Which is the telltale sign of a bad movie adaptation.
That would be the telltale sign of a bad movie adaptation for the first or second book. By the time we've reached the eighth film, the expectation is that people who are watching it have, at the very least, seen the previous film.
If the production had decided to make the film completely comprehensible to a person who hadn't seen any of the previous movies or read the books then it would have been four hours long and been atrociously boring to everyone who had because of all the re-hashing of old material.
It would be like a television program re-explaining how everyone knows each other every single episode, just in case there's someone watching who hasn't watched before.
The Following User Says Thank You to driveway For This Useful Post:
If you read the books, you'll be likely disappointed in what was left out, and if you didn't read the books you'll be confused about what's going on in the movies.
I thought the adaptations of HBP and DH weren't very good. Movie makers seem to delight in taking a lot of story and character development out while focusing on scenes that the books just glance over. I am thinking specifically about the battle of hogwarts or the scenes in the room of necessity (?).
I understand how someone could ask the question about Severus being Harry's dad... because his mom and Severus's patronuses were both does. And plus he named his kid after him. Was it just left out there for you to choose if he is or not?
I understand how someone could ask the question about Severus being Harry's dad... because his mom and Severus's patronuses were both does. And plus he named his kid after him. Was it just left out there for you to choose if he is or not?
Spoiler!
Well, even if we ignore the books, throughout the film series we know that Harry is supposed to look very similar to his father, James, but with his mother's eyes. We also hear, many times, even in the Prince's Tale scene, Snape say that Harry is "just as arrogant as his father". This is pretty much the reason why Snape has hated Harry throughout the series... he looks like him, but he also acts like him. James, the man that stole Snape's life long friend.
If Harry was really Snape's son, why would he have hated him so much?
Earlier in the thread I said I was going to wait for the DVD, but we went tonight.
A-
A few points:
Spoiler!
First, the 3D was garbage. I don't know if my eyes don't work together properly or it was bad quality or what, but it added nothing to the movie, except when the shield around Hogwarts fell and bits of shield-residue <?> were floating in the air.
It seemed to me that the movie tried to be tricksy and fool casual fans into thinking Snape was Harry's father with the whole patronus-confusion, the tears, the way it played out. I've read the book, so I knew what was going on, but by GF has not read it and when I mentioned it after, she said "was he his father?"
100^12 times better than part one. Lots of action, great pace, looked great, didn't let the boring '19-years later' ending that was in the book drag on.
Helena Botham Carter is still a total babe. I don't know what you Hermioniieiee people are talking about, she still looks, like, 14.
EDIT: Geez, do we need spoiler code, this is a thread about the movie after all.
Earlier in the thread I said I was going to wait for the DVD, but we went tonight.
A-
A few points:
Spoiler!
First, the 3D was garbage. I don't know if my eyes don't work together properly or it was bad quality or what, but it added nothing to the movie, except when the shield around Hogwarts fell and bits of shield-residue <?> were floating in the air.
It seemed to me that the movie tried to be tricksy and fool casual fans into thinking Snape was Harry's father with the whole patronus-confusion, the tears, the way it played out. I've read the book, so I knew what was going on, but by GF has not read it and when I mentioned it after, she said "was he his father?"
100^12 times better than part one. Lots of action, great pace, looked great, didn't let the boring '19-years later' ending that was in the book drag on.
Helena Botham Carter is still a total babe. I don't know what you Hermioniieiee people are talking about, she still looks, like, 14.
EDIT: Geez, do we need spoiler code, this is a thread about the movie after all.
I almost forgot Hermione was in the movie. It seemed like a Voldemort / Potter festival - which I know it was, but the other characters played larger roles in the books.
Just saw the movie tonight, and I thought it was pretty good. I was massive fan of the books (read them all several times over) so I could go on for a long time about it. The only thing I really didn't like was the epilogue, it was so ridiculous. I hated it in the book as well though and always wondered why it had to be included. Albus Severus? Really?
Anyway, if you're not a fan of the books don't bother seeing it. You'll be completely lost.
Just saw the movie tonight, and I thought it was pretty good. I was massive fan of the books (read them all several times over) so I could go on for a long time about it. The only thing I really didn't like was the epilogue, it was so ridiculous. I hated it in the book as well though and always wondered why it had to be included. Albus Severus? Really?
Anyway, if you're not a fan of the books don't bother seeing it. You'll be completely lost.
I thought the epilogue was done much better in the movie than in the books. Radcliffe really has progressed as an actor.
The things I wasn't happy about were only things that I had hoped to see because I had read the books
the people I was with who hadn't read the books loved the movie, and I did as well
but it's just little things that I think would have made it more enjoyable
Spoiler!
I still can't get over the fact that something as simple as a trace on the name voldemort couldn't be added to part 1 to show how they were caught
I didn't like how they changed the final fight, although after re-reading that part a few days ago I do think it wouldn't have been great on screen.
But I really don't like how they changed Neville killing Nagini, and the whole part with Nagini chasing Hermione
I didn't like how they changed the scene completely where Voldemort killed Snape, Ron and Hermione weren't there and Harry saw it through Voldemort and I believe it was in the whomping willow as well
the stuff with the elder wand and the other wands could have been easily explained
I hated Voldemort turning in to Ash
those are all just gripes from things in the book I would have liked to see though, as a stand alone movie I thought it was great and probably the best of the series
I still can't get over the fact that something as simple as a trace on the name voldemort couldn't be added to part 1 to show how they were caught
Spoiler!
They actually have a deleted scene in part 1 explaining that. I don't why they cut it from the movie seeing that it was important information. But eh. What can you do. We're just the viewers
__________________
Just trying to do my best
The Following User Says Thank You to Hockey_Ninja For This Useful Post:
There was a lot of stuff left out in the earlier movies that hindered the success of the more recent ones IMO. Risks of starting the movies before the books are finished.
There was a lot of stuff left out in the earlier movies that hindered the success of the more recent ones IMO. Risks of starting the movies before the books are finished.
It's too bad, because the first few movies 4 movies were, I think, very self-contained and enjoyable without needing to read the books. When they got to Order of the Phoenix and beyond, the movies started to assume knowledge from the books, instead of the previous movies for some scenes to make sense.
From my POV, it's unfortunate for the Harry Potter movies to have come out at basically the same time as the best-made film of this generation (LOTR), and next to Jackson's masterpiece, they just look like a quick attempt to cash in on the books... I am sure I would have liked them more if LOTR wasn't my reference point.
From my POV, it's unfortunate for the Harry Potter movies to have come out at basically the same time as the best-made film of this generation (LOTR), and next to Jackson's masterpiece, they just look like a quick attempt to cash in on the books... I am sure I would have liked them more if LOTR wasn't my reference point.
I honestly thought that the Harry Potter series was very well made, while I liked the LOTR, I'm hesitant to say that the series was the best movies of this generation though.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
