or why they wanted it.) Honestly, I think this is the least enjoyable or well made of all the HP films, and certainly the worst of the books.

Alex

07-16-2007, 03:05 PM

Looks like I might be seeing it tonight after all. So I'll be able to share my opinion, that everybody probably expects is pre-formed.

So it'll be the opinion of someone who has never read any of the books, can't remember the titles of the movies without prompting. Liked the first one and increasingly disliked each successive one. I probably couldn't name a single event from the second and third movies.

So I'm firmly in the demographic that I'm sure everybody is just dying to know what I think.

innerSpaceman

07-16-2007, 03:39 PM

That still doesn't excuse the sloppy filmmaking 101 stuff that they failed to do, like remember how to coherently connect scenes together
Having seen it twice now, I fail to see where scenes were not coherently connected. Your example of getting quickly to the good stuff in the Department of Mystery turns out to have had a perfectly acceptable montage of each point along the way.

Do you have any other examples?

...explain the POINT of the prophecy!!! It would be like Indiana Jones racing against the Nazis for the Ark of the Covenant without ever explaining what it was or why they wanted it.
Well, maybe - - Lord of the Rings style - they decided to save something from this story to spice up the complete boredom of the next. (Really, if you hated Order of the Phoenix, I'd like to know what you thought of Half Blood Prince.)

Honestly, I think this is the least enjoyable or well made of all the HP films, and certainly the worst of the books.

Wow, your entitled-to opinion really stuns me. I've talked with dozens of people about this movie, and it's at or near the top ranks with the great majority. Your opinion is completely valid ... but, to paraphrase you ... were we even watching the same movie????

All that said, did you at least think Ron Weasely was surprisingly hot??

Chernabog

07-16-2007, 04:21 PM

Do you have any other examples?

Another one that springs to mind is the denouement of Umbridge sequence, from her office, to the forest, to back again. It was just like flip, flip, flip, they're here! They're there! It's nighttime! They're here! It's daytime! I remember other parts I pointed out stuff like that when I was watching the movie, but I'd have to see the movie again to point them out and I don't want to do that.

Well, maybe - - Lord of the Rings style - they decided to save something from this story to spice up the complete boredom of the next. (Really, if you hated Order of the Phoenix, I'd like to know what you thought of Half Blood Prince.)

Haha I actually enjoyed Half-Blood Prince (as the first half of a two-parter). It could have used some editing as well, but at least it made sense and introduced elements we hadn't seen before (i.e. the horcruxes) and some fun action sequences, as well as more Snape (which is always good).

I forgot to mention Alan Rickman as Snape, who was really good in OotP! His lines were fantastic. (Umbridge: "What did he mean by that?" Snape: "No idea.")

Wow, your entitled-to opinion really stuns me. I've talked with dozens of people about this movie, and it's at or near the top ranks with the great majority. Your opinion is completely valid ... but, to paraphrase you ... were we even watching the same movie????

See what is odd is that most of my Disney-netizen friends mostly enjoyed it. All of the people I went with to see the movie thought it was sort of meh. The audience I saw it with opening night was sort of meh. My brother and my parents saw it and they thought it was sort of meh. Roger Ebert was spot-on in his review (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070709/REVIEWS/70620005) (and he gave it two and a half out of four stars... I'd probably give it 2 or 2 1/2), so he thought it was sort of meh (though for somewhat different reasons than I). Hell, the people in my Lord of the Rings online guild thought it was sort of meh, and they usually like this stuff. On here and on Micechat, people seem to think it was fabulous! So I'm just as baffled as you are.

All that said, did you at least think Ron Weasely was surprisingly hot??

Yeah hopefully in a year or two we'll see if the curtains match the drapes. :evil:

innerSpaceman

07-16-2007, 05:07 PM

Just gotta say my opening night crowd of Harry Potter fanatics at the Chinese was eccstatic about it, as was my opening weekend regular audience at The Bridge.

Did you like Prisoner of Azkaban? I watched it last night, and I swear that movie is a revelation! In my opinion, one of the best fantasy films of all time. Every single shot is designed like a rich illustration, comparable to Disney's Pinocchio. The compostions, the camera movements, the art direction, the effects ... everything of impeccible beauty.

I can't gush about that film enough. The story construction was tight. The trio of kids were at their cutest. The tone was charming and delightful. And much like I prefer the Monster-of-the-Week stories on The X Files, I think PoA is also the best Potter film for being the only one without Voldemort as the villain.

innerSpaceman

07-17-2007, 12:39 PM

And now:

My Hogwarts Homo Schoolboy Crushes

:blush: My first Hogwarts Homo Crush lasted for two movies, and I daresay would still be continuing if he hadn’t graduated. But the object of my lustful affections for both The Sorcerer’s Stone and The Chamber of Secrets was none other than Gryffindor Quidditch Captain, Oliver Wood.

Oi, that face! That accent! Not to mention the implied delights of Mr. Wood’s, um, broomstick - by virtue of his last name. And lest you think that’s just silly because it’s just a fanciful Rowling name ... let me remind you that the actor’s name was, astoundingly, Jack BIGGERSTAFF.
Oh my!

:) For Prisoner of Azkaban, I formed a much more healthy and wholesome crush on Harry Potter himself. (Well, as healthy and wholesome as a crush on a 14-year old boy can be). Daniel Radcliffe blossomed into quite the cutie ... and it felt proper for once to have a crush on the hero of the series. (Hey, he’d be legal in England in just two years!)

:cool: In Goblet of Fire, the undeniable hotties were George and Fred, the Weasley twins. I didn’t have as strong a thing for these playful boys as I’d had for Potter and Wood, but something about the devilishness and hot-stuff good looks proved irresistible to many more than me alone.

:eek: Now that Order of the Phoenix has arrived, I’m aghast that my crush on Weasleys continues ... but this time it’s (gulp) Ron Weasley that I find unbelievably hot ... and I’m very bothered by that. Ron Weasley is supposed to be a gawky, dork of a sidekick. But I’m afraid he’s gone and eclipsed Harry Potter in the hotness department, and is now a fitting object of affection for the lovely Miss Emma Watson as Hermoine Granger ... if she can pry my hands off him!

What a surprising and disturbing revelation the teenage Ronald Weasley has become. That winning smile, those sparkling eyes, that wry delivery of subtle charm. Oh boy, I’ve got it bad. But why? Why!??! Ronald Weasley??!!

Oh no! The shame, the shame! I’m doomed.

Alex

07-21-2007, 08:52 AM

Well, it didn't suck like the last three sucked. Storywise it was much more coherent than anything since the first one. That isn't to say it isn't obvious where great big swaths of exposition were cut out, just that unlike other movies those swaths aren't so important to understanding what is going on.

Only experiencing this stuff through the movies and then not being very entertained by things one signficiant problem I had was that this movie ties together strands from the previous movies and I just don't remember the details of the previous movies (partly disinterest, partly time, partly the last few movies didn't necessarily make much sense without reading the books). I was a little fuzzy, for example, on who exactly Sirius is and why Potter likes him so much. Wasn't vital, just missing.

This one goes a long way towards fixing my primary complaint about the series up to this point. Namely, I've never understood why people like the Potter character, he was simply a passive participant in the story. He never did anything, things just happened to him. He could have been an old suitcase for all it mattered up to now. But finally that is rectified and he is standing up and taking some control, or at least interest, in his fate.

Unlike the rest of you I found Imelda Staunton's performance annoying.

One question, when they flew those bird/dinosaur/horse things (already forget what they're called) from Hogwarts to London does that mean everybody but Harry and the Village of the Damned girl were flying on things they couldn't see?

Like a teenager growing into his large feet, Rupert Grint has finally grown into his extremely wide mouth. And he didn't do that whiny whimper thing that made me want to see him in pain through the previous movies. But watching him I couldn't help but think this is what he'll look like in 15-20 years:

http://www.squizzle.com/_sed43/carrottop%281%29.jpg

innerSpaceman

07-21-2007, 09:01 AM

I don't recall Harry Potter being passive in Prisoner of Azkaban, or there being any exposition cut out, or - - as it was the only stand-alone film since the first - - there being any need to be familiar with either the other films or any of the books. Nor was there anything untight about the story construction.

This is before we get to the beautiful art direction, winning performances, terrific score, and creative directorial choices.

After also reading about your "horrible" experience ducking into Barnes & Noble last night, Alex ... I don't know what weirdly alternate Harry Potter universe you exist in ... but I'm glad I don't inhabit that one.

Alex

07-21-2007, 09:20 AM

It was "horrible" because I went in needing a specific book and could barely get through the store because of people just sitting on the floor lounging about and generally being indifferent to anybody who might actually be there to shop at 8 p.m. (and also, to manage the midnight queue they had rearranged shelving making it nearly impossible to get to the cash registers without an overhead view of the store). I knew there was going to be a lot of people there but I expected there'd be more order to things (I didn't know they had a wristband system that didn't require queuing. Harry Potter was not the specific reason it was horrible, just the thing that caused so many people to be there. If they'd all been there for a Philip Roth signing it would have been just as horrible.

Yes, I find the 50-year-old guy wearing a what looks like a $4.99 Harry Potter costume they bought at Wal-Mart earlier in the day to be somewhat silly. If you're going to go all out, go all out and put some effort into it.

Azkaban was the most filmic of the movies but I still found seriously flawed as a story (I can't defend this position anymore since I barely remember what happened in the movie but I know that is how I felt after seeing it).

You and I agreed on Transformers and disagree on Potter; such are the trials of individual taste.

Prudence

07-21-2007, 11:46 AM

zomg the cat plates!

innerSpaceman

07-21-2007, 01:52 PM

I wish we could get a set of those for Not Afraid.

Prudence

07-21-2007, 07:08 PM

the entire theater giggled when the one cat went through the cat flap.

alphabassettgrrl

07-21-2007, 08:08 PM

The cat plates made me giggle. Also the fact that "umbridge" means something along the lines of "offensive". :) And Dolores means "sad".

I found frightening parallels to the current political situation though I doubt that was intended.

innerSpaceman

07-22-2007, 07:56 AM

Oh, I'm sure the political allusions were intended to satirize any number of tryannical bureaucracies and governments. That our particular one did not exist when Rowling wrote the tale does not make it any less the target of her quill.

Then again, the novel was written in 2002 ... and I doubt much prescience was needed to project the trajectory of the Blair and Bush regimes. Perhaps Rowling had no specifics in mind .... and perhaps she did.

Snowflake

07-22-2007, 09:40 AM

Saw it at the Kabuki yesterday. I thought it was great, many fine touches. I did not mind the plot change, at least it was Cho spilling the beans because of veritaserum and not plain nastiness. And I did not really miss all the sub-plot that was axed, because I had such a hard time with the book, the movie sped along at a nice clip.

Love Staunton as Umbridge, loved the heavy victorian furniture in her rooms, and the cat plates were just awesome.

I also like Gwarp, not as fierce, but much more cute than in the book.

Shows what a week, and the day of book 7 release will do for the crowds at the movie, maybe 30 people in the theater.

innerSpaceman

07-22-2007, 09:43 AM

I think my favorite touch about Umbridge's headmaster office was not the cat plates, but that she'd "dyed" the stone walls pink.

Snowflake

07-22-2007, 12:01 PM

I think my favorite touch about Umbridge's headmaster office was not the cat plates, but that she'd "dyed" the stone walls pink.

I need to see it again, obviously! I missed that!

Alex

07-22-2007, 12:38 PM

My understanding at the time is that that the cat that went through the cat door was going to warn Umbridge and that is how she caught them in her office. Is that correct?

Also, rereading my post above I see that "Well, it didn't suck like the last three sucked" suggests I thought it sucked, just differently from the last three. I meant, the last three sucked (in my entirely subjective opinion; I'm just going to say this every time I comment on a movie), this one didn't.

I don't think it was great, but it was good and I was entertained. If all five had been of this quality I'd have few complaints.

Not Afraid

07-22-2007, 12:49 PM

I saw the ending of Goblet of Fire on HBO tis morning. I don't recall ever seeing it - or I just don't remember.

I think I ned to watch them all before I proceed any further.

Prudence

07-22-2007, 08:10 PM

Wasn't the sugar for her tea pink?

Jazzman

07-22-2007, 11:55 PM

Well, we made it to the theater tonight and finally saw it, so here is my official review of:

Harry Potter And The Completely Blown Opportunity Of What Could Have Been An Amazing Movie But Ended Up As A Poorly Adapted Butchering Of A Great Story That Now Has Little Resemblance To The Source Material.

(Did that give away too much?)

Yeah, it was crap. Crap crappity crappy crap crap. But before I dive into why, I’ll go ahead and list what I liked about it.

- Fantastic sets, costumes and cinematography. As with each film so far they did an amazing job of immersing the audience into this wondrous world. Every time I see Hogwarts on the screen I feel like I could stand up and walk around the halls. Very exciting.

- With the exception of Gambon’s performance, every character was once again brought to life as if they had leapt from my own imagining of them. Umbridge was absolutely perfect; evil, conniving and totally Mother-in-Law like. Grawp was done even better than I had imagined, and the thestrals were eerily beautiful. More than anyone, though, I loved Sirius. Oldman is such a master, and he portrayed Sirius so perfectly that my heart broke watching his scenes with Harry, knowing what was to come. Really well done.

- … … Ummm, that’s about it.

Now, on to why it sucked the big one.

- An amazing story, chopped down so much that it barely deserves to be called “Order of the Phoenix.” (Actually, not even barely. It has almost nothing to do at all with Order of the Phoenix. They should have just given it a new title.) Seriously, I felt like I was watching it in fast forward. I blinked and suddenly, “Oh, here we are at the Department of Mysteries!” S.T.U.P.I.D. Now, I know the argument. “Oh, it had to be cut down to a manageable length! We don’t want a three hour movie! There’s just sooooooo much to cover!” Well, wah. To the whiners who complained about the previous films running long, I say: Stuff it. These films aren’t for you. These are stories that are loved by those of us who have read and enjoyed them. If you don’t like long movies and don’t want the real story, go watch TV. Leave us our Potter. Besides, every other movie is three hours long anymore. With so much important material to cover, this should have been too.

- Following in that vein, there were simply some scenes which the loss of is simply tragic. The hospital scene with Neville’s parents is one of them. That scene did so much to further the story, not only for Neville, but for the whole plotline. It brought home what the situation was, what the stakes were, and what the losses would be, and made them all realities for the characters. Having Neville mention it as a “by the way” in the Room of Requirement was lame.

- Dumbledore. Michael Gambon should be soaked in bacon grease, rolled in jerky, and thrown into a pit full of rabid, starving Chihuahuas. He is so painfully awful as Dumbledore that he made me want to stab my own eyes out. Dumbledore is strong, wise and understated. Gambon is just a cranky, stinky old fool. I cannot understand how Rowling can stomach seeing her character be so horribly defiled. He is truly so pathetic that I find myself eagerly awaiting the climax of Half Blood Prince. What a stinker.

- It goes along with the loss of story, but I have to mention the complete lack of character development, or even characters at all for that matter. Everything was so overly rushed that these great characters whom we’ve all grown to love just popped in and out like it was some sort of shooting gallery. It felt like, “Look, Mad Eye! Missed him. Oh, there goes Lupin… Nope. Hey, the twins! That was cool. Hey, Mr. Weasley! Hope we see him again.” What a waste.

- And last, because I have to stop somewhere, I have to mention the Voldemort-Dumbledore Rumble in the Tunnel. Now, I have been looking forward to and anticipating this very scene since I first read it however many years ago now. It was so exciting and chilling that I knew that, since the movies (until now) were being done so well, it would look amazing on film. But of course, it actually sucked. Oohhh, some fire and water and a bunch of broken glass. Oohhhh, that was brilliant film making right there. Oh, and a slow-mo sand storm. Wow... I am stunned by your cinematic wizardry… Come on! Where are the living statues? What the F? I wanted the centaur running around, the wizard shielding Harry. That was cool stuff! But this? Crapola.

In the end, this film leaves me dreading the next two. Hopefully they’ll hire a Director for them instead of dropping by the local meat counter and signing up whatever hack butcher is on that day. It’s been a good run so far, but alas, just as with the Pirates franchise, it had to die sometime I guess. I had really hoped, and believed even, that the films would continue to be as well done as the first few, but I guess that was wishful thinking. At least I have Deathly Hallows to soothe the pain though. Hollywood hacks can’t touch that. Yet.

Nephythys

07-23-2007, 05:29 AM

One question, when they flew the thestrals from Hogwarts to London does that mean everybody but Harry and Luna were flying on things they couldn't see?

Yes. It's quite funny in the book.

...and Jazzman, Yates is directing HBP.

innerSpaceman

07-23-2007, 10:58 AM

Before I even continue with Jazzman's scathing review, I must point out that the movies are hardly just for the people who read the books. That's an elitist and, furthermore, completely untrue assertion.

Even with a book series as popular as Potter, billions more see the movies than read the books.

Deal with that, because it's the plain truth of ANY movie made of ANY book.

innerSpaceman

07-23-2007, 11:05 AM

And I'm at the point where I wish all these whiney Potter novel fans would simply enjoy their precious books, and leave the movies to us who either don't read the books or don't believe the movies must slavishly parrot the books.

How completely boring it would be to simply see a visual representation of exactly what was on the printed page.

YAWN!

Nephythys

07-23-2007, 11:13 AM

wendybeth

07-23-2007, 11:35 AM

You know, we watched the first Harry Potter last night and it was kind of interesting to do so, having read the final book of the series. One thing that struck me was- much as I loved Richard Harris- how good Michael Gambon is in the part of Dumbledore. I really did not like him at all in the third film, largely because his portrayal of Dumbledore seemed a bit too energetic- I had grown used to the more gentle, soft-spoken Harris. Now that we've been allowed a better look into the character of Dumbledore, I really think Michael Gambon is doing a fine job.

innerSpaceman

07-23-2007, 01:38 PM

I hated Harris as Dumbledore. He looked like he could be knocked down with a feather ... as indeed turned out to be the case.

Gambon is EXACTLY as I pictured Dumbledore. And my picture is no more authoritative than anyone else's. I'm just pointing out that just because someone didn't picture Dumbledore (or any character) the way the actor plays it does not mean the actor is not playing Dumbledore (or any character) "correctly."

The first two books were quite a bit briefer than those that followed. The first two movies parroted the books precisely and, in my opinion, were dulled by that choice.

In any case, it's no longer possible to include the entire contents of any Potter book in any Potter movie designed to a) maximize revenue through a decent number of daily showtimes and b) not put people to sleep.

I'm not finished with my re-reading of OotP yet, but so far I think the movie is a brilliant adaptation of the book that wisely dropped everything not related to the main plot of Harry & Friends vs. Umbridge.

I think reducing Neville's parents from a 10-minute film sequence to a 20-second mention is precisely the proper choice for a film.

The failed romance with Cho and the over-long Christmas Holiday recuperation of Arthur Weasley were wisely disposed of, I believe. Three-quarters done with the book (I had to pause to read the new book), and I've almost forgotten who Umbridge is, as there's been so much more thrown in with no mention of her for nearly a hundred pages.

I'm not saying it doesn't work for the book, but that its an obvious choice for the movie adaptation to streamline the plot and keep the D.A. vs. Dolores the main thrust of the story.

Morrigoon

07-23-2007, 02:03 PM

I think they'd do better breaking up the long books into more than one movie than to throw so much out due to time.

innerSpaceman

07-23-2007, 02:50 PM

Should they do that with all novels adapted to the screen, or just Harry Potter??

Chernabog

07-23-2007, 03:05 PM

I think they'd do better breaking up the long books into more than one movie than to throw so much out due to time.

Oh hell no. If the screenwriter is doing his job correctly, it can be condensed into an entertaining cinematic experience that does not have to be 5 hours long. And FOUR MORE YEARS of Harry Potter? (i.e. Rambo.. errr Harry: half blood part 1, half blood part 2, deathly hallows part 1, deathly hallows part 2? ugh.) Of course, the screenwriters can't just include things willy-nilly and then drop the reason for including them, a la OotP. Slavish reproductions of any novel make for boring watching. Hell, even 3 1/2 hour Gone With The Wind was MASSIVELY condensed (from the 1000+ page novel) and that came out beatifully.

Though of course it would have been cool for the "fans" to have extra DVD scenes, a la Lord of the Rings.

Gemini Cricket

07-23-2007, 03:38 PM

Hmmm.
I didn't like Dumbledore's temper tantrum in Goblet of Fire. It was after he found out the Harry was going to be in the games. It seemed out of character. I don't know if Harris would have played it that way...
I liked Harris' Dumbledore... if only for the scene where he and Harry are in front of the mirror. That's a very, very touching scene in movie 1.

innerSpaceman

07-23-2007, 03:55 PM

I have to agree that Gambon's freak-out in Goblet of Fire was his worst Dumbledore moment, and Harris' sweetness at the mirror was his best.

Alex

07-23-2007, 04:00 PM

The problem with breaking the books into multiple movies is that (I'm assuming) the books don't necessarily have a logical breaking point in the middle.

Heck, in most of the movies it seems like by Christmas break they have barely made it to the beginning of whatever the point of that book is.

But this is why beloved books are almost never appreciated as movies (and why the majority of well regarded book adaptations are of rarely read books). Where you're unhappy that things got cut out or dropped I am just left unhappy because it is frequently obvious that something got cut out or dropped.

One of William Goldman's books has a great chapter on the difficulty of movie adaption using his work on Misery as an example. I wonder if it was a mistake to have Rowling adapt her own books since it must be very difficult to make the important decisions.

Chernabog

07-23-2007, 04:01 PM

Gambon tries to play him like Gandalf the Grey, which is not how Dumbledore is written.

innerSpaceman

07-23-2007, 04:22 PM

'Not as he is written' being a criticism linked to parroting of the novel. :p

That's not to say "as written" isn't better.

One of my most admired film adaptations is Juraissic Park. Don't get me wrong; I loathe that movie.

But, except for the T-Rex attack and some of the basic set-up, Spielberg almost stubbornly refused to import any scenes from the book. The book was WAY better, and the main character far more compelling than as eventually played by Sam Neill. But I admire the choice to refuse to simply film the book ... even if it meant a movie that was nowhere near as good as the book.

(And, teehee, lots of scenes from the original book ended up in the JP movie sequels.)

With Harry Potter, I not only don't mind the films that have been most cinematically adapted (PofA and OoftheP), but find them equally as enjoyable as the novels they are so loosely based on.

Chernabog

07-23-2007, 06:00 PM

'Not as he is written' being a criticism linked to parroting of the novel. :p

That's not to say "as written" isn't better.

It is a quandary isn't it? In this case, "as written" is better, because I don't believe that Gambon's "homeless old man" act works for the part. Harris just played him better. It is hard to put my finger on WHY that is the case.

I guess instead of saying "which is not how Dumbledore is written" I should have said "in a way that contributes positively to the film, gives emotional attachment, is multi-dimensional, or makes us believe that he is the powerful headmaster of Hogwarts."

BarTopDancer

07-23-2007, 06:08 PM

I loved Harris as Dumbledore. I like Gambon plays Dumbledore. It is very hard to say how I would feel had Harris not died or had Gambon be Dumbledore from the start. Is my preference based upon what was first? What I became attached to? Or better portrayal.

wendybeth

07-23-2007, 06:09 PM

Eliza Hodgkins 1812

07-23-2007, 07:57 PM

I would have agreed with you, Chernabog, a few movies ago. Now that I've read the series, I think Gambon is really closer to the character in the book- not the early Grandfatherly Dumbledore, but the younger, more energetic and volatile one. I don't see his portrayal as Gandalf-like, but rather more like the book described: Sort of bohemian, intense, secretive, concerned but not above being duplicitous if necessary- more human, really. The freak-out in the GoF seemed out of place for Harris's Dumbledore, but not for the Dumbledore I now have in my mind's eye.

I feel much the same as you, Wendy. Though I could have done with a bit more warmth at the end of OotP. Harris may have played that scene better. Granted, I think the scene in the movie was missing some essential dialogue. Not that I loved the movie any less; I really, really dug it. And I loved Gambon's performance except for that last scene, when I think it was really, really important for Dumbledore to show both is remorse and his affection.

innerSpaceman

07-23-2007, 08:43 PM

With the entire character-arc of Dumbledore now revealed, I think he's closer to Gambon than Harris ... but, on the page, remains distinctively his own ... and not, imo, fully and properly captured by either actor.

I just think Gambon's portrayal is closer ... and that's simply my personal preference. (though I'm undoubtedly going to picture him with a shopping cart in future outtings.)

Brigitte

07-23-2007, 09:13 PM

I didn't like Gambon's performance in the PoA. He came across a bit too dotty and eccentric for me. The outburst in GoF was way out of character, too. I think he's just not as personable as Harris.

wendybeth

07-23-2007, 09:19 PM

That's just it- Dumbledore was dotty and eccentric. He was wise, but not omnipotent, and he had some very human failings. Again, I prefer the Harris model, but in truth Gambon's is more true to the book.

alphabassettgrrl

07-23-2007, 11:57 PM

I loved Harris' Dumbledore. I despise the new guy, who just doesn't have the poise and command that Harris did. New guy just seems to be floating along, controlling very little, hoping nobody challenges him for leadership because he can't stand up to it.

Brigitte

07-24-2007, 10:59 AM

Eccentric, sure. I don't see Dumbledore as remotely dotty in the books. He has a good grasp on what is going on around him in the books. Maybe he's just not as visible in the movies, so you don't get the feel for him that comes through in the writing.

xharryb

07-24-2007, 11:02 AM

I think most of the problem with "who's the better Dumbledore?" is simply the fact that we have two very different actors to compare. Had one person played the role for all 7 films, I don't think there would be nearly as much questioning of how the character is being portrayed.

Which is why I kinda think it was a little short sighted of the powers that be to cast Harris in the first place. He was already so old and, worse yet, not aging terribly well. Did they really expect him to live through a full decade or so it would take to film the entire franchise?

That being said though, I think part of the appeal and the reason so many prefer Harris' portrayal actual has more to do with the actors' natural presence than the acting. Harris could stand there on screen, not saying a word yet giving off a very regal, watchable, likable it factor. Gambon is a fine actor, but doesn't have the same regal presence that made Harris so instantly appealing.

innerSpaceman

07-24-2007, 11:04 AM

+1 all that ^.

Chernabog

07-24-2007, 11:12 AM

I would have agreed with you, Chernabog, a few movies ago. Now that I've read the series, I think Gambon is really closer to the character in the book- not the early Grandfatherly Dumbledore, but the younger, more energetic and volatile one.

Perhaps like y'all who have read Deathly Hallows I will feel differently afterwards but.... ummm.... is there really any more character arc to Dumbledore AFTER he dies?

And I don't think Dumbledore was "energetic and volatile" in the first two books anyway. I just have zero emotional attachment to Gambon, yet I did have emotional attachment to the Dumbledore of the books and Harris' portrayal. I think Xharryb is dead-on in his analysis.

innerSpaceman

07-24-2007, 12:16 PM

Yes, read Deathly Hallows. Dumbledore is taken down a peg or two.

Not quite to raving homeless man, though.

wendybeth

07-24-2007, 12:19 PM

Yes, Cherny- there is. You will find out a lot of background info on Dumbledore that may surprise you- he's not always been the the person he was at the end. Really, it was after reading this book that I changed opinion of Gambon's Dumbledore.

Brigitte- maybe dotty isn't the right word, but remember Dumbledore's love of odd things and his sometimes 'out there' statements, designed to distract or diffuse a situation, but nonetheless striking others as a bit goofy? (Such as his 'few words' at the beginning of term, or how he speaks to persons like the Dursleys, or when he's trying to distract Minister Fudge, etc). Dumbledore, as written, is eccentric- genius, but an eccentric one.

Brigitte

07-24-2007, 01:04 PM

The one scene I got the dotty feeling from was when they return after the time turner section. It's more of an eccentricity maybe. He does have a different way of coming across than Harris did. Different actors, different perceptions. He is growing on me though!

innerSpaceman

07-24-2007, 01:08 PM

That post-time turner scene is Gambon's most brilliant. In it, he's Dumbledore in the present moment who doesn't know anything about sending Hermoine and Harry back to the past to undue some stuff that needs undoing, but also Aware of the Future that NOW DOESN"T EXIST when he tells Hermoine to go back to the past.

If a little dottiness is not called for in such a situation, I don't know when it is!!

Brigitte

07-24-2007, 01:33 PM

True, I think we were just set against him from the start because we loved Harris's performances in the first 2. Having seen the next 3, I should go back and watch the first 2 to see how I feel about it now.

Morrigoon

07-24-2007, 01:59 PM

That, and I thought the actor who played Gandalf would've made a great 2nd Dumbledore.

BTW: we're getting dangerously close to some book spoilers in this movie spoilers thread. Some of us have not finished DH.

Snowflake

07-24-2007, 02:20 PM

That, and I thought the actor who played Gandalf would've made a great 2nd Dumbledore.

Had he not played Gandalf, I agree, Ian McKellen would have been awesome. However, two wizards too close together in the space of his career.

I'm warming to Michael Gambon, he is so very different than the warm and comforting Richard Harris, but as WB and others have posted already, Gambon's portrayal is much closer to the books. I liked him a fair bit in OotP, I need to re-watch it, I know I missed a good deal, the film moved very quickly.

Stan4dSteph

07-24-2007, 02:47 PM

BTW: we're getting dangerously close to some book spoilers in this movie spoilers thread. Some of us have not finished DH.Yes, I agree. Please don't post spoilers for Deathly Hallows or Half-Blood Prince here.

innerSpaceman

07-24-2007, 03:24 PM

Spoilers for Half-Blood Prince?!?!? Um, not that I will do so on purpose, but the spoiler alert for the previous Harry Potter book is no longer valid.

Wait ... here's one spoiler for that book: Read only the last 50 pages, and save yourself 700 pages of pure, unadulterated boredom.

BarTopDancer

07-24-2007, 03:35 PM

Quit posting and get reading people!

Alex

07-24-2007, 03:46 PM

For a thread discussing the 5th movie would not a discussion of events in the sixth movie, not yet made, be spoilers?

Chernabog

07-24-2007, 04:04 PM

I guess I'll reserve judgment on the Harris/Gambon debate until borrowing a copy of DH, but I always saw Dumbledore as a slightly kooky grandfatherly type when I was reading the books rather than a scary old homeless man. (It seems I am in the minority here) Granted, I've only read each book once, but still......

innerSpaceman

07-24-2007, 04:53 PM

I'll lend you mine.

Stan4dSteph

07-24-2007, 06:06 PM

Spoilers for Half-Blood Prince?!?!? Um, not that I will do so on purpose, but the spoiler alert for the previous Harry Potter book is no longer valid.I haven't read the books, but I have seen the films. I know there are others in the same situation. Posting spoilers from the 6th book would be bad, since the 6th MOVIE has not been made yet.

My understanding is that this is discussion of the 5th MOVIE.

Chernabog

07-24-2007, 06:13 PM

I'll lend you mine.

awesome thanks!!! Love your quote btw ;)

Gemini Cricket

07-24-2007, 06:43 PM

I don't know if Ian McKellan would have been a good replacement for Harris either...

wendybeth

07-24-2007, 06:54 PM

I see no spoilers from the books here at all, unless you consider a vague foreshadowing regarding Dumbledore a spoiler. However, if someone hasn't read the HBP by now, I think it's unfair to expect people to not discuss it here, as this film leads to the HBP and what happens in this film impacts the next.

innerSpaceman

07-24-2007, 07:07 PM

Plus, there's a big Darth Vader is Luke's Father type spoiler material in Half Blood Prince ... so big that I hope no one on earth is expecting it to have remained a secret.

I don't intend to discuss Half Blood Prince here, and I respect people who haven't read the books, but see the films. Yet the movies are based on what is perhaps the most famous book series of all time, and major plot points become common knowledge a couple of years before the counterpart movie comes out.

I'm sure we'll all try our best, really .... but there can be no reasonable expectation of non Half-Blood spoilers in the world at this point ... and no such expectation for Deathly Hallows about a month from now.

And I think Robin Williams should have taken over the role of Dumbledore.

wendybeth

07-24-2007, 07:20 PM

I've scanned past movie threads and what happens in the next book always comes up- it's inevitable. I don't know how someone could expect people not to discuss what happens next in the midst of a series based on books that have already been published and in the public domain. (I understand the blackout on TDH, as many people are still reading the book, but HBP has been out for a very long time now and has been discussed quite openly at these and other boards, in print and so forth for some time now). I think if a person has not read HBP and wants to be kept in suspense until the movie comes out they have every right to try, but it would be unreasonable to expect others to do the same.

Alex

07-24-2007, 07:25 PM

It's a fuzzy area (I remember the same thing coming up with the Lord of the Rings movies where book fans would discuss the movie within the context of the entire series and movie-only fans would beg them not too).

I personally don't really care (I've read all of the spoilers on Deathly Hallows, but I have no idea what happens in Half Blood Prince (well, one thing and that may be the hinted at).

I also don't think there were any real spoilers here just a suggestion that things were getting close to spoilers. With the spoiler tag available, though, I think that offers a reasonable compromise about specific next movie spoilers.

innerSpaceman

07-24-2007, 07:26 PM

wendybeth

07-24-2007, 07:36 PM

I have a great HBP spoiler story, so I'll put the spoiler in tags.

My friend, James, was in line to buy the book at midnight at a Barnes and Noble in Burbank, but his position in line would have put the book in his hands around 1am.

So he went to a nearby Ralphs that was open 24 hours and bought the book in 3 minutes, but ...
the pimply-faced clerk at the check-out counter scans the book and then says, "Oh, I hear Dumblesomebody dies."

Now, that's an asshole.

Alex is right- we can try to remember to use tags, but I think people need to realize that in most HP circles it's a given that people have read the books, so it's not really even discussed (after the obligatory grace period) that someone might not have read them and is relying on the movies to provide the surprise. We can try to be careful, but lets not be too angry if anyone forgets and posts something that could be considered spoilerish.

Stan4dSteph

07-24-2007, 09:17 PM

Fine with me. I'm sure I'll get spoiled anyway, since no doubt someone will tell me assuming I've read the books. I'll just leave all the HP discussion to the die hards then. Ta ta!

BarTopDancer

07-24-2007, 09:27 PM

Geeze Steph. Not everyone is a die-hard. However, it can be very difficult to separate books after they have been out for awhile. I don't think anyone here would intentionally post something that would spoil HBP but really, the book has been out for a few years and all the big surprises have been public knowledge for quite some time. What do you do in every day situations? Cover your ears and "la la la I'm not listening I haven't read the book"?

My friend is in the middle of reading OotP. Any and all HP discussions are lead by him. I don't want to ruin anything for him but we both know that I am completely up to date and if something slips in the middle of a conversation it's not intentional.

Babette

07-24-2007, 09:32 PM

I read the first 4 books before seeing any of those films, but never read #5. I saw Order of the Phoenix Sunday and I enjoyed it. I was confused in some parts, so I am now reading the book to fill in the blanks.

*How did the dementors get there?
*Why does Voldemort want the prophecy? What is it?
*Who is the awesome character played by Helena Bonham Carter?
*Where were they and where did all of those vaporous characters and archway come from?
*I knew Ron would grow up HOT!

I avoided this thread until I saw movie #5, knowing it would have spoilers from movie/book #5. I agree with the please do not spoil #6 & #7 seeing as how many people have posted in this thread that they have not read the books and like to enjoy the movies. I understand that in HP circles people have read the books, but this thread is different types of people discussing a movie, not just diehard HP enthusists. Heck, I just learned about the big spoiler in #6 a couple of days ago!

I like when a movie adaptation uses the base of a book, but modifies it for the screen. I have only read 9 of the 38 chapters of Order and they are still not even to Hogwarts. Something had to be cut, but maybe a little too much important transition/linking plot was cut for the non-book reader to follow.

Why does every HP book have to span the whole school year? Are Voldemort and his followers only able to "attack" just before summer holiday?

wendybeth

07-24-2007, 09:37 PM

They can't attack Harry at the Privet Drive address, Babette. The one time he wasn't in school was in the GoF, and merde hit the fan. (The Quidditch World Cup).

I'd answer your question further, but that would involve spoilers.

BarTopDancer

07-24-2007, 09:43 PM

To keep those who haven't read the books and somehow have remained spoiler free thus far happy. Click me (http://www.loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/showthread.php?t=6304)

wendybeth

07-24-2007, 09:56 PM

Babette, I wasn't trying to be snarky when I said it would involve spoilers- it would. Thanks, dear.

Gemini Cricket

07-24-2007, 10:09 PM

I find it funny that the HP movie dipped to number two this weekend because all the HP fans were at home reading HP 7 this weekend. Haw haw!
:D

innerSpaceman

07-24-2007, 10:09 PM

I'll answer the ones that are only Movie/Book 5 spoilers (and hence, no longer spoilers in any fashion whatsoever).
How did the dementors get there?
In the movie, Dumbledore suggests they might have been sent by Voldemort, and there is no contradiction to that. But the demontors are under the control of the Ministry and, in the book, it's revealed that Umbridge sent them to attack Harry Potter.

Who is the awesome character played by Helena Bonham Carter?That is Bellatrix LeStrange, cousin to Sirius Black and most devoted (and deranged) follower of Lord Voldemort, whose albino dick she sucks on a regular basis. (That last part's not in the books, but I'm sure of it). Isn't it wonderful how Carter could give such an over-the-top performance that was somehow not cheesy, but instead completely delighful?!

Where were they and where did all of those vaporous characters and archway come from?They were in the Department of Mysteries at the Ministry of Magic headquarters. The vaporous characters were simply how the advanced witches and wizards got around quickly in the movie (black smoke for Death Eaters, white mist for Phoenix Orderers). I'm not sure if that's their method of magical transport in the book ... I'm not up to that part yet. Which is why I also can't answer about the Archway ... though, as I remember, it remains perhaps the most mysterious thingamabobbie in the wizarding world of J.K. Rowling.

Why does Voldemort want the prophecy? What is it?I can't answer this. It's not something that stuck in my mind, and I'm not up to that part of the book in my re-read. I find most of Rowling's McGuffins and mythology to be very tortured and confusing. I'm sure some Harry Potter uber-geek will jump in with the answer to this one.

I knew Ron would grow up HOT!
You should have warned me!!!

wendybeth

07-24-2007, 10:12 PM

Voldemort wants the prophecy because he discovers there was more to it than Snape initially heard- Snape was interrupted in his eavesdropping and only heard the first part of it.

Babette

07-24-2007, 10:17 PM

Gracias, iSm and WB.

Don't tell me all y'all didn't see potential in this:

Alex

07-24-2007, 10:23 PM

In the movie, Dumbledore suggests they might have been sent by Voldemort, and there is no contradiction to that. But the demontors are under the control of the Ministry and, in the book, it's revealed that Umbridge sent them to attack Harry Potter.

I got that from the movie, but maybe I was successfully reading between lines of excision.

innerSpaceman

07-26-2007, 05:04 PM

So, I finally finished my re-read of Order of the Phoenix, and can finally comment authoritatively on why I think the movie was such a brilliant 2 hour and 18 minute adaptation of an 830 page novel. (Oh, and thanks for all the love notes hidden among the pages, Leigh-Ann and SuPeR K!)

It’s funny that Alex felt exposition had been cut, because that’s not where the differences lie. The first two-thirds of the book have been very faithfully transferred to the movie. Oh yeah, Harry does a couple of weeks torture detention in the book, but only one such session is shown in the film. Little short-cuts like that do not remove any exposition or result in choppiness. The result is simply non-repetitiveness.

In a similar vein, the Weasley Twins’ rebellion is reduced to the fireworks prank in the film, down from the combo fireworks prank and swamp hallway in the book. Harry’s two attempts to use Umbridge’s fireplace to communicate with Sirius in the book are reduced to one such attempt in the movie. Get the drift?

Even Harry’s failing relationship with Cho is very shrewdly handled via reduction. The whole botched date on Valentine’s Day is cut ... but the chilliness between them is brought out by having Cho be the one who betrays the D.A. (a change with the added time-saving benefit of eliminating the introduction of an extraneous character, Cho’s friend Marietta, who betrays the group in the novel). A brilliant piece of movie condencifying, imo.

* * * *

There are two minor subplot scenes cut ... and while I agree they are among the most charming in the book ... they did not propel the story, and would have taken up needless running time in the movie. Everybody loves the scene in St. Mungo’s Hospital. It’s a quirky new witch environment, and meeting Neville’s family there packs emotional punch. The lines of dialogue Neville speaks in the movie don’t have quite the same impact, but they also take 10 seconds rather than 8 minutes.

The scene with Firenze the Centaur taking over Divination Class from Sybil Trelawney was also charming in the book. But the entire episode with the Centaurs and Grawp the Giant was re-configured for the movie. In some ways the result is better than the book, in some ways not ... but it’s my favorite bit of change because it moves the pieces around so that they don’t parrot the novel, but achieve a good result for the film.

I think the movie is much clearer and tighter in its motivations for the Centaurs to hate Umbridge and the Ministry. The explanation that their range is being reduced works just fine, and I think having their ire be at Umbridge only (instead of also at Harry and Hermoine) works better for the triumphant moment when they cart Dolores away.

In the book, the Centaurs are simply pissed off at all wizards because Firenze is working for Hogwarts, and the scene has Hermoine, Harry and Umbridge in equal danger. It’s cool when Grawp comes surprisingly to the rescue, and arguable that this moment is more intense in the book.

But Hermoine comes off smarter in the movie, leading Umbridge to a known and powerful ally, the Giant, than in the book where she’s leading them all into equal danger with the Centaurs. And the movie’s introduction of Grawp and his instantaneous love for Hermoine is charming and entertaining. In the book, Grawp’s intro is scary, the Giant is hardly likeable, and he displays no affection for Hermoine, or Harry, or Hagrid for that matter.

I think the movie version is a bit tighter and more entertaining, on the whole. But the point is they made things slightly different and still workable. There was some time saving, some exposition saving, a nice surprise sacrificed, but two very entertaining scenes changed around from the way things were in the book. Brilliant film adaptation, imo.

(continued ...)

innerSpaceman

07-26-2007, 05:05 PM

* * * * *

Ok, the big finale at the Ministry of Magic had some big changes. Some for the better, others not so much.

Chernabog felt they rushed getting into the Prophesy Warehouse, and I’m sure it was done to keep the momentum going. If I were a filmmaker, I’m sure I would be tempted to move from the excitement of flying Thestrals right to the excitement in the Prophesy Warehouse to keep the action pumping for the entire finale.

But I rather liked the book’s spooky explorations of the Department of Mysteries, though I’m not sure how well it would have translated to film, or how previewing rooms you would later stage fight scenes in would play in a movie. But I loved the Brains Room, and the Time Room, and felt showing them really informed what was going on in the Veil of Death Room. I guess it saved 7 minutes to have Bellatrix kill Sirius with Aveda Kadavera, rather than using a tour of the full Department of Mysteries insinuate the idea that the veiled Archway was involved in a study of the "great beyond." But if Bella was going to kill Sirius outright, what need was there for the Archway at all? It was superfluous, and I definitely think it was handled way better in the book.

Harry’s grief and confusion was better in the book, too. I hate the yelling-in-silence, covered-by-music constantly used in films to depict grief. It’s as if they don’t want to take the chance the actors’ screaming and raving will come off funny instead of tragic. But I think Daniel Radcliffe could have pulled it off (he did something similar in Prisoner of Azkaban quite effectively).

And while I’m at it, I’m sorry they used a "plasma" Archway in the movie, looking like something out of Star Trek, rather than the black material, literal Veil depicted in the book.

And yeah, I would have loved for them to have kept the freak Death Eater accident that happened with the bell jar in the time room. He ended up with a shrieking baby’s head on a grown man’s body ... and I think that would have been really bitchin in the movie. Oh well.

BUT ... the rest of the sequence was, imo, much better in the film version. Certainly the prophesy balls crashing was even more impressively realized than J.K. wrote it. And there’s not a doubt in my mind that Death Eaters getting around by transforming to black smoke, while Phoenix Orderers do so with white mist was better than the book. Rowling simply had them running around. Literally running. It was waaay cooler, visually, to have the smoke and mist stuff. That was wicked cool.

Jazzman complained about Dumbledore’s wizard duel with Voldemort, but it was pretty much exactly as Rowling described in the book, except that the "Wizards and Friends" statue was not magically animated. I dunno whether that would have looked cool on film or not. As sage a director as Stanley Kubrick decided not to take Stephen King’s animated topiaries literally in his version of "The Shining" - opting instead for the spooky hedge maze. Kubrick might have thought the moving topiaries which worked on the page would look hokey when brought to the screen. If the Harry Potter filmmakers had similar reservations about the Wizard’s Duel, I will not dispute the wisdom of their choice.

In all other respects, the duel itself was better in the movie. Harry’s subsequent "possession" by Voldemort was infinitely better in the film. There was really nothing to it in the novel. Voldemort took over Harry for all of two seconds. It was explained later by Dumbledore that Voldie had to get out of there in a hurry because he felt icky with the love in Harry’s heart. Bah. The movie version was eons better.

Likewise, hearing the prophesy in the over-long denouement in Dumbledore’s office would have been impossibly tedious in the film. It was much better to chuck the book’s conception of prophesies being heard when their crystal ball breaks, and have it heard - in Sybil Trelawney’s own voice - when Harry picks it up. This way, the audience can sort of grasp what’s at stake when the Death Eaters want the ball. There’s no clue what’s going on in the book!

And there’s no reasonable cause for complaint just because the entire prophesy could not be heard in the film. The part not heard is not important. I have no problem with them dropping red herrings that don’t pan out in the story, and the vague hint that the prophesy could have been referring to Neville Longbottom now turns out to have never played out in the book series
The entire prophesy goes like this:

"The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches ... Born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies ... and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not ... and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives ... The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies ..."

So what if they dropped all the stuff about being born in July or born to parents that defied Voldemort three times? That’s all part of the red herring about Neville Longbottom that, in the book, Dumbledore discounts four seconds after tells the prophesy to Harry ... noting that the Dark Lord marking him makes the prophesy about Harry and none other.

Yeah, there’s the nagging bit that, in the movie, it’s never revealed just why Voldemort wants the prophesy so desperately in the first place. I guess the filmmakers might have made something up, but they couldn’t use J.K. Rowling’s reason because not only did it not apply to the film version of the story ... it was completely absurd and unworkable in any event.

In the novel, Voldemort knows only the part of the prophesy that was heard in the film (his minions overheard that part at the Hogs Head Inn when Trelawney was interviewing with Dumbledore for the Divinations post at Hogwarts). He wants to hear the rest of it. But since the red herring half of the prophesy has been chucked from the film series as a waste of time, that can’t really be Voldemort’s motive. Worse still, it’s never satisfactorily explained in the book why Voldemort needed Harry to get the prophesy for him.

The prophesy is about The Dark Lord and Harry Potter. Says so on the label. Either one can retrieve the record of it from the warehouse. But J.K. posits that Voldemort was afraid to venture into the Ministry of Magic ... even though he decides to go there once Harry Potter is on the scene. He goes through Machiavellian machinations to get Harry Potter there to retrieve the prophesy only to show up there himself because he’s succeeded in getting Harry Potter there to retrieve the prophesy. Once there, Voldemoret could retrieve the prophesy for his own self, without taking hostages or taking chances that its container will break. This is one of Rowling absolutely stupidest constructions ... and the movie was wise to drop it.

All in all, though the movie version lacks the atmospherics of exploring the Department of Mysteries, and handles the death of Sirius Black in less than stellar fashion ... the battle between the Death Eaters and Order Members, the Wizards Duel between Dumbledore and Voldemort, the revelation of the Prophesy, and the Possession of Harry Potter by Voldemort are all conveyed far better in the film than in the novel. When the dust settles from the respective finales, I think the movie has slight edge. At the very least, I can’t say they did a horrible adaptation.

And so, in the first of the books whose burgeoning length required some serious story adaptation for transfer to the screen, I think the makers of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix did an admirable job.

:iSm:

Eliza Hodgkins 1812

07-26-2007, 07:03 PM

Holy crap, I agree with nearly every single point iSM makes about a Harry Potter film and book. Wonders never cease.

You seem to have expertly covered everything, Steve. I'll just add that I think the movie improved on how Cho's relationship was handled, and I think it was more interesting (and sad/tragic) to have her betray the DA because of Veritaserum than it was having it be her friend... Plus, it eliminated how nasty Hermione was in the book by ridding itself of the curse Hermione used on Cho's friend - that never sat right with me.

And I totally dug the movie Gwarp. HATED that entire sequence in the book. Snore, snore, snoring.

And though I too missed the actually missed of the Department of Mysteries, I think on celluloid some of that stuff would have just looked cheesy. Whereas the wizarding battle once the Auror's arrived? WOAH. Way more fun to watch then read. Sirius decking Malfoy - yes! And since

[SPOILER]nothing really ever came of the veil, there was no harm in having Bellatrix kill Sirius with the Avada Kedavra curse. And, honestly, better a killing curse then a windmill fall through a ****ing curtain.

Another side note spoiler for DH...

I also thought it was a nice touch having Snape mention in front of Potter that Cho drank Veritaserum. I could be reading into things, but in lieu of Snape's own past/regrets, that's almost looks like a kindness on hnis part.

The acting was probably at its finest in this film. Definitely as good if not better than PoA and WAY better than Goblet of Fire, my least favorite of the movies.

Alan Rickman looked less like a grandma and more like the Snape I like to imagine. Naked. In my bed. With me also being naked. And in my bed.

innerSpaceman

07-26-2007, 07:15 PM

I should also mention how brilliant the film was in depicting Dumbledore's Army. Not their activities, which themselves were more detailed than in the book (even in mostly montage), but a) in the way Filch and the Inquisitor Squad were trying to find the Room of Requirment (in the book, Umbridge and the staff are clueless about the D.A. till Cho's friend rats them out); and

b) in the way the D.A. are detention punished by Umbridge. It lets the film bring in the handwriting torture again (Umbridge's cruelest touch, and forgotten in the book since Harry's early term detentions). I think it was much better for the film to have this reminder rather than depict Harry's 10 early detentions from the book.

The book, if you can believe it, does not have Umbridge punish the D.A. at all. Dumbledore tells her and Fudge that, even though spies revealed the organizational meeting at the Hogs Head, the D.A. only met one time, many months later, on the night they were busted. And Umbridge buys that, and takes no action against the D.A.

I don't know how Rowling managed to make that believeable on the printed page, but clearly the filmmakers knew it would seem ridiculous in the movie.

In the way the film dealt with Dolores Umbridge and Dumbledore's Army, they improved on the book tremendously. Since that is the main thrust of the story, I think the filmmakers (with some admitted exceptions) did a bang-up job in translating the novel to the silver screen.

Oh, and when does Ronald Weasley stop wearing all those stupid clothes to bed? Is that film six, or seven?

Eliza Hodgkins 1812

07-27-2007, 03:32 PM

Oh, and when does Ronald Weasley stop wearing all those stupid clothes to bed? Is that film six, or seven?

Seriously. The boy has had guns since the 3rd movie. Crazy.

Gemini Cricket

07-27-2007, 03:44 PM

You know, the book should have been called 'and the Order of the Phoenix' and the movie should have been 'and Dumbledore's Army'. It seemed like the OotP played more of a major role in the book than the film.
:shrug:

Snowflake

07-27-2007, 03:59 PM

* * * * *

And while I’m at it, I’m sorry they used a "plasma" Archway in the movie, looking like something out of Star Trek, rather than the black material, literal Veil depicted in the book.

:iSm:

This would have been an ideal point to add Joan Collins as Bellatrix, given the Star Trek reference.....

Kevy Baby

07-28-2007, 11:52 PM

OK, so I am really late to this game. Susan and I saw it tonight. I have to say that this has been my favorite of the HP movies to date. To me, this OOTP was the best translation to film - and the story most in need of a visual interpretation.

One of the first things I mentioned to Susan afterwards was that this movie was too short - it needed about another 10-20 minutes. But overall, it played well, not getting hung up on extraneous detail. One of the items I would have liked to see more of was Helena Bonham Carter's Bellatrix LeStrange. I don't recall how much Bell LeS was in the book: I just wanted more of HBC!

The casting of ALL the HP movies is in my opinion, the single best thing about the series. From the original casting (Hermione was frikken PERFECT in the first movie) up to Luna and Umbridge. I continue to be blown away by the choices.

Those Weasley twins are getting cuter every year.(I could have added a lot of others' quotes as well.)

I must be missing something because to me the boys looked MUCH less attractive in this film. To me, they looked like they were beat hard with an ugly stick.

Yes, the main trio was at its absolute worst. There was really nothing to it this time out. That's the story, sorry. The filmmakers didn't write it. Despite that, with so very little to do, Rupert Grint comes off the best he has in the entire series. And I think there's enough Harry and Hermoine to match up with any of the entries.S and I overheard others mention a lack of chemistry amongst the trio and she and I discussed it. We both felt that any more play-up of the bonds that they share would be overkill. It has already been strongly established in the previous films - we get the point. I think it played well: the bond was there and you knew it.

Emma Watson is thankfully beautiful again (and she's legal now, isn't she??).See my current signature.

They managed to put lots of stuff from the book in the background (so familiar readers could spot it and smile, while not bogging down the proceedings with unnecessary detail).One of the better aspects of the film!

zomg the cat plates!The cat plates were freakin' awesome. Just the right amount of subtle comic comic relief (I mean c'mon - who isn't infected with "awww" ness when you hear a kitten mew?).

Then again, the novel was written in 2002 ... and I doubt much prescience was needed to project the trajectory of the Blair and Bush regimes. Perhaps Rowling had no specifics in mind .... and perhaps she did.If I recall correctly, JKR was going through some legal battles over accused plagiarism when she was writing this book. I don't recall the details, but that sticks in my brain.

My understanding at the time is that that the cat that went through the cat door was going to warn Umbridge and that is how she caught them in her office. Is that correct?That was my take as well.