Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (SPOILERS)

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.

07-23-2007, 01:38 PM	#11
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	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.
	Submit to Quotes