Harry Potter- round 6-who's ready? [Archive]

Jazzman

07-07-2009, 08:32 AM

After the horror of the complete butchering of Order of the Phoenix, I have gone from making Harry Potter midnight showings a "must do" to now probably waiting for Netflix to see this one. I so terribly want to be excited, but I just can't push myself there. Knowing that I'll have to deal with the one-two punch of seeing a wonderful story chopped up, reworked, pared down and shat out, and then the salt in the wound of Michael "Danny Devito Would Be A Better Dumbledore" Gambon crapping all over the screen, I'm just averse to the entire idea of subjecting myself to this. I hope you guys enjoy it though, so there is some good from it. I just have no faith... :(

Cadaverous Pallor

07-07-2009, 09:11 AM

After the horror of the complete butchering of Order of the Phoenix...I quit after Goblet of Fire. Mostly because of Dumbledore's abusive screaming fit, partially because I was sick of seeing Hermione look so sexy and fashionable and Ron being such a f'n wuss. Just wrong.

Plus, the rest of the books are all full of pain instead of fun wizardry, so no thanks.

Tref

07-07-2009, 09:29 AM

I all ready have tickets for the midnight show in Glendale. Harry Potter is not necessarily my cup of tea, but the trailer looks good and the midnight show has been a tradition since the very first one and I hate to stop now. Besides, I love the enthusiasm of a opening night crowd.

innerSpaceman

07-07-2009, 09:37 AM

Ron was sexy as hell in Order of the Phoenix. I re-read the book right afterwards, while everyone was complaining about it being "butchered," when all that was done was a very credible MOVIE ADAPTATION that fails miserably if it simply films the book, and cannot possibly include everything in a 800 page novel. Nor should it.

Mileage may vary, but I found it a brilliant adaptation of a book I didn't particularly care for, and it's my second favorite Harry Potter film .... even though there are several elements I prefer in the book version. Big deal. I think that's as it should be.

I absolutely HATED the book of Half Blood Prince, so I'm eager to see the movie which may adapt a 1200 page novel more to my liking.

By the way, I love the billboard advertising campaign. They are beautiful (especially the bad guys one), and I love how they can show just a little bit of Harry Potter font to communicate worldwide recognizability and equate that with Must See.

Prudence

07-07-2009, 10:10 AM

Snape! Snape! Snape!

Nephythys

07-07-2009, 10:15 AM

Knowing that I'll have to deal with the one-two punch of seeing a wonderful story chopped up, reworked, pared down and shat out, and then the salt in the wound of Michael "Danny Devito Would Be A Better Dumbledore" Gambon crapping all over the screen

But Dumbledore dies in this one- so it should be your cup of tea ;)

added tags- though anyone who didn't know this might be the most unaware Potter fan in the universe.

I quit after Goblet of Fire. Mostly because of Dumbledore's abusive screaming fit, partially because I was sick of seeing Hermione look so sexy and fashionable and Ron being such a f'n wuss. Just wrong.

Plus, the rest of the books are all full of pain instead of fun wizardry, so no thanks.

Looks so sexy and fashionable, when? Other than the Ball- when even in the book she is transformed into quite a beauty- I did not see this otherwise.

-I also saw the "screaming fit" as someone who was distressed and anxious- and sometimes we get agitated and yell when that happens.

YMMV I guess.

ToriBear

07-07-2009, 10:31 AM

We would see it on the day it comes out, but we have to get ready for DL the next day, so bummer on the movie, yay for the trip!

And the book is about good against evil in the wizard world, so yes, the book does have pain in it, like many books. But it does have fun wizardry stuff in it, otherwise it wouldn't be as good as it is. :)

Alex

07-07-2009, 10:32 AM

That's a pretty big spoiler for people who are only watching the movies and haven't read the book.

Nephythys

07-07-2009, 10:40 AM

That's a pretty big spoiler for people who are only watching the movies and haven't read the book.

It's common knowledge-but I tagged it- fine.

It's been years since that book came out-if anyone managed to avoid knowing that all this time they they have truly had blinders on.

IMO.

innerSpaceman

07-07-2009, 10:49 AM

I think it's pretty common knowledge, but I know people who only watch the movies. So I've never said anything about it to them, and I've no idea if they've gone to great lengths to avoid spoilers like that.

The tags were wise. Thank you.

In fact, till the movie's out about a week, I think it's customary to use spoiler tags even for something this universally popular.

Alex

07-07-2009, 10:51 AM

It doesn't take much in the way of blinders, I can assure you. Yes, a Potter fan who doesn't know would have had to work hard. But a lot of people who will see the movie aren't really Harry Potter fans. I know many people who have never touched the books, not gotten into the mass hysteria over them, and know only what they've seen in the movies.

As hard as it is to believe, people who didn't read the books didn't spend a lot of time paying attention to the people talking endlessly about the books.

Since this was a thread specifically about the movie and not the book I thought some care about spoilers might be warranted. Personally, I don't care, I spoiled myself a long time ago.

wendybeth

07-07-2009, 11:04 AM

Snape! Snape! Snape!

What she said. :D

Jazzman

07-07-2009, 11:07 AM

...Dumbledore's abusive screaming fit...

I still cringe at that. Gambon is such a douche. I could probably have forgiven the thrashing that OotP took from the filmmakers were it not for Gambon's craptasticness. And that one scene from Goblet sums up perfectly how poorly cast he is. Blech...

Neph - Yeah, sadly that's about the only thing I'm looking forward to, but for the wrong reasons. If I do see it in the theater, I'll probably irritate everyone else by cheering when that happens, simply out of my disgust for Gambon.

innerSpaceman

07-07-2009, 11:27 AM

To each their own ... I love him in the role.

Maybe just because he's such an improvement over Richard Harris, who always seemed (no fault of his own fragile self) that he could be blown over by a feather at any moment.

The screaming fit was a bit jarring. Do you think that was an improv by the actor? Um, blame the screenwriter if you must. Gambon did not make that up on the set, and then they loved it so much they kept it in. Pulease.

Jazzman

07-07-2009, 11:35 AM

I'm sure the lines were scripted, but it was Gambon who interpreted them and turned them into such an atrocity. Take five different actors doing the same exact dialog and you'll get five completely different scenes. Gambon isn't any different, other than being terrible.

Snowflake

07-07-2009, 11:46 AM

I'll agree to disagree about Gambon. It took a bit to get Harris out of my vision, who was perfect as the warm and fuzzy wizard, but I think Gambon is fine (and a fine actor, too). He brings a gravitas to Dumbledore that is really needed at this time when things are darkest.

I'm really looking forward to seeing/hearing more of Rickman as Snape in this film. All my Rickman festishing aside, he's another terrific actor and how I wish he'd do some reading (books on CD/download), he just makes me melt. :blush:

Jazzman

07-07-2009, 11:51 AM

I'm really looking forward to seeing/hearing more of Rickman as Snape in this film.

With the story that is there, this film could truly be a tour de force for Rickman to burn up the screen. If they actually let him, it would make this the best film of the franchise. Doubt they will, but it would be amazing if they did.

innerSpaceman

07-07-2009, 12:09 PM

I think they would have been wise to tear a page from the East of Eden playbook and film just the last 50 pages as a great movie.

The preceding 1150 pages were a complete snore. I can't see how anyone expects a decent movie to be made from such a craptacular book.

As for the other, I'd have to go back and rewatch Goblet of Fire ... something I'm not eager to do ... but I believe the dialogue was forceful and angry as written, and could not have reasonably been interpreted by another actor as a soothing refrain sung gently while stroking Harry's hair.

Cadaverous Pallor

07-07-2009, 12:47 PM

Looks so sexy and fashionable, when? Other than the Ball- when even in the book she is transformed into quite a beauty- I did not see this otherwise.I remember scenes with her in curvy jeans and cute tops that fit nicely, not to mention her perfectly lustrous hair. That's not Hermione.

-I also saw the "screaming fit" as someone who was distressed and anxious- and sometimes we get agitated and yell when that happens.Except that Dumbledore doesn't get agitated and yell. That's kind of the entire point of his character.

I don't care who's to blame - Gambon, director, screenwriter. It sucks, and it sure as hell ain't Dumbledore.

Strangler Lewis

07-07-2009, 12:55 PM

I'm siding with ISM on this one. I, too, think OOTP was butchered, if by butchered one means trimming the fat and removing a hundred pounds of offal. While I think Book 7 brings it home, I think J.K. Rowling went all Anne Rice after book 3. "Editor? Who needs one? Let me tell you another clever thing about this world." "Let's listen to my characters talk some more."

I'm a big Michael Gambon fan, but he took a little getting used to in Azkaban. He struck me as a bit too twinkly. Still, his characterization is more in keeping with what we learn about him in Book 7 than Richard Harris's somewhat more ethereal portrayal.

Strangler Lewis

07-07-2009, 12:58 PM

Oh, and which screaming fit are we concerned about? The one after the goblet spat Harry's name out or the "Cedric Diggory was murdered" bit?

innerSpaceman

07-07-2009, 01:10 PM

The one after the GoF spat out Harry's name.

I agree it was the only thing I've seen Gambon do that seemed totally out of character, as that character was written in the books.

Why not have JK Rowling do all the voices for an animated version drawn by her hand if everything must adhere to what she wrote?

There were many a LotR quibble that things weren't exactly as written by J.R.R. Tolkien. What a bunch of rubbish masquerading as criticism.

Either things suck or excel on their own merits or they don't. I happen to like most of the Harry Potter film changes, and I'm not happy with others.

I lean towards the not happy side on Gambon's outburst. Sigh, it seemed out of character to me.

Not anything remotedly approaching, say, Faramir out of character. So as a filmic outrage to the memory of Dumbledore, I'd put Gambon's departure from canon in the mildly annoying category. But he did not write that exchange, and he's not personally at fault for playing it as written.

Nephythys

07-07-2009, 01:16 PM

I don't care who's to blame - Gambon, director, screenwriter. It sucks, and it sure as hell ain't Dumbledore.

I cringe at it- and I am just trying to justify it in my own head- ya know?

Moonliner

07-07-2009, 01:23 PM

Snape! Snape! Snape!

Dumbledore! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tx1XIm6q4r4)

Cadaverous Pallor

07-07-2009, 09:15 PM

Why not have JK Rowling do all the voices for an animated version drawn by her hand if everything must adhere to what she wrote?Don't know if this is pointed at me, but I'll respond.

All I ever expect of a good film adaptation is that the spirit of the characters and the story are maintained. I was hoping that they would maintain the spirit of Hermione by keeping her mousy in every day situations. When she comes on screen looking like she spent 2 hours in hair, makeup and wardrobe, it means she's a totally different character. When Ron's only lines involve how scared he is about everything, it's hard to understand why Harry likes him and why we should like him. When Dumbledore loses it like Bill O'Reilly it means he's no longer the rock of wisdom and peace that these stories require.

I'm all for changes in story that make a book into a movie. But when you cut out the things that make the characters work, it's game over for me.

flippyshark

07-07-2009, 09:32 PM

I've already committed to seeing this with friends, and I know I'll enjoy many of the cast (casting has been an overall strength of this series) - but I also know I'll find the experience exhausting. These two and a half hour fantasies, though I kind of like them, somehow grate on me with their overbearing, noisy soundtracks, flashy swoopy camera-work, highly variable CG critters, overstuffed narratives and so on. I like them better when I can watch them in shorter installments at home. That, and when I closed the cover on "Deathly Hallows," I really felt like I had given an extraordinary chunk of my life-minutes to Mr. P and friends. I guess I feel obliged to see the movie series through, but I really wish I was relishing the prospect, rather than half-dreading it.

Jazzman

07-07-2009, 10:22 PM

I really wish I was relishing the prospect, rather than half-dreading it.

Perfectly sums up my feelings too. Good post.

innerSpaceman

07-08-2009, 09:42 AM

That wasn't directed at you, CP. But I dig your response.

Alas, I agree only insofar as Dumbledore goes. I've read all the books, most multiple times. I don't perceive Hermoine as remaining mousey through the series. She seems to grow more confident and mature with age and experience, like most girls ... much less most girls who happen to be the most talented witches of their generation.

Ron Weasely is a wimp and comic foil for Harry throughout the books. Perhaps Harry likes him because he's good natured, mellow where Harry is not, and loyal to a fault ... though for dramatics, it seems Harry and Ron have stupid, long-lasting fights a little too often.

Also it must be remembered that the movie characters are aging a little bit faster than their literary counterparts. The books happen once per year, the movies have lagged behind that schedule a bit ... but the young actors hit puberty when they do - regardless of filming schedule. That might explain why, for example, Hermoine seems a little more womanly that you pictured her while reading.

I happen to think movie Hermoine's attractiveness peaked at Prisoner of Azkaban. She was too young, but I think she's gotten less pretty since then. Same for Potter. His cuteness peaked during the same movie, and once he actually became legitimate hotness age - he wasn't quite as handsome (imo).

Ron Weasley, though in a doofy way, was a surprising ball of sex appeal in the last movie. Um, but his twin brothers had peaked in Goblet of Fire, and looked pretty old in the last film.

Speaking of which, and since the movie lag will only get worse as they release the last filmed book as a two-parter, the entire cast will look like those 30-somethings of old trying to play high schoolers. Unintended comedy awaits us.

Moonliner

07-08-2009, 10:08 AM

Speaking of which, and since the movie lag will only get worse as they release the last filmed book as a two-parter, the entire cast will look like those 30-somethings of old trying to play high schoolers. Unintended comedy awaits us.

Hey, It worked for John and Olivia in Grease.

Is it safe to assume that:

A) The final book is now in production
B) Even if they are breaking it into two movies they are shooting LOTR style (both at the same time)?

That should help the age problem at least somewhat.

Disneyphile

07-08-2009, 10:47 AM

I still haven't finished the book, and I won't see the film until I do so. I better get to reading this week. :eek:

innerSpaceman

07-08-2009, 11:04 AM

Skip to the last 50 pages. Voila! And a much better read.

JWBear

07-08-2009, 12:34 PM

...Same for Potter. His cuteness peaked during the same movie, and once he actually became legitimate hotness age - he wasn't quite as handsome (imo)...

...but his twin brothers had peaked in Goblet of Fire, and looked pretty old in the last film.

I disagree, but then... My tastes are far far less... Um... "Statutory" than yours.

SzczerbiakManiac

07-08-2009, 01:03 PM

VJWM :evil:

flippyshark

07-08-2009, 01:07 PM

I still think it will be a mistake to break that last book into two movies. A single 2.5 hour epic would be more (quite a bit more) than enough.

"Deathly Hallows 1", if it follows its source, will consist of camping, bickering and relocating, camping and bickering some more. This was easily the most tiresome stretch in any of the Rowling books for me.

Alex

07-08-2009, 01:19 PM

I know it seems like a big mistake. The combined running time of the first six movies is 902 minutes. Assuming 44 minutes of actual play per hour of TV (for commercials) that means the first six movies will fill 20 hours and 25 minutes of the inevitable 24 hour marathons.

This leaves only 3 hours, 35 minutes for the last two movies, meaning the combined time for the last two movies can only be 157 minutes. That's what they're currently running for each of them. One last normal (for Harry Potter) movie would have perfectly filled out the 24-hour holiday marathons for some cable network.

Chernabog

07-08-2009, 01:38 PM

The thought of 3 (!!!) more Harry Potter movies is rather exhausting!

Jazzman

07-08-2009, 02:09 PM

I'm surprised that the LotR Extended Edition style of a theatrical release for those with short attention spans and a much extended release for those of us who really want to enjoy the story as much as possible hasn't caught on. That alone might have rescued Phoenix from being such a smoking, rancid pile of cinematic dung, possibly upgrading it all the way to just movie turd.

innerSpaceman

07-08-2009, 02:17 PM

Yeah, that would have been a good idea. I really hated the way they trunkated the stuff at the Ministry of Magic. I guess they figured room after room of stuff was repetitive, but no set up for the veil-thingy where Sirius later dies left his death too dry for my tastes.

On the other hand, I like the way they collapsed all the Delores Umbridge stuff and comedified it a bit. Mixed bag, but I think they did a decent job trying to fit that tome into an acceptable movie running time.

Alex

07-08-2009, 02:23 PM

While I abhor the idea of turning movies into a long trailer for the Super-Extended Director's Cut DVD.

If you want 16 hours of screen time for your story that's why god created miniseries.

As some critic (Ebert?) says, there's no such thing as a good movie that is too long or a bad movie that is too short. If telling a story well takes 4 hours, then take four hours or don't tell the story. That said, nothing in the Harry Potter movies indicates to me that their flaws are a result of not having enough time.

Jazzman

07-08-2009, 02:46 PM

While I abhor the idea of turning movies into a long trailer for the Super-Extended Director's Cut DVD.

If you want 16 hours of screen time for your story that's why god created miniseries.

I don't get why you even care. If you only want the shorter theatrical version, then watch that. Nobody's making you watch the Extended Edition. :confused:

And, maybe I want sixteen hours of cinematic quality screen time, instead of sixteen hours of television miniseries quality screen time. Huge difference there. I love the extended LotR films, and haven't watched a standard version since I got my set of extended films. Hence, I'm happy with my longer films, and you're happy with your abridged versions. Why take issue?

iSm, I do agree about Umbridge. I thought they captured her arc just fine and led us to despise her just as much as the book did. But so little was dealt with in regards to other important stuff, like Kreacher, Sirius, etc. that the film felt like it was only a trailer, but without a real film to go see afterward. I pray that they don't do that to HbP.

innerSpaceman

07-08-2009, 03:00 PM

In an interview*, when asked if there was anything she would go back and change about the seven novels, Rowling replied that she would have edited Phoenix more, as she feels it is too long.

Just sayin' ;)

*Vieira, Meredith (July 30, 2007) Dateline NBC. "Harry Potter: The Final Chapter."

Alex

07-08-2009, 03:01 PM

Hence, I'm happy with my longer films, and you're happy with your abridged versions. Why take issue?

That's the problem, I'm not happy with the short versions. The short versions (in the last two LOTR movies anyway) were a mess and I believe it is directly attributable to the fact that Jackson knew that the theatrical versions didn't have to be all that good and just hint to the long version.

Like I said, I have no problem with long movies. Most of the best movies of all time are pretty long. Take as much time as it takes to make a good movie. But don't make a bad movie saying "oh, we'll make it all better on DVD." Or if you do, be honest about it so that I won't waste any time or money on the theatrical version.

innerSpaceman

07-08-2009, 03:05 PM

I think both versions of both last LoTR movies were a mess. I wish I had the editing wherewithal to bother with my own version. I can't bear to watch any of them.

But I'm pretty much with Alex. If your director's cut is 5 hours long, then release a five-hour long movie or don't release it at all. It's an insult to money-spending theater-goers to expend time and money seeing a feature the director considers sub-par to some other imagined version of the piece.

Bah on that.

Alex

07-08-2009, 03:09 PM

I've never seen the long versions of the LOTR movies. The short versions weren't good enough for me to care. So to an extend I'm basing my belief that Jackson had his eye on the DVD to the detriment of the theatrical version based on the number of times I'd raise some criticism and be told "oh that is handled better and/or explained in the extended version."

mousepod

07-08-2009, 03:20 PM

Alex is correct about the theatrical versions being trailers for the DVD versions, but I wouldn't blame the director. It's almost always the studio, who will demand a film of a certain length in order to have a set number of screenings per day per theater. The director will invariably turn in their own preferred cut as well as the shorter version, so the producers don't do the cutting for them.

If I know that there's a much longer version coming out, I'll skip the theater and watch it on my big tv.

If this had been the case in the '80s, perhaps David Lynch's cut of Dune might have survived...

Jazzman

07-08-2009, 03:25 PM

Rowling replied that she would have edited Phoenix more, as she feels it is too long.

Huh. That's really interesting, and puts a bit of a spin on things. I'm glad she left it, though. While not my favorite of the series, I can't think of anything in it that was extemporaneous. Thanks for the quote, though. I'd never heard that.

That's the problem, I'm not happy with the short versions. The short versions (in the last two LOTR movies anyway) were a mess and I believe it is directly attributable to the fact that Jackson knew that the theatrical versions didn't have to be all that good and just hint to the long version.

Like I said, I have no problem with long movies. Most of the best movies of all time are pretty long. Take as much time as it takes to make a good movie. But don't make a bad movie saying "oh, we'll make it all better on DVD." Or if you do, be honest about it so that I won't waste any time or money on the theatrical version.

Ah, my bad then. I understood you to be saying that you prefer films short and sweet without too much detail. I get what you're saying now. Still, I don't fully agree. Still using LotR as an example, I think Jackson made the theatrical releases as good as was possible and fully intended for them to be the best, definitive versions, with the extended cuts being more for us geeks who wanted to geek out even more. I agree with you about always making the best film possible, but I see nothing wrong with making the best film for the theater and then letting the niche of fans who want more, get more. As long as both versions receive the attention and care they deserve, of course.

Alex

07-08-2009, 03:29 PM

True, there are cuts made against the directors will and **** happens.

But when Jackson filmed LOTR he didn't know that the "wait for DVD" option would be available to him. And this is why the first movie is pretty good in its theatrical form.

So, for Return of the King either he did not produce sufficient film that a good movie could be edited out of it at 3+ hours instead of 4+, or he was either too focused on the DVD version to do so, or didn't want to cut a theatrical version that would differ substantially from the DVD version.

All issues that I place at his feet and not the studio's. After all even the theatrical version of Return of the King was still 3 hours, 20 minutes long (about the same as the Extended version of Two Towers) so it isn't like New Line had him horribly constrained.

And still, the general guidelines for acceptable theatrical length are well known by movie makers. If you can't write a TV series that fits into 60 minutes per episode then you don't write a TV series. If you can't make your ideal movie within the length generally accepted then you fine another venue.

Just my opinion, of course. Though Jackson really should have been doing his publicity tour for the last two movies saying "The theatrical version will be awful because the studios won't let me do 5 hours on the big screen. Wait for DVD."

Jazzman

07-08-2009, 03:35 PM

innerSpaceman

07-08-2009, 03:41 PM

Length limitations is not the reason Return of the King sucked. Listen to the Peter Jackson commentary. He didn't care about any of the events in that part of the story. None of them inspired him. None but one. The charage of the Rohirrim onto the Pelanor Fields at the Siege of Gondor (how's that for a geek sentence!). It's a fantastic moment of the film, infused with passion.

No surprise on my part when I heard Jackson in his own voice declare that was the only part of Tolkien's third act that did anything for him.

The mistake was not running time. The mistake was taking on a project when the third act of the story bores you.

* * * * *

I love Ridley Scott's introduction to his Director's Cut of Kingdom of Heaven. He cautions it's not merely a lot of entrances and exits to extend existing scenes, or extraneous stuff wisely left on the editing room floor.

In most director's cuts, that's exactly what you get. They are vanity pieces lacking editorial judgment. For the most part.

Kingdom of Heaven is certainly an exception. And the fight with the studio over running time and content was pretty well publicized at the time of that film's release. It's still far from a perfect movie, but the Director's Cut is a revelation if you've seen the theatrical.

Not so much with Return of the King. What a freaking mess either way.

The more I think on it, the more I'm glad there are no extended versions of the Harry Potter movies.

Strangler Lewis

07-08-2009, 03:48 PM

I don't think the film version of OOTP did justice to the endless pages of Harry's moody teen ALLCAPS ranting. Or to the 50+ pages of conversation between Dumbledore and Harry after Sirius's death.

Re the director's cut concept: how confident can someone be that something labeled "director's cut" is truly the director's uncorrupted vision as opposed to just a different, bigger version with a marketing label attached. If something is labeled "unrated version," I can shop with confidence. Not so much with "director's cut."

Not Afraid

07-08-2009, 04:15 PM

Some of my favorite films are are pretty darned long. But, size doesn't matter as much as good storytelling.

MP, have you seen the director's cut of Lynch's Dune? Is it any better than the horrible theatrical release?
(However, it DID give me "Worms. Spice. Is there a connection?" to add to my favorite movie quotes.)

flippyshark

07-08-2009, 04:32 PM

MP, have you seen the director's cut of Lynch's Dune? Is it any better than the horrible theatrical release?

I don't think there is a director's cut. There is an extended cut, which is awful, and which Lynch had nothing ot do with. He sued to have his name removed from it, in fact. It played on cable years ago, and was padded with concept art and narration. There has been occasional scuttlebutt about Universal pursuing Lynch to go ahead and create a Director's Cut, but he isn't interested.

innerSpaceman

07-08-2009, 04:43 PM

Too bad. Love the art direction in that film. The first 10 minutes or so aren't bad. Then .... oh well.

lashbear

07-08-2009, 05:05 PM

"Deathly Hallows 1", if it follows its source, will consist of camping, bickering and relocating, camping and bickering some more.
That's right... reveal the surprise plot twist ! ;) :p

SzczerbiakManiac

07-09-2009, 02:24 PM

Harry Potter and the 6'8" Transsexual (http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid97063.asp) ;)

That article features a topless Daniel Radcliffe wearing jeans taken from the Equus photo shoot. I have no idea if that makes it work safe or not.

Capt Jack

07-09-2009, 02:54 PM

...is categorized as adult.lifestyles
The requested page has been blocked by the content filter because it is in violation of the internet acceptable usage policy set by the administration.

my people say no

/shrug

Melonballer

07-10-2009, 03:28 AM

I wonder if it will be as good as Ron's Disease?

http://www.potterpuppetpals.com/

Strangler Lewis

07-10-2009, 07:18 AM

Awkward Daniel Radcliffe interview on Letterman. The guest was hyper, and the host was bored and dismissive.

Gn2Dlnd

07-10-2009, 10:05 AM

But, size doesn't matter as much as good storytelling.

Which is a point I've been trying to make for ages.

BarTopDancer

07-10-2009, 10:15 AM

It looks like I'm in the minority but my friend and I will be seeing HP Wednesday night. Already have the tickets.

innerSpaceman

07-10-2009, 10:47 AM

In the minority how? That you'll be seeing the next Harry Potter movie? Um, that's not a minority.

BarTopDancer

07-10-2009, 11:01 AM

In the minority how? That you'll be seeing the next Harry Potter movie? Um, that's not a minority.

I meant here, and that I'm looking forward to it.

LSPoorEeyorick

07-10-2009, 12:09 PM

I'm ready, baby, and I'm excited. I have my tickets for Wednesday night at the Chinese, and I'm going with Tom and my dad, who's here for the primary objective of seeing Potter with me. (Well, primary object is probably time with us and a change of scene. But that's what inspired the trip.)

Dad and I have been Potter pals for many books now. He'd get the book 3 hours before me and call to taunt me with the first few lines of the first chapter while I yelled at him to stop. It was a happy long-running joke. But he hasn't been able to see a Potter movie in the theater ever (taking care of mom, he wasn't able to be out of the house for long enough to see a movie.) So it's a big deal to both of us that we're able to see it together. And where better than at the effin' Grauman?

I'm not interested in pooh-poohing before I see it. I'm probably going to enjoy it even if you're all pooh-poohing afterward. I've enjoyed every single one so far, and I don't expect this one to be much different. I'm cool if you don't enjoy it. I don't enjoy some movies you like. It's not personal. It's entertainment!

LSPoorEeyorick

07-10-2009, 12:23 PM

That's not Hermione.

I think a major thing people forget about the books is that they're completely from Harry's perspective. And it seems to me, if Harry doesn't overtly notice something, it doesn't get discussed. She stops talking about Hermione's bushy hair partway through, as she's made it through puberty. I think the book just starts out at her awkward phase and by book 5 she's pretty much through it.

Just as the grown-ups start out as (to an eleven-year-old) black-and-white, good-or-evil, somewhat distant... they eventually are depicted (with the exception of, say, Voldemort and company) as complex people who are human and who make mistakes. They were always complex, Harry just couldn't see him that way.

Cadaverous Pallor

07-10-2009, 02:24 PM

I think a major thing people forget about the books is that they're completely from Harry's perspective. And it seems to me, if Harry doesn't overtly notice something, it doesn't get discussed. She stops talking about Hermione's bushy hair partway through, as she's made it through puberty. I think the book just starts out at her awkward phase and by book 5 she's pretty much through it.

Just as the grown-ups start out as (to an eleven-year-old) black-and-white, good-or-evil, somewhat distant... they eventually are depicted (with the exception of, say, Voldemort and company) as complex people who are human and who make mistakes. They were always complex, Harry just couldn't see him that way.It's an interesting point, though I was saying that she looked sexy before her unveiling at the ball in Goblet.

I don't wish to muddy up this thread with more debate - hope the Potterites have a blast! :)

Tref

07-10-2009, 10:46 PM

Which is a point I've been trying to make for ages.

Amen, my sister!

Sohrshah

07-13-2009, 01:14 PM

L and I want to do Wednesday... when and where are you all going? maybe we can meet up!

Disneyphile

07-13-2009, 01:20 PM

I'm debating on seeing the movie before finishing the book. It's a total dilemma, because I don't like doing that. And, I'm only 20% through it (just haven't had time).

Moonliner

07-13-2009, 01:25 PM

Radcliffe was on the CBS morning show today. In response to a question about filiming he replied. "Yeah, there were some difficult scenes, like the one where <** Insert MAJOR Spoiler **>"

Doh!

The host did a double take and then weakly added "Spoiler Alert".....

Alex

07-13-2009, 01:38 PM

I assume it was the spoiler that Nephytys and I discussed above?

Moonliner

07-13-2009, 01:41 PM

I assume it was the spoiler that Nephytys and I discussed above?

That would be an accurate assumption.

innerSpaceman

07-13-2009, 02:23 PM

I'm debating on seeing the movie before finishing the book. It's a total dilemma, because I don't like doing that. And, I'm only 20% through it (just haven't had time).

Skip to the last 50 pages. You won't be missing anything. imho.

(If you don't know what happens, I can't imagine the movie being better than these last 50 pages. So if you are a stictler for reading the whole book, I'd wait on seeing the movie until you've read this awesome section.)

LSPoorEeyorick

07-13-2009, 03:43 PM

L and I want to do Wednesday... when and where are you all going? maybe we can meet up!

We're at the Chinese for the 7pm showing.

innerSpaceman

07-13-2009, 04:18 PM

I'm seeing it Wednesday at the Chinese, too!

oh ... midnight Wednesday

lashbear

07-14-2009, 01:51 AM

We're seeing it Saturday (Friday your time :p ) at the IMAX in Darling Harbour for a friends birthday.

Morrigoon

07-14-2009, 01:55 AM

We'll be seeing it, we just haven't figured out when. I'd love to do a midnight showing, but between his work the next day and my getting up at ugly-thirty on Friday, staying up till the wee hours doesn't make sense for us. Pity, I love midnight showings.

Mousey Girl

07-14-2009, 02:41 AM

I have to wait until after Sunday. The Boy won't be home until then...

innerSpaceman

07-14-2009, 07:00 AM

I'm excited about tonight. But I slept like crap and i'm really not looking forward to pulling an all-nighter for Harry Potter.

It better be good.

(oh yeah, i hated this book)

LSPoorEeyorick

07-14-2009, 07:14 AM

That's why I gave up midnight screenings circa Pirates of the Caribbean. I'd rather be fresh for the viewing, fresh for the next morning. I love the energy of opening day, and my 7pm audience will still be super-excited (and not nodding off!)

innerSpaceman

07-15-2009, 04:03 AM

1-word review: Meh.

Good where the book is not, not so good where the book is great.

Since the book tends to get great in the end, the movie unfortunately tracks in the opposite direction.

A decent enough episode with some good performances and business for the main characters ... but alas not destined to be one of my favorite Potter films.

I don't think.

More viewings are necessary. I don't mean to imply the film is without its charms. I really enjoyed the first two hours. But the third act was a real let down. And it's likely the most thrilling section in the entire book series.

I hope Disneyphile took my advice. No one should see this movie before reading the book.

Nephythys

07-15-2009, 05:38 AM

I am dying for sleep here.....

Ended up at a midnight showing- a private midnight showing. Meaning the only people in the theatre were the group we were there with- it was awesome.

Started at 1am....so to say I am suffering for this excess is putting it mildly.

I loved it-

Nuff said right now-yeah

LSPoorEeyorick

07-15-2009, 08:27 AM

Excited for tonight!!

Frikitiki

07-15-2009, 09:18 AM

heading out in about an hour to see the first show of the day....9AM at the Dole Cannery here in Honolulu

innerSpaceman

07-15-2009, 09:33 AM

Heheh, one of my bosses always takes off half the day to see a matinee. So mums the word around here this morning.

But, sigh, I don't think I liked it all that much. Gonna see it again this weekend most likely. And I didn't outright hate it. But it was structureless, no bad guy to add a modicum of tension, pretty much plotless except for the stupid kind of false impediment plot common in the two early (and more juevenile) movies, and the same director of the last film shows no cinematic flair this time around. (The cinematography, not to be confused, is beautiful).

Most of all, I hate "mythos" stories, and that's unfortunately what the series is all about in the late going. I like that stuff firmly in the background and hate when series become "about" their backstory. Ho Hum. And perhaps because so much was cut out of a really long book, the mythos story is confusing ... and that's to me as a reader -- I can only imagine how confounding it will be to those who haven't had the "pleasure."

I put 'pleasure' in quotes because I really disliked this book. It's my least fave, so it should come as no surprise I didn't much like the film. Those who liked the book should fare better.

But I think I've indicated in this thread how awesome the final 50 pages is, and the movie's biggest disappointment to me was how underwhelming it was by comparison.

Before that, however, it breezes along fairly well ... and is pretty funny. The main trio gets some good, if goofy, business. The movie is entertaining.

Yet it feels like set-up for a later film, and really stands less on its own as a movie than as a stalwart part of the series.

Bleh, I don't much care for the last book either. Before the film started last night, I was sad there's only two more movies. Now I'm sort of anxious for it to be done with.

Ok, time for the Pixar Game:

No. 1 with a bullet: Prisoner of Azkaban

Then a pretty steep drop-off ...

No. 2 - Order of the Phoenix

Another steep drop, and crowding around at the bottom of the list ...

3. Goblet of Fire

Tentatively 4 - Half-Blood Prince

4. Chamber of Secrets

5. The Sorcerer's Stone

Prudence

07-15-2009, 12:17 PM

Waaaaah! I now have to wait forEVER to see it!!!!!! By the time I get well enough to go see it without coughing every 30 seconds I'll be in Orlando and have to wait until I get back. :(

Alex

07-15-2009, 12:21 PM

If you can convince them you're dying someone from Pixar will come to your house and show you the movie from a DVD.

innerSpaceman

07-15-2009, 12:33 PM

I hear they have movie theaters in Orlando now!

BarTopDancer

07-15-2009, 12:58 PM

So excited to see it tonight!

Tref

07-15-2009, 01:00 PM

I saw the 12:01 showing in Glendale. Though we arrived at the cinema four hours early we spent so much time in the bookstore we nearly missed getting in line!

I liked the movie, though it definitely had a "middle-film-Back-to-the-Future II" quality.

Nevertheless, the film is quite beautiful at times.

Bornieo: Fully Loaded

07-15-2009, 01:36 PM

So, I was at the theatre last night to work the 12:01 show of HP and we sold out 2 theatres of it. Lots of folks dressed up and the manager wanted to do something different and fun. So while he did a costume contest I ran and found a Harry Potter trailer that I just thrashed. I added scratches and bad cuts and a sceen from Bruno -"Hello, I'm Burno." About 10 min before start, I ran this little short film for the crowd, who just went nuts. I rigged the film to "break" and then show just white on the screen and had to bobble head dogs come up as shadows. I should have done bunny ears but the crowd went nuts non-the-less. It was pretty funny. :)

innerSpaceman

07-15-2009, 02:04 PM

Wow, I wish I'd gone to your theater.

Cadaverous Pallor

07-15-2009, 10:10 PM

Dude, that's great! How much fun is your place to work?! Your boss is awesome.

Any way we could see your short film? :)

BarTopDancer

07-15-2009, 11:12 PM

I really enjoyed it. Since I had forgotten most of the book I wasn't disappointed by the recreation of the last 50 pages.

I thought Draco was excellent, and Snape.

flippyshark

07-16-2009, 08:17 AM

Terrific performances all around, even Michael Gambon was good this time. But, yeah, the last third wasn't anything as exciting as I was expecting. (It didn't help that I was really fighting to stay awake at 2 am, though) I'm tempted to repeat because I was so sleepy, but this did seem like an awfully "transitional" movie, with SO much exposition and flashback. And I'm kind of dreading the next movie (since I pretty much loathed the first half of Deathly Hallows).

innerSpaceman

07-16-2009, 09:33 AM

Yes, I'll also grant that, at 3am, I was getting sleepy for the grand finale. But it was so much less grand than the book. Usually I don't quibble about the book comparisons, but this was such a big let down.

I also can't say it was a wrong decision to cut all but two of the pensieve sessions ... but that seemed to change the whole focus of the story. In reading the book, it seemed the story was ABOUT the pensieve flashbacks. In the movie, they were an afterthought.

To me, that left the movie about ... well, nothing. It was all filler. Some of it really enjoyable, funny, delightful, entertaining, and beautifully photographed filler. But all filler nonetheless. Until the end stuff. Which was shabby.

I was also disappointed that Snapes' increased importance to the tale did not give him any screen time in the middle of the story. All those years waiting to become Defense of the Dark Arts professor, and not one scene in that class! Were there any in the book? I can't remember. But that was disappointing as well.

One last disappointment for this morning. Re-using the musical themes from the last movie so pervasively. Gave the whole movie a sort of un-original feeling. Bleh.

Alex

07-16-2009, 10:03 AM

Several of the reviewers I generally trust have mentioned that it is not a good movie for non-readers, that much is touched on that relies on the book to explain in full.

So I'm even less inclined but Lani said the other day she does want to see it so I probably will. But I'm so obviously down on it that I'll not report back until it is with a contrary experience.

innerSpaceman

07-16-2009, 11:30 AM

I hope to see it with isaac over the weekend. He won't read the books until all the movies are done. So I'll ask him if he had a clue as to what was going on.

But I agree, this is the one film so far that seems absolutely incomprehensible without having read the book. Yes, this is when the books got absurdly long (readers thought the prior book was long until this one appeared, omg). I would have understood if they'd split this one into two movies as well, but I'm glad they didn't as it's my least favorite book.

Pfft, the last one's my next to least fave. They should have combined both books into two movies, using only the second halves of each.

Gemini Cricket

07-16-2009, 01:13 PM

I really liked Half-Blood Prince. In fact, I loved it.

The filmmakers took great care with this film. I don't think there were any scenes that didn't work for me. I thought about me liking this film alot carefully taking into consideration the enthusiastic first screening audience I was with. Despite the roar at the beginning when the WB logo came on, the audience was quite normal throughout. So that didn't color my viewing experience all that much.

I thought this film featured the best acting of the series from Grint, Radcliffe, Gambon, Malfoy (I forgot his real name) and Watson. The Harry scenes after he took the luck potion were great.

Although I had pictured the Dumbledore death scene differently, I thought it worked well. There was a good amount of tension there.

There were a couple of moments that reminded me of LOTR: the Dumbledore falling scene, the flashes after Harry touches the ring etc. But it didn't bother me too much.

This movie is definitely a build up to the last two, but it can't very well not be given that the series is coming to a conclusion. The significance of the book and the film is bringing the entire series to the apex. I thought it did it very well. I think the numbers for the last two films will be astronomical. (To use a sentence they used on Sotomayor: outside of a directorial meltdown with the next two films, they will do well.)

Many of the scenes in this film were constructed well. The scenes in the swamp at the Weasley farm were edited wonderfully.

I am glad that the art direction of the 3rd film has carried through to the rest of the series. I like "that look".

I was disappointed that an explaination of what "Half-Blood Prince" means wasn't included in the film, but like it was said before this film is for the people who follow the books and they already know. However, I think there was a missed opportunity to discuss racism in the wizard world.

There was no funeral at the end. I'm thinking they might include it at the beginning of the next film, but who knows. And I could have sworn that the Weasley farm gets burned in the last book. But I could be wrong.

The acting (for the most part - see below), the direction, the script, the editing, the art direction were all good too me. I liked this movie a lot.

I'm still bugged by Helena Bonham Carter's depiction of Bellatrix. It still seems to me like she's acting nutters and not being nutters, if that makes any sense.

And, yes, there was a reason Rickman was cast as Snape. Whoever made that casting decision at the beginning deserves a pat on the back. Yes, we all laughed at his hair at first, but I no doubt believe he will blow us away even more during the next two films. He delivers the performance of a torn soul quite well. His reactions are obscure in the right places and him being the comic relief in certain scenes is quite brilliant.

Whoever played Lavender was great in her role too. She and the girl playing Luna were wonderful in all of their scenes. (I'm glad the lion head hat made an appearance in this film.)

BarTopDancer

07-16-2009, 01:40 PM

Although I had pictured the Dumbledore death scene differently, I thought it worked well. There was a good amount of tension there.

There were a couple of moments that reminded me of LOTR: the Dumbledore falling scene, the flashes after Harry touches the ring etc. But it didn't bother me too much.
I was disappointed that an explaination of what "Half-Blood Prince" means wasn't included in the film, but like it was said before this film is for the people who follow the books and they already know. However, I think there was a missed opportunity to discuss racism in the wizard world.

I pictured the scene differently as well. I'm not really sure why, since I knew better but I was thinking it would be more of an Obi-wan scene. Rickman and Malfroy were just amazing in that scene.

I also had those LOTR moments with the scenes as well as the scene when Harry is pulled into the water. They looked like Gollum to me.

I was also disappointed that they didn't further explain what the Half Blood Prince truly means. It was just said so matter of fact like oh, btw, I am the Half Blood Prince.

innerSpaceman

07-16-2009, 02:31 PM

Leaving out the explaination of the Half Blood Prince was just plain loopy. It's the name of the movie, fer chrissake .... you can't just leave it out. There are tons and tons of people who see these movies but don't read the books.

I don't think the art direction continues in the same vein from the third movie, though I believe the production designer has been the same for many films, and his work was great in this one.

I also happen to think Daniel Radcliffe pretty much sucks as an actor, though his scenes under the influence of the felicitus potion were fantastic, and he has very adept comic timing. But as regular Harry, he's just kinda bleh.

Strangler Lewis

07-16-2009, 03:01 PM

I disagree about Daniel Radcliffe. He is, however, a poor talk show guest and seems to favor questionable suits.

As to the movie, I haven't seen it.

LSPoorEeyorick

07-16-2009, 03:05 PM

Well I disagree on that last one, iSm. I thought he did quite well. He was also quite good in Equus. I think he has definite talent.

While I think it had a few structural problems, I think that under the weight of so hefty a book, it becomes very hard not to have them. Under the circumstances, I think it maneuvered quite well without surpassing 2.5 hours.

I did think that it deserved a stronger ending/payoff/explanation in the last 20 minutes (and I saw a 7pm show so it wasn't exhaustion.)

But honestly, I enjoyed every minute of the film, and I look forward to seeing it again - lovely performances all around, some clever writing, and directing that, for the most part, kept out of the way. (Which I appreciate in a film based on a phenomenon like Potter.)

Gemini Cricket

07-16-2009, 03:59 PM

There were some interesting shot compositions that the director gave us that worked well for me:
- The shot from below of the Weasleys' staircase was awesome. Heads poking out here and there was cute.

- There's a shot of the hallway where (I think) Harry and Ron were walking down the hall and then to the left we could see Malfoy on a set of stairs quietly panicking.

- Another similar shot with Hogswart kids snogging in the shadows.

I, too, disagree with iSm about Radcliffe. He's a good actor. I think he gets better and better with each film.

innerSpaceman

07-16-2009, 04:05 PM

I recently read an interview where Radcliffe says he started out playing Harry just like, well, himself. He was like 10 years old or something, so had little idea how to "act." Later on, he felt it would be a jarring change of character if he changed that.

So maybe it's just Radcliffe himself I find pretty dull and characterless. He seemed positively lustrous when he was under the influence of guaranteed good luck. So maybe he's got acting chops after all, but himself has all the personality of a doorknob.

I just know the character as written seems a lot more lively to me. I don't find Radcliffe unappealing, just needlessly dull. And starkly less able to be persuasive to me in the last two films, when I found the acting of Grint and Watson to improve, um, dramatically.

Gemini Cricket

07-16-2009, 05:43 PM

One thing I forgot to mention was how phallic the broomsticks were during this movie. "Quidditch" could be a term for something else if it were dark and no one else was looking...
:D

innerSpaceman

07-16-2009, 08:25 PM

Yeah, specially with new what's his name played by yummy Freddie Stroma.

Here (http://www.towleroad.com/2009/07/harry-potter-actor-freddie-stroma-gets-down-in-his-underwear.html) he is dancing around in his skivvies ... a little earlier in his career.

Anyway, as per my usual tradition, I have just now embarked on a re-reading of the book. I won't be very far into it by the time I see the movie again ... but I'm counting on liking it better the 2nd time, now that I know what it is, and won't be upset about what it isn't.

I truly enjoyed it up till the end, when I started to dislike it. Such the complete opposite of my experience with the novel. When the lights came on, I was so surprised to find my general feeling about the film ... unsatisfied and unhappy. The audience that cheered wildly at the titles two and half hours earlier and had laughed hardily throughout gave less than enthusiastic applause.

True, the story gets grim towards the end, and the mood at the conclusion is somber. I'm looking forward to my re-read and my re-watch very much.

lashbear

07-18-2009, 06:44 AM

Stoat and I are of the opinion:

Why did the death eaters even need to go to Hogwarts? They did nothing, apart from kicking over some glasses from the table on the way out, and busting a set of stained glass windows. Oh, that's right, they did burn Hagrids hut (presumably while Hagrid was out the back having a pee), but they weren't neded for the dispatch of Dumbledore at all.

OOoooooooo, scary.

Snape took care of everything that Draco couldn't do, and Harry didn't even need to be petrified, a simple "SSssh" gesture stopped him from crying out or trying to stop anything from happening.

Also:

We don't understand the attack on the Weasley house at all, other than to say "We're bad-ass Mofos", and I'm glad that they didn't catch Harry in all that long grass - it's a good thing they were all running around on the ground and not flying over the top - they might have seen him then. :rolleyes:

Is it just us, or does the exterior of Weazleys Wizard Wheezes look like a cross between Archie's Funhouse and Downtown Disney?
We agree with lots of the other things others have mentioned before, especially regarding the title of the film.

We'll post more tomorrow and I may even convince the stoat to post something if I can.

lashbear

07-18-2009, 06:53 AM

Oh, and something more to support the "read the book first" theory:

When Harry shoves the Bezoar down Rons throat, the people who had only seen the movie wouldn't have a clue as to what it is, or why it works, and where Harry knew of it. It could have been an antacid tablet for all they knew.

Alex

07-18-2009, 07:48 AM

Lani wanted to see it last night so we did.

I liked it better than the last few. That isn't to say I still don't really give much of a damn at all about these characters but I thought the movie was better put together than recent ones.

I suspect they're really are tons of things that are much better understood with book familiarity but unlike with the more recent films I didn't feel like I was being slapped in the face with them. The biggest was the title but if it weren't for this thread I'd just assume that has been set up for explanation in the movie (and I suppose it still may be).

There were others but for the most part I didn't feel that they made no sense without the back story as so often in the past. The antidote for Ron, not explained, but it wasn't really necessary for the story. It was enough to know that (or think based on presentation) that Harry is finally coming sufficiently into his knowledge that he can actually find -- every once in a while -- solutions of his own. Overall, though, he remains too passive in his own story for me to understand his appeal as a "hero."

Way too much of an episode of "Hogwarts - Seething Den of Adolescent Hormones." But there wasn't actually much larger plot development without that filler.

When Hermione said "you need us" I thought the appropriate response was "Why? You and Ron contributed absolutely nothing to the significant events of this movie beyond mooning over each other."

Look and feel, though, and narrative focus were much improved.

Cadaverous Pallor

07-18-2009, 08:55 AM

It was enough to know that (or think based on presentation) that Harry is finally coming sufficiently into his knowledge that he can actually find -- every once in a while -- solutions of his own. Overall, though, he remains too passive in his own story for me to understand his appeal as a "hero."This was a problem I had with the books. Too much fate, not enough heroism.

Strangler Lewis

07-18-2009, 09:25 PM

Good fun. Good fun.

However,

I thought they gave Ginny short shrift. She had a lot of business in the book, but here she just came off as the girl destined to be the hero's solemn girlfriend.

I thought Dumbledore's dispatch was played too cooly. In the book, it seemed like Dumbledore was a battered old man begging for his life. Now, arguably, in light of what we learned in book seven, perhaps it could be said he was begging for death, but it still had too much of a "Severus, remember what we talked about" feel.

I still have no sense of the wizarding universe. Does the fate of the world really turn on whether Voldemort and a dozen or so punk assed death eaters can get the better of some old professors and a bunch of kids?

innerSpaceman

07-22-2009, 04:17 PM

Hahah, loved a review I recently came across in the New Yorker.

Why is that, from Gotham City to Hogwarts, the official word has gone out that anything dark and edgy is a de-facto guarantee of weight and impact? Just what is so serious about horny adolescents cooking potions? We get one lovely, cheering sequence of a trashed room putting itself in order, like the untidy nursery in "Mary Poppins," but the rest of the magic here feels randomly grabbed at - there is something called a vanishing cabinet, whose narrative purpose is wholy redundant - and, as if in response to such silliness, Yates tries to stiffen his story with borrowings from "The Lord of the Rings." We get a dead spider named Aragog, which is a breath away from Tolkien, plus Gandalfian flourishes from Dumbledore, and a rock pool that crawls with a hundred Gollums.

TeeHee. In all fairness, it's hard not to imitate Tolkien in fantasy. It would be like complaining every pirate movie ever made is ripping off the ride at Disneyland.

But the vanishing cabinet critique is spot-on. I understand they deleted the big battle scene lest the next movie seem repetitive, but then the entire reason for the vanishing cabinet is rendered moot and is a gaping plot hole of stupidity.

If the death eaters that come through the cabinet aren't going to attack the school, why go through all the trouble, that apparently takes the whole school year, to work out the bugs and transport through the cabinet? They went to great lengths to have the assassin, Draco, and his back-up, Snape, already installed and part of the accepted people at Hogwarts. If death eaters were going to come through the cabinet, why did they need these key players in place?

Gotta be careful when you eliminate some things from the book .... other things have to go also, or you risk making NO SENSE.

lashbear

07-22-2009, 05:57 PM

That was the point we were making (only hidden in spoilers, of course...) ie: Stoat and I are of the opinion:

Why did the death eaters even need to go to Hogwarts? They did nothing, apart from kicking over some glasses from the table on the way out, and busting a set of stained glass windows. Oh, that's right, they did burn Hagrids hut (presumably while Hagrid was out the back having a pee), but they weren't neded for the dispatch of Dumbledore at all.

OOoooooooo, scary.

Snape took care of everything that Draco couldn't do, and Harry didn't even need to be petrified, a simple "SSssh" gesture stopped him from crying out or trying to stop anything from happening.

Alex

07-22-2009, 06:04 PM

Thinking about it some more I wonder if the muted audience reaction (at least for people who haven't read the book) to the final events might be because

the scene before going to the whore-crust where Harry heard Snape and Dumbledore talking made it pretty obvious that Snape was a double agent and therefore the assumption would be that Dumbledore is not really dead in the time honored movie tradition of the fake-bad guy fake-killing the good guy before the real-bad guy can do so.

So their expectation is that the next movie will opened with Gandalf back from the flames and purified into having a much nicer looking beard.

And if that is what really happens (because I have not paid attention to spoilers in great depth then shame on J.K. Rowling.

LSPoorEeyorick

07-22-2009, 06:26 PM

In all fairness, it's hard not to imitate Tolkien in fantasy. It would be like complaining every pirate movie ever made is ripping off the ride at Disneyland.

[movie snob]

Pish-posh. It would be like complaining every pirate movie ever made is ripping off Captain Blood!

[/movie snob]

flippyshark

07-22-2009, 07:23 PM

Thinking about it some more I wonder if the muted audience reaction (at least for people who haven't read the book) to the final events might be because

And if that is what really happens (because I have not paid attention to spoilers in great depth then shame on J.K. Rowling.

Well, if you can stand the spoiler -
That's not what happens - Dumbledore is really dead.

Gemini Cricket

07-22-2009, 08:02 PM

During my second viewing, I was noticing some similarities to LOTR. The Gandalf style fall, the touch the ring and something scary happens, the Gollum monsters coming from the lake, and it looked like they used the same perspective trick they used with Frodo and Gandalf on Hagrid while Slughorn and Harry talked to him by the dead Aragorn, I mean, Aragog...

And why couldn't Dumbledore just teleport to the quartz locket bowl? No need for the boat...

Moonliner

07-22-2009, 08:12 PM

bewitched

07-22-2009, 09:02 PM

No comment about the plot really except to say it was good, not great...but good. Olivia and her friends all really like it and have declared it "the funniest" of the movies.

In other news, Ron is kinda hot.

BarTopDancer

07-22-2009, 09:26 PM

The scene with Aragog was entirely way to long. That could have been cut completely.

lashbear

07-22-2009, 10:51 PM

I have a vague memory from the book that you could not apperate inside or into the cave.
Unless you're a House Elf...

In other news, Ron is kinda hot.
You just noticed ? ;) I'm getting the Stoat to dye his hair red from now on...

innerSpaceman

07-23-2009, 06:24 AM

Fvck Spoilers. The movie's been out 2 weeks.

To address Alex's point .... in the book, it's even more strongly hinted that Gandalf, er, Dumbledore's death is a movie-death fake. Yet, his death comes of shocking and sad in print.

Next book spoiler: As it turns out, once we get to the next book, Dumbledore never re-appears, so the hints he wasn't dead were really a cheat ... a good one though, since the obvious thing is to hint he's not dead and have him turn up alive because everyone just loves him so darn much.

Interestingly, Seriously Black's death in the prior book was also very indefinite, with the possibility of him coming back to life ... but that never happened either. I don't credit J.K. Rowling for much, but I like these deaths that left people wondering and like it even more that she did not pander to bringing the beloved characters back to life - when technically she could have.

Strangler Lewis

07-23-2009, 06:59 AM

For someone truly dead, Dumbledore has an awful lot to say in Book 7.

Cadaverous Pallor

07-23-2009, 07:57 AM

I was going to post about how I disagree regarding Rowling's handling of these huge deaths and then I remembered that I disagreed with how she handled the last 3 books entirely...so I should probably shut up now.

BarTopDancer

07-23-2009, 09:06 AM

Rowling had stated that once someone died they were dead, as to not confuse kids.

I was more affected by Siruis' death then Dumbledore's. I'm not sure why because in the books I was bawling through both. I think I was still so far removed from Potterland and stuck somewhere between LOTR, StarWars and HP that it didn't bother me.

Alex

07-23-2009, 09:23 AM

If she'd applied that rule to Voldemort then things would have been easier, wouldn't they?

But even if dead things stay dead that doesn't prevent it turning out that something never actually died despite appearances. (Besides, I never believe authors about their characters until they -- the author -- is dead.)

innerSpaceman

07-23-2009, 09:29 AM

Rowling had stated that once someone died they were dead, as to not confuse kids.

Yes, she said that in interviews ... but that's not how she wrote it in her novels.

Serious fell through that mysterious veil portal, he was not Avra Kedavera death-cursed. There was a lot more about the veil portal in the book, so it seemed like a one-way trip, but it was left decidedly unclear. And since he fell through it without being killed first (like in the movie), all the kidlets were left unsure whether he was dead .... unless they also read every word J.K. says in interviews.

With Dumbledore, a lot more was made of the mysterious phoenix that appears at his funeral. His death was a lot more definiate, but that rise-from-the-ashes portent was not exactly subtle in the book. I didn't know till Book 7 whether he was going to be revived all Gandalf-like or not.

Speaking of which, yeah, some of the LotR touches in the current movie were not, to my memory, in the book - - specifically the ring touching that was totally Peter Jackson (i.e., that sort of thing was not in Tolkien either).

Gemini Cricket

07-23-2009, 11:54 AM

Avada Kedavra... reminds me of Abra Cadabera. :D

I started reading the last book again last night. Within the first chapter, there's a scene that I'm wondering if the filmmakers will actually film. It's pretty gruesome.

innerSpaceman

07-23-2009, 12:10 PM

Heheh, I'm reading the current movie's book, as I always do right after the movie comes out.

Won't get to Deathly Hallows again till right after the next movie (but does that mean I should only read half of it?)

I'm with CP ... I hate the direction the last 3 books took ... though Order of the Phoenix is my favorite of those because it (and the movie) contain a heavy dose of funny satire on education, media, and politics. The final two books have no such redeeming qualities.

And I call shenanigans on Rowling's claim to have made them joyless because the kids of the first books are no longer kids. What a sad commentary on life.

I don't know if it's a coincidence or not, but I love Prisoner of Azkaban best (book and movie), and it's the only one not about the Trouble With Harry and Voldemort. The only one Voldemort's not in. I'm sure that's one of its many unique appeals as contrasted with the rest of the series.

Oh, and GC, I'm sure the similarity between Avada Kedavra and Abra Cadabera is purposeful. A while back, Alex linked to some research on the history of the once-powerful, now Bugs-Bunny comical magic spell ... but I'm too lazy to find that post.

Gemini Cricket

07-23-2009, 12:26 PM

From Wikipedia:

Avada Kedavra (Killing Curse)

Pronunciation: /əˈvɑːdə kəˈdɑːvrə/ ə-VAH-də kə-DAH-vrə

Description: Causes a jet of green light(Though Snape hits Dumbledore with red light), and a rushing noise; the curse causes instant death to the victim. It leaves no mark of death. There is no known counter-curse or blocking spell (with the exception of the curse striking another spell midflight, negating both), although the caster can be interrupted, the victim can dodge the curse, hide behind solid objects (which burst into flame when hit by it), or, if the casting wizard is not sufficiently competent, the curse may be completely ineffective as described by Barty Crouch Jr (acting as Alastor Moody) in Goblet of Fire. It is one of the three Unforgivable Curses; the use of this spell on another human being can earn the caster a life sentence in Azkaban.

Survivors: Only two people in the history of the magical world are known to have survived the killing curse - Harry Potter and Voldemort who was only saved by his horcrux. Harry was hit twice directly. Phoenixes can also survive a killing curse. They burst into flame as they would do in old age and are reborn from the ashes. This occurred in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.

Seen/Mentioned: First said (not by name) at the beginning of the first book when Harry arrives at the Dursley's home. First seen in Goblet of Fire against Muggle Frank Bryce, and in every book following.

Suggested Etymology: During an audience interview at the Edinburgh Book Festival (15 April 2004) Rowling said: "Does anyone know where avada kedavra came from? It is an ancient spell in Aramaic, and it is the original of abracadabra, which means 'let the thing be destroyed.' Originally, it was used to cure illness and the 'thing' was the illness, but I decided to make it the 'thing' as in the person standing in front of me. I take a lot of liberties with things like that. I twist them round and make them mine."

Disneyphile

07-23-2009, 12:38 PM

Well, I still didn't finish the book, but opted to see the movie two nights ago. It was kinda fun not knowing what was going to happen, unlike the previous films.

Snape's a traitorous ass. That is all.

Chernabog

07-23-2009, 12:50 PM

I saw it a few days ago and rather liked it. It did seem like a "random crap happening" sort of storyline (such as when Dumbledore takes Harry to the cave.... it just seemed so random in the movie). Of course major parts of it deviated from the book, but all of them do when they're condensed so much.

Order of the Phoenix was such total garbage (book, which needed a good editing, and movie, which was morose and boring) that I wasn't going in with great expectations (due to the same director as OotP). He did better this time around.

But the special effects were good as always, the guy with the crush on Hermione was cute as can be (and FYI he is also an underwear model, yummy), and Rupert Grint is shaping up nicely for a soul-less ginger.

Three and a half demons out of five. :)

innerSpaceman

07-23-2009, 12:56 PM

Wow, mileage varies, I guess. I thought Yates was a hack this time around.

The story last time leant to this, but I rather liked the montages and the use of moving-photo newspapers, and the joke of nailing proclaimation after proclaimation to the same wall. These cinematic, montagean tools helped condense the book nicely, allowing 50 pages to be communicated in 20 seconds. It's very filmic, and the kind of condencing I prefer over simply leaving things out ... especially when, as in the case of the new film, leaving certain things out makes other things left in completely senseless and moot. (cough*vanishing cabinet*cough)

mousepod

08-02-2009, 10:46 AM

BarTopDancer

08-02-2009, 11:25 AM

For me, the measure successful adaptation of one art form into another is whether each work can stand on its own.

I agree. As the books got longer the movies had to cut more and more out, leaving non-book readers without crucial knowledge that came in the books. Really glad the last book will be split into two movies but I fear they won't do much to add in those important parts.

Alex

08-02-2009, 11:28 AM

It seems to me that they (the screenwriter, director, whoever) picked some key scenes and lines of dialogue from the book and then just filmed them.

For me, the measure successful adaptation of one art form into another is whether each work can stand on its own.

It's funny because I felt that way about the previous movies but thought they avoided that for the most part this time. Now, I still didn't think the result was all that interesting but I found it much more coherent than the last few.

Maybe my expectations have finally just reached so a low level that it was possible for them to be exceeded.

Eliza Hodgkins 1812

08-02-2009, 05:22 PM

I think it was a terrible adaptation and a mostly awful movie. I can't imagine it standing alone. Starting with the 5th film, the movies seem incomprehensible to those who haven't read the books. That is really their biggest offense. People invested in the movies and not the books probably feel especially annoyed.

Jesse, I feel like they actually omit some of the more important dialogue and scenes in favor of what the writers think will most appeal to tweens and visual effects lovers. I do think they get some of that right, but it's not my favorite part of the story.

bewitched

08-02-2009, 06:55 PM

Finally saw it last night at the Grove with Heather and our pal Johnny. None of us have read any of the Potter books, but we've all enjoyed the movies so far. In fact, the movies that have gotten "thumbs-down" from book fans (like iSm), were just fine by us.

But, for someone who hasn't read the books...

This. Movie. Sucks.

There's no dramatic tension whatsoever, a weak thread of a plot, and when I wasn't battling sleep, I was scratching my head in confusion.

It seems to me that they (the screenwriter, director, whoever) picked some key scenes and lines of dialogue from the book and then just filmed them.

For me, the measure successful adaptation of one art form into another is whether each work can stand on its own.

In the case of this movie...

FAIL.

I think it was a terrible adaptation and a mostly awful movie. I can't imagine it standing alone. Starting with the 5th film, the movies seem incomprehensible to those who haven't read the books. That is really their biggest offense. People invested in the movies and not the books probably feel especially annoyed.

Jesse, I feel like they actually omit some of the more important dialogue and scenes in favor of what the writers think will most appeal to tweens and visual effects lovers. I do think they get some of that right, but it's not my favorite part of the story.

I can't remember who it was (director, Rowling...) but one of TPTB mentioned that this time around, the script was not going to "explain things" (as the previous movies did) so that people who hadn't read the book could understand the plot better. They figured that a majority of people seeing the movie had read the books (and therefore knew the background and/or the fleshed out story) and, in any event, if they hadn't they were already invested in the series. This allowed them to cut a lot of what, would have otherwise, would have been (arguably) superfluous information. Did they cut too much? In my mind yes. On the other hand, this makes me glad they split the final book into 2 parts.