BOOKS/MOVIES: Harry Potter and the Billion Dollar Franchise

[Phil Tinajero]

I'm just worried that the Dementors may look a little too similar to the Ringwraiths. I'm sure that's been a cause for concern for Cauron. That was a pretty good tease in the trailer. And I was never totally clear on their allegiance to the wizards. They're evil, and they're working for the good side. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif

[Mann]

I think the problem, Gandalf, is that the dementors are described as too much like a Ringwraith. Its how I pictured them when I read it.

[Phil Tinajero]

Yeah, that's how I pictured them too. When PRISONER OF AZKABAN was written, LOTR hadn't come out in theaters yet so there wasn't that much public awareness towards hobbits, elves, Ringwraiths, etc. So JK Rowling didn't think of the LOTR film while writing her books. After all this attention towards LOTR, the Dementors might prove to be a problem.

[Lord Rocha]

I dont think the kids would mind, at least not the fans.

[Phil Tinajero]

It's too bad that Alfonso Cauron will only be directing Prisoner of Azkaban and Mike Newell is directed Goblet of Fire, so I hear. I think that Newell is the director of that new movie Mona Lisa Smile, which I think looks bad and I've heard is terrible. I'd like to see Cauron do the fourth film, not hand over the reigns to someone who appears to not know what they're doing.

[Handothrawn]

I always thought Dementors were based on the fictional pre-cursor to thr Ringwraiths, you know, Death. I like Cauron's style with this one, I wish he'd direct GOF, but they've already got Newell signed.

[goodwije]

Yes i have to agree, The look of ringwraiths is also that of Death, the Black Rider, Cowled in black, it was not original to LotR, nor was it meant to be when JRRT wrote it.

Ok seriously now, i have not read the books but have really enjoyed the movies. As an adult will i get any enjoyment out of them? Or should i just pass?

[Brian]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Gandalf@Dec 21 2003, 12:32 AM
I'm just worried that the Dementors may look a little too similar to the Ringwraiths. I'm sure that's been a cause for concern for Cauron. That was a pretty good tease in the trailer. And I was never totally clear on their allegiance to the wizards. They're evil, and they're working for the good side. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif
read the books. you will know their alliance then.

[Mann]

Originally posted by goodwije@Dec 21 2003, 02:25 PM
Yes i have to agree, The look of ringwraiths is also that of Death, the Black Rider, Cowled in black, it was not original to LotR, nor was it meant to be when JRRT wrote it.

Ok seriously now, i have not read the books but have really enjoyed the movies. As an adult will i get any enjoyment out of them? Or should i just pass?
Read the books. they are better than the films.

except I think JK Rowling might be getting angry with these books, cause all her characters do on every page is yell alot. Its funny, but repetitive.

[Handothrawn]

They yell because they are kids in puberty. It happens, I can't go more than three hours without yelling at someone.

[goodwije]

Me either and i will be 30 in a couple of months... time to grow up i guess style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blush.gif

[Lord Rocha]

Originally posted by Mann+Dec 21 2003, 12:28 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mann @ Dec 21 2003, 12:28 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-goodwije@Dec 21 2003, 02:25 PM
Yes i have to agree, The look of ringwraiths is also that of Death, the Black Rider, Cowled in black, it was not original to LotR, nor was it meant to be when JRRT wrote it.

Ok seriously now, i have not read the books but have really enjoyed the movies. As an adult will i get any enjoyment out of them? Or should i just pass?
Read the books. they are better than the films.

except I think JK Rowling might be getting angry with these books, cause all her characters do on every page is yell alot. Its funny, but repetitive. [/b][/quote]
Ah, true. In book 5 Harry is always whinning and getting into new troubles because he cant close his mouth.

[Mann]

Originally posted by Handothrawn@Dec 21 2003, 11:43 PM
They yell because they are kids in puberty. It happens, I can't go more than three hours without yelling at someone.
Sorry, but kids don't yell THAT much. Harry justs yells at EVERYONE. So does Rons Mom.

[Handothrawn]

I'm getting ready to hit sixteen, and I yell at almost everyone, so I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about.

[Lord Rocha]

I am 16 and I dont yell to everyone. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

I simply this movie to be more loyal to the book than the previous ones.

[Mann]

Originally posted by Handothrawn@Dec 22 2003, 12:16 PM
I'm getting ready to hit sixteen, and I yell at almost everyone, so I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about.
I past that stage and I admit I did yell, but the way Harry yells, its like he's PMSing about things. But then again, I said that Ron's mother yells alot too, and that's kind of unordinary.

[bluemilk]

I never did finish Prisoner of Azkaban, I got too busy with course work half way through style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blush.gif

[Phil Tinajero]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> read the books. you will know their alliance then. [/b][/quote]
I've read all of 'em, chief. Guess I should've said that.

Yeah, read the books Goodwije, I'm sure you'll enjoy them. In my opinion, Goblet of Fire was the best. I know everybody says Prisoner of Azkaban was the best because it was the "darkest" (which I don't get) but I just didn't like how (SPOILER) everything turned out alright at the end (END OF SPOILER).

But the film looks great.

[Darth Badly]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Gandalf@Dec 21 2003, 05:41 AM
When PRISONER OF AZKABAN was written, LOTR hadn't come out in theaters yet so there wasn't that much public awareness towards hobbits, elves, Ringwraiths, etc. So JK Rowling didn't think of the LOTR film while writing her books. After all this attention towards LOTR, the Dementors might prove to be a problem.
Not sure what you mean here? The LOTR books are 50 years old and JKR would have been well aware of them.

[Darth Badly]

Originally posted by TK-007@Nov 17 2003, 08:19 AM
And what about Gary Coleman eh? Michaeal Jackson?
Now you're talking.

[Phil Tinajero]

Originally posted by Darth Badly+Dec 22 2003, 11:01 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darth Badly @ Dec 22 2003, 11:01 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Jedi Master Gandalf@Dec 21 2003, 05:41 AM
When PRISONER OF AZKABAN was written, LOTR hadn't come out in theaters yet so there wasn't that much public awareness towards hobbits, elves, Ringwraiths, etc. So JK Rowling didn't think of the LOTR film while writing her books. After all this attention towards LOTR, the Dementors might prove to be a problem.
Not sure what you mean here? The LOTR books are 50 years old and JKR would have been well aware of them. [/b][/quote]
What I mean is, she didn't know that there would be LOTR movies. And she didn't know that there would be Harry Potter movies. And after so much attention on LOTR, she would just appear to be a bit of a copycat when we see how close the Dementors are to Ringwraiths.

Make sense? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif

[Darth Badly]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Gandalf+Dec 23 2003, 05:10 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jedi Master Gandalf @ Dec 23 2003, 05:10 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'> Originally posted by Darth Badly@Dec 22 2003, 11:01 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Jedi Master Gandalf@Dec 21 2003, 05:41 AM
When PRISONER OF AZKABAN was written, LOTR hadn't come out in theaters yet so there wasn't that much public awareness towards hobbits, elves, Ringwraiths, etc. So JK Rowling didn't think of the LOTR film while writing her books. After all this attention towards LOTR, the Dementors might prove to be a problem.
Not sure what you mean here? The LOTR books are 50 years old and JKR would have been well aware of them.
What I mean is, she didn't know that there would be LOTR movies. And she didn't know that there would be Harry Potter movies. And after so much attention on LOTR, she would just appear to be a bit of a copycat when we see how close the Dementors are to Ringwraiths.

Make sense? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif [/b][/quote]

Gottcha.

Are you saying that she would have got away with the rip off if not for the movies of LOTR and that would have been a good thing???

Or that she deserved to get caught out??

[Phil Tinajero]

Hmm, good question. She wouldn't have totally gotten away with it if there were no LOTR films, obviously, but there would have been a lot less people noticing. I don't think she should be blamed for uncreativity. It is hard to think of an original fantasy tale, these days. And plus she's created a mostly original enviroment and fun stories. So it pretty much evens out. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

[Luvinna]

*bump*

Since I figured we didn't need as many Harry Potter threads as there are books, I've merged them all into one thread. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused to anyone reading the thread for the first time.

In the future, please keep all discussion of Harry Potter, be it book or movie, in this thread (I'll make sure it's in the forum directory). And please be courteous and put a nice warning before you post any spoilers. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif Right now, I figure most talk will be about the new movie coming out in a few weeks.

I was wondering, who else here caught the sneak peek of the movie on TV Sunday night during Sorcerer's Stone? I thought it was really cool to have the bits with Daniel, Rupert and Emma telling of their experiences making the movies. I also really like the music that we've heard so far, particularly that "Something wicked this way comes" song they've been using in all the previews. I'm curious what the purpose of the frogs in the choir is though. Sound effect maybe? I'd forgotten about Professor Trelawney, too. I think she's the most outlandish character in the series. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif

Just some of my random thoughts after seeing the preview. Can't wait to see the movie. Too bad I have no one to go see it with. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif

[Leia]

Yeah, I really like that choral piece, it's cool! Do the words come from the book, or did somebody write them just for the movie?

[blacksaber]

question: how come this might contain spoilers? if you've read the books you already know what will happen... right? Unless this becomes like LOTR, people wonder whether the movie or the book came first! CURSE YOU MEDIA!! I WILL ONE DAY ANNIHALTE YOUR LITERATURE DESTROYING SKILLS!!!!!!!!!!! style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/devil.gif

[goodwije]

i am sure there are those like myself who have enjoyed the movies but have not yet read hte books. I plan too, i really do, but have not yet.

I have a question as far as the books go. Harry gets a year older with every new book right? Are the books becoming more.. mature as the series progresses, and the main character matures?

[Leia]

I think the books started out pretty mature (not in the sense of "mature" content, just that they're fairly sophisticated). Why is it that everyone assumes that just because the main character is a child or teenager the book belongs in the children's or young adult's section? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif I mean, in the Alanna series by Tamora Pierce there's sex and violence and yet the books are in the children's section because the main character started out as an 11 year old.

[Marbleman]

Originally posted by blacksaber@May 15 2004, 04:13 AM
question: how come this might contain spoilers? if you've read the books you already know what will happen... right? Unless this becomes like LOTR, people wonder whether the movie or the book came first! CURSE YOU MEDIA!! I WILL ONE DAY ANNIHALTE YOUR LITERATURE DESTROYING SKILLS!!!!!!!!!!! style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/devil.gif
Be Sirius, Black.

[goodwije]

well Leia the only books i have read fromt he childrens section (sence being a child myself) are a couple of sw scholastic books. I liked them and they did have some content that was not very childish. But then again i poured through them in a matter of hours. I realize the HP books are quite a bit longer, or at least the newer ones are, i was just curious.

[Leia]

Well, they are definitely getting longer! lol. But they were already pretty sophisticated to begin with and I haven't noticed that they've gotten perceivably more sophisticated as the series has progressed... I mean, a little romance has been introduced but... I don't think the reading level has gotten any higher or anything...

[James]

I don't really like the romance stuff in HP. Hermione/Krum, Harry/Cho wasn't that well written, I think.

[Leia]

Anybody else believe that Sirius isn't dead? If that was his death scene then JK Rowling is the crappiest writer on the planet. That's not how you write death scenes! So that's why I think he's not dead style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/devil.gif

[Leia]

Hey, that's kind of like that system of logic thing... Only a crappy writer would write that kind of death scene, JK Rowling is not a crappy writer, therefore Sirius is not dead. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif

[James]

I didn't much like Sirius's death scene either. Cedric's was much better written. Sentences were short and to the point when Cedric died ie. "He was dead." Much better than all that waffly language Rowling used for Sirius's death in HP5.

[Mann]

I think the language is supposed to saythat Harry himself was confused about what had happened. Its not clear to him or to the reader that Sirius is dead. With Cedric it's clearer.

[Handothrawn]

Yeah, with Cedric, there was no way he could be alive. Harry heard Avada Kedavra, saw the green light, saw Ced hit the groupnd, no confusion.

Sirius got hit by a low level spell, Expeliarmus, I think...And then he fell through a curtain, Harry doesn't know that the curtain kills people, he just knows that he can hear voices coming from it...It was in a courtroom, for all he knew it could have been a way for Wizards to disguise witnesses, like when they blur out people's faces on TV.

I hate that he's dead, he was my favorite secondary character, and POA is my favorite of the books, but he's dead. That doesn't mean that we won't see him again, though.

[Leia]

Nah, he's not dead style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif

[James]

<span style="color:cyan">He is</span>

[Leia]

Just wait style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif

[Dark Skywalker 9]

Sirius is dead. I could bust out some quotes from the book but I'm too lazy tonight.

Then again we are talking about a world of wizards, so I have the feeling we may hear from him again in some form... style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/scratchchin.gif

[James]

Poor Sirius, let's hold a minutes silence in memory of my favourite character........

[Mann]

Originally posted by Dark Skywalker 9@May 18 2004, 03:44 AM
Sirius is dead. I could bust out some quotes from the book but I'm too lazy tonight.

Then again we are talking about a world of wizards, so I have the feeling we may hear from him again in some form... style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/scratchchin.gif
Well I think they closed that theory when Nick said that Sirius is gone and not coming back in any ghostly form.

Oh well, more Lupin for me... style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif Lupin rules as a character!

[JonanMephi]

Hi fellow senators. I thought I'd introduce my new site here, as per T's recommendation...

The Wizarding Realm
An alternative Harry Potter community!
http://www.wizardingrealm.com

It's new and in bad need of a few good members to help kick things off and put the board through it's paces. Please stop by and see it for yourself.

[Silas Maynder]

I hate...hate...HATE that Sirius died. It's so irritating. When I was reading the fifth book for the first time I was like...it's him...it's so him who is going to die. I knew it was either going to be Sirius or Lupin cause they were my two favorite characters. I was all depressed cause I was reading Prisoner of Azkaban again and Harry was talking to Sirius about how he'd love to move in with him and sirius was all happy like and I was all "Oh yeah! I forgot about that...That will be cool when they can do....oh....I forgot...HE'S DEAD cause J.K. ROWLING KILLED HIM!!!!!" style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif

Who all is going to see the movie when it comes out?
And another question who do you think is the strangest pick for the character at first glance (since we can't judge them yet cause we haven't seen it)... example David Thewlis as Lupin, Michael Gambon as Dumbledore, Emma Thompson as Trelawney?
(Didn't you think it was weird how Kenneth Branagh was in the second one and Emma Thompson is in the third one? They were married once I believe)
I think I would have to say David Thewlis as Lupin. I am not saying that he won't do a good job I am just saying that he is totally not what I was imagining at first glance anyway.

[JonanMephi]

I'm only 95% convinced he's gone. Remember, he's now behind the veil, and we don't really know what that means. I know Headless Nick said he isn't coming back, but he never actually confirmed he was on "the other side". We'll have to wait and see.

I will definately be going to see the new movie. I just might bring out my old StarWars spirit and camp out for this one.

As far as cast goes, so far they've all been perfect for their roles. Let's wait and see. I love Gary Oldman though, he'll rock!

style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif

[Mann]

For Goblet of Fire: Brendan Gleeson has been cast as Mad Eye Moody!

[JonanMephi]

Alright, I had to go look at a few pics at imdb.com to be sure, but he looks just about how I envisioned Moody. With great makeup (Don't know how they are gonna do a rotting nose), it'll be interesting to say the least.

[Silas Maynder]

Yeah I know...they always somehow pick the right person for the character...EXCEPT I must MUST say that I did not like their pick for Professor Sprout. Not that I don't like that actress or something it's just I think she was wrong for the part.

I KNOW! How good is Gary Oldman going to be for Sirius? I think he will be terrific.

You know who else is PERFECT??? Jason Isaacs as Lucius Malfoy (i think I spelled Lucius wrong maybe) He is so good at that part...Hey! Did anyone else realize in that part where Harry frees dobby that Lucius starts to say one of the unforgivable curses? Me and my brother were watching one day and we were both like "OHMYGOSH!" you hear "avarda!!!" just barely cause he's kind of hissing it. But i am pretty sure that's what he's saying. I think it's funny that they did that though since he doesn't do that in the book...it seems kind of weird that he would be THAT mad in the movie that he would start to say that. But actually then again Dobby stops him right quick in the book so maybe he was going to do that spell we just didn't get that far...but I doubt it...could he be that stupid??

And talking of Perfect characters...Alan Rickman is brilliant.

Did anyone go out and get the score yesterday? For POA? I did. It's tremendous. I really only don't like number three I think it is. called The Knight Bus. It's kind of crazy sounding but I guess that makes sense. My favorite track by FAR is number 7 called A Window to the Past and my second favorite one is Buckbeaks Flight and The Patronus Light.

You all should go out and buy it if you haven't. The first soundtrack has always been my favorite but this one comes really close.

[Obi-Stu]

I'd like to think that Sirius will be back, but I just don't know.

When is the next book due to come out, anyone know?

[Seanakin]

Hey Silas, I, too, was watching Cos a while back, having familiarized myself with the rest of literary series on audiotape. (Which I recommend, Jim Dale does a magnificent job with them. The voice he gave to Umbrage in OP made my blood curdle, it was that obnoxious.)

So yeah, I about freaked when I noticed that Malfoy was doing an unforgivable curse, which was a fascinating nod to the continuing storyline. Makes me wonder what else in the movies had basis solely on the books.

I did try looking for the entrance by the Wamping Willow, but to no avail. Still, I applaud JK for her oversight in these productions, not to mention her command of Latin. THAT'S been the main reason I like these stories.

[Luvinna]

Originally posted by Obi-Stu@May 28 2004, 07:22 AM
When is the next book due to come out, anyone know?
I was wondering the same thing the other day. The Bloombury website (http://www.bloomsburymagazine.com/harrypotter/wizard/section/faq.asp?pageNo=15) says there's not even a deadline for the book yet, so no publishing date.

[Luvinna]

WHAT?!? http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20040528/.../D82RKT280.html (http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20040528/D82RKT280.html)

I had never heard this rumor before. Say it ain't so... style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/crying.gif

[JonanMephi]

It's definately a possibility. If you'd like a more detailed account of what I think will happen read this thread ( http://www.wizardingrealm.com/showthread.php?t=57 ) at my site. I'd love to hear others opinions as well.

[Silas Maynder]

Originally posted by Seanakin@May 28 2004, 09:52 AM
Still, I applaud JK for her oversight in these productions, not to mention her command of Latin. THAT'S been the main reason I like these stories.
That's funny! that's one of the reasons why I love those books too. Because of the Latin. I was taking a Latin class at the time of reading the third book and I started realizing when I went back and read the other two how much latin there really was in the books! it was so much fun to find everything and realize what it meant. Her books are so great, like alot of the peoples names have meanings and it's fun to try and figure them out...like Remus and Romulus were raised by wolves I think and Remus Lupin is a werewolf? She had to have been thinking of that when she wrote the books. It's so cool to figure out every little thing you can...it makes the books so cool cause everytime you read them you might notice something different.

That's so cool that you noticed that too...about how Lucius starts to say that in the movie...I was like "that was weird...did I really hear that?!?!?"
So obviously if you did too then we did.

I know!! How brilliant is Jim Dale? I and alot of other people think he should be in one of the movies! I mean he could fit into ANY role or do any of the voices I think. I think he should have been the sorting hat's voice actually but the guy who did the sorting hat's voice did a good job anyways.style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif

[Seanakin]

Not just the sorting hat, but most ALL the voices that Dale used in the first two audio books resembled their movie counterparts. The only notable difference is that Dale's Draco Malfoy sounds more like Rickman's Severus Snape.

And what a coincidence, I was thinking the same thing about Remus Lupin. Guess six years of studying Latin were of SOME benefit after all. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif

[Luvinna]

About the entrace under the whomping willow... I watched Chamber of Secrets again the other day, and if you look at the wide shot just as the car crashes into the tree, I think there's a sizable gap there in the roots at the base of the tree; just about human sized. Or maybe I was just imagining it...

And I, too, heard Lucius say "Avarda" when he was going to attack Harry at the end. :eek: Hmm... I wonder if it shows up in the subtitles... I routinely turn on the subtitles when the basilisk is speaking so I can understand it, but I never thought to do it when Lucius is mumbling his curse.

On another note, I also decided to read Prisoner of Azkaban again and, as with the other two books, I can't see how they're going to fit all the pertinant information into a 2-1/2 hour movie. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/giveup.gif I guess I'll find out on Friday. I'm glad I read the book again though because there was a ton of stuff I'd forgotten about.

EDIT: Oh, and isn't "lupin" (or something like that) close to a foriegn laguage for wolf? (I want to say Latin again, but I've never studied it...)

[JonanMephi]

Me too. I'm so excited about it! Of course, I hope all who go, to come by my place and discuss it. (Link in siggie).

style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif

[Seanakin]

"Lupus" means wolf in Latin, Luvinna. Ergo, someone wolf-like would be lupine, and thus the connection.

And it has nothing to do with Latin, but the name Sirius Black was also a dead giveaway that he had something to do with a black dog. (Sirius, or Alpha Canis Majoris, is also known as the "Dog Star.")

That's about all I can think of right now.

[brookie]

i went and saw this at the 12:05 showing, and DAMN!!! the best movie ever!!!!!!! blew the other two out of the freakin water! better dialogue and directing.

[Seanakin]

Oh, and one other interesting visual detail I noticed from watching CoS the other night: Tom Riddle's robe from half a century prior bore a crest with all four houses' logos on it, as opposed to Harry's time, when the robes only bore the house emblem of their respective wearer.

[Obi-Stu]

The film only comes out here next week, so I'll go see it then...

[JonanMephi]

It comes out here today, but I can't go until Monday. WHAT A BUMMER!!!!

[Jacen Solo]

Originally posted by Luvinna@May 31 2004, 10:23 AM
And I, too, heard Lucius say "Avada" when he was going to attack Harry at the end. :eek: Hmm... I wonder if it shows up in the subtitles... I routinely turn on the subtitles when the basilisk is speaking so I can understand it, but I never thought to do it when Lucius is mumbling his curse.


Whoa ... that is kind of creepy. Lucius Malfoy killing Harry just because he freed Dobby? It was a good thing Dobby was there!! Of course ... that would have been something that they just added into the movie, because I don't believe Malfoy actually says anything in CS when he attempts to curse Harry.

As for Harry dying ... oh, I hope not. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/crying.gif Sad story. Well, this much we know ... it's either going to be Harry or Tom, and I'm sure Rowling will keep us guessing right until the end.

[Seanakin]

Now I need to go check the book, I'm only familiar with the movie version of CoS.

Now that I think about it, Harry wasn't introduced to the unforgivable curses until GoF. In which case, I wonder if JKR had even thought them up when writing CoS. I'm guessing she hadn't, and that its appearance in the movie was just a slight easter egg-type nod to the successive books in the HP series.

Anyway, it's one of many reasons I'm glad JK's kept an eye on the production of these movies in an effort to maintain some semblance of continuity.

Which reminds me, I couldn't see a fireplace in Lockhart's office, though the shots inside were at such an angle that I couldn't see everything. (I'm assuming, of course, that this particular room is the office of all the DDA teachers.)

[Marbleman]

I just saw it this morning. Wow. Cuaron really made the transition well. This all about Harry's coming of age, his rite of passage. He's beginning to understand what we've known all along: that he can protect himself. Exemplary performances by the three leads, especially Emma Watson. I've entertained the idea of making my own hippogriff. The AICN review is right, he was very much a character in his own right - he did this by being subtle. Buckbeak is one of the first CG non-sentient creatures that has been able to forge its own personality.

The dementors are fear. Nothing more to say about that.

The AICN review didn't touch up much on Cornelius Fudge (he didn't appear much but he'll be more prominent in the next I'd imagine), but he was right on target too. He's the kind of good-hearted, out-of-the-loop person who you can feel sorry for and get furious at simultaneously.

OOOO(/OOOOO Marbles. Best Summer movie so far.

I would add that as for the character of Harry, it has also been vastly improved. This film exposed his dark side and it's clearly shown. He's not above blowing his aunt up, stealing Longbottom's sucker, and pushing happy, singing people out of his way when he's in a foul mood. The last line he had in the movie sums it up: “I solemnly swear I’m up to no good.” He’s fully embraced the rule-breaking spirit of his father (that spirit which Snape so despises), and this will only be exacerbated in later installments when the magical authorities are shown to be completely inept anyway.

[James]

HP3 doesn't come out to 10th June here. That's my birthday and I'm going to see it that day. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/birthday3.gif

[Dark Skywalker 9]

Originally posted by brookie@Jun 4 2004, 02:11 AM
i went and saw this at the 12:05 showing, and DAMN!!! the best movie ever!!!!!!! blew the other two out of the freakin water! better dialogue and directing.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Absolutely brilliant movie...seen it twice already. Plan on going again Sunday.

[Mann]

Worst beginning, Best middle section, horrible ending.

NOw They took lots of libertiies with the book, but visually this movie is astounding. the dementors, the willow and the art direction were well done.

High POints: All the actors have grasped the kind of atmosphere this movie is about and do it with vigor. Gary Oldman is very much intuen with Sirius, Thewlis is spot on with Lupin (even if he looks a little different from what i saw), Peter Pettigrew's Actor Timothy Spall was wickedly hammy and will no doubt be better in part 4. The hypogriff was excellent, the painting sequences were inventive. Curaron does the best direction of the three (Introduction of the dementors is brilliant!)

Low points: Murkiness takes away form the child-like viewpoint. The werewolf was a ripoff of "An American Werewolf in Paris", Sirius needed more Screentime, Ron was pushed waaay into the background, THERE WAS NO ENDING!!!

[Seanakin]

Originally posted by Mann@Jun 4 2004, 10:56 PM
THERE WAS NO ENDING!!!
Dude. It's a sequel. There will be another. What more could one expect.

[Mann]

Originally posted by Seanakin+Jun 5 2004, 06:00 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Seanakin @ Jun 5 2004, 06:00 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mann@Jun 4 2004, 10:56 PM
THERE WAS NO ENDING!!!
Dude. It's a sequel. There will be another. What more could one expect. [/b][/quote]
have you read the books? That is an ending, this one ended like a saturday morning cartoon show. It was just some action stunt and then "blah!" AND it was totally not in league with how the obok went or how it ended.

[Seanakin]

And this is in what way a bad thing?

Especially after the first film, which was nearly IDENTICAL to the book, to the point that even people who hadn't read the book could figure that out.

[Mann]

Originally posted by Seanakin@Jun 5 2004, 06:07 AM
And this is in what way a bad thing?

Especially after the first film, which was nearly IDENTICAL to the book, to the point that even people who hadn't read the book could figure that out.
Is it wrong to be faithful to a source you are saying? I mean they cut what might have been a kick ass ending that sealed the movie up nice and tight and made me leave feeling good. This one was kind of just "Done!" with no closure like the book had.

[Marbleman]

It would have been cool for Harry to say that little line to Uncle Vernon that he did at the end of the book, displaying the clear shift in power. As it was, I thought the line he had summed it up just as well.

[Mann]

Originally posted by Marbleman@Jun 5 2004, 10:55 AM
It would have been cool for Harry to say that little line to Uncle Vernon that he did at the end of the book, displaying the clear shift in power. As it was, I thought the line he had summed it up just as well.
what line? The ending had no line...

[Marbleman]

Yeah he did. After the screen faded out he's flying away on his new Firebolt. Then, before the credits that looked like they were on the Marauder's Map rolled, Harry said the password you need to get it to function.

[Mann]

Originally posted by Marbleman@Jun 5 2004, 06:28 PM
Yeah he did. After the screen faded out he's flying away on his new Firebolt. Then, before the credits that looked like they were on the Marauder's Map rolled, Harry said the password you need to get it to function.
That wasn't part of the film, it was a gimmick for the credits. The flying on the broomstick was the end.

[Marbleman]

Okay Mann. It was still the last spoken words the audience heard. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif

[Mann]

Now, seeing this moive, any oscar nomination buzz? I say art direction, f/x and costumes are likely. Possibly sound and make up.

[Seanakin]

Everyone? Would everyone please pay close attention for just a moment? I have an announcement to make:

Ahem...

<span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><span style="color:green">I hereby apologize to Mann for even thinking of debating his stance on the trainwreck that is the latest Harry Potter flick. In fact, its subtitle should be "Something flaccid this way comes." Thank you.</span></span>

That is all.

[James]

LOL!!!

[JKRich]

His member title does say he(we) is never wrong. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

[Seanakin]

Well, if I believed that, I wouldn't have gone to see it, am I right? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

[Luvinna]

Originally posted by Marbleman@Jun 5 2004, 12:51 PM
Okay Mann. It was still the last spoken words the audience heard. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif
Only if you didn't stay to the end of the credits. At the end, Harry says, "Mischief managed," and the map shows the movie title again before going blank. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif

I'd heard that the movie was different from the book, but I never imagined it would be that different. Just a few minutes into it I found myself wishing I hadn't reread the book last weekend because I was constantly trying to figure out how things were going to work with what they changed. I should probably go see it again so I can just concentrate on the movie and hopefully not compare it to the book so much.

I absolutely love the art direction in the movie. The change of seasons was so cool, the womping willow was hilarious and Buckbeak was just awesome. I thought the acting and the script were terrific (Fred and George had me in stitches when they gave Harry the map style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif , not to mention Ron and the tap-dancing spiders!!)

I loved the look of the castle and the grounds, but the thing that bugs me the most is that this movie is so different from the other two, it doesn't fit seamlessly with them. It's almost like they went off to a different school for their third year. Some of the rooms in the castle were completely different (like the hospital wing, and the front entry with the swinging pendulum) and the castle grounds were also different (Hagrid's shack used to be just a quick run down the lawn, now it's down that windy path of stairs).

As a stand-alone movie, I think it's brilliant. My biggest disappointment, like I said, is that it looks so different that, visually, it doesn't fit with the previous two movies.

[Seanakin]

Thank you, Luvinna, for reminding me of one of my main complaints about this movie: the utter lack of continuity with its predecessors.

I'm guessing it might have something to do with a change-up in the design and/or production team.

[Marbleman]

So to everyone who saw it, what did you think of Dumbledore? I have to say, and I'll probably get heat for this but I don't care: looking back I prefer Richard Harris. I know there's nothing to be done about it, but I just felt his voice and presence were more genteel and soothing than Gambon's. That said, he had his moments too, mostly during his address to the school at the beginning and his feigning innocence when Harry and Hermione were finished with their time meddling. The quirky wit was not lost, so I'll manage.

I was also disappointed that neither Cedric nor Cho were formally introduced to the audience, but they didn't have much time for that or the Gryffindor-Slytherin match. (Although I suppose that Seeker in the thunderstorm game was Cedric since they were playing Hufflepuff when the dementors caused Harry to fall. Hm.)

Well there I've done my best to gripe.

[Seanakin]

You know, if I've any reason to gripe about all the movies so far, it's that they've all shafted their respective stories when it comes to Quidditch. I'll grant you, the nature of the game itself (as imagined by JKR) is a SFX nightmare, and I'm sure that has a lot to do with it.

But still, so much good story action is missing by glossing over the Quidditch. Which hopefully, may not be the case in GoF.

As for the neo-Dumbledore, I wouldn't have complained if he had been around since the start. I also give Gambon credit for NOT trying to be another Richard Harris while trying to establish some connection to the A.D. of old.

[Justin]

I saw this movie tonight and I thought it was great, quite a bit better than the other two, which were a little bit better than "just ok." I really liked the darker tone, and the film was lit much better than the previous ones.

I think the different look you guys are complaining about is just because the lighting is a little darker, but that fits with the tone of the story. There isn't really a lack of continuity, I think it fits perfectly, it's just a little bit better.

The Empire Strikes Back was visually a lot different from Star Wars, but that doesn't seem to bother anyone or create a sense of incontinuity.

I had felt with the earlier Harry Potter films that the lighting was a bit sub-par and was glad to see that it had a more cinematic look in this one.

The story was more complex and sophisticated, the character development was deeper, the editing was much smoother, the cinematography was quite a bit better, and the acting has improved on the kids' parts.

The Prisoner of Azkaban is the ESB of the Harry Potter series.

[Seanakin]

BLASPHEMY! style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif

Episode V rocked the World with just four words: "I am your father."

This one, they went WAY too quickly through the setup to be able to fully execute the payoff.

I, for one, preferred the more deliberate pacing of the Columbus-directed movies.

I guess I should ask you, Justin...are you familiar with the book?

[Marbleman]

I completely agree with you Justin. And I've read the books, some more than once, and Prisoner of Azkaban captured the spirit of the book and made it compelling in FILM FORM. To be fair to Columbus, though, I think the source material was also more exiting for this one. It's not a perfect film but it is a step up in a (so far) generally good movie series. And no not because it was "darker," but because everything was brought together well visually and the main themes were preserved.

[Justin]

No, I haven't read the book and I'm glad if having read the book would have made me revile the movie the way you do Seanakin, lol.

I thought it was a great movie and a vast improvement over the previous two in the series.

Honestly, I think it's a good thing that movies are different from the books they are based on, because if they were exactly the same then what would be the point of reading the book?

I may read the Harry Potter books because I know that they are different from the movies. If they were exactly the same then I wouldn't read them because I've seen the movies.

That's why I have no problem with what they left out or changed in the Lord of the Rings films, because you can read about them in the books (which I did read before seeing the films). Who cares if they don't show Faramir and Eowyn falling in love? You can read about it in the book.

Whatever they left out of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban obviously didn't take away from the film because I didn't feel like there was something missing, or that something more was needed. I don't need to know the whole backstory to the kids who gave Harry the map of Hogwarts to enjoy the film. I can read about it in the book if I want to learn more.

[Seanakin]

That's the thing, though, Justin...I went into RotK knowing how the book went, and I STILL enjoyed the movie because it didn't try to do too much of what was involved in the literary tale.

PoA felt like a really bumpy ride on the Knight Bus. First stop, Privett Drive, then....BAM! Aunt Marge. Then...BAM! Leaky Cauldron. Then...BAM! The Weasleys. Then...BAM! Hogwarts express. On and on until the end, and only THEN did they slow it down and give the story the attention it needed.

And I don't think the movie "preserved" the main themes as much as it "abbreviated" them. (Which is a kind way of saying "amputated.")

[Justin]

Well I didn't think so at all, I didn't feel like I missed out on some important details, I felt that all was there that I needed to know. I'm glad they didn't spend forever expositing on everything. I didn't feel like the plot was compressed, everything was there to make the film make sense.

I would rather have NOT spent forever hanging around at the Weasley's place while people talked about whatever little details there were.

I don't think you would have any of these problems that you are complaining about if you didn't have the book to compare it against.

The fact is, you can't have everything from a 300 page plus book in a 2 and a half hour movie (which is still pretty long for a movie).

I'm sure if they had all the things that you feel are necessary that were left out, or if they had spent more time at the places you say they should have spent more time at, the movie would have been well over 3 hours. And for someone who hadn't read the books that would have been a bad thing.

[Justin]

One thing I will say is that the poster, like the one for the last film, sucks. I can't believe that they didn't get Drew Struzan to do the posters for Chamber of Secrets and Prisoner of Azkaban since he did such a kick-ass poster for the first movie.

[Darth Badly]

HELP!

I saw HP and TPOA at the weekend.

One question (and sorry if this has been covered already - I can't read 18 pages to find out).

My questions is this:

When Harry first saves Black at the side of the lake he looks across the lake and we (the viewer) clearly see (IMHO) I kind of transparent deer all ghostly and silver with a figure riding the deer that you can't see. When events are replayed from the other side of the lake we see it was just Harry and no sign of the deer? I don't understand?

style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/scratchchin.gif

[Seanakin]

In a word, Badly: discontinuity.

It woulda made more sense if they had made time in the movie to explain who Mooney, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs actually were. Like with most everything else, Cuaron and company must've just figured that everyone watching had already read the book at least 100 times.

Which reminds me of another disappointment: I was kinda hoping for some revelatory flashback scenes, from before Harry's birth. Or, at the very least, at least one establishing shot of Azkaban prison. People say the movie's darker, I say it merely went grayscale.

[Luvinna]

Originally posted by Justin@Jun 5 2004, 11:47 PM
I think the different look you guys are complaining about is just because the lighting is a little darker, but that fits with the tone of the story. There isn't really a lack of continuity, I think it fits perfectly, it's just a little bit better.
I'm not talking about the "darkness" of the movie. I liked that aspect. I was talking about the set, itself. Like I said before, it was almost as if the kids went off to a different school for their third year, or they moved Hogwarts to a new castle, or they remodeled, or something. To quote myself: "Some of the rooms in the castle were completely different (like the hospital wing, and the front entry with the swinging pendulum [not to mention the entrance to Gryffindor Tower and the Fat Lady]) and the castle grounds were also different (Hagrid's shack used to be just a quick run down the lawn, now it's down that windy path of stairs)."

[Darth Badly]

Originally posted by Seanakin@Jun 7 2004, 03:39 PM
In a word, Badly: discontinuity.


Well that's just a huge insult to the audience and absolute bollocks then.

Does no one have a better answer?

Please?

[Darth Badly]

Originally posted by Seanakin@Jun 7 2004, 03:39 PM


Which reminds me of another disappointment: I was kinda hoping for some revelatory flashback scenes, from before Harry's birth. Or, at the very least, at least one establishing shot of Azkaban prison. People say the movie's darker, I say it merely went grayscale.

Yes, the prison didn't appear at all. We are told the villain is really dangerous but never shown this. (Has the writer heard of 'show, don't tell'?)

The villain only pops up for the last five minutes and is revealed in seconds as a really nice guy and not really the villain at all. He leaves without showing the slightest interest in clearing his name?! And it's never explained how he escaped from prison in the first place (which is a fair question as there are several references to it being impossible / difficult at the start of the film.)

And what's Black been doing in that old spooky house for nine months and why didn't the Dementors find him.

Oh and also why don't all the little kids shout "Those aren't dementors - they're Ring Wraiths for those LOTR films. Cool."?

[Luvinna]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>When Harry first saves Black at the side of the lake he looks across the lake and we (the viewer) clearly see (IMHO) I kind of transparent deer all ghostly and silver with a figure riding the deer that you can't see. When events are replayed from the other side of the lake we see it was just Harry and no sign of the deer? I don't understand?[/b][/quote]
This played out a little differently in the book. The stag galloped across the lake and literally chased the dementors away in both occurances. I was also kind of surprised that they didn't show the stag again for the "replay".

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Yes, the prison didn't appear at all. We are told the villain is really dangerous but never shown this. (Has the writer heard of 'show, don't tell'?)[/b][/quote]
Well, they did explain that he'd been put away for murdering several innocent people (the conversation between Fudge and McGonagall in Hogsmeade). And they point out a couple of times that all that was supposedly left of Peter Pettigrew was a finger. They hint at how dangerous Sirius is supposed to be, but never really get into the detail that's in the book.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>The villain only pops up for the last five minutes and is revealed in seconds as a really nice guy and not really the villain at all. He leaves without showing the slightest interest in clearing his name?! And it's never explained how he escaped from prison in the first place (which is a fair question as there are several references to it being impossible / difficult at the start of the film.)[/b][/quote]
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>And what's Black been doing in that old spooky house for nine months and why didn't the Dementors find him. [/b][/quote]
I combined these two because they're related. Sirius was an unregistered Animagus (a detail that got left out of the movie). No one except a select few knew he could change himself into a dog. The dementors feed off of human emotions, so once Sirius learned that Peter was still alive and would be at Hogwarts, he pulled a fast one on the dementors (the only guards at Azkaban), changed into a dog and got away. And they never found him in the Shack because he hid there as a dog. He's in the book alot more than in the movie. There's a part where Ron wakes up to find Sirius standing over him with a knife poised to strike (at Scabbers, though we don't know it at the time). And Harry sees a big black dog wandering the castle grounds more than once. Another victim of time restraints.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Oh and also why don't all the little kids shout "Those aren't dementors - they're Ring Wraiths for those LOTR films. Cool."? [/b][/quote]
Because not everyone is obsessed with LOTR. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif I certainly never would have thought of the resemblance if it hadn't been pointed out to me.

[Darth Badly]

Originally posted by Luvinna@Jun 7 2004, 09:41 PM


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Oh and also why don't all the little kids shout "Those aren't dementors - they're Ring Wraiths for those LOTR films. Cool."?
Because not everyone is obsessed with LOTR. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif I certainly never would have thought of the resemblance if it hadn't been pointed out to me. [/b][/quote]

I'm not obsessed with LOTR at all. But the designs are EXACTLY the same. There's even a shot where one walks by and we see his feet at ground level and a flower ages and dies - EXACTLY as in TFOTR.

[Darth Badly]

Originally posted by Luvinna@Jun 7 2004, 09:41 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>When Harry first saves Black at the side of the lake he looks across the lake and we (the viewer) clearly see (IMHO) I kind of transparent deer all ghostly and silver with a figure riding the deer that you can't see. When events are replayed from the other side of the lake we see it was just Harry and no sign of the deer? I don't understand?
This played out a little differently in the book. The stag galloped across the lake and literally chased the dementors away in both occurances. I was also kind of surprised that they didn't show the stag again for the "replay". [/b][/quote]

Could you explain a little of what / who the stag is and does in the book?

I can't understand how it wasn't there the second time?

[Darth Badly]

Originally posted by Luvinna@Jun 7 2004, 09:41 PM

Well, they did explain that he'd been put away for murdering several innocent people (the conversation between Fudge and McGonagall in Hogsmeade).

I remember that conversation. My point is that not seeing the villain for the entire film, and not seeing him do anything evil, does not (IMHO) make for a very dramatic (ie good) film.

[Luvinna]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I'm not obsessed with LOTR at all. But the designs are EXACTLY the same. There's even a shot where one walks by and we see his feet at ground level and a flower ages and dies - EXACTLY as in TFOTR. [/b][/quote]
Really? It does that in FOTR? I don't remember that... 'Course, I've only seen the movie once (well, one and a half times) and that was when it first came out. I still stand by my previous statement (the second one, anyway).

Wait! The flower in POA doesn't die. It freezes. Which, I guess, could be seen as the same thing, but still.

style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif

[Luvinna]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Could you explain a little of what / who the stag is and does in the book?

I can't understand how it wasn't there the second time?[/b][/quote]
A detail that got left out of the movie was just who Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs were. Lupin is Moony (that's how he knew the parchment was a map), Wormtail was Peter Pettigrew, Padfoot was Sirius, and Prongs was James Potter, Harry's dad. You can probably already see how the nicknames relate to their animal form. (James, you see, could turn himself into a stag.)

Those four were partners in crime while at Hogwarts. When the latter three figured out that Lupin was a werewolf, they decided to become Animagi so that they couldn't be harmed by him whenever he transformed. They told no one of this. (See another detail that got left out is that all Animagi are supposed to be registered with the Ministry of Magic. These three didn't do that.)

It's really just more of a sentimental note that Harry's patronus takes the form of a stag. Other than that, there's no real significance.

I don't understand why they didn't show the stag the second time either. It was in the book. Just one of those changes that makes no sense and had no purpose (like the fact that, in the book, Marge is Petunia's sister, not Vernon's). style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/giveup.gif

[Gendi]

Luvinna, Marge is Vernon's sister in the books. Lily (Harry's mom) is Petunia's sister. No big deal, I just thought you might have gotten those two mixed up. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif I think I am going to have to re-read the books myself b/c there was a lot of stuff I had forgotten (like Hermione's time-travelling).
I saw the movie yesterday, and overall I liked it. The stag not being there the second time didn't make sense to me either. Also, while I did know who the people were that made the map, it bothered me that it wasn't explained who they were or how Lupin knew it was a map. When he takes it, Harry just seems to accept that Lupin knows what it is without question when Snape didn't know what it was. The reaction to that didn't seem natural. Those are my only two complaints. I don't think going to see a movie adapted from a book should leave holes that you have to answer by reading the book.
I did like how the kids are starting to act like normal teens, and I thought that Buckbeak looked very real.
Does anyone know how many movies they are supposed to make? Are they doing one for each book?

[Justin]

Man, I didn't notice any of the supposed holes you guys are pointing out, because I think they are only there if you have read the book.

The thing with the stag...I thought that was just Harry's imagination, because when we see it it's from his point of view. That that's sort of what he's seeing in the light. It didn't really bother me at all that it wasn't explained, it was just a nifty thing. Sort of like the horses in the river in LOTR.

My sister explained the signifigance of the stag and that's kind of nifty, but I'm glad they didn't take the time out of the movie to explain the aliases of Harry's dad and friends, because it's really unnecessary information.

[Darth Badly]

Originally posted by Luvinna@Jun 7 2004, 10:20 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I'm not obsessed with LOTR at all. But the designs are EXACTLY the same. There's even a shot where one walks by and we see his feet at ground level and a flower ages and dies - EXACTLY as in TFOTR.
Really? It does that in FOTR? I don't remember that... 'Course, I've only seen the movie once (well, one and a half times) and that was when it first came out. I still stand by my previous statement (the second one, anyway).

Wait! The flower in POA doesn't die. It freezes. Which, I guess, could be seen as the same thing, but still.

style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif [/b][/quote]

The Dementors look EXACTLY the same as Ring Wraiths - and they are photographed by the director in exactly the same way as in LOTR.

We all know that JKR ripped off a lot of Potter from LOTR and SW, but I did think that they could have disguised it a bit better for the film images.

[Darth Badly]

Originally posted by Luvinna@Jun 7 2004, 10:23 PM


I don't understand why they didn't show the stag the second time either. It was in the book. Just one of those changes that makes no sense and had no purpose (like the fact that, in the book, Marge is Petunia's sister, not Vernon's). style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/giveup.gif

Thanks for the explaination, Ms L.

That's pretty slack filmmaking then IMHO.

[Darth Badly]

Originally posted by Justin@Jun 8 2004, 12:03 AM
Man, I didn't notice any of the supposed holes you guys are pointing out, because I think they are only there if you have read the book.
.
I haven't read the book.

Those were things I noticed just watching the film.

[Darth Badly]

Originally posted by Justin@Jun 8 2004, 12:03 AM


The thing with the stag...I thought that was just Harry's imagination, because when we see it it's from his point of view.
That doesn't really make much (any) sense to me. Why would they suddenly have Harry imagine a great glowing see through deer if it wasn't there?

[Justin]

Well it didn't bother me and I still don't understand what the problem is.

[Darth Badly]

Originally posted by Gendi@Jun 7 2004, 11:34 PM
Also, while I did know who the people were that made the map, it bothered me that it wasn't explained who they were or how Lupin knew it was a map. When he takes it, Harry just seems to accept that Lupin knows what it is without question when Snape didn't know what it was. The reaction to that didn't seem natural. Those are my only two complaints.

Absolutely - I thought that also. (Alhough unlike you I didn't know why.)

The kid's acting was better this time around. (With the exception of Ron who is now the Weakest Link.)

[Mann]

Everyone rips off everyone in films/books nowadays. Its pointless to argue it.

The dementors when reading the books are envisiousn to lok just like the wraiths in the LOTR. Its no secret that the Demntors are like the Wraiths but instead of exuding evilness like the wraiths did (FOTR, the bugs crawling away is a way to show how much evil is inside them) and the dementors make things cold, then suck out your soul.

Alot of explanation was left out of this movie. I agree that the Maurader's Map details should have played out. The reason Snape hates them so much to begin with. Also, the ending would have just sealed the deal in Potterdom as making the movie encompass the overal changes in Harry.

I think the reason that the sets changed so much was Cuaron's ideas about changes going through Harry's life. Like he's changing so much that the school changesright along with him.

But the sets were destracting for me to see Hagrid and The Womping Willow looking so different. I mean they kept the Great Hall and Staircases...why not the other parts?

[Mann]

Originally posted by Darth Badly+Jun 7 2004, 11:16 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darth Badly @ Jun 7 2004, 11:16 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Justin@Jun 8 2004, 12:03 AM


The thing with the stag...I thought that was just Harry's imagination, because when we see it it's from his point of view.
That doesn't really make much (any) sense to me. Why would they suddenly have Harry imagine a great glowing see through deer if it wasn't there? [/b][/quote]
Maybe from one angle you can see the stage and from another (the side Harry was at when letting it out of the wand, you can't see it.

However, i'm glad they left the stage part in, but the books say Harry ca see the stage before it does the Patronus.

[Justin]

Originally posted by Darth Badly+Jun 7 2004, 07:16 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darth Badly @ Jun 7 2004, 07:16 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Justin@Jun 8 2004, 12:03 AM


The thing with the stag...I thought that was just Harry's imagination, because when we see it it's from his point of view.
That doesn't really make much (any) sense to me. Why would they suddenly have Harry imagine a great glowing see through deer if it wasn't there? [/b][/quote]
No, I know the bright light was there (obviously) but I thought maybe the stag was his imagination, or maybe that's just a nifty image that pops up when you use that spell or something, like the LOTR horses in the river.

Either way, it was really inconsequential to the story.

[Mann]

Originally posted by Darth Badly+Jun 7 2004, 11:18 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darth Badly @ Jun 7 2004, 11:18 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Gendi@Jun 7 2004, 11:34 PM
Also, while I did know who the people were that made the map, it bothered me that it wasn't explained who they were or how Lupin knew it was a map. When he takes it, Harry just seems to accept that Lupin knows what it is without question when Snape didn't know what it was. The reaction to that didn't seem natural. Those are my only two complaints.

Absolutely - I thought that also. (Alhough unlike you I didn't know why.)

The kid's acting was better this time around. (With the exception of Ron who is now the Weakest Link.) [/b][/quote]
Don't bag on Ron, he's the weakest link in this book, cause he gets pushed over for Hermione (who in the last one was pushed to the side).

I'm glad they got Mike Newell for the fourth, cause he's a better comedy director and I think you need to have some fun with these movie and not make them TOO dark and spooky.

All aside, Cuaron is a great director, he's better than Columbus, but he just made some errors on the way.

[Darth Badly]

Originally posted by Justin@Jun 8 2004, 12:18 AM
Well it didn't bother me and I still don't understand what the problem is.
If it didn't bother you then that's great.

The problem is this:

The first time we see that scene from Harry's side of the lake there seems to be a bloody big glowing transparent deer / stag on the other side of the lake.

The story then makes a point of explaining everything with great attention to detail ie who threw the stones through the window of the hut and broke the jar etc. That's the point of them going back in time - so they can save folks and prove how neatly the story fits together. When they get to the main climax, Harry waits for his dad to appear... but he doesn't.

Instead Harry saves himself and there is absolutely NO deer / stag. There is also no reaction shot from Harry I on the other side of the lake with Black - which if they had shown Harry I seeing Harry II in the form of a stag would at least explain it (although that would still be bollocks.)

That, Justin, is what the problem is.

[Justin]

Is that really that big of a deal? And that still doesn't bother me. It's completely inconsequential whether or not Harry saw the stag or not.

It's just nitpicking.

[Darth Badly]

Originally posted by Justin@Jun 8 2004, 12:21 AM

No, I know the bright light was there (obviously) but I thought maybe the stag was his imagination, or maybe that's just a nifty image that pops up when you use that spell or something, like the LOTR horses in the river.

Either way, it was really inconsequential to the story.

Those are both pretty lame explainations.

And I don't agree it is inconsequential because it's an important detail of the climatic scene. It's fair enough to point out that it doesn't (seem to) make sense. Either to me as a film goer or to others here who have read the books.

Justin - you tend to be pretty forgiving with what you ask / require from a story.

[Darth Badly]

Originally posted by Justin@Jun 8 2004, 12:27 AM
Is that really that big of a deal? And that still doesn't bother me. It's completely inconsequential whether or not Harry saw the stag or not.

It's just nitpicking.
It's not nitpicking. It's an important point.

You are very very undemanding.

[Justin]

What do you mea, "tend to be?" Dude, don't make this a personal thing. I just don't think whether or not you see a glimpse of a deer from one angle to the next impacts the story at all. That doesn't make me dumb or unable to grasp the situation. I think you are overly critical.

How is it an important point?

[Mann]

Originally posted by Justin@Jun 7 2004, 11:34 PM
Dude, don't make this a personal thing. I just don't think whether or not you see a glimpse of a fricking deer from one angle to the next impacts the story at all. That doesn't make me dumb or unable to grasp the situation. I think you are nitpicking.

How is it an important point?
I honestly noticed it too, but I honestly didn't care at all. The stag was there, and we all saw it once. When he does the Magic again its at a different angle. henceforth, the stag doesn't stay a stag, it becomes those big bubbles that knock away dementors.

[Justin]

Yeah, you only see it for a tiny bit before it disappears back into the glowing light.

[Darth Badly]

Originally posted by Justin@Jun 8 2004, 12:34 AM
Dude, don't make this a personal thing. I just don't think whether or not you see a glimpse of a fricking deer from one angle to the next impacts the story at all. That doesn't make me dumb or unable to grasp the situation. I think you are nitpicking.

I didn't and wouldn't say you were either of those things.

I cannot imagine how you can say that seeing a great big bloody deer in the middle of the climax of a film which is then suddenly not there is unworthy of note and comment.

Have I said it therefore ruins the films? No, of course not. But I would like to know what the heck was happening.

I think my comment about you (in general) being fairly undemanding when it comes to films is fair comment because you nearly always say that the faults other perceive in films are "nitpicking" and that they don't bother you. That's grand - I'm glad you enjoyed the film. But the deer did puzzle me and I wanted to ask about it.

style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/y.gif

[Darth Badly]

Originally posted by Justin@Jun 8 2004, 12:37 AM
Yeah, you only see it for a tiny bit before it disappears back into the glowing light.
It's not the length of time it's on screen that's important - it that it's there at all.

[Justin]

Dude, where have you seen me say that "nearly always"? I think you're confusing me with someone else.

[Darth Badly]

Originally posted by Justin@Jun 8 2004, 12:34 AM
I think you are overly critical.


I know you do - and that's fair comment.

But can you perhaps see how I might think that sometimes you were a little under-critical?

style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/y.gif

[Darth Badly]

Originally posted by Justin@Jun 8 2004, 12:40 AM
Dude, where have you seen me say that "nearly always"? I think you're confusing me with someone else.

Any faults of the prequels you often dismiss as nitpicking.

I'm not confusing you with anyone.

[Justin]

No, I don't. Explain to me what those other times were. The only time we've disagreed about something like this is this one shot of a deer that had no bearing on the plot.

[Justin]

Originally posted by Darth Badly+Jun 7 2004, 07:42 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darth Badly @ Jun 7 2004, 07:42 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Justin@Jun 8 2004, 12:40 AM
Dude, where have you seen me say that "nearly always"?* I think you're confusing me with someone else.

Any faults of the prequels you often dismiss as nitpicking.

I'm not confusing you with anyone. [/b][/quote]
WHAT???? You must be joking. I've never said that. Personally I find the PT so far to be pretty supbar, and I've never said anything different. I even made a list of the things that I see wrong with TPM in that "article on TPM" thread.

[Darth Badly]

Originally posted by Justin@Jun 8 2004, 12:44 AM
No, I don't. Explain to me what those other times were. The only time we've disagreed about something like this is this one shot of a deer that had no bearing on the plot.

Of course it has a bearing on the plot - it's in the climax of the film.

Check out any edition of the Clowns thread for you saying that the things I see wrong with the prequels are "nit picking".

[Justin]

No, you are confusing me with someone else.

[Darth Badly]

Originally posted by Justin@Jun 8 2004, 12:47 AM
No, you are confusing me with someone else.


If so then I apologize, Justin. Maybe the comments I made about you forgiving the prequels their flaws were unfair. Sorry matey.

[Darth Badly]

Originally posted by Justin@Jun 8 2004, 12:46 AM
I even made a list of the things that I see wrong with TPM in that "article on TPM" thread.
I must admit I haven't seen this yet. I will check it out.

[Darth Badly]

Hey Mr T - ICQ me!

[Darth Badly]

Originally posted by Darth Badly@Jun 8 2004, 12:23 AM


The problem is this:

The first time we see that scene from Harry's side of the lake there seems to be a bloody big glowing transparent deer / stag on the other side of the lake.

The story then makes a point of explaining everything with great attention to detail ie who threw the stones through the window of the hut and broke the jar etc. That's the point of them going back in time - so they can save folks and prove how neatly the story fits together. When they get to the main climax, Harry waits for his dad to appear... but he doesn't.

Instead Harry saves himself and there is absolutely NO deer / stag. There is also no reaction shot from Harry I on the other side of the lake with Black - which if they had shown Harry I seeing Harry II in the form of a stag would at least explain it (although that would still be bollocks.)


Meanwhile... your explainations are requested for this.

Anyone got a better explaination than "it was sloppy film making"?

[Seanakin]

Originally posted by Luvinna@Jun 7 2004, 02:23 PM
It's really just more of a sentimental note that Harry's patronus takes the form of a stag. Other than that, there's no real significance.
I'd have to think there IS a correlation between the name Patronus and the connection to Harry's father, given JK's predilection for Latin.

[Justin]

I'm going to see the movie again this weekend with my little brother and sister and I will take a closer look at the thing with the stag, but when I saw the movie it seemed to me that the white light momentarily took the form of a stag and then went back to being a big cloud of ether. It didn't seem odd to me that there wasn't a glimpse of it again when Harry and Hermione did their Back to the Future thing, because it didn't seem that important.

[Luvinna]

Originally posted by Darth Badly@Jun 7 2004, 07:05 PM
The problem is this:

The first time we see that scene from Harry's side of the lake there seems to be a bloody big glowing transparent deer / stag on the other side of the lake.

The story then makes a point of explaining everything with great attention to detail ie who threw the stones through the window of the hut and broke the jar etc.* That's the point of them going back in time - so they can save folks and prove how neatly the story fits together.* When they get to the main climax, Harry waits for his dad to appear... but he doesn't.*

Instead Harry saves himself and there is absolutely NO deer / stag.* There is also no reaction shot from Harry I on the other side of the lake with Black - which if they had shown Harry I seeing Harry II in the form of a stag would at least explain it (although that would still be bollocks.)
There's no reaction from Harry 1 the second time because Harry 1 thought Harry 2 was his dad. Both times it happened. To quote the movie:
Harry - Does that make sense?
Hermione - No.
It doesn't matter that we and Harry 2 are seeing the events for the second time. Harry 1 still is experiencing the events for the first time so he reacts just as Harry 2 did the first time he saw the person conjuring the patronus across the lake. He thought it was his dad.

[Luvinna]

Originally posted by Seanakin+Jun 7 2004, 09:10 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Seanakin @ Jun 7 2004, 09:10 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Luvinna@Jun 7 2004, 02:23 PM
It's really just more of a sentimental note that Harry's patronus takes the form of a stag. Other than that, there's no real significance.
I'd have to think there IS a correlation between the name Patronus and the connection to Harry's father, given JK's predilection for Latin. [/b][/quote]
Ah-ha! Patronus... paternal... I think I may see it now. Am I close?

[Darth Badly]

Originally posted by Luvinna+Jun 8 2004, 03:39 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Luvinna @ Jun 8 2004, 03:39 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Darth Badly@Jun 7 2004, 07:05 PM

The problem is this:

The first time we see that scene from Harry's side of the lake there seems to be a bloody big glowing transparent deer / stag on the other side of the lake.

The story then makes a point of explaining everything with great attention to detail ie who threw the stones through the window of the hut and broke the jar etc.* That's the point of them going back in time - so they can save folks and prove how neatly the story fits together.* When they get to the main climax, Harry waits for his dad to appear... but he doesn't.*

Instead Harry saves himself and there is absolutely NO deer / stag.* There is also no reaction shot from Harry I on the other side of the lake with Black - which if they had shown Harry I seeing Harry II in the form of a stag would at least explain it (although that would still be bollocks.)
There's no reaction from Harry 1 the second time because Harry 1 thought Harry 2 was his dad. Both times it happened. To quote the movie:
Harry - Does that make sense?
Hermione - No.
It doesn't matter that we and Harry 2 are seeing the events for the second time. Harry 1 still is experiencing the events for the first time so he reacts just as Harry 2 did the first time he saw the person conjuring the patronus across the lake. He thought it was his dad. [/b][/quote]

But the first Harry (and us) clearly sees a glowing transparent stag.

The second time Harry II (on the other side of the lake) looks nothing like a glowing stag?

Sorry - I'm still confused.

Anyone know what happens in the book?

[Vibroblade]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>But the first Harry (and us) clearly sees a glowing transparent stag.

The second time Harry II (on the other side of the lake) looks nothing like a glowing stag?

Sorry - I'm still confused.

Anyone know what happens in the book?
[/b][/quote]

I think it's simply that Harry looked like a stag from across the lake and doesn't look like a stag up close.....

[Luvinna]

In the book, a patronus looks nothing like that glowing bubble thing they show in the movie. Every patronus takes some form or another. Harry's takes the form of a stag.

In the book, Harry 1 sees Harry 2 (who he think is his dad) behind the stag, not instead of the stag (and you can kind of see Harry's form behind the stag the first time in the movie), and then the stag goes galloping across the lake to chase the dementors away. The second time around, again, Harry 2 is standing behind the stag as it forms, then the stag chases the dementors off.

[Darth Badly]

Originally posted by Luvinna@Jun 8 2004, 08:05 PM
In the book, a patronus looks nothing like that glowing bubble thing they show in the movie. Every patronus takes some form or another. Harry's takes the form of a stag.

In the book, Harry 1 sees Harry 2 (who he think is his dad) behind the stag, not instead of the stag (and you can kind of see Harry's form behind the stag the first time in the movie), and then the stag goes galloping across the lake to chase the dementors away. The second time around, again, Harry 2 is standing behind the stag as it forms, then the stag chases the dementors off.

I appreciate you trying to explain this to me. (You, babe, you.)

That explaination amkes sense, BUT and it's a big but, I simply didn't see any stag the second time around. If they had shot it as your describe it above then I won't have questioned it in the first place. But that's not what's on screen.

[Darth Badly]

Originally posted by Vibroblade@Jun 8 2004, 07:36 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>But the first Harry (and us) clearly sees a glowing transparent stag.

The second time Harry II (on the other side of the lake) looks nothing like a glowing stag?

Sorry - I'm still confused.

Anyone know what happens in the book?


I think it's simply that Harry looked like a stag from across the lake and doesn't look like a stag up close..... [/b][/quote]

Thanks VB, but this doesn't quite cover it for me.

style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif

[Seanakin]

The reason Harry thinks it's his father standing across the water is covered, actually, in the movie. That is to say, he's a little woozy and can't see too well, and in that fuzzy vision, he WOULD resemble his father.

And yes, Luv, that's exactly what I believe the Patronus connection is. Although, it may more generally (for other witches and wizards) mean "patron." The father thing may have been a clever tie-in on Rowling's part.

I'll say it again, I'm just in awe of this woman's use of Latin in this enchanted world of hers.

[Jacen Solo]

Originally posted by Luvinna@Jun 7 2004, 04:23 PM

I don't understand why they didn't show the stag the second time either. It was in the book. Just one of those changes that makes no sense and had no purpose (like the fact that, in the book, Marge is Petunia's sister, not Vernon's). style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/giveup.gif
Just to clarify things ... style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blush.gif Aunt Marge, in the book, is Uncle Vernon's sister, being called Mrs. Marjorie Dursley by Fudge. Lily Evans Potter is Aunt Petunia's sister.

[Mann]

hence the fact that both are really really big.

[Darth Badly]

Originally posted by Seanakin@Jun 8 2004, 10:36 PM


I'll say it again, I'm just in awe of this woman's use of Latin in this enchanted world of hers.
She is a grown up. It's hardly genius to throw in a few names inspired by latin words.

I found the 'Mr Lupin' name far far too much of an obvious giveaway for the identity of the werewolf. The latin name for wolf being Canis lupus. As I say, hardly genius.

style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/giveup.gif

[Seanakin]

Maybe not genius, but it's getting more and more unique in this dumbed-down world, as far as I can tell.

[Luvinna]

Originally posted by Darth Badly@Jun 8 2004, 01:31 PM
That explaination amkes sense, BUT and it's a big but, I simply didn't see any stag the second time around. If they had shot it as your describe it above then I won't have questioned it in the first place. But that's not what's on screen.
And you're absolutely right. There is no stag the second time in the movie. It's one of those things that got left out, for whatever reason, and creates a hole for people who haven't read the book.

[Marbleman]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I found the 'Mr Lupin' name far far too much of an obvious giveaway for the identity of the werewolf. The latin name for wolf being Canis lupus.[/b][/quote]

You were intended to deduce all this before the revelation anyway. The boggart turning into a full moon for Lupin (the thing he fears the most), Snape's emphasis on knowing the signs of a werewolf, not to mention Lupin's mysterious absences. . . even my friend who hadn't read the book guessed what he was before it was revealed. And so I don't think it was handled poorly. More of an "Aaah. . ." moment, a confirmation of suspicions.

[Justin]

Does anyone else notice how cool Alan Rickman is in these movies or is it just me? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif

[Seanakin]

Severly underutilized, I think he was.

In all THREE movies, at that, lest you think this is just a continuation of my anti-PoA rant. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif

[Mann]

well he was well used in the first one. I agree the other two he is like underused and just...There until he is actually needed.

[Darth Badly]

Originally posted by Marbleman@Jun 9 2004, 04:40 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I found the 'Mr Lupin' name far far too much of an obvious giveaway for the identity of the werewolf. The latin name for wolf being Canis lupus.

You were intended to deduce all this before the revelation anyway. [/b][/quote]

What I'm saying is his name made it way too obvious. I deduced what he was the second I heard his name. It was like calling someone Mr Werewolf!

style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif

[Seanakin]

True, and the first name of Remus didn't help matters either.

[Darth Badly]

Originally posted by Seanakin@Jun 9 2004, 03:29 PM
True, and the first name of Remus didn't help matters either.

She should have gone for: Mr Remus W. Lupin

style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif

[Vibroblade]

nitpicking....

[Seanakin]

That would've been be PROFESSOR Remus W. Lupin to you, pal. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif

[brookie]

Originally posted by Justin@Jun 9 2004, 12:31 AM
Does anyone else notice how cool Alan Rickman is in these movies or is it just me? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif
totally!i love everything he does, and he plays my favorite HP character (in the movies) he has an incredible voice. bad ass!

[Justin]

And the way he talks is awesome too, the way he draws out some things in sentences and says others quickly is just nifty.

I really liked in the first one where he was sort of a red herring and you weren't sure if he was good or bad. In the last two he's obviously a good guy even though he is a pain because he's so strict, but that could be the way he is in the books, I don't know. I liked the ambiguity to his good guy/bad guy status in the first film. But it was cool that he "saved the day" in the new one, I liked how even though he's antagonistic to Harry and his friends, he cares about them nonetheless. So it's a catch 22, lol.

[Seanakin]

In the books he's a pain in the ass to the students (especially Harry), but always had Dumbedore's trust and confidence. I'd say more but that'd spoil some book stuff.

[brookie]

yeah i like how he is dark and mysterious, i think ill read the books just to learn more about him!
sean, caould you say a few things about snape? i really dont mind if you give a few things away.

[Seanakin]

Sure, but via PM, if you don't mind.

[Marbleman]

I will say that after having reading Order of the Phoenix, my opinion of Snape changed dramatically.

[Handothrawn]

Mine, too...I always thought that he was just a jerk for the sake of being a jerk...I was wrong, and I'm sure that I wasn't the only one.

[Marbleman]

Beforehand I had always figured his hatred for James had something to do with Lily. But by all indications he didn't like her either as he called her a Mudblood.

The part of Cedric is filled. Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/tv_film/newsid_3795000/3795855.stm)

[mazzy]

Snape is a great character because he constantly changes what you think about him and his relationship to Harry changes all the time too. Alan Rickman plays him amazingly, just exactly how I imagined him to be when I read the books. He is strangly attractive....

On the subject of the Lupin name thing, I suppose, credit to Rowling she would never have known that HP was going to be such a phenomenom and created the books orginionally for children. I can't imagine many children getting connections like that too quickly. Not that HP is just for children - it's for me!!

[cj790]

Sirius's name gave the game away for me the minute I read it too - Sirius being the Dog Star.

But Mazzy's right, these conections are interesting little tivia for children that add further realms to the stories they love; as adults we may understand them quite quickly, but consider the audience.

[Seanakin]

I personally like those minute details the JKR throws into her stories, especially the names. It's something Tolkien did, albeit to a much LARGER extent.

Speaking of which, I recall in the book where the men of Gondor often referred to Sauron quite similarly to the way most everyone in the HP books referred to Voldemort.

And yes, I'm certain the Dementors were patterned after the Nazgul. However, considering PoA came out in the late 90s (sometime before 2000), I doubt she intended to rip off PJ's visual design for his Wraiths. Just thought I'd add that.

[Justin]

The Dementors and the Ringwraiths are similar, but very different.

[Seanakin]

Yeah, I didn't envy the movie design team for having to design a creature whose description almost MATCHES the Nazgul but ends up looking just dissimilar enough to satisfy the lawyers. While they did that, I don't think they made them look creepy (or menacing) enough.

[Marbleman]

I thought they were as creepy as the Nazgul at least in their "Nine Riders" format. I don't think anything is more intimidating than Ringwraiths on winged rides. Still, the train losing power, the glass icing up, and the dementor's hand came together to make a very creepy scene.

[JonanMephi]

I don't like the way their appearance change for the movie. The were supposed to be hooded, not a full face mask with only an opening for the mouth. While they are supposed to glide, or float, I don't think they were supposed to be able to fly, if I interpreted the books right. By the way, I'd love to invite you guys to my site to discuss this further.

[Jacen Solo]

I concur, Snape is a neat character (when I say neat, I mean interesting), and Alan Rickman plays him very well. It was awesome seeing Snape shield Harry, Hermione, and Ron from "Remus W. Lupin" when he was a werewolf. Just goes to show how good Snape really is.

I do have a question ... I found it interesting that the boggart turned into Professor Snape when it faced Neville. "Yes ... frightens all," Lupin said in the movie. I just found this interesting. I would have thought that Neville's worst fear would have been, perhaps, the Cruciatus Curse that Bellatrix Lestrange and her gang of Death Eaters used to torture Neville's parents into insanity.

Finally, what did y'all think of the music in Azkaban? John Williams does it again!! Especially with that beautiful Gaelic theme that seems to play every time Harry's parents are involved ... for example, when Lupin is talking to Harry on the bridge. I need to go buy the soundtrack ...

[JonanMephi]

I'd have to say I loved the score. I say this because I hardly noticed it, even though it's effects were felt. In all the right scenes it elevated the emotion greatly, which is what it's supposed to do. I rather like purely musical scores over the more modern approach anyway.

[Seanakin]

There was a score?

Am I the only one here who thinks that John Williams is WAY past his prime?

[Darth Char]

i can see where you are all comming from with the dementors and voldemort but i think they have very distinct differences from the nuzgal, the audiance for one thing in HP is for a younger generation than LOTR, however any age can appreciate HP. i dont think it was ever intended for them to be in a similar genre and to be released around the same time. i dont think they should be compared to seriously.

[Luvinna]

Originally posted by Seanakin@Jun 12 2004, 03:12 PM
There was a score?

Am I the only one here who thinks that John Williams is WAY past his prime?
I loved the score to POA! I'm planning on buying the soundtrack, probably tomorrow when I go shopping.

I do have to say that John Williams' movie scores have been getting a little reduntant in the last few years, but I don't think he's past his prime. He's written some wonderful stuff outside the movie soundtrack genre in the last few years, like the 2002 Olympic theme and his American Journey suite, to name a couple. There's a choral piece he wrote the music for called America, the Dream Goes On that I absolutely love! Of course, I don't know when that was written. I first heard it on an album that came out last summer.

Come to think of it, one of my friends mentioned she didn't recognize the score as being by JW, she thought it was so different (apart from the returning themes).

[Justin]

I saw it again today and it's a great movie.

I was even looking for the things that people here were criticising it for and I still don't see the problem.

I felt that the editing was very good, and the cinematography was excellent. I didn't feel at all like I was missing anything, everything I needed to know to understand the movie was there onscreen.

Also, you can see the stag a second time when Harry saves himself from the Dementors, you actually see it twice briefly and then it becomes part of the light that emanates from Harry's wand.

[Rogue_0009]

<span style="color:red">I saw it over the week-end, didn't like at as much as the first two movies, can't quite figure out why. Just a gut feeling I guess, the only thing I can say for sure is that the ending was rushed.</span>

[Seanakin]

Williams' scores have not only gotten redundant, but they've been pushed too far into the background to be fully appreciated. (Or at least with the HP and SW PT films, anyway. I liked the score treatment in Jurassic Park.)

[K-Man]

<span style="color:green">As far as the third film goes :

Having little to do with the book, Prisoner of Azkaban is blatantly the worst film in the thus far trilogy.

The writing was very "duh", with acting on par with the last two. The book to film adaption was severly lacking, as was the action.

Very poor effort, I found it to be missing key elements.

Hopefully, the fourth installment will show improvement, but right now, the future looks grim.

Rating : 5/10</span>

[Jacen Solo]

It seemed that the score to COS was very similar to the score of AOTC at times.

[Darth Sithster]

as far as music - the first two remained descriptive. The third followed more melodically.

I greatly appreciate jk rowling's eye for detail, but it's a pitty the symbolism is lost at times to the less knowledgable group.

as for the comparison ringwraths/dementors; J.R.R. Tolkein created his own symbolism, his own motifs were portrayed through them therefore they remain unique.
J.K.Rowling uses traditional motifs and symbolism, therefore they remain generalized and therefore easily mistaken as similar when analogized others.

Overall, i was greatly impressed with the film, to the extent that i actually bought a hippogriff candle holder. as is with all opinion, it does remain a subjective mater, and this was mine own. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sleeping.gif

[Isobel]

Originally posted by K-Man@Jun 14 2004, 04:56 PM
<span style="color:green">As far as the third film goes :

Having little to do with the book, Prisoner of Azkaban is blatantly the worst film in the thus far trilogy.

The writing was very "duh", with acting on par with the last two. The book to film adaption was severly lacking, as was the action.

Very poor effort, I found it to be missing key elements.