OotP Movie Discussion

I'm honestly not trying to be petulant but are we not allowed to dislike their work? No one's taken a shot at them personally and we are not honor bond as fans to say only nice things are we?

No, but calling anyone stupid is not valid criticism of his or her work. This is not up for discussion. If you have further questions about thread logistics, please owl a moderator. You know the drill. :)

Exactly, a lot of insignificant things were included for the fans and a lot of important or more interesting things were cut and all of it was rushed because they attempted to make the longest book into the shortest film. :whistle:

I was rather shocked when I found out that OotP was the shortest film. I found that it dragged on and on and on...To me, they took one of the most exciting books and turned it into a very dull movie.

I was rather shocked when I found out that OotP was the shortest film. I found that it dragged on and on and on...To me, they took one of the most exciting books and turned it into a very dull movie.

I, and many people agree, thought the opposite.

The story may have been cramped into the film but what resonated with me the most was how lacklustre and unenergetic the whole thing felt. Though this may sound contradictory, I found that though the film tried skimmed over so much and tried to condense everything into it, the pacing of the film left me feeling...well, bored, frankly. Even though a lot was going on, it felt slow. I'm having trouble explaining myself ( :hmm: ) but this was how I felt.
Performances, script, etc. - I felt so disconnected from the film because of the lack of life it possessed gave me very little to hang onto. It felt like what was missing was any sense of substance and for me that translated into one long, dull, boring mess.

The story may have been cramped into the film but what resonated with me the most was how lacklustre and unenergetic the whole thing felt. Though this may sound contradictory, I found that though the film tried skimmed over so much and tried to condense everything into it, the pacing of the film left me feeling...well, bored, frankly. Even though a lot was going on, it felt slow. I'm having trouble explaining myself ( :hmm: ) but this was how I felt.
Performances, script, etc. - I felt so disconnected from the film because of the lack of life it possessed gave me very little to hang onto. It felt like what was missing was any sense of substance and for me that translated into one long, dull, boring mess.

I think there was a definite problem with the overall theme of the movie because of the audience it's being pushed to. The fifth book is really the first to run dark over the entire story but the film makers, with the need to make the movie family friendly, end up spreading themselves thin.

How do you make this book and the ones afterward work when you refuse to go as dark as the books are? The films become twisted because of the toning down.

They want to push Voldemort as this amazing baddie so they'll make Dumbledore look much weaker than he is and on the flip side give Harry a lot more strength. I'm not sure how far back it is but I mentioned Harry talking trash to him while possessed, in the book he's practically begging for death it's so painful and only his thoughts of Sirius managed to force of Voldemort, yet in the movie he's much more in control.

I didn't think that Harry talked 'trash' to Voldemort. I hadn't read OotP for four years so my memory of the book's events was very hazy in some parts. But I certainly didn't think the script was awful. And I thought the possession scene in the film was well done. (I also liked the flashbacks from the other films.)

It's all about making Harry look good.

Which is what Rowling does. :) And kind of the point of the entire series. ;)

I think the films show Harry as a normal boy with normal flaws ... which is exactly what Rowling does.

I think there was a definite problem with the overall theme of the movie because of the audience it's being pushed to. The fifth book is really the first to run dark over the entire story but the film makers, with the need to make the movie family friendly, end up spreading themselves thin.

How do you make this book and the ones afterward work when you refuse to go as dark as the books are? The films become twisted because of the toning down.

I don't agree that the films have been toning down. The fandom's reaction to the films is very uneven: I've seen complaints elsewhere that PoA was 'too dark' (something I very much disagree with :) ).

Voldemort's return in GoF was pretty scary for some kids in the audience when I watched the film (of course, the parents shouldn't have been stupid enough to take a five year old to see it. :grumble: )

Many British film critics commented on the dark and gritty nature of OotP: it was something they seemed to like. Except one, who said they found the film depressing. ;)
(I don't know what they were expecting: Shrek 3? :D )

I didn't think that Harry talked 'trash' to Voldemort. I hadn't read OotP for four years so my memory of the book's events was very hazy in some parts. But I certainly didn't think the script was awful. And I thought the possession scene in the film was well done. (I also liked the flashbacks from the other films.)


He's lying there insulting Voldemort like he's some kind of control in the situation which n the book he had none. Remember that he didn't realize how to properly shut down his mind till DH, in OoTP he's wishing for death.

As for the toning down, the re-birthing was done nicely, but Voldemort is described as having a skull like face, there's a point during that scene when you see it but it keeps going, there's no fighting by DA at all meaning no injured kiddies.

You yourself said it, why bring a child to the latter movies? Because they're being presented as family friendly. I mean the only other excuse for the lack of fighting, if it's not toning down of the material, is that Yates wanted a short film and all that ended up on the cutting room floor.

The best part about the movie was when Cho Chang was kissing Harry under the mistletoe. The part that I disliked was when Harry's godfather has died.

The best part about the movie was when Cho Chang was kissing Harry under the mistletoe. The part that I disliked was when Harry's godfather has died.

... Nice....... Really seem to know your stuff...

... Nice....... Really seem to know your stuff...

:lol: Don't be so mean. ;) Maybe this person hasn't read the books and only watches the movies. You don't see many fans like that around here. It's always interesting to hear a perspective of someone who doesn't read the books. I'm always curious about how these films hold up on their own.

That's if the person really didn't read the books..did you,TMNT? :)

Your right, I just couldn't resist:lol:. Not to get us off topic but, yeah your right it's interesting to hear outsiders perspectives especially those who have seen the movies but have not read the books. Maybe it's just me but they seem so different, as we have discussed in this thread(the books and the movies).

I have a question re OOTP.. I have the table top/daily HP calander and yesterday's picture shows Harry punching "something" but on the bottom it reads..
"Harry punches the Mirror of Erised in frustration."

Really??
I don't remember the mirror making an appearance and the only time I remember him punching anything was near the beginning of the movie while in his room after finding out he had been expelled from Hogwarts.. can anyone confirm this?

This is actually in the scene where harry is being possessed by Voldemort and is fighting him out of his mind and they show Harry's visions and Harry is looking into the mirror and sees himself morph into Voldemort. Later near the end of the possession when he is feeling love and is fighting back, we see Harry punch his fist into mirror and shatter it just as he forces Voldemort out of his body.

I hope I've helped. :)

Thanks for the explanation..it's been a while since I've seen it but it's still not ringing a bell ..guess I'll watch it again and pay closer attention next time :)

I like those looks they were sharing after Hermione gave Ron that sweater with the "R", which was then followed by bickering about how he woudlnt caught dead wearing it. :lol:

That was a good moment too. It kept the timber of the relationship (the childish bickering) but tipped over into the possibility of affection. You get the idea, even if you haven't read, that Hermione is getting on Ron's case because she wants him to be a certain way (ie someone she'd like).

Sorry for the late response- real life can really get in the way sometimes. ;)

I'm sure many people will disagree with me here, but I really enjoyed the OotP film. It captured the gloomy, oppressive atmosphere really well and moved along at a pretty good pace.

I know loads of fans are aggrieved at the amount of material that was cut, but being realistic, a film is so much more constrained in terms of length than a book, very few people would have the patience to sit and watch a Gone With the Wind length epic. For example, cutting St. Mungos, most of the time at Grimmauld Place (apart from the locket, of course) and the argument with the Dursleys, were things that the film functioned fine without.

The other thing to remember is that books and films are two completely different media, things are conveyed differently in each, e.g. a visual sequence, such as the one at the train station where Harry believes he sees Voldemort conveys the effect of GoF on him in a different way to the book.

I also don't have a problem with things being shortened, in terms of the "middleman" being cut out, for example, Umbridge overhearing the newly formed DA, rather than this coming as a bribe from the bloke who was blowing up toilets, what matters is that Umbridge knew, but couldn't prove they were up to something. And Cho and the discovery of the DA, what matters is that Harry and Cho broke up because of the DA being discovered, plus the film casts Cho in a much more positive light when it is revealed that she was under duress of Veritaserum, rather than defending her sell-out friend. (Sorry Marietta fans :lol:)

I can't help wondering why Grawp was kept in the movie. He didn't seem integral to the plot and as we now know, he really isn't necessary for the rest of the series. In my ever humble opinion, his screen time could have been spent much more profitably elsewhere.

I can't help wondering why Grawp was kept in the movie. He didn't seem integral to the plot and as we now know, he really isn't necessary for the rest of the series. In my ever humble opinion, his screen time could have been spent much more profitably elsewhere.

Thats seems to be the general opinion of Grawp, he's made to look and act like a mentally challenged child and his involvement in the centaur and Umbridge scene was changed so he was, in effect, a waste of money.

Thats seems to be the general opinion of Grawp, he's made to look and act like a mentally challenged child and his involvement in the centaur and Umbridge scene was changed so he was, in effect, a waste of money.

I completely agree. A waste of time and money, which could have been spent adding more to the film, or another plot. If the Giants had played a big role in DH then I don't think I would have minded, but it really was a waste of time, and a bore to watch Grawp, IMO.

I completely agree. A waste of time and money, which could have been spent adding more to the film, or another plot. If the Giants had played a big role in DH then I don't think I would have minded, but it really was a waste of time, and a bore to watch Grawp, IMO.
But you must remember that the filmmakers did not know how important Grawp/the giants would be in DH. They simply thought he would play a big role (much like Kreacher, though without JKR's hints), so they took a risk on him. I agree, that risk will not pay off, but they did what they had to, just in case he became important in DH (if they did not include him in OotP and he ended up as a major plot character in DH, we would be insulting the filmmakers for not having the foresight).

But you must remember that the filmmakers did not know how important Grawp/the giants would be in DH. They simply thought he would play a big role (much like Kreacher, though without JKR's hints), so they took a risk on him. I agree, that risk will not pay off, but they did what they had to, just in case he became important in DH (if they did not include him in OotP and he ended up as a major plot character in DH, we would be insulting the filmmakers for not having the foresight).

This is not logical. Film 5 was released in July 07. Most people who saw it will have forgotten minor characters and details long ago. The Grawp scenes seemed to go on forever because they were so dull and poorly executed (as per the book), but really they only added up to 5/6 minutes. Film 8 (!?) will be released in 2011 by whichtime people will have ado to remember popular characters played by well-known actors.

Grawp is not a "major plot character in DH".

This is not logical. Film 5 was released in July 07. Most people who saw it will have forgotten minor characters and details long ago. The Grawp scenes seemed to go on forever because they were so dull and poorly executed (as per the book), but really they only added up to 5/6 minutes. Film 8 (!?) will be released in 2011 by whichtime people will have ado to remember popular characters played by well-known actors.

Grawp is not a "major plot character in DH".

Agreed.

Excusing the film makers in this movie simply doesn't work because claiming to put him in because you don't know how important he'll be later does not excuse the fact that his role in OoTP , the fact that it was he who was busting up Hagrid and that he was the one who would helped the trio out of the jam with the centaurs, was not used.

Whats the point of spending all the time and money so you can stick him in for two scenes if you're not going to use him properly? I mean really, two scenes!

The centaurs are made to seem bestial (Which keeps with Umbridges beliefs), their anger isn't made known so we don't see them deciding to "take care" of Harry which makes Grawp's interruption completely unnecessary because they were going to take Umbridge and leave.

This is one of those example of the film makers "giving back" to the readers. Please.

But you must remember that the filmmakers did not know how important Grawp/the giants would be in DH. They simply thought he would play a big role (much like Kreacher, though without JKR's hints), so they took a risk on him. I agree, that risk will not pay off, but they did what they had to, just in case he became important in DH (if they did not include him in OotP and he ended up as a major plot character in DH, we would be insulting the filmmakers for not having the foresight).

A fair point. They didn't know what was going to happen in 7, but I think that they should have consulted Jo on this one, and perhaps they did. Maybe Jo wanted Grawp to be in OotP, and also wanted him in the battle scene in DH. Whatever they did, I think it was good to stay true to the book, but not on something that most fans don't like.

A fair point. They didn't know what was going to happen in 7, but I think that they should have consulted Jo on this one, and perhaps they did. Maybe Jo wanted Grawp to be in OotP, and also wanted him in the battle scene in DH. Whatever they did, I think it was good to stay true to the book, but not on something that most fans don't like.

Yeah I think in Jo's mind Grawp was important since he fights in the battle in the last film.

Regardless I love how most of the complaints for the OOTP Movie and Film are mostly the same. We all know that OOTP is considered to be the least liked out of all 7 books (And from recent reports it seems that even JK isn't fond of that one) and the movie is slowly starting to go the exact same route. The book could use some major editing...the problem I think people have with the film is that they edited out to much.

I knew OOTP would be the toughest one to pull off. GOF was tough because it had multiple story lines that all came together in the end...OOTP was all internal. I don't care what anyone says I know Kloves was scared to do Order...especially after the headache I'm sure he had trying to do Goblet.

Goldenburg and Yates tried and I applaud them for that. I like Order but for the longest time there has been something that bugged me about this film and I finally think I know what it is.

Character.

I was reading all the negative reviews that I could find on this film so I could see why they thought it was so bad and one reviewer hit the nail on the head for me. Yeah most of the plot points were there...but we didn't really get to know the characters this time around.

The previous 4...despite a few of their flaws...all had plenty of moments where we got to know the characters. There are a few in Order but not enough where it feels right.

It just blows my mind that the shortest film of the 5 still manages to drag. The whole feel of this movie is just...bland. No one is really interesting in this one. Hermione and Ron honestly do nothing this time...they have a few moments where they flirt...but usually they're just watching Harry from a distance.

The thing about the Harry Potter movies is that there is always a mystery. Order didn't really have one. (I'm talking about the movie here) Now this isn't me being a nitpicky book fan but just noticing what the movie could've done to IMPROVE upon the book instead of being almost the same.

We don't have one scene where Harry discusses his dreams....not one. Sure he is isolated but even in the books his best friends knew he was dreaming about a doorway. There wasn't enough...discussion...about what Harry was going through this time. They didnt talk about what this 'weapon' could be or why he's having those dreams.

All the plot points were there...but there weren't enough moments in this film where we would care about them when they got there.

I watched the 5th one with a non HP fan (He never saw the movies or read the books until I forced him to watch all 5..not he's hooked :lol:) and he said he didn't really care about Sirius dying because he didn't play an important role in the 5th film anyways. That's when I knew that the reason I like this movie so much is because I've had prior knowledge of what the characters are going through etc etc....

(Wow I didn't expect to type this much. Is anyone even going to read this :lol: I guess I'll end it soon)

So the verdict?

I still like Order of the Phoenix the film. It has moments where it really shines and I can tell that Yates cares about our world. The script I'm not to fond of but judging a script by what's on screen isn't fair since I know most of what was written didn't make it on screen.

The extended edition of OOTP will be amazing...but this version is just ok. I've only been bored by one other HP movie and that was COS (Which...at the time...was my FAV...funny how time changes things...)

So Order of the Phoenix has moved down to number 3 in my list of my top 5 HP films just because there aren't enough character moments and to much Grawp :lol: I don't know why I felt like typing that out but there it is :)

wait... I just picked up on something there.... WILL there be an extended edition of OotP?

What I mean is - a proper extended edition, with the missing scenes cut back in?

A fair point. They didn't know what was going to happen in 7, but I think that they should have consulted Jo on this one, and perhaps they did. Maybe Jo wanted Grawp to be in OotP,

What does it matter what Rowling wants? It was her book; but it is not her film.


...and also wanted him in the battle scene in DH.

Why can't any numbers of anonymous giants, centaurs, dragons and even balrogs (with apologies to the Tolkien estate) be introduced in the battle, if they want to pump it up to LOTR levels? That is, try to pump it up. Audiences will have forgotten what happened 3 films ago. My co-worker is typical: he says he mixes all these fantasy films up: Potter, Narnia, Rings....


Whatever they did, I think it was good to stay true to the book....

Why? Especially given that it was the dullest and most pointless material in the book.

This is not logical. Film 5 was released in July 07. Most people who saw it will have forgotten minor characters and details long ago.This is almost certainly correct. I think that Grawp was included for a different reason: they thought that a giant would be cinematically appealing. The Giants in Lion, Witch & Wardrobe were, after all.

Personally, I was and am torn here. Part of me thinks that they should have gone with just the centaurs because that developed the idea of an oppressive ministry and provided the piquancy of the oppressors being routed by the natives. However, that really has nothing to do with the story of Harry's isolation.

Conversely, Grawp was why Hagrid was so evasive and alone, and I think that the movie used this to good end: the movie focuses on Harry's isolation (which is, after all the story), but Hagrid, Neville & Luna provide thematic "harmony" to go with it: just in case you somehow missed the story from Harry alone, these guys help clarify it. HOWEVER.... did it really need three secondary characters to do this? I think that just Neville & Luna would have sufficed: Luna in particular was used extremely well.
Grawp is not a "major plot character in DH".I would not even dignify Grawp as a "plot character" of any sort! He's just part of the "let's toss every background character from the entire series into the finale."

A fair point. They didn't know what was going to happen in 7, but I think that they should have consulted Jo on this one, and perhaps they did. Maybe Jo wanted Grawp to be in OotP, and also wanted him in the battle scene in DH. Whatever they did, I think it was good to stay true to the book, but not on something that most fans don't like.How can they possibly know that "most fans" did not like it? Is that statement even true? Moreover, why worry about the "fans"? Book readers are a minority of the audience, and "fans" are a minority of the book readers.

Regardless, the movie makers know that audiences will not remember background details like Grawp in 2010. However, they do know that audiences will remember if they liked or disliked a film, and that is important here simply because people who disliked Order will not see Prince.
in another six months, they will remember that they liked Order (it had 88% positive at Box Office Mojo, and that has proven to be the most reliable indicator of audience approval out there), and they will come to see Prince. Who is left too see Grawp in Hallows 2 will be dependent on what audiences think of Prince and Hallows I.


Regardless I love how most of the complaints for the OOTP Movie and Film are mostly the same. We all know that OOTP is considered to be the least liked out of all 7 books (And from recent reports it seems that even JK isn't fond of that one) and the movie is slowly starting to go the exact same route. The book could use some major editing...the problem I think people have with the film is that they edited out to much.And they could have cut more! The film was 15 minutes longer than it needed to be. You mention reviewing the movie critics comments, and you note (as I did) that the criticisms of the book and the movie are the same. This was not the case for the first two films, for example, although it was true for Prisoner and Goblet.

However, it seems that the biggest complaint was not in the clarity or anything like that, but about the basic story itself. It is a downer, and Harry is not particularly likable. (5 years ago, people complained about ALL CAPS!Harry; movie critics voiced analogous complaints.)

Still, Order is the one Harry Potter film to date where the critical response and the audience response were at odds: the numbers at BOM & RottenTomatoes are the same for the first four films, but Order runs 88% positive at BOM compared to under 80% positive at RottenTomatoes. This is important because it is how audiences respond to Order that will determine ticket sales for Prince, and the evidence suggests that people generally liked the movie.

wait... I just picked up on something there.... WILL there be an extended edition of OotP? There has been no indication that such things will be released any time soon. The Harry Potter movies simply have not been as popular as, say, Lord of the Rings, and there just is not the demand. Of course, given that the director will be hard at work on Prince & Hallows, Yates will not have time for a directors cut, anyway.

I think WB should hire Wimsey as their marketing adviser! :lol:

OOTP needed to be 15 minutes shorter? Oh goodness......That's the last thing it needed.

As Phrozenone said the movie feels bland because it lacks any life. There's very little character, bad pacing and no structure. OOTP is just not a cinematic movie. It would make a decent TV movie but it dosen't feel like a summer blockbuster to me. It lacks bite. There is nothing set up. Very little emotion. OOTP is the kind of movie you want for DH, am I right, Wimsey? Just a succession of plot points that tell a story but do away with character and emotion? I don't understand because LOTR does alot of things you speak against. If you feel OOTP was too long, well weren't every single LOTR film way overlong? 3 hours? Alot of the battles could have been cut. Oh, and I would debate that LOTR is more popular than HP...I think 90% of the planet can recognize the name 'Harry Potter'. But not many will know what LOTR is or who Frodo is and even less who the heck Aragorn is. Harry, Ron and Hermione have become part of popular culture as much as Mickeymouse or Darth Vader. I don't think LOTR is more popular than HP. Oh, and I think WB made ALOT of money off of HP. All 5 films so far have grossed 4 BILLION dollars. If my movies made that much, I wouldn't be disappointed...:whistle: I think they should and will make extended editions of all these films. Even if HP wasn't popular, well they make director's cut of so many movies that not many have heard of or even liked.

You made some good points, Phrozenone and they are probably part of the reasons I did not enjoy OOTP. There is no build up. As you said, they never discuss Harry's dreams of the Prophecy. Harry's visions of the door in the DOM is so fast, weird and complicated. Why they couldn't just have a simple hallway leading to a door and getting closer and closer every dream, I have no idea.

OOTP lacks character, suspense, build-up and emotion. OOTP still remains my favorite book because it is bold and I could tell Rowling didn't care about popular opinion or pre-arranged methods of telling a story. She took her own way and expressed her story in a brilliant way and produced a masterpiece. OOTP was Jo's finest hour for me.

Wimsey, you just want the studio to **** all over the fandom and make medicore films that please every single Joe and Jane on the planet but not the dedicated few and I do not want that....Not one bit. I feel a balance should be made just like they did with LOTR.

Movies need to have a lot of stuff for director's cuts to mae sense. LoTR had different scenes that were added but for Potter, I doubt they'll release anything until the big "Golden Platinum One Time Only Seven movie box set" or whatever they decide to call the bloody thing.

I won't buy a DVD until then and only if we get the stuff that was cut from every movie, I mean OoTP has at least forty five minutes which is a lot of stuff, it can't all be the type of **** fluff they normally stick in DVD extras.

Wimsey, you just want the studio to **** all over the fandom and make medicore films that please every single Joe and Jane on the planet but not the dedicated few and I do not want that....Not one bit. I feel a balance should be made just like they did with LOTR.

Well, I think that's an uncharitable way of putting it.

Whimsey is just pointing out how things are in the real world - they NEED to make films to please every single Joe and Jane out there, because the fans simply don't have anywhere enough box office clout to even pay back the budget, let alone make them the cash they need to make.

I find it interesting that you think the LotR films represented a better balance between film industry and fan interest than the HP movies. That's not how the LotR fans saw it. I remember heated discussions about the difference between the faithful adaptations of the first two HP films and the much less faithful adaptations of FotR and especially TTT. Fans were distraught!

But with hindsight I think most LotR fans learned to appreciate the realities - it helps with keeping some sort of perspective. The comparison between Columbus' overly faithful adaptations and the LotR films made this clear - whatever WE thought, the free approach raked in the money, and the films found a huge following well beyond the fandom. Many more people read the books, and all was fine in the end.


All in all, you have to appreciate that by usual standards (even LotR) the HP films are amazingly faithfully adapted. Too much so, sometimes, which has hurt them at the box offoce, IMHO.

- I am always shocked just what little details people consider a complete catastrophe (well, until I remember my own tantrums about Faramir's hair colour ;) ).... anyway.... HP fans shoukd understand how lucky they are. I thn k JKR's clout has a lot to do with that, actually.

Anyway, I think Whimsey's posts are brilliant. You don't need to agree personally - but it is worth learning from him: it'll allow you to understand what you can expect from a film company and what you *most certainly* can't expect.

It's worth knowing these things - After a few purist tantrums too many, I have to say this attitude has been very good for my health ;)

But you got me wrong. I don't care about hair color or spell names. I'm disappointed because I miss the wonderful characterizations and the emotions of the story. I don't want just a boring lifeless movie that tells one simple story. I guess I'm asking for too much. Yes, you have to please the general public but I feel a truly skilled directer could do both.

EDIT: Here's an example. Do you remember the Titanic movie from 1997? Well, remember at the begining of the movie, they showed that diagram on the computer of how the Titanic sank? They went through a blow by blow analysis of the sinking of the ship. Metaphorically, this is how I see the way Wimsey wants to tell these stories. But then remember the end of the movie, when the boat really sinks and we have become connected to the characters and related to them and we went through this journey with them from their point of view. We grew with them and now we can truly understand what it might have been like when that boat sank. We are now seeing the sinking from the point of view of the characters and it meant all the more for me at least.

I'm just trying to say that I feel it is not the framework of the story that truly matters but the experience of it.

Great post, Klio. :) Funny how we so often think alike, eh? :D

I'm just trying to say that I feel it is not the framework of the story that truly matters but the experience of it.

I am sure (knowing him as I do) that Wimsey would agree with you. :)

Our debates about the hows of adaptation -- whatever the film makers ultimately decide to include in a HP film, what to leave out of it, how to rearrange the material or whatever -- all lead to this in the end ... we ALL want a HP movie to dazzle and delight us. :cool:

Whatever framework the film-makers use to achieve that end.

I loved the OotP movie. I liked it so much I saw it six times. :)

And I like to think of myself as a pretty discerning sort of cinema-goer. ;)

Needless to say, I hope that HBP will be even better and that DH will blow me away.

Great post, Klio. :) Funny how we so often think alike, eh? :D

....I loved the OotP movie. I liked it so much I saw it six times. :)

And I like to think of myself as a pretty discerning sort of cinema-goer. ;)

Needless to say, I hope that HBP will be even better and that DH will blow me away.


Funny that, eh?

I am the same. I absolutely loved the OotP movie. My favourite of all five, actually (closely followed by POA, which is the other HP movie that most fans seem to criticise).

I liked the OotP movie so much that it finally convinced me to buy the DVDs. I wasn't all that hot on the other four - not enough to own them on DVD anyway.

And that although I like the books and (like Pearl) think that I am a pretty discernimg cionemagoer, and one who has spent far too much time for eight years now discussing adaptations of films.

I dunno - I found OotP not a perfect film, but the best of the HP series - and I am still completely surprised and slightly stunned to see an almost complete consensus here that it is so very bad.

Frankly, I don't get it. But that's what messageboards are for. Perhaps I'll find out one day.

Maybe I can help you understand why some people here did not like the OOTP, or atleast why I did not. It has nothing to do with Hermione's hair or whatever, but more to do with the lack of characterizations in the film, the lack of impact and the way the film was edited. Many people on here have discussed in great detail why they did not like the film. Maybe you missed it.

Oh and Wimsey made it quite clear in his editorial feedback thread that he does not care about the emotions or character of the movie, he only cares about the overall story alone. At least that's what I got from him.

EDIT: I know this sounds demented and sad but I have watched OOTP many times since it came out, desperately trying to enjoy it. Trying to get into it. But I just can't. Maybe someone here can help me to enjoy the film better! Because the thing is, I'm not just bashing it to be bitter, I'm bashing it because I really WANT to enjoy it but cannot.

Hmmm.... yes, I read the discussions.

I guess that ultimately, for me the story is mainly about Harry.

I actually found that OotP gave us the best insight into Harry's plight, and his character development, of all the movies we have had so far - yes, it is nothing on his anger in the book, but it sums it up pretty well. And it was Dan's best acting yet.

I guess that part of it is the most important thing for me, and I got a good deal for my money with OotP.


By the way, I really don't think you are doing Whimsey's intelligent analyses any justice with the way you summarise his thoughts. I don't see a need to be sort of grumpy just because he doesn't agree with the mainstream views here.

Oh yes, the acting was the best part of the movie. The acting kind of saved the film for me. But the editing does need work. The film lacks a structure. Scenes just flow into one another with no real impact or set-up. There's none of the build-up of suspense. Things just happen and then they are over and never mentioned again. Grawp and the Centuars FEEL like a convenient plot point built up near the end just so they had a way to escape Umbridge. Don't get me started on the editing from Mr. Weasley's attack through the Occulemcy through the Christmas scene..oh goodness. That was BAD editing. The ending was also disappointing for me. Check out the DVD thread for a detailed analysis of why some people did not enjoy OOTP.

EDIT: What do you mean do 'justice' to Wimsey's intelligence? I simply don't agree with him. Sorry if I sound grumpy. The censors on this forum censored out a word that wasn't even a curse so sorry if my post before sounded like I was being vulgar with Wimsey. The censors on this site are very strict...:rolleyes:

Yes, I have read a good deal of it. I even understand why some people have a problem with the editing. But I don't. Except, perhaps, that there is a bit of ballast that we could have done without <Grawp... cough cough...>.

I still enjoy OotP more than the others. Well OotP, closely followed by POA.... and they are WAY ahead of the others for me.

Fact is, that after thinking about this on my own, and looking at the debate, and watching the film rather often (theatre and DVD) for me the editing still works. I think cutting a lot actually helps to bring out the bits of the story I find important.


It's a matter of taste, and I guess we simply have to agree to disagree.

I can't help wondering why Grawp was kept in the movie. He didn't seem integral to the plot and as we now know, he really isn't necessary for the rest of the series. In my ever humble opinion, his screen time could have been spent much more profitably elsewhere.

Agreed!!! :tu:

I thought that both Grawp and the Ministy hearing should've been cut, that was a waste of 10-15 min. that could have been used on more important or interesting things. :whistle:

Like using the Grawp CGI for Dobby maybe? Telling him about the Room of Requirement

But you must remember that the filmmakers did not know how important Grawp/the giants would be in DH. They simply thought he would play a big role (much like Kreacher, though without JKR's hints), so they took a risk on him. I agree, that risk will not pay off, but they did what they had to, just in case he became important in DH (if they did not include him in OotP and he ended up as a major plot character in DH, we would be insulting the filmmakers for not having the foresight).

Yeah, but why didn't they just ASK JK if he should be kept or not.

She didn't have to give anything away, simply an answer of No, he's not that important, you should spend our precious time on other parts!!! :relax:

Hmmm.... yes, I read the discussions. I actually found that OotP gave us the best insight into Harry's plight, and his character development, of all the movies we have had so far - yes, it is nothing on his anger in the book, but it sums it up pretty well.

I thought so too. :)

I have quite a lot of experience of the HP fandom on Live Journal and in that sphere many fans actually expressed relief that Harry's anger was toned down. Capslock!Harry is really not a favourite.

I have no problem myself with Harry's rage in OotP ... poor kid, if I were him, I'd have been losing it long before my fifth year at Hogwarts, what with the horrible injustices he has to suffer! And I find Book Dumbledore absolutely infuriating in the chapter when Harry smashes up his study. I'd have been joining in with Harry, let me tell ya. ;)

But I don't think the film suffered for making Harry sad and melancholy and a bit angry, rather than VERY angry. The film certainly got across how isolated and lonely Harry was at the beginning of the story. (Pearl's lip wibbles).

But that's my personal reaction ... I respect that other people's film experiences are different. :)

The emotional temperature should rise in HBP though ... I hope for explosive Harry/Snape confrontations. :whistle:

Agreed!!! :tu:

Yeah, but why didn't they just ASK JK if he should be kept or not.

She didn't have to give anything away, simply an answer of No, he's not that important, you should spend our precious time on other parts!!! :relax:

Well they may have asked JK, and she told them that he was important. What JK sees important as an author is not necessarily what is important in other forms of media, such as the films.

No way, he's a nice minor character but essentially useless to the overall story. his character was not used to for his purpose in the fifth movie when they could've used that time, effort and money on something else. (Quibbler anyone?) I think she said nothing because they were excited about realizing him on film and leaving him out basically knocked Hagrid out (Though the movie didn't portray that properly either).

I would not even dignify Grawp as a "plot character" of any sort! He's just part of the "let's toss every background character from the entire series into the finale."

Never thought of that but in a way the final battle was a bit like Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, The Simpsons Movie or the last episode of Happy Days.

Let us hope that they resist the urge in the movie.

Never thought of that but in a way the final battle was a bit like Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, The Simpsons Movie or the last episode of Happy Days. I say poh-tay-toe, you say poh-tah-toe.... :cool:

No way, he's a nice minor character but essentially useless to the overall story. Really, there is not an "overall story." There are over-arching plot elements, and there is an over-arching theme uniting the stories (right/hard vs. wrong/easy choices), but each story is distinct. Regardless, there is nothing that Order could do to help tell the stories of Prince (Harry's personal politics) or Hallows (Greater Good): even the common plot elements really need to be reintroduced, as Joe and Jane Public do not care enough to remember them for 18 months!
his character was not used to for his purpose in the fifth movie when they could've used that time, effort and money on something else. (Quibbler anyone?)The movie used Grawp to the same purpose as the book did: to establish Hagrid's personal isolation. Hagrid plays a thematic supporting role in this story in the same way that Luna and Neville do: each of them is isolated by others for some reason or another, and there is some parallel between their personal isolations and Harry's isolation that ultimately affects Harry in some way. So, the movie did use Grawp for his purpose: if Grawp served any other purposes, they are opaque to me!

On the other hand, the Quibbler is entirely redundant! Adding the Quibbler would have slowed down the film even more, when the only thing that it accomplishes (getting more people to believe Harry) is also accomplished by the prison breakout. However, whereas the prison breakout also establishes the face woman of the Death Eaters and thus furthers the overall plot, the Quibbler is purely one-shot.

OOTP needed to be 15 minutes shorter? Oh goodness......That's the last thing it needed.That was a common comment by general movie viewers at Box Office Mojo and and also many movie critics. Remember, these are people who are not fans of the books, and thus much more representative of the general movie audience than we are.
OOTP is the kind of movie you want for DH, am I right, Wimsey? Just a succession of plot points that tell a story but do away with character and emotion? I don't understand because LOTR does alot of things you speak against.Again, the problem with your definition of "character and emotion" is that you disliked it: there was plenty of character and emotion in the opinions of others. Rowling herself lauded Order for how well it communicated Harry's emotions. That is the story: Harry's emotions regarding his isolation.
If you feel OOTP was too long, well weren't every single LOTR film way overlong? 3 hours? How much "too long" a movie is is how much more time it takes than necessary to communicate the story. Rings requires much more time to communicate the story because Tolkien's story about Death and Immortality (or the story about Preservation/Restoration) emerges only from the numerous plots. Epic stories that rely on events (or "plot-driven" stories) simply require more time to tell than do character-driven stories, especially single-protagonist character-driven stories.

Regardless, if the makers of the Potter films cut and streamlined as much as Jackson & Co. did, then the Potter movies would have been much shorter. Cramming Fellowship into 3 hours, for example, was the same as cramming both Stone & Chambers into 3 hours! (Not that this would have worked, as Stone & Chamber are very different stories: I refer only to information content.) To this end, I think that you badly misunderstand what I am saying when I use Rings as a template: Rings does not say: "look at how long a movie can be!" but instead: "look at how much you can streamline if movie-makers understand the story." Rings offers great lessons for adaptation in general: identify the story and focus on it, and cut the stuff that is there simply to make the telling in the original medium entertaining.
Oh, and I would debate that LOTR is more popular than HP...I think 90% of the planet can recognize the name 'Harry Potter'. But not many will know what LOTR is or who Frodo is and even less who the heck Aragorn is.Return of the King was seen by many more people than were any of the Harry Potter films. Lord of the Rings has been sold more copies than has any of the individual Harry Potter books, and it probably has been read by more people. (Remember, Goblet was second in the UK in terms of people who bought the book and then did not finish it: Harry Potter is not as universally popular as its fans think it is.) References to the Rings characters and films were as rife in popular culture as were references to Harry Potter characters & films: indeed, they probably were more so!

So, I'm not sure where you come up with these statements about Rings: they are simply false.
Oh, and I think WB made ALOT of money off of HP. All 5 films so far have grossed 4 BILLION dollars. If my movies made that much, I wouldn't be disappointed...:whistle:For starters, the films have not grossed 4 billion dollars for Warner Brothers. Remember, much of this was overseas, where the films are distributed by other companies. WB sees only a portion of that. Moreover, we must remember how this sort of business works: success is not measured by how much $$$ a film makes, but by how much is made relative to how much was expected. Stone was supposed to rival Phantom Menace, and shareholders were promised a $400M film. (WB distributes in North America, so that is where the real profit is, especially for their shareholders who see little of the $$$ from the overseas ticket sales.)

The Potter films are a tier beneath the big blockbusters of our time (Spiderman, Pirates, Rings and Shrek), which is a disappointment considering that there was a good sized fan base to begin with (ceratinly comparable to that of SpiderMan or Lord of the Rings) and given that other films of the general genre have been selling 20-25% more tickets.
Wimsey, you just want the studio to **** all over the fandom and make medicore films that please every single Joe and Jane on the planet but not the dedicated few and I do not want that....Not one bit. I feel a balance should be made just like they did with LOTR.No, I want them to make the films like Rings were: focused on the story. That is where the emotional power is.

At any rate, if only fans turned up, then these movies would be horrible flops: there simply are not enough Harry Potter book fans to support a major film series: remember, great book sales numbers are horrible movie ticket sales numbers.

Now, the issue is, how did people react to Order? Well, it seems to run about 88% positive. I know that some people here disbelieve Box Office Mojo, but remember that it has predicted the return audiences for each of the films pretty well.

Whimsey people are going to watch because it's a big movie I highly doubt a website is needed to tell us that the Potter franchise is going to make money.

Well Wimsey, LOTR has been out for over 60 years. HP has only been around for 11 years now and ten times the people have read these books than have read LOTR in the 50's I think. And besides a few Frodo Lives scribbled in the subways, how has LOTR entered mass culture? The world seems to have completely forgotten about LOTR since ROTK came out. And I think it is unfair to compare ONE Harry Potter book to the entire LOTR series because you know if you judged them both in terms of the whole series, HP would win out.

Oh and ROTK was the final film of the series. I'll make a bet with you that DH part two will make just as much if not more than ROTK did.

Regardless I love how most of the complaints for the OOTP Movie and Film are mostly the same. We all know that OOTP is considered to be the least liked out of all 7 books (And from recent reports it seems that even JK isn't fond of that one) and the movie is slowly starting to go the exact same route. The book could use some major editing...the problem I think people have with the film is that they edited out to much.

And they could have cut more! The film was 15 minutes longer than it needed to be. You mention reviewing the movie critics comments, and you note (as I did) that the criticisms of the book and the movie are the same.

However, it seems that the biggest complaint was not in the clarity or anything like that, but about the basic story itself. It is a downer, and Harry is not particularly likable. (5 years ago, people complained about ALL CAPS!Harry; movie critics voiced analogous complaints.)


Umm, I certainly don't think this is true, OotP was NOT a least favorite book, here's some polls:

Harry Potter Central Book Survey

Poll Expires: December 31, 2012 Total Voters: 23861

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is your favorite book in the Harry Potter series?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

44.5% - (10553 Votes) HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS
11.8% - (2810 Votes) HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX
11.7% - (2787 Votes) HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE
11.3% - (2696 Votes) HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN
10.1% - (2398 Votes) HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE
6.4% - (1518 Votes) HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE
3.9% - (924 Votes) HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS

And then there is our own poll (though the sample size is small n= 88)

View Poll Results: What is your Favorite Harry Potter Book?

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows 26 29.55%
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix 23 26.14%
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban 18 20.45%
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince 14 15.91%
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire 3 3.41%
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone 3 3.41%
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets 1 1.14%

Voters: 88. You have already voted on this poll

I am quite sure that OotP actually ranks as a TOP 3 Book for the series and on most Polls I have found (though I can't find the most statistically significant anymore) it ranks as the 2nd favorite behind DH. In addition it seems just about everyone I talk to (not on here) OotP is their Favorite Book, and I know A LOT of Potter fans here at my College.

How can they possibly know that "most fans" did not like it? Is that statement even true? Moreover, why worry about the "fans"? Book readers are a minority of the audience, and "fans" are a minority of the book readers.

Again, I disagree. Do you have Stats to support the claim that "Book readers are a minority"?

Now this is just a guess, but I'd say 70-80% of the movie audience have read the Books (at least 1 Book). The only ones who haven't are most likely the Parents (though MANY have), friends who tag along so they don't feel left out, or little kiddies who aren't old enough to read them and also should not be watching these movies (HP ceased to be a children's series as of GoF) yet think they are in for a happy fairy tale or the Parents are oblivious.

However, I agree about "fans" being a minority of the Book readers.

There has been no indication that such things will be released any time soon. The Harry Potter movies simply have not been as popular as, say, Lord of the Rings, and there just is not the demand. Of course, given that the director will be hard at work on Prince & Hallows, Yates will not have time for a directors cut, anyway

Disagree, maybe I'm too optimistic, but I'm like 99.9% sure they will release these soon after all 7 movies are done.

They'd be stupid not too, too much money to be made and they will Milk the Series for all it's worth. This is the biggest Cultural Phenomenon EVER!!!

There are SO MANY scenes we know were filmed but have been kept from us, instead giving us a few crappy deleted scenes.

Oh, they have surely been doing this for a reason. They want to save all the good stuff for the Massive 7/8 Movie Box Set Extended Version/Director's Cuts that will rival LOTR.

Great post, Ic! Thank you.

I agree about the LOTR movies. Before the LOTR films, I never even HEARD of Lord of the Rings. I mean AT ALL. Without the movies, I think the books would have fallen off the face of the earth in terms of popularity. I'm not saying statistics makes a great story but we are talking about popularity here. The films have inspired many people to read the books and I don't look up polls but many people I know have said they were inspired to read LOTR after the movies and found they could not make it through the books.

OOTP seems to be the Empire Strikes Back of the Harry Potter series. When ESB came out, many people didn't like it. They claimed it was too dark and depressing, had very little plot (it was mostly character stuff) and had no real resolution or climax. ESB is now widely considered the best movie of the series by 90% of SW fans. OOTP is the black sheep of the series. It is the most angst (yes even moreso than DH IMO), the most intense, and the most complex.

It's either Harry Potter fans absolutely loath OOTP or love it. I happen to love it. :cool:

Great post, Ic! Thank you.

I agree about the LOTR movies. Before the LOTR films, I never even HEARD of Lord of the Rings. I mean AT ALL. Without the movies, I think the books would have fallen off the face of the earth in terms of popularity. I'm not saying statistics makes a great story but we are talking about popularity here. The films have inspired many people to read the books and I don't look up polls but many people I know have said they were inspired to read LOTR after the movies and found they could not make it through the books.


ABSOLUTLY, altough I HAD read the Books before the Movies came out.

IMO, the Movies were SO MUCH BETTER than the Books, since the Books were filled with too much description which made them very tiresome to read. They were not page-turners like Harry Potter :no:


Also, I disagree with Wimsey about LOTR being as popular as Harry Potter!!!

Here is a Scholastic Study that was conducted:

The average age kids say they start reading the series is age nine and they continue to read and re-read the books as they mature. Nearly 60% of kids ages 9-11 years old have read the books, and 70% say they are interested in reading or re-reading them; 63% of kids ages 12-14 have read the books and 69% are interested in reading/re-reading them; and 57% of 15-17 year olds have read the books and 60% say they are interested in reading/re-reading them.

The study confirms that interest in reading Harry Potter crosses generations. Half of all parents say they too are Harry Potter readers.

Just over half (51%) of Harry Potter readers ages 5-17 years old say they did not read books for fun before they started reading Harry Potter, but now they do, and 65% say they have been doing better in school since they started reading the series
The findings also show that Harry Potter books have had a significant impact on the reading attitudes and behaviors of boys. More boys than girls have read Harry Potter (57% vs. 51%), and a greater number of boys than girls say that they did not read books for fun before Harry Potter (61% vs. 41%). More boys than girls say that it was important for them to read Harry Potter so that they would feel “in” with their friends (63% vs. 44%).

Now, did/does LOTR have those kinds of numbers??? I DONT THINK SO!!! And look at the IMPACT Harry Potter has had on reading and such.

Now LOTR is definitely a series that Book Readers were the minority of the audience imo, and caused people to read the Books after the movies.

And, if you're in to criticizing Statistics, here are conditions under which the Scholastic Study was conducted:

Methodology:
The Kids and Family Reading Report is a national survey of 1000 individuals -- 500 children ages 5 to 17 years old and one parent or primary guardian per child. Interviews took place through mall-intercepts in 25 major cities across the country from January 16 through February 8, 2006. The survey was designed and analyzed by the staffs at Scholastic and Yankelovich. Quotas for race, gender and child age group were established to ensure ample base sizes for analysis purposes. The margin of error is ± 4.5 percentage points.


btw, no offense to LOTR fans, I know there are quite a few around here. :)

I LOVE the movies (I like the books too), but LOTR simply isn't as popular (even in their prime, according to my Dad) as Harry Potter :cool:

Definitely not page turners for me either. Trust me, I love detail and that kind of thing but in a separate reference book or something. Chugging all of this stuff down my throat before I even meet the characters or know the story is far too overbearing and dull for me. But that's just my opinion. I know the LOTR books are dear to many people's hearts and I don't mean to step on their feelings but alot of Tolkien fans have been doing the same for me here and this is what you get for going to a HP forum and praising LOTR! :p

Great post, Ic! Thank you.

I agree about the LOTR movies. Before the LOTR films, I never even HEARD of Lord of the Rings. I mean AT ALL.

I find it hard to believe that anyone who has been in a decent bookshop hasn't encountered LotR. They've never been out of print to my knowledge and never been dumped in remainder bins.

Oh and ROTK was the final film of the series. I'll make a bet with you that DH part two will make just as much if not more than ROTK did.

All bets are on. :p

I know the LOTR books are dear to many people's hearts and I don't mean to step on their feelings but a lot of Tolkien fans have been doing the same for me here and this is what you get for going to a HP forum and praising LOTR! :p

Nobody is trying to step on your feelings. :)

We keep saying how much we enjoy Harry's world and how much we want these films to work. :cool:

People don't keep citing the LotR experience to be obnoxious but because there are real and pertinent lessons there for the HP fandom about the process of adaptation. We geeks learned the hard way that adaptors have to be ruthless when it comes to adapting source material, especially if they want to make a film that honours the spirit of the original, pleases the critics and smashes box office records (an extremely rare combination!)

I enjoy Wimsey's brilliant posts because he knows an awful lot more about the realities of the box office and the logistics of adaptation than I do. :)

I definitely had a nice time watching this movie. Not my favorite, but its worth watching. My favorite scene would have to be when Fred and George left, I loved this part in the book, and I liked it in the movie. But I was a bit dissapointed with the whole swamp part, they didnt show that.
Also, Luna Lovegood's character didnt seem like Luna to me. Luna had curly hair and big eyes right? But, in the movie, she didnt portray these features. She spoke a bit weird too.
My favorite quote would have to be ,"Albus Percivul Wulfred Brian Dumbledore."
I loved it! :)
And Dumbledore said it exactly how I imagined.
Oh yes, I also liked Grimauld Place. It was similar to what I imagined, the whole scary stairs and all.
But definitely it is worth watching, and I absolutely can't wait for HBP to come out. :)

Heeeeey, the OotP movie needs all the love it can get! :tu:

Also, Luna Lovegood's character didnt seem like Luna to me. Luna had curly hair and big eyes right? But, in the movie, she didnt portray these features. She spoke a bit weird too.

Evanna Lynch, the actress who plays Luna, has a lovely soft Irish accent. :) There's no indication in the book that Luna is Irish. However, JKR seemed to love the casting, so ... you know ... yay. :cool:

Luna is described in the book as having 'long, dirty blonde hair' (I can't remember whether it's curly!) and 'protuberant' eyes. :whistle: I thought that Evanna got Luna's dreamy, Planet Luna look to perfection. :lol:

My favorite quote would have to be ,"Albus Percivul Wulfred Brian Dumbledore."
I loved it! :)

That was hilarious. I loved the 'Brian'. :D

Gosh... why is this getting so confrontational?

I simply don't think that comparing numbers is getting us anywhere.

I think everyone in this thread wants Harry Potter to do as well as possible - and accusing LotR fans of treading on anyone's feelings strikes me as rather unfair.


We all want the same - we just have a different idea of how it can be achieved - and LotR fans who have been around on the web for some years simply have seen this sort of discussion before and have, perhaps, also lerned a little bit in the process.

Well, one thing I think we all have learned is that nothing is sweeter than seeing a franchise you love ending up as something that not just the fans like, but something that the whole world loves. That's what I saw with LotR, that's what I want for Harry Potter - and I think the other old LotR fans here strike me as just the same.

perhaps the lessons from LotR aren't universally applicable to adaptations of this sort of book - but it is perhaps an idea to think about it, at least - and to understand that what we imagine in our heads as the best films ever might not actually be the best for a wider audience.

What we need is an adaptation that understands the story, and knows where it can (or even has to) abstract, adapt, tighten the written word to craft not just a film that tells the story, but a film that tells the story well, and a film that is a good film in terms of movie-making, independently of the source material. That's the ONLY way of creating a lasting success, IMHO.


We can all disagree on how this is done, but I would love to discuss this without this hostile tone!

It is particularly weird to see some sweeping assumptions that someone has to be loyal to ONE franchise, and therefore will not wish another one well. I just don't think that's the case. We all want this to do as well as possible, so let us analyse OotP calmly, agree to disagree on some aspects of it and try to formulate some lessons that we want the film makers to learn from it.

However, with things as they are going I'd say it doesn't look like this discussion is going to teach anyone enything any time soon. I think that's sad, since a discussion shouldn't be about 'winning', or 'convincing', but about exchanging opinuons to learn from others.

Ah well.

I guess that's how it goes....

General Notice: Please remember to keep a civil tone when debating, guys, and perhaps move on from the LOTR-based discussion. Let's not have the thread descend further into HP vs LOTR. Thanks.

I don't think this would be regarded as a Movie mistake, so I am putting it here.

I think in Snape's Worst Memory, James does Impedimenta to Snape instead of Levicorpus, but he hangs upside down anyway. Or maybe I just missed "Levicorpus."

Also, Luna Lovegood's character didnt seem like Luna to me. Luna had curly hair and big eyes right? But, in the movie, she didnt portray these features. She spoke a bit weird too.


I thought that Evanna's Luna was the BEST part of the film. She not only captured the "dreaminess" and "dottiness" of the charachter, but also the underlaying intelligence and wisdom, which is an incredible acting feat. As for her voice ....Ahhhhh!!! ... pure destilled sweetness. I could hear it forever. And that, by the way, is her real voice.

'Levicorpus' is a nonverbal spell according to HBP, but there was minimal time in between Impedimenta and Levicorpus. James said Impedimenta, and then it shot to Snape upside down.

There are times I love the movie, and then there are times I hate it. Sirius's death and the fallout from that was something I wanted to see, but the death was different then what I pictured and there was a lack of fall out between Dumbledore, and Harry.

Some of the graphic's were pretty amazing.

So, I know, like many of you, were very excited for the fifth HP movie to come out.
I also have a hunch that there were some disappointments along with some surprise acceptance that it was an okay movie.

But. I have one problem. Something that no one has answered.

In the fifth movie, Bella Lestrange dueled with Sirius Black.
This also happened in the book, of course.
In the movie, Lestrange used Avada Kadavra, the killing curse, which knocked Sirius through the veil.
In the book, it said nothing of the killing curse, or a green light.
In the book, it was a red light that hit Sirius.
Red.

Now, I'm just wondering if anyone has any kind of explanation to this drastic change. Like if they only did this for something that will show up in the next 3 movies.

Thanks.

So, I know, like many of you, were very excited for the fifth HP movie to come out.
I also have a hunch that there were some disappointments along with some surprise acceptance that it was an okay movie.

But. I have one problem. Something that no one has answered.

In the fifth movie, Bella Lestrange dueled with Sirius Black.
This also happened in the book, of course.
In the movie, Lestrange used Avada Kadavra, the killing curse, which knocked Sirius through the veil.
In the book, it said nothing of the killing curse, or a green light.
In the book, it was a red light that hit Sirius.
Red.

Now, I'm just wondering if anyone has any kind of explanation to this drastic change. Like if they only did this for something that will show up in the next 3 movies.

Thanks.

The reasoning is quite simple. The film makers changed this to make it absolutely clear that Sirius is dead. The continual insistence of people who believed Sirius to be alive somehow even after JKR said he was dead must have convinced them that a clearer, more explicit end to Sirius life, would stop the audience wondering whether he was really dead. Having said that, I think they botched it and made it just as confusing by keeping the veil. If you're going to AK, do it, and let's see the corpse, don't have a weird half-way house where a completely unexplained object sucks him in as he is dying. It was messy.

Personally I think a more elegant script could have set up the arch reasonably well by showing the chamber during Harry's dreams, have someone later state the name 'Death Chamber' clearly, by having one of the Death Eaters be hurled through it and disappearing, and by clearly showing the execution chamber design of the room, as well as including some kind of dialogue from Lupin as he restrains Harry, that spells out it means Sirius is dead. That would allow for Sirius' death to keep the 'eeriness' of the book, while at the same time making the finality of what has happened clear.

The reasoning is quite simple. The film makers changed this to make it absolutely clear that Sirius is dead. The hysterical rantings of people who believed Sirius to be alive somehow must have convinced them that a clearer, more explicit end to Sirius life, would stop the audience wondering whether he was really dead. Having said that, I think they botched it and made it just as confusing by keeping the veil. If you're going to AK, do it, and let's see the corpse, don't have a weird half-way house where a completely unexplained object sucks him in as he is dying. It was messy.

Personally I think a more elegant script could have set up the arch reasonably well by showing the chamber during Harry's dreams, have someone later state the name 'Death Chamber' clearly, by having one of the Death Eaters be hurled through it and disappearing, and by clearly showing the execution chamber design of the room, as well as including some kind of dialogue from Lupin as he restrains Harry, that spells out it means Sirius is dead. That would allow for Sirius' death to keep the 'mystery' of the book, while at the same time making the finality of what has happened clear.

My mom hasn't read the books, but has seen Order of the Phoenix twice, and she still asks me if Sirius is dead. :lol: I don't think she knows exactly what Avada Kedavra does, or she does know it and didn't hear Bellatrix say it... or something. But she asked me both times!

My mom hasn't read the books, but has seen Order of the Phoenix twice, and she still asks me if Sirius is dead. :lol: I don't think she knows exactly what Avada Kedavra does, or she does know it and didn't hear Bellatrix say it... or something. But she asked me both times!

This is exactly what I mean. :lol: The film makers tried to make his death clearer, but completely failed to explain what Avada Kedavra did, as well as keeping this completely unexplained veil, which just muddied the waters. It must have made Sirius' death fall flat for a lot of people, there was just not enough concession given to non-fans.

I don't think this would be regarded as a Movie mistake, so I am putting it here.

I think in Snape's Worst Memory, James does Impedimenta to Snape instead of Levicorpus, but he hangs upside down anyway. Or maybe I just missed "Levicorpus."

No he said Levicorpus.

This is exactly what I mean. :lol: The film makers tried to make his death clearer, but completely failed to explain what Avada Kedavra did, as well as keeping this completely unexplained veil, which just muddied the waters. It must have made Sirius' death fall flat for a lot of people, there was just not enough concession given to non-fans.

Lol what made it TEN TIMES worst, is Harry shaeks it off like nothing happened.

I didn't like the story of the movie at all. I love where the director and actors werew going but the story was bad. Thank god we have kloves back.

No he said Levicorpus.

Must have missed it. Aw well.



Lol what made it TEN TIMES worst, is Harry shaeks it off like nothing happened.

Yeah, though I have a feeling they will add something about Sirius and Harry missing him in HBP.

Must have missed it. Aw well.





Yeah, though I have a feeling they will add something about Sirius and Harry missing him in HBP.

I WISH they had it like they had it in the book.

Oh, I found that there was this HUGE mistake:

In OotP, when the dementors attack, why the BEEP did the dementor pick him up?????? And to TOP that, Harry uses his wand and KNOCKS the dementor OFF of him!!! That was a BIG NO NO!!!

This is exactly what I mean. :lol: The film makers tried to make his death clearer, but completely failed to explain what Avada Kedavra did, as well as keeping this completely unexplained veil, which just muddied the waters. It must have made Sirius' death fall flat for a lot of people, there was just not enough concession given to non-fans.


:lol::lol: You'd think they'd make things simple. I'm rather pleased with Kloves returning to do the script for the rest of the series.

I watched OOTP on HBO last night with my family and wow it was amazing! It's better on HBO than it was on DVD.

Maybe because it was fullscreen? This film really works better as a TV film and fullscreen is best for TV movies imo. You can really focus on the characters faces and the bad cinematography is not as noticeable. The dialog was also clearer on HBO. I couldn't notice the infamous blue filter, Yoshi! The film looked like it was painted. It looked so dark and moody.

I noticed so many new things in the movie.

I watched OOTP on HBO last night with my family and wow it was amazing! It's better on HBO than it was on DVD.

Maybe because it was fullscreen? This film really works better as a TV film and fullscreen is best for TV movies imo. You can really focus on the characters faces and the bad cinematography is not as noticeable. The dialog was also clearer on HBO. I couldn't notice the infamous blue filter, Yoshi! The film looked like it was painted. It looked so dark and moody.

I noticed so many new things in the movie.

Did u notice the Death Eaters and all of the mistakes with them and Harry? :lol:

The reasoning is quite simple. The film makers changed this to make it absolutely clear that Sirius is dead. The continual insistence of people who believed Sirius to be alive somehow even after JKR said he was dead must have convinced them that a clearer, more explicit end to Sirius life, would stop the audience wondering whether he was really dead. Having said that, I think they botched it and made it just as confusing by keeping the veil. If you're going to AK, do it, and let's see the corpse, don't have a weird half-way house where a completely unexplained object sucks him in as he is dying. It was messy.

Personally I think a more elegant script could have set up the arch reasonably well by showing the chamber during Harry's dreams, have someone later state the name 'Death Chamber' clearly, by having one of the Death Eaters be hurled through it and disappearing, and by clearly showing the execution chamber design of the room, as well as including some kind of dialogue from Lupin as he restrains Harry, that spells out it means Sirius is dead. That would allow for Sirius' death to keep the 'eeriness' of the book, while at the same time making the finality of what has happened clear.


I'm actually very glad there was no dialogue, the silent horror was much better, imo, than any dialogue could have done - I would have hated a melodramatic scene. I think it was very clear from the reactions and from Voldemort hissing "She killed Sirius" that Sirius had died.



:lol::lol: You'd think they'd make things simple. I'm rather pleased with Kloves returning to do the script for the rest of the series.

I was much happier with the script for OotP, the characters were much more recognisable here. The film was compact, a lot of unnecessary things were cut, things that were fun to read about, but a film has to limit its' length far more than a book does. I'll admit there were some decidedly dodgy lines, but there were cringy lines in all the films - just see the threads on "Worst Lines in the Movies" for peoples' takes on that matter.

I'm actually very glad there was no dialogue, the silent horror was much better, imo, than any dialogue could have done - I would have hated a melodramatic scene. I think it was very clear from the reactions and from Voldemort hissing "She killed Sirius" that Sirius had died.





I was much happier with the script for OotP, the characters were much more recognisable here. The film was compact, a lot of unnecessary things were cut, things that were fun to read about, but a film has to limit its' length far more than a book does. I'll admit there were some decidedly dodgy lines, but there were cringy lines in all the films - just see the threads on "Worst Lines in the Movies" for peoples' takes on that matter.

There was no cringy lines! :grumble:

I'm actually very glad there was no dialogue, the silent horror was much better, imo, than any dialogue could have done - I would have hated a melodramatic scene. I think it was very clear from the reactions and from Voldemort hissing "She killed Sirius" that Sirius had died.
I could have lived without Bella skipping through the Ministry, however, with her taunting little "I killed Sirius Bla-ack, I killed Sirius Bla-ack!" :grumble:

There was no cringy lines! :grumble:

There were some cringy lines e.g. "Dumbledores' "Don't you all have study to do?"
Harry calling after Dumbledore, the last line "We've got something Voldemort hasn't..." "Wizards' bread and butter" "Who are you and what have you done with Hermione Granger?" For all that though, I still prefer OotP to any of the other films so far- characterisation in OotP is great.

BurrowGhoul, I think that was pure Bellatrix, though, following on from her baby-talk routine. Unpleasant, nasty, but just what you'd expect from dear Bella.

It was an okay movie, watching it now theres a few things that irked me. I love how they could just fly about in the city when the Order comes to get Harry, so much for keeping cover in the clouds. Also, it was wonderful how Harry completely exposes himself in front of Dudlexs friends. The Ministry entrance where they have the picture of Fudge, its not like they were worshiping him.

There were some cringy lines e.g. "Dumbledores' "Don't you all have study to do?"
Harry calling after Dumbledore, the last line "We've got something Voldemort hasn't..." "Wizards' bread and butter" "Who are you and what have you done with Hermione Granger?" For all that though, I still prefer OotP to any of the other films so far- characterisation in OotP is great.

BurrowGhoul, I think that was pure Bellatrix, though, following on from her baby-talk routine. Unpleasant, nasty, but just what you'd expect from dear Bella.

"Don't you all have studying to do" is the only cringing line in my opinion. I like everything else.

Bellatrix was amazing. I love her baby-talk routine. The sing-song voice. Helena Bonham Carter player her magnificiently.

"Don't you all have studying to do" is the only cringing line in my opinion. I like everything else.

Bellatrix was amazing. I love her baby-talk routine. The sing-song voice. Helena Bonham Carter player her magnificiently. We agree to disagree on Bella. :)

I didn't like Harry's line to Voldemort, at the end of the posession. I think the visual montage was enough to make the point without hammering it in.

We agree to disagree on Bella. :)

I didn't like Harry's line to Voldemort, at the end of the posession. I think the visual montage was enough to make the point without hammering it in.


Oh yeah, forgot about that one. That really irked me. Thing is, in the books, Harry doesn't reach the stage of pitying Voldemort until the end of book seven, when he sees what Voldemort has reduced himself to in Kings' Cross. That's jumping two years ahead. Aside from that, it was just utterly corny. I wouldn't have minded Harry saying something at that point, but not something so melodramatic and cheesy.

It was an okay movie, watching it now theres a few things that irked me. I love how they could just fly about in the city when the Order comes to get Harry, so much for keeping cover in the clouds. Also, it was wonderful how Harry completely exposes himself in front of Dudlexs friends. The Ministry entrance where they have the picture of Fudge, its not like they were worshiping him.

Regarding the flight of the Order through the city, I took it that they had used the spell (can't remember... it's been a while since I've read the book) that had turned them invisible, so no one would've been able to spot them.

Also I'm pretty sure Harry knew Dudley's friends wouldn't know what a wand is but he KNEW Dudley did so it was a clever way of threatening him without the others knowing (it's like "What? A wooden stick?" which is why they were laughing.)

You mean the Dilusionment charm? Well maybe. I knew why they were laughing, anyways. Something else that irked me was the fact that there were 119 Educational Decrees! I think they went a little overboard with the whole Reformation with Umbridge. One thing I thought was good, was the separation of Sirius. I think they portrayed that well.

Regarding the flight of the Order through the city, I took it that they had used the spell (can't remember... it's been a while since I've read the book) that had turned them invisible, so no one would've been able to spot them.

Also I'm pretty sure Harry knew Dudley's friends wouldn't know what a wand is but he KNEW Dudley did so it was a clever way of threatening him without the others knowing (it's like "What? A wooden stick?" which is why they were laughing.)

No, Dudlye's friends knew what a wand was, but thought it was fake and didn't do anything. Its like if someone did that to you in reality, you would laugh, right?

No, Dudlye's friends knew what a wand was, but thought it was fake and didn't do anything. Its like if someone did that to you in reality, you would laugh, right?

Plus if they believed every word that came out of Dudley's mouth, I am sure they would think Harry was a lunatic ;)

Plus if they believed every word that came out of Dudley's mouth, I am sure they would think Harry was a lunatic ;)

exactly

I forgot one other thing, what was with the whole storm thing, I dont recall there being a storm.......

It was just to set the mood of the movie. I think it was fantastic, and I loved when it was storming when Hermione was talking to Ron and Harry that they need to have someone better than Umbridge to teach them the Defense against the Dark Arts.

Why would Dudley tell his friends that Harry had a wand - they'd think he was a basket case himself. So I'd think he'd keep quite about that.

The storm when Hermione proposes the DA was fitting. It did show how desperate they were to have a real teacher.

Why would Dudley tell his friends that Harry had a wand - they'd think he was a basket case himself. So I'd think he'd keep quite about that.

The storm when Hermione proposes the DA was fitting. It did show how desperate they were to have a real teacher.

Yes, but the one at the beggining was a little rushed. A storm doesn't just appear up, it "moves" in, the movie just described it as like a giant happened to drop it there, I mean, there was a drought and the forcaster said it was hot.

The onw with Hermione was natural, I have no comment.

The one with Hagrid was a little xagerated but was a lot better than the one at the beggining of the movie.

Yes, but the one at the beggining was a little rushed. A storm doesn't just appear up, it "moves" in, the movie just described it as like a giant happened to drop it there, I mean, there was a drought and the forcaster said it was hot.
I believe the storm at the beginning was supposed to be unnatural. It was supposed to signify the coming of the dementors, I thought. Instead of having all the stars and street lights go out (and into an impenetrable darkness), the filmmakers decided that a storm seemed to fit the dementors' entrance better (especially since many individuals are afraid of thunderstorms themselves). That is, after all, what foreshadowed their appearances in PoA (on the train and during the Quidditch match). I thought it was fitting, for it demonstrated the power of the dementors. Even in the middle of a sweltering drought, they brought forth a thunderstorm.

One little touch I liked was with Luna at the end when she tells Harry about losing her possessions. She said her mom told her that things have a way of showing up in the end just not the way you expect them (all paraphrased) and you see her tennis shoes hanging up in the archway. This really hits home in DH when Harry is walking through the forest to LV. The things (people) Harry lost showed up in the end to walk with Harry..his mom and dad, Sirius and Lupin...they came back to him but not in the way he expected. Am I making sense here?


btw...small notice here..When Harry talks to Luna (with the Thestrals) he notices that she has no shoes and she tells him that they've all disappeared, but she's wearing the tennis shoes at the Ministry and then again her shoes disappear again only to show up hanging in the archway at the end...odd

One little touch I liked was with Luna at the end when she tells Harry about losing her possessions. She said her mom told her that things have a way of showing up in the end just not the way you expect them (all paraphrased) and you see her tennis shoes hanging up in the archway. This really hits home in DH when Harry is walking through the forest to LV. The things (people) Harry lost showed up in the end to walk with Harry..his mom and dad, Sirius and Lupin...they came back to him but not in the way he expected. Am I making sense here?


btw...small notice here..When Harry talks to Luna (with the Thestrals) he notices that she has no shoes and she tells him that they've all disappeared, but she's wearing the tennis shoes at the Ministry and then again her shoes disappear again only to show up hanging in the archway at the end...odd

yes, and when she skipps away, shes wearing black shoes. :err:

I find it hard to describe whether or not I like the movie. I've seen it over 10 times now, but however many times I see it I'm just still not sure whether it is my favourite or least favourite.

It almost didn't feel like I'm watching Harry Potter. I guess this was mainly because most of the sets were completely different than described in the books, and the constant use of blue filters distorted them quite a lot.

However, there were many things I liked. I actually preferred the Ministry Of Magic battle at the end more than in the books. Apart from Sirius' death, those scenes were just done SO well. Very fast paced, exciting and the changes they made seemed very necessary. The possession scene and Dumbledore Vs. Voldemort were particularly well done.

The movie did seem to strike a brilliant balance between the faithfulness of PS/SS & Cos, and the artistic, movie feel of PoA. However, I felt certain things like Grawp could easily have been left out and replaced by the Two-Way mirror. I can understand the lack of Dobby in this one. While I believe not having him in GoF was a big mistake, and he will definitely need to be included in HBP for a certain scene in DH to work well, I think it worked well without Dobby in OoTP.

Evanna Lynch, Imelda Staunton, Helena Bohnam Carter & Natalina Tena all gave spectacular performances in the roles of Luna, Umbridge, Bellatrix & Tonks. I must also comment on how much all the child actors have improved over the movies. Particularly Daniel Radcliffe who really impressed me with this one (I'm not sure on the tone of his voice that sounds like borderline stuttering).

The music was brilliant. While definitely not in league with Goblet Of Fire, "Professor Umbridge" was very effective in conveying Dolores' sweet yet sour personality. Some of the music was very forgetful - but I guess that's a good sign. It conveys emotion to you without requiring your full attention and taking away from the film.

The digital effects impressed me - while Grawp looked slightly cartoon-like, the Threstals and Kreachers looked totally real.

Over all - one of the best movies, yet somehow something didn't seem right. Improved on many of the flaws in past movies, yet continued to make many mistakes that have always been a problem.

I don't get why everyone likes it so much. It was good acting, yes, but they took out sooo many things, important things, then what's in the book. It was also too short, they sped up everything. It's the longest book and the shortest movie? Make any sense? Yeah okay, they couldn't do all the book but at least make it as long as the other 4..and add in some of the missing important scenes.

It almost didn't feel like I'm watching Harry Potter. I guess this was mainly because most of the sets were completely different than described in the books, and the constant use of blue filters distorted them quite a lot.

Well, I thought that Grimmauld Place was perfection. :D And I really don't understand the complaint that it didn't feel 'Harry Potter-ish', since to me it captured perfectly the dark, moody atmosphere of OotP, the bleakest of the HP novels.

Over all - one of the best movies, yet somehow something didn't seem right. Improved on many of the flaws in past movies, yet continued to make many mistakes that have always been a problem.

So, in your opinion, what are the enduring mistakes in the film franchise?

I don't get why everyone likes it so much. It was good acting, yes, but they took out sooo many things, important things, then what's in the book.

But what important things, though? :hmm: The only important thing I can think of that they missed out is a much fuller explaination about the Prophecy.

It was also too short, they sped up everything. It's the longest book and the shortest movie? Make any sense?

It makes perfect sense, because the film told the story. I don't like films that drag on for hours unless they are truly exceptional!

We didn't need to see the Order cleaning 12 Grimmauld Place for hours on end, for example, neither did we need to see a ton of other stuff from the book. The giants' subplot, for example? - nope, we didn't need that. I don't even think we needed Hagrid talking about it, to be perfectly honest. And the film didn't really need Grawp either!

Yeah okay, they couldn't do all the book but at least make it as long as the other 4..and add in some of the missing important scenes.

PoA was 141 minutes, that's 2 hours and 11 minutes. GoF was slightly shorter, OotP slightly shorter still. All those timings were absolutely acceptable, and made for an enjoyable cinema experience.

The two first films are too long. :) Too long for their source material, that is. Which is why I prefer watching the DVDs of the last three films to the first two! :)

Well, I thought that Grimmauld Place was perfection. :D And I really don't understand the complaint that it didn't feel 'Harry Potter-ish', since to me it captured perfectly the dark, moody atmosphere of OotP, the bleakest of the HP novels.



So, in your opinion, what are the enduring mistakes in the film franchise?



But what important things, though? :hmm: The only important thing I can think of that they missed out is a much fuller explaination about the Prophecy.



It makes perfect sense, because the film told the story. I don't like films that drag on for hours unless they are truly exceptional!

We didn't need to see the Order cleaning 12 Grimmauld Place for hours on end, for example, neither did we need to see a ton of other stuff from the book. The giants' subplot, for example? - nope, we didn't need that. I don't even think we needed Hagrid talking about it, to be perfectly honest. And the film didn't really need Grawp either!



PoA was 141 minutes, that's 2 hours and 11 minutes. GoF was slightly shorter, OotP slightly shorter still. All those timings were absolutely acceptable, and made for an enjoyable cinema experience.

The two first films are too long. :) Too long for their source material, that is. Which is why I prefer watching the DVDs of the last three films to the first two! :)

Acttually, the first two were perfect. I loved CoS, as it was slightly dark, yet kept to the story and was long. Grant it, they could have cut some things, but I loved it. Then PoA, they got the BASIC story but messed everything else UP. I saw the movie before the book and was really confused. In the movie, it skipps from this to that to a bird (?) to the whomping willow to that to that to this. I particualrly blame the director, as the script was okay, I personaly wanted it better, but it was the combination of director and script writer. I saw GoF before I read the book and was pleased. They kept to the story and cut the complicated parts that really played to part in moving Harry foward out, but made up sort of for it and put complicated yet understandable things to the smaller characters like Neville. OotP I read before I saw the movie (and hence forth). It was debateable, like someone said. I thought it was a movie that felt like PoA, and it really defined PoA in a bad way. I liked the darkness and the emotion, and the magic feeling, but the story and priarities were bad. I think they could have had quittidch with ron, or at least said that he made team captain (or was that in the 6th book?). I felt that PoA and OotP needed to be longer, as GoF was really good. OotP was missing something though... And I think it was the script writer, as I think the director wanted that great movie but had a bad sript to push it. You never know, I think its a combination: the books reflect on each other (1-7; 2-6; 3-5 and 4 is the middle) The movies so far did that well. (3-5 and 4.). With the directors, its a combination 2. Chris and Kloves with Haymen worked well. Alfonso and Kloves with Haymen not so well. Kloves with Newell and Haymen worked well. Yates and Goldenberg with Haymen not so well. Now we have Haymen Yates and Kloves, Kloves had something other than HP and got a chance to imrpove a bit more than if it was just HP, lets see how 6 works out and if it is a good combo or not. If not, I hope all 3 of them work well for DH parts 1 and 2.

What are you talking about? We did need to see the Order Cleaning it. They left out the whole Mrs. Weasley Boggart scene along with it.

And I don't think the film narrative needed that. Sorry, but I don't feel that was crucial. :)

Too long? How about people being too impatient. Have you ever watched Lord of the Rings Return of The King? It's over 3 hours long..they had to add in an intermission.

I am a big Tolkien fan and have watched all of the LotR movies multiple times. :lol: (None of the films had an intermission in the UK, by the way. :cool: )

LotR is a much more complex, epic sort of narrative and needed a bigger canvas, so to speak. The HP books by comparison are less so.

That doesn't make LotR better than HP, or vice versa ... it's just a case of apples and oranges.

So, no, I certainly didn't need to see the Order cleaning Grimmauld Place. The film, wisely, concentrated on other stuff!

When adapting a book, you need to trim the material and make it accessible. Trust me, even the LotR films did this!

I think I have been misunderstood a lot in my above statement. I agree completely that things need to be changed and trimmed etc. The only thing I didn't like was spending so long on Grawp, when it could have been focused on, say the Prophecy.

I think I have been misunderstood a lot in my above statement. I agree completely that things need to be changed and trimmed etc. The only thing I didn't like was spending so long on Grawp, when it could have been focused on, say the Prophecy.

Riochet, I agree about Grawp (although Film Grawp was kinda cute :p), and I thought you made good points in your post. :)

But I was responding mainly to Expel_The_Armos. :cool: :)

Uh oh, Pearl. Do I sense some LOTR pride again? :p

Please, IMO LOTR is nowhere near complex as HP. LOTR is like an over the top over-blown children's story compared to HP. :cool:

Really, OOTP could have been a three hour epic movie. It's not about the length, it's the pacing and the editing that matters.

Our dear friend Wimsey goes on about the story being the only important thing but I think the most important element of HP is the characters and the character development.

No, we didn't need spring cleaning at Grimmauld Place. But why did we have to lose the character drama of Snape verses Sirius? Kreacher betraying Sirius? Molly facing her boggart? Harry trying to speak to Sirius with the mirror? An extended Snape's Worst Memory? Extended battle at the Ministry? The amazing dialog about death during the Dumbledore/Voldemort duel? Explanation about the prophecy?

Honestly, can you tell me, these things would not have made a better, more complex deeper movie?

How come when I go see other movie,s they explain things about the characters and the plot? Why do some members on this board have this idea that only the general story matters?

What makes LOTR more 'worthy' of this than HP?

Maybe we better stay on topic and discuss OotP movie only in here. Thanks! :)

And I don't think the film narrative needed that. Sorry, but I don't feel that was crucial. :)


Okay, so later when Harry releases that he needs to find the locket, how exactly is he supposed to know about any locket if he hadn't found it while cleaning Grimmauld Place? :hmm:

Okay, so later when Harry releases that he needs to find the locket, how exactly is he supposed to know about any locket if he hadn't found it while cleaning Grimmauld Place? :hmm:

Maybe while searching taht room he searches in DH he'll find a locket on the floor or something?

I wish they left the NHN discussion of ghosts.... =( and the angry harry rampage in DD office. =(

Maybe while searching taht room he searches in DH he'll find a locket on the floor or something?

I wish they left the NHN discussion of ghosts.... =( and the angry harry rampage in DD office. =(

Oh yes, Harry destroying Dumbledore's office is one of the best scenes of the series but it just wouldn't have fit within the style of the current movie. They never bite the bullet and make the HP movies as emotional, intense or dramatic as the books.

Though actually, I think they had it perfectly set up. Harry was quiet, and melancholy during most of the movie instead of outright angry. The end could have been when Harry finally lets loose and breaks down.

I really missed the CHILLING lines "She killed Sirius! I'LL KILL HER!"

So simple, so direct yet so profound coming immediately after the denial of Sirius's death which was completely lost in the movie.

Okay, so later when Harry releases that he needs to find the locket, how exactly is he supposed to know about any locket if he hadn't found it while cleaning Grimmauld Place? :hmm:

Oh, they can introduce the locket into the DH narrative without having had any cleaning done in the OotP movie.

That's the kind of thing adaptors do all the time! :)

But what important things, though? The only important thing I can think of that they missed out is a much fuller explaination about the Prophecy.
I believe the "little things" were equally important in certain areas. OotP left out so many of the small scenes that it excused any complexity in the Wizarding World. It focused too much on the story and forgot that the book was not obsessed with just the story. I would have loved to see the cleaning of Grimmauld Place, the Quibbler interview, maybe Quidditch, etc. Something to lighten the focus on the plot was needed.
And I don't think the film narrative needed that. Sorry, but I don't feel that was crucial.
Films do not only have to include what is crucial - OotP proved this. It left in all the "crucial" scenes and forgot to add any depth to the world. Occasionally, scenes that lead nowhere are just as good because it is good entertainment. However, these scenes have to flow together. That was the problem with Grawp. He was forced in the film, with no true opening for him. Now, it would have been much better if he had been replaced with, say, cleaning Grimmauld Place because it would have flowed nicely.
No, we didn't need spring cleaning at Grimmauld Place. But why did we have to lose the character drama of Snape verses Sirius? Kreacher betraying Sirius? Molly facing her boggart? Harry trying to speak to Sirius with the mirror? An extended Snape's Worst Memory? Extended battle at the Ministry? The amazing dialog about death during the Dumbledore/Voldemort duel? Explanation about the prophecy?

Honestly, can you tell me, these things would not have made a better, more complex deeper movie?
I wholeheartedly agree. OotP simply jumped from scene to scene, solely concerned with the story. If the filmmakers took their time with these scenes (just adding a minute or two backstory, something that makes the world more realistic), the film would have been much less rushed. When I recently watched OotP again, I felt as if I were running a marathon. There were hardly any breaks - just continuous, back-to-back scenes that told the general story. It seemed as if the trio had only had a week or two at Hogwarts before Christmas break, and then only another week before leaving to the Ministry.

OotP was not a fast moving book. I believe the filmmakers feared including too much backstory because they did not want the film to drag. However, they were too wary, in my opinion, and made the film too hurried. The OotP film merely scratched the surface of the book, including a general overview of the story but providing no real depth/reality to it.
Though actually, I think they had it perfectly set up. Harry was quiet, and melancholy during most of the movie instead of outright angry.
This would have been fine if that is how he was supposed to act. However, certain bits of dialogue contradict it, such as Fred and George's, "...just let it all out...Any way, if you're done shouting." Harry hardly raised his voice in that scene. Then, during Christmas at Grimmauld Place, Harry tells Sirius, "I'm just so angry all the time." This certainly does not coincide with how he has been acting. Yes, he had a few outbursts, but nothing to support that he has been angry all the time.
I really missed the CHILLING lines "She killed Sirius! I'LL KILL HER!"
Yes, I was looking forward to this. It would have made Harry's use of the Cruciatus Curse more understandable to the audience.

The two scenes I am most disappointed with are the Ministry battle and Dumbledore's explanation of the prophecy (I could almost ask "What prophecy?" right here).

The Ministry battle followed the rest of the movie: too short, too quick, and focused solely on telling the general plot. It almost made Dumbledore's Army obsolete, since it showed that Harry's friends were no match for the Death Eaters. I would have liked to see the "children" fight the Death Eaters and not be immediately captured. The Hall of Prophecy, the Death room, the Time room, and the Brain room could all have been expanded and (in some cases) included.

The battle between the Order and the Death Eaters was largely a hide-and-seek game, with Sirius, Harry, Lucius, and Bellatrix seeming to be the only ones fighting.

I also did not like how Dumbledore was portrayed as frail and week during his duel with Voldemort.

The significance of the prophecy and why Voldemort wanted it was never even touched on. From what we heard of it, the general moviegoer would see no reason why Voldemort would need to know this (and that this is the big "weapon" he was searching for). I also missed Dumbledore's speech, telling Harry everything. That was such a crucial part of the book and it would have converted perfectly onto film.

Once again, I feel as if the filmmakers were almost frightened to include some of these little scenes in the movie. The book was largely received as too long with too many little scenes. The film overcompensated, however, and made it focus solely on the general story and forgot any little scenes.

With all this, I still incredibly enjoy the film. However, it left me unsatisfied in certain places.

Wow. MrSleepyHead, I just have to say a quick thank you for that last post! I was getting a little frustrated. It seems that a lot of the time when someone on this forum expresses regret over some "unimportant" detail missing in the films, another poster will respond saying "How was that relevant to the plot?" or "It wasn't necessary to tell the story and would have just made the film longer."

But you're post here just saved me from tearing my hair out! ;) I completely agree with you:

"Films do not only have to include what is crucial - OotP proved this. It left in all the "crucial" scenes and forgot to add any depth to the world. Occasionally, scenes that lead nowhere are just as good because it is good entertainment."

I think OotP's showing only plot-related scenes is exactly what my problem was with the film, and why I felt it was a less accurate adaptation of the book, even though it got the major plot points correct. Like you point out, the books DON'T just focus on the plot, they include things that are just pure fun and entertainment, but that also serve to make the Wizarding World seem more real and complex. That's what really made me fall in love with the Harry Potter series, much moreso than just the plot. There are countless stories that tell about the Hero's Journey, and that have similar storylines. What makes HP stand out is the wonderful and in-depth world and characters that JKR created, and it's a shame that so much is sacrificed in the films when it isn't seen as essential to the plot.

I'm going to stop myself from rambling, though, because you already said it all so well! So thank you! And my scalp thanks you, too! I would look really odd bald! :)

The begining i thought was just bad acting....when Harry was singing the swing and Dudley came to where the dementors attacked them I thought was the worst part. It was just not too convincing. I absolutely loved the part where the D.A go and fight the ministry and especially love when the Order of Phoenix gets there...I thought it was genius when they travel in the air with a colored smoke. I don't remember hearing anything about that in the books. It just made everything so fast and full of action. Then the duel between Dumbledore and Voldermort was so convincing it gave the chills.

I recently re-read OotP and then watched the movie when I finished the book. I hadn't seen th emovie in a while and I really noticed how fast paced the movie actually was. They did get to the main points which is good and all, but I do agree with some of you that I would have liked to see more depth to the story or to the characters. I still thought the movie was good, but just if it had that extra something.

I really would have liked to see more of the Dumbledore and Harry scene when Harry destroys Dumbledore's things and is in an outrage. That really would've added to the emotion of the whole movie. And also Dumbledore's explanation of the prophecy.

I love the all the scenes in the Ministry at the end of the movie. It would have been cool though to see more of the kids fighting the Death Eaters a little longer in the different rooms.

I'm not sure if the film needed Grawp or not. Did they mention what Hagrid was up to with the giants? I can't remember. But they could've maybe used that screentime to fit some other things in.

If I had never read any of the HP books I bet that I would love the movies, especially OotP.
But, I have read the books. OotP needed so much more. I am not sure how they got away with makeing a 2 hour and 20 minute movie out of 870 pages of brilliance. This movie was really supposed to show how much Harry was isolated from everyone else because no one believed him. All that the movie really showed was him yelling at his best friends a couple of times. No one could get the feeling that Harry really felt like an outsider. Also they left out SO many things. Where was the interview with Rita Skitter? Where was Quittich(SP)? Where was Hagrid's talk about the giants? Where was Marrietta? There are so many other things that I didn't even list!

Of course i love the movie because I don't think something Harry Potter related that could be made that I wouldn't love but come on! I think that the true HP fans deserved a better movie than that.

If I had never read any of the HP books I bet that I would love the movies, especially OotP.
But, I have read the books. OotP needed so much more. I am not sure how they got away with makeing a 2 hour and 20 minute movie out of 870 pages of brilliance. This movie was really supposed to show how much Harry was isolated from everyone else because no one believed him. All that the movie really showed was him yelling at his best friends a couple of times. No one could get the feeling that Harry really felt like an outsider. Also they left out SO many things. Where was the interview with Rita Skitter? Where was Quittich(SP)? Where was Hagrid's talk about the giants? Where was Marrietta? There are so many other things that I didn't even list!

Of course i love the movie because I don't think something Harry Potter related that could be made that I wouldn't love but come on! I think that the true HP fans deserved a better movie than that.

CHEERS!

This has always been my point about the movie probably best displayed in Seamus' apology. After nearly getting into a fight with Harry at the beginning he comes back to apologize without any reason, no explanation as to why he now believes what Harry's been saying all along just "Hey I'm sorry." How does that work?

It doesn't. Guess the WB really wanted to make last summer a really HP summer. Personally I wouldn't have minded waiting an extra month if I had to for the movie to contain some extra scenes from the book in it. The fight a the Ministry was so fun in the book, and I could picture it happening as I read. I saw the movie was left wondering why they went. Same with the fight between DD and LV. Though the fight in the movie wasn't all bad, I do wish it had stuck a little more to the book.

I think it is sad that the longest and really the most action packed book, was the shortest and moved really quickly. The way I see it is this, the next time there is going to be major action is in the second part of DH. HPB and DH (both parts) are really about the characters, and less about the action sequences. Allowing some scenes, like Harry upset with DD, or the Hogsmeade visit with Rita Skeeter really explained a lot.

It doesn't. Guess the WB really wanted to make last summer a really HP summer. Personally I wouldn't have minded waiting an extra month if I had to for the movie to contain some extra scenes from the book in it. The fight a the Ministry was so fun in the book, and I could picture it happening as I read. I saw the movie was left wondering why they went. Same with the fight between DD and LV. Though the fight in the movie wasn't all bad, I do wish it had stuck a little more to the book.

Yeah, I enjoyed reading the about their fight against the Death Eaters and the weird stuff at the MoM (esp. Ron!)
It sucks that time is such an issue with the producers, at least they could shoot the scenes and include in the DVD. :grumble:

Okay, so later when Harry releases that he needs to find the locket, how exactly is he supposed to know about any locket if he hadn't found it while cleaning Grimmauld Place? :hmm:

How does Indiana Jones know, at the beginning of Raiders of the Lost Ark that he is supposed to be looking for this artefact?

I am not being sarcastic. My point is this: 95% of films are stand alones. Everything in them must be introduced, explored, and resolved in approximately two hours. And the film-makers manage this just fine.

Even if they had introduced the locket in OOTP, audiences would not remember such a tiny detail several years on. It would have to be introduced again, in the film in which it is relevant.

It's not really about audiences remembering it, it's just about the films on their own having a coherence, that they all flow together. When someone watches OOTP again after DH, they might go "ooo, that's that locket, cool!"

Not everything about a movie has to revolve around that first viewing. There are many movies like Star Wars that you could watch many times and always find new things. It just increases the re-watchable level.

How does Indiana Jones know, at the beginning of Raiders of the Lost Ark that he is supposed to be looking for this artefact?

I am not being sarcastic. My point is this: 95% of films are stand alones. Everything in them must be introduced, explored, and resolved in approximately two hours. And the film-makers manage this just fine.

Even if they had introduced the locket in OOTP, audiences would not remember such a tiny detail several years on. It would have to be introduced again, in the film in which it is relevant.

yes, but the HP films are not stand alone. The 1st 2 are when you get to OotP, you need to see PoA because of Padfoot and so forth, and you might as well see GoF too, which, off the top of my head is stand alone.

And I think they should have at least had Kreacher carrying a golden locket when we saw him briefly. I mean, that would at least mean Harry saw it.

And I think they should have at least had Kreacher carrying a golden locket when we saw him briefly. I mean, that would at least mean Harry saw it.

Yes, I think that would have been a great way to at least attempt to show it there in Grimmauld Place.

I think everyone is forgetting that the seventh book wasn't out when they were making OOTP so how would they know that the mention of the locket was important?

Why include a locket that was merely mentioned and probably not amount to everything. This is another issue where JK should've been a little more open with the filmakers.

Unlike us they don't have time to read the books numerous times and pick out every little thing. They have to read it...get the story..and adapt it...do u know how long it was until us fans realized that the locket was important? (It started being discussed after HBP obviously...until then it was just ONE LINE...in a VERY big book)

I think everyone is being a little harsh. They'll handle it well.

If anything Harry will see RAB on the door...question Kreature about it..and viola!

If all 7 books were out b4 they made the movies then I say yes include a glimpse of the locket but that was not the case.

But you see, Half Blood Prince (Book) was out when the script for the movie was being written, and if the Goldenburg or what ever his name is, took the time to read ahead he would have read the talk between DD and Harry about Horcruxes, and that the locket might just be one.

I think Goldenberg only read OOTP, I'm not sure. I need to look up interviews with him.

I don't think it was really that important to have the locket in OOTP though it would have been nice, that's all. It just would have been a cool little hint.

I caught a little bit of OOTP on HBO before and I noticed that when we see kreacher, he is actually coming out of a room and closing the door behind him. Perhaps this is Regulus's room?

Well...I really liked OotP but it wasn't the best hp movie. I loved the "Kinsley" line. Everyone in the cinema was laughing. There were also a lot of new characters/actors. They were really good---( Umbridge, Luna, Kingsley, etc.)
The movie was awesome!:tu:

The other day i was watching OOTP and when dumbledore and voldemort duel at the very beginning AD and LV`s wands connect just like harry and voldy at the end of GOF i may have just seen it wrong but i think wb made a mistake

I've said many times how much I enjoyed OotP over the other movies. One little thing that bothered me though.

I wasn't very happy that they decided to read up on HBP and decide to use "Levicorpus" a spell that Snape created and which Harry only discovers in HBP. I think there were several DA scenes where Levicorpus was being used...Luna also used it in the Hall of Prophecies....

I've said many times how much I enjoyed OotP over the other movies. One little thing that bothered me though.

I wasn't very happy that they decided to read up on HBP and decide to use "Levicorpus" a spell that Snape created and which Harry only discovers in HBP. I think there were several DA scenes where Levicorpus was being used...Luna also used it in the Hall of Prophecies....

Yeah, I noticed when Luna said out that spell when I watched OotP in the theatres. In my head "How the hell did she know that, this is Book 5!":no:

I've said many times how much I enjoyed OotP over the other movies. One little thing that bothered me though.

I wasn't very happy that they decided to read up on HBP and decide to use "Levicorpus" a spell that Snape created and which Harry only discovers in HBP. I think there were several DA scenes where Levicorpus was being used...Luna also used it in the Hall of Prophecies....But Lupin said spells come in and out of fashion... it wasn't a missing spell, just one Harry had never come across until he saw it in the HBP's book. Since Luna grew up in a wizard family, and an old-fashioned, odd one at that, it's certainly possible she had run into it at some point in her life. Kind of like the wizards all knew about the Hallows and Harry & Hermione had no clue.

But Lupin said spells come in and out of fashion... it wasn't a missing spell, just one Harry had never come across until he saw it in the HBP's book. Since Luna grew up in a wizard family, and an old-fashioned, odd one at that, it's certainly possible she had run into it at some point in her life. Kind of like the wizards all knew about the Hallows and Harry & Hermione had no clue.

True, but the legend of the Hallows was thousands of years old, which explains how Luna's family (and probably other Wizarding families) had at least heard about them. The Levicorpus was a spell that Snape had invented, and as a result, it was a "recently" invented spell. Being a more recent spell, it was probably only known by people who had interacted with Snape directly; so it definitely wouldn't be as standard of a spell as the filmmakers of OOTP make it out to be.... not as standard as for example, Wingardium Leviosa or Expelliarmus, which probably were around for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

Hey everyone i have this VERY small picture of an Ootp Dvd Cover which appears to be from the philipines (spelling). It looks very cool. It has all six DA members in the hallway outside the Department of Mysteries and the bricks seem to melt into Voldy who appears at the top, it's very cool, and i wondered if anyone has or knows were to find a high(er)-res version of it.

Here's the SMALL picture i'm referring to. Click-on it and you can see the cover a little better. (Lower left)
http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/3696/hpprebookingpage1pootpdbf6.th.jpg (http://img182.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hpprebookingpage1pootpdbf6.jpg)

wow! from what I can see, I love that dvd cover. I want to see a HQ version though. I really wish the US version had included all 6 of those people.

wow! from what I can see, I love that dvd cover. I want to see a HQ version though. I really wish the US version had included all 6 of those people.

I know that's why i asked if anyone had an HQ or knew where to find one, i would've wanted this cover more than the one we have now.

I've said many times how much I enjoyed OotP over the other movies. One little thing that bothered me though.

I wasn't very happy that they decided to read up on HBP and decide to use "Levicorpus" a spell that Snape created and which Harry only discovers in HBP. I think there were several DA scenes where Levicorpus was being used...Luna also used it in the Hall of Prophecies....

I wasn't so much disappointed in them using it as much as I was angers at how they completely misrepresent what the Spell did in that movie.

In Latin, Corpus literal means "THE BODY." - not a stack of shelves. :no: The spell was not supposed to be used to levitate or move objects, but turn people over on their head and suspend them by their ankles.

:grumble:

But Lupin said spells come in and out of fashion... it wasn't a missing spell, just one Harry had never come across until he saw it in the HBP's book. Since Luna grew up in a wizard family, and an old-fashioned, odd one at that, it's certainly possible she had run into it at some point in her life. Kind of like the wizards all knew about the Hallows and Harry & Hermione had no clue.
It wasn't just Luna, if you watch the DA scene Harry is teaching it to them, they are all practicing it, including Cho on the Nigel kid.

The spell was completely off. It was used as a spell that merely levitated a person and leaving them floating in mid air, also Luna's looked like it sent the Death Eater flying out of sight when its just supposed to suspend them upside down by their ankles.

I'm not necessarily angry about it but I just wish they could have saved it for HBP as one of the Prince's spells.

It wasn't just Luna, if you watch the DA scene Harry is teaching it to them, they are all practicing it, including Cho on the Nigel kid.

The spell was completely off. It was used as a spell that merely levitated a person and leaving them floating in mid air, also Luna's looked like it sent the Death Eater flying out of sight when its just supposed to suspend them upside down by their ankles.

I'm not necessarily angry about it but I just wish they could have saved it for HBP as one of the Prince's spells.

Yes, it was so very unimaginative. They could have used any NUMBER of spells to do those thing. "Depulso" is one I can think of just off hand. Ugh.

hey just watched OOTP after just after the trio goes and visits Hagrid, Hagrid stands up and looks to the window muttering that "things are changing". Anyone have any idea what it says on the window? its written in old english script, i think. and there seems to be a rooster? can any one tell me what it says. I think it says dobars beurer.. can anyone decipher it for me

We just got the DVD the other day (sorry, I don’t remember what was on the cover), and, although I enjoyed the movie again, there are two points where I noticed where they've broken key concepts in future movies. (I missed the fact that Levicorpus wasn’t introduced until HBP.) My two problems are:

1) They broke the RoR. If all you have to do to get into the RoR is smash down a wall, then it won’t be a good hiding spot for Luna and Nevil (and everyone else) in the Deathly Hallows movie, nor a good spot for Drako to fix the cabnit. :err:

2) I was very disappointed that the DeathEaters could all fly around and turn into smoke and such. That kind of trivializes the fact that Voldie can fly in the opening of the Deathly Hallows, and it gives the DEs WAY too much power. If the DEs can fly, then the order members must be able to do so as well. If that’s the case then the whole “Harry escapes” scene at the beginning of DH is broken. :grumble:

Anyway, they’ve given themselves a couple of real issues for the DH movie (besides the fact that the "kids" will all be collecting social security, IRL).

Sorry if this has been discussed (so many pages to read through).

After the complaints that the film cut too much from the book (ie. McGonagall being stunned, talking to Lupin/Sirius after SWM) - these scenes are quite difficult to fit into the flow of the climax of the film without seemingly just 'put in for the sake of being put in'. The Hagrid/McGonagall sequence does not advance the plot, but only causes a problem in its lacking when the DA take off without checking with the Order.

Just saying, it's difficult to make it an engaging film with scenes that sprout off in different directions away from the main focus of Harry's journey. Though of course I would have liked to see them, I'm not going to loose any sleep over their exclusion.

I agree about the RoR. They totally ruined it by making it so that Hermione knew everything about it--if she knew everything about it, then why didn't she just find it herself? And if she knows so much about it, it's going to create a plot hole later on when Voldemort thinks that he's the only one that knows about it. Voldemort tends to act shortsighted, yes, but he wouldn't hide his Horcrux somewhere that was inscribed in a school textbook--not even he makes mistakes like that.I'm the poster on the imdb boards that pretended to not know who the HBP is. This is proof that I'm actually a HP fan.

My main complaint about the film was that I felt it moved way too fast, cut/shortened some important things out, and changed other things that were not to my liking. That said, there were still many things that I did like. For instance, the action scenes were executed very well, especially the Department of Mysteries scene. So overall I didn't dislike the movie as a whole, but it was not my favorite.

After re-watching the movie I have slightly changed my opinion on it.

From the perspective of a HP fanatic, the movie misses a few key plot points and isn't true to the book in many ways.

But from the perspective of a movie fan, it was great. Without paying attention to details and just watching the movie I thought the dueling scene was great, the shattering of the prophechy's and even the DE and order members flying (I know that its not how its supposed to be). The movies are made to be enjoyable and I thought it was. I previously absolutely hated the Filch scenes as they are nothing like the real Filch, but without bearing that in mind, they were okay and even a little funny.

From now on I'm going to watch HP moves as an obsessed fan and as a movie lover.

i thought the director of the OOTP did the best out of all movies dealing with the basics of the book. this was the largest book of all in turn was the hardest to compact. I guess I liked it the best because it was the closest to what I had imagined it to be.

Does anyone know where abouts this scene was meant to take place, as its definitely not part of the final cut.

http://www.oclumencia.com.br/galeria/displayimage.php?album=8&pos=140

Does anyone know where abouts this scene was meant to take place, as its definitely not part of the final cut.

http://www.oclumencia.com.br/galeria/displayimage.php?album=8&pos=140Looks like it could have been the Room of Requirement, since it looks like a bunch of the DA members are there. I can't be sure though.

I think that is the Gryffindor common room actually.

Oh, and actually I meant its purpose and context in the film - not what's the actual location, hehe.

I don't know if this has been talked about (I haven't gotten through all 38 pages or the previous discussions), but did anyone else think everything in the movie looked fake? I was thinking about it today, and all the walls and set pieces look really artificial. Maybe it's the color, but they seem almost shiny. I know the school is supposed to be all whimsical, but the sets really took away some of the warmth of the previous films, and the colors and style of it make it seem somewhat uninviting, at least to me. The room of requirement really was the worst offender IMO.
This is kind-of off topic but it supports my opinion: the orphanage in the Half Blood Prince has this same style, and it's really obvious that it's shiny on the walls.

I don't know if this has been talked about (I haven't gotten through all 38 pages or the previous discussions), but did anyone else think everything in the movie looked fake? I was thinking about it today, and all the walls and set pieces look really artificial. Maybe it's the color, but they seem almost shiny. I know the school is supposed to be all whimsical, but the sets really took away some of the warmth of the previous films, and the colors and style of it make it seem somewhat uninviting, at least to me. The room of requirement really was the worst offender IMO.
This is kind-of off topic but it supports my opinion: the orphanage in the Half Blood Prince has this same style, and it's really obvious that it's shiny on the walls.

Yeah, I wasn't a huge fan of the way the sets looked on camera, but it was definitely the certain look that they were going for.


The film itself was a bit too fast-paced for me. I know they needed to keep up the momentum, but in the process some very important parts were sort of breezed over. The main part I'm thinking of is the scene at the end between Harry and Dumbledore. And this is from the perspective of someone who saw the movie prior to reading the book (yeah, I know, I'm weird..) By the end of it I was kind of like "uhh.. so why did all of that just happen?" Then once I read the book it was all clear. But I definitely should not have had to read the book to understand the point of the story; the movie should be able to stand on its own.

it was a good movie, but poor adaptation IMO :)

I particularly disliked the scenes in the DA, when he was trying to teach. And the line, something like: "Disarming is really important. It's like a wizards bread and butter, really." *Cringe*


That just made me laugh so much. Brilliant. But I dont think it was Daniel Radcliffs fault...


What did I think of OtoP... I dont really know. It all seemed to happen too fast. To me it seemed like a 'Previously on Harry Potter'. If you get what I mean by that. But what was there, was good. Harry's hair didnt look right though, it was too short.
But, as a whole, I did like it. Saying that, if I hadnt have been so familiar with the book, I would have been seriously confused. But, as I have read it so many times, I could fill in the gaps myself.

I was watching OOTP again the other day and I noticed something cool that could be a nice set-up for HBP.

Snape's speech to Harry right before they start the Occulmency lesson: "In the past, it was often the dark lord's pleasure to invade the minds of his victims creating visions designed to torture them into madness. Only after extracting the last exquisite ounce of agony, only when he had them literally begging for death, would he finally...kill them."

Does this remind anyone else of the potion Dumbledore drinks in the cave in HBP??

I was watching OOTP again the other day and I noticed something cool that could be a nice set-up for HBP.

Snape's speech to Harry right before they start the Occulmency lesson: "In the past, it was often the dark lord's pleasure to invade the minds of his victims creating visions designed to torture them into madness. Only after extracting the last exquisite ounce of agony, only when he had them literally begging for death, would he finally...kill them."

Does this remind anyone else of the potion Dumbledore drinks in the cave in HBP??\

Yes! I hadn't really thought about it, but now that you mention it, it does. I can totally see that as some sort of build-up to the scenes in the cave. I hope they'll take that into consideration, but chances are they won't.

I was watching OOTP again the other day and I noticed something cool that could be a nice set-up for HBP.

Snape's speech to Harry right before they start the Occulmency lesson: "In the past, it was often the dark lord's pleasure to invade the minds of his victims creating visions designed to torture them into madness. Only after extracting the last exquisite ounce of agony, only when he had them literally begging for death, would he finally...kill them."

Does this remind anyone else of the potion Dumbledore drinks in the cave in HBP??

Wow, that's a great observation :tu: I hadn't really thought about it but now it does remind me of Dumbledore drinking the potion in the cave. That really is a cool set-up, though I'm not sure how most people may connect it now. But it's still a sort of good prelude.

So I just watched OOTP again last night and WOW. It's alot better after you haven't seen it in awhile..atleast I think so :lol:

I noticed there are maybe 4 things that I would've changed that would've made the movie better but overall it's pretty solid and flows much better than I remember.

It isn't as good as POA but it's better than the others imo. I just enjoyed watching the characters and I didn't get bored (Well maybe with the Grawp stuff but not really) I've always said and now I can confirm that the MAIN problem with this film is the script. Some of the dialogue just shouldn't have been there and editing wise there were 3 spots that I thought could've been better.

Maybe it's because it's been soooo long since I've read the book but it didn't seem as fast to me either.

I did notice (or maybe I'm just seeing things) that the shot when Harry first wakes up from his first nightmare (When Ron is staring at him), I think that's the shot of him waking up from the attack of Mr. Weasley. The shirt he's wearing when he sits up isn't the same as when he's laying down (atleast I don't think) and the sweat around the collar is the same as later. I think they just moved it there and hoped no one would notice (Since they decided to cut the lead up to the Dumbledore's office scene).

Also to everyone who says Dumbledore shouted 'Don't you have studying to do?' tsk tsk. He just said it loud so everyone could hear. I def didn't hear shouting this time when I watched it. He said it in his normal loud voice and very matter of factly I think. Then again we may have different ideas of what yelling is.

Hmmmm what else.

I dunno :lol: I enjoy the movie still though and watching it made me excited for HBP.

id like to revise my statement earlier....

i watched OotP last night, and it just hit me just how much was left out from the book! it was a terrible movie! i know its the longest book by far, but thats no excuse for making it the shortest of the movies! infact thats just ludicrous!! :grumble:

i thot that the movie was gudd!! but i was seriously disapointed that it was so diff from the book!! although it was still pretty awesome lol!!

I did a search to see if this was mentioned (I'm sure it had to be) but I didn't find anything. Anyway, what's up with all the "flying" in the Dept. of Mysteries scene? We know that Voldemort and Snape both learned to fly without brooms in DH, but that came as a surprise to members of the Order. And the deatheaters are definitely flying in the movie version of OOTP with no brooms. There's no way they're apparating/disapparating, because we know what that looks like both from the movies and books. Plus, if you look at the trailer for HBP, which is done by the same director as OOTP, you see Harry side-apparate with Dumbledore and it is consistent with the way apparition works in the other movies (i.e. you disappear).

One more point for anyone still unconvinced: The description of Voldemort flying in DH is that he was "flying like smoke on the wind." If you look at the movie version of OOTP, you'll see that the deatheaters also appear to be flying like smoke on the wind.

Sorry if that's too long a post, but I wanted to cover all the bases.

I don't have the movie to reference, but I thought all the flying during the DoM scene (like smoke, right? jets of smoke shooting from one place to another) was how the movies showed short range Apparition, mostly because it's cool looking that way. That was my guess, in any event.

As for in DH, I don't think it's necessarily the same thing at all. I always envisioned that Voldemort just learned to fly rather like levitation or Superman, without any sort of transformation. "Smoke on the wind" could just be a description for how fast and agile he was in the air or maybe he did get a little smoky and/or ethereal, but nothing like in the movie. And didn't Snape turn into a bat-like-thing? That's more human transfiguration than anything.


This is all IMO, of course, and based off of memories, so feel free to correct me.

"Smoke on the wind" could just be a description for how fast and agile he was in the air or maybe he did get a little smoky and/or ethereal, but nothing like in the movie. And didn't Snape turn into a bat-like-thing? That's more human transfiguration than anything.


This is all IMO, of course, and based off of memories, so feel free to correct me.

i havent read DH in a while, but what i got from the "smoke on the wind" comment was that Snape was sort of standing on some sort of 'cloud of smoke', and thats how he escaped! i could be wrong :hmm: but thats what i got from it :D

i havent read DH in a while, but what i got from the "smoke on the wind" comment was that Snape was sort of standing on some sort of 'cloud of smoke', and thats how he escaped! i could be wrong :hmm: but thats what i got from it :DI seem to remember Snape being described as a bat-like creature, but riding on smoke is both logical, Dark, and appropriate for both Snape & Voldemort. Good idea!

I seem to remember Snape being described as a bat-like creature, but riding on smoke is both logical, Dark, and appropriate for both Snape & Voldemort. Good idea!

thanks darkjad:tu: ...i also think that the text referred to Snape "looking like an overgrown bat", because of his cloak flying out behind him! :D

As for the snape thing, I remember McGonagall saying something about him 'learning that trick from his master.' So Snape was just flying, like Voldemort was. The bat thing was an insult, if I remember right.

I don't have the movie to reference, but I thought all the flying during the DoM scene (like smoke, right? jets of smoke shooting from one place to another) was how the movies showed short range Apparition, mostly because it's cool looking that way. That was my guess, in any event.

As for in DH, I don't think it's necessarily the same thing at all. I always envisioned that Voldemort just learned to fly rather like levitation or Superman, without any sort of transformation. "Smoke on the wind" could just be a description for how fast and agile he was in the air or maybe he did get a little smoky and/or ethereal, but nothing like in the movie. And didn't Snape turn into a bat-like-thing? That's more human transfiguration than anything.


This is all IMO, of course, and based off of memories, so feel free to correct me.

Thanks. I didn't mean that Voldemort was flying on smoke or anything in DH, I just thought the description "like smoke on the wind" actually fit the OOTP flying in a literal way.

Apparition is reminds me of worm holes, and the descriptions we always get seem to fit what the gravity would "feel" like in a black hole or something (you'd never feel it of course) - that whole being "squeezed" into nothingness. So if the director meant it as apparition, it seems weirder than if he had them simply flying (because that at least has some basis in the books, albeit later on).

Also, I don't think there's ever been a battle in all of HP where people were apparating/disapparating all over the place. (Really, I don't think there is even one where it is used as a method of fighting).

I was anxious for the climax of OOTP in the book and the film proves to be the same way. What a maginificant climax with the Auras and Death Eaters fighting each other. Then comes DD and Voldy in one of the best filmed action sequences of the series. I find OOTP to keep you waiting until it finally pays off in the third act. I loved Gary Oldman but I felt he had too little to do as Sirus.

I was anxious for the climax of OOTP in the book and the film proves to be the same way. What a maginificant climax with the Auras and Death Eaters fighting each other. Then comes DD and Voldy in one of the best filmed action sequences of the series. I find OOTP to keep you waiting until it finally pays off in the third act. I loved Gary Oldman but I felt he had too little to do as Sirus.

I watched OOTP again just last weekend, and I have to agree. The fight between the Order and the Death Eaters is great, I just wish it went on a little longer. It always makes me a little sad when Sirius calls Harry "James" right before he dies.

As for the fight between DD and Voldemort, when I saw the movie in the theater, I thought it was great. However, after seeing it a few more times, I thought that DD seemed weak and somewhat frightened during the battle. I just didn't think DD came off as "The only one He ever feared".

As for the fight between DD and Voldemort, when I saw the movie in the theater, I thought it was great. However, after seeing it a few more times, I thought that DD seemed weak and somewhat frightened during the battle. I just didn't think DD came off as "The only one He ever feared".How so? If anything, it's Voldemort who comes off weak and frightened, the only scene where Dumbledore shows any fear in his expression is when Voldemort possesses Harry, and for good reason... but as for during the battle, he rips Voldemort a new one.

How so? If anything, it's Voldemort who comes off weak and frightened, the only scene where Dumbledore shows any fear in his expression is when Voldemort possesses Harry, and for good reason... but as for during the battle, he rips Voldemort a new one.

I agree, the first time I watched this scene I thought it was one of the best in the whole movie. The rest of the times after that I kept thinking it was getting better and better...but that could be because I love OoTP and Im blinded to the not-so-good parts of it lol. I thought Dumbledore showed a great deal of power, he kept his cool most of the time. I think Voldemort shows his weakness in the intricacy of the spells he uses...kind of like being so scared that his fighting gets excited and...whats the word Im looking for...desperate! thats the word. Of course thats just the way I see it, not to discredit the power of Voldemort, he is after all a very powerful dark wizard. I do think, though, that Dumbledore could have put in a bit more of a fight in the movie. Still, thats one of my favorite scenes!

How so? If anything, it's Voldemort who comes off weak and frightened, the only scene where Dumbledore shows any fear in his expression is when Voldemort possesses Harry, and for good reason... but as for during the battle, he rips Voldemort a new one.

I think it mainly has to do with the body language of DD. I would agree that spell wise, DD was far superior to Voldemort, but I just thought DD should be standing tall and strong, and I didn't see that in the film. He seemed weak physically, not magically. But, that's just my perception.

I watched OotP yet again and I think I have finally come across something that I liked in the movie (besides the casting of Imalda Staunton).

In the scene where McGonagall and Umbridge are having their confrontation in the Great Hall with all the students watching. As they are fighting, standing on the staircase, Umbridge becomes conscious of her diminutive height and to give herself an advantage takes a step upwards. Then she can look McGongagall in the eye. However McGongall too takes a step forward, and towers above her once again.
Up until that point, it is two teachers that are arguing. After that it becomes a Ministry Vs. Hogwarts confrontation.

Umbridge then takes another step up and announces, "Things at Hogwarts are far worse than I feared. Cornelius will be taking immediate action." (This is just before the decree making her High Inquisitor is passed.)
As she says this McGongall takes a step backwards and is at the same level as the surrounding students.

I thought it was really cool how they symbolised her being assimilated with the students and how she is such an integral part of Hogwarts, how she seems to be bodily shielding the students in that scene.

I watched OotP yet again and I think I have finally come across something that I liked in the movie (besides the casting of Imalda Staunton).

In the scene where McGonagall and Umbridge are having their confrontation in the Great Hall with all the students watching. As they are fighting, standing on the staircase, Umbridge becomes conscious of her diminutive height and to give herself an advantage takes a step upwards. Then she can look McGongagall in the eye. However McGongall too takes a step forward, and towers above her once again.
Up until that point, it is two teachers that are arguing. After that it becomes a Ministry Vs. Hogwarts confrontation.

Umbridge then takes another step up and announces, "Things at Hogwarts are far worse than I feared. Cornelius will be taking immediate action." (This is just before the decree making her High Inquisitor is passed.)
As she says this McGongall takes a step backwards and is at the same level as the surrounding students.

I thought it was really cool how they symbolised her being assimilated with the students and how she is such an integral part of Hogwarts, how she seems to be bodily shielding the students in that scene.

That's a really keen insight, Kanksha! :tu: :)

It does shows how Umbridge only cares about power as she continues to ascend up the stairs, while McGonagall chooses to stay on the level of her students.

One is about faceless ambition and power-rising, the other is about teaching and defending the future of your own kind.

I think it mainly has to do with the body language of DD. I would agree that spell wise, DD was far superior to Voldemort, but I just thought DD should be standing tall and strong, and I didn't see that in the film. He seemed weak physically, not magically. But, that's just my perception.I've seen it a million times, and it appears to me if anyone looked weak and not standing as confident as he was, it was Voldemort. Dumbledore's expressions seemed to read "you know you can't defeat me Voldemort, and you disappoint me that you still fail to realize your weakness", that's what I got out of his body language.

I watched OotP yet again and I think I have finally come across something that I liked in the movie (besides the casting of Imalda Staunton).

In the scene where McGonagall and Umbridge are having their confrontation in the Great Hall with all the students watching. As they are fighting, standing on the staircase, Umbridge becomes conscious of her diminutive height and to give herself an advantage takes a step upwards. Then she can look McGongagall in the eye. However McGongall too takes a step forward, and towers above her once again.
Up until that point, it is two teachers that are arguing. After that it becomes a Ministry Vs. Hogwarts confrontation.

Umbridge then takes another step up and announces, "Things at Hogwarts are far worse than I feared. Cornelius will be taking immediate action." (This is just before the decree making her High Inquisitor is passed.)
As she says this McGongall takes a step backwards and is at the same level as the surrounding students.

I thought it was really cool how they symbolised her being assimilated with the students and how she is such an integral part of Hogwarts, how she seems to be bodily shielding the students in that scene.

Very nice perception, :agree:. I had not thought of seeing it this way. It makes the scene all the more better. :cool:

I didn't like this film much when I first seen it in theaters, but subsequent viewings on DVD has altered my opinion. I even used it in a university class project to analyze how education is portrayed in the movie and what philosophy it resembles, blah blah blah. Oddly enough it seemed to help my liking of the film more to look at it more critically. (But this proves that I'm growing up! :p )

I always sort of wondered why after being hit with the Killing Curse, it takes seconds for Sirius to pass instead of an immediate effect.

I always sort of wondered why after being hit with the Killing Curse, it takes seconds for Sirius to pass instead of an immediate effect.
Because the Curse has read the script and added a dramatic delay. ;)

Because the Curse has read the script and added a dramatic delay. ;)

:lol: very good Martok:tu: ...i didn't like that Bella used The Killing Curse to knock Sirius through the veil! :grumble:

Because the Curse has read the script and added a dramatic delay. ;)

Heh, yeah... it added a bit more of an impact, but it's incosistent with how the Curse usually works.

Well, I like OoTP. Its the first HP film that I've watched without cringing, rolling my eyes, or frowning in befuddlement every ten minutes. I did cringe a little bit at some cheesy lines and Emma Watson's acting, but otherwise I found it more accessible than the other films.

The other movies are enjoyable, but they have always seemed... unbalanced. Something off with either the script, acting, CGI, or editing. I think this movie has a sound balance of everything; it could be better, but it works. Of course, if you've just read the book you'll be analysing every scene and character for inconsistencies, but I haven't read OoTP in ages and I honestly didn't feel it flew too fast/skipped a lot.

I'm going to rewatch PoA now. Its my least favourite HP film, but everyone here seems to think its the best, and I'm going to try to understand why...

Welcome, Stephania! :wave:

I really like OotP as well. :cool:

I'm going to rewatch PoA now. Its my least favourite HP film, but everyone here seems to think its the best, and I'm going to try to understand why...

PoA is my other favourite besides OotP, so I hope you enjoy your second viewing and get something out of it. :agree:

Continued from the 'Who would YOU want to direct HP' thread:

The battle has grown on me. :tu: It's very chaotic and difficult to follow, but that, I think, was the point. For the first time in the series, we are seeing wizards doing battle. Akin to a Ninja duel, it should be so quick and fast that our mere muggle eyes can barely keep up. :lol:

I loved it. :)

The one area in the battle that Yates went slightly Hollywood in, is in the apparition clouds. White for the Order, black for the Death Eaters. In a film that exudes philosophy about the world not being split into good people and death eaters, the obvious smoke effects differentiating the good guys and bad guys might seem a little jarring and contradictory.

But the books do make a crystal clear divide between the righteous aims of the Order and the dark, murderous bigotry of Voldemort and his brigade. It's the difference between fighting for a resistance movement and being on the dictator's' payroll.
There is a very clear morality in the books (which of course makes the fundie attacks on them so silly). All the same, you are right: the 'greyness' of the Potterverse comes from the all-too-fallible magical humans who fight either for the Order or for Voldemort -- or neither.

Hmm, we seem to be straying into a discussion of OotP. :)

I guess you could say, the death eaters are more sneaky by nature and choose to use a darker effect to cloak themselves for surprise attacks?

OR perhaps in the filmverse, your apparition trails reflects the state of your soul? (Ok that sounds cheesy :lol:). But it is a way to explain it. The members of the Order of the Phoenix who do not believe in killing would have pure entact souls, while death eaters who indulge in the dark arts have split souls and thus their apparaition effect would be darker? I suppose if your body is teleporting, your soul would have to teleport too, right? :lol: Thus why there's soul trails... :rotfl:

Ok, yeah...I'm done trying to justify that. :whistle:

Anyway, I wanted to bring up a few other pet peeves of mine about the ending of OOTP:

Why did they have Moody use his stick so much?! Couldn't they have had him using his wand? My only rational is that they thought it'd be too redundant or something if every wizard in the battle used a wand and they wanted to make Moody unique, as he's the old legendary Auror? I don't know, I just find his staff of requirement a bit cheesy. ;)

So they could apparate/disapparate within the death chamber but not out of it? But yet the Order just apparated in...hmmmm...Bella obviously cannot just disapparate out as she runs out of the door. Unless she was planning for Harry to follow her?

It's also odd how Lupin doesn't follow Harry...is it because he had to stay and help wrap up the other death eaters? It seems like the battle has finished or moved on to another room at that point..

Later, Bella has to run to the fourth or fifth fireplace in the atrium to floo powder out of there. :lol: if she had just used the first one she would have escaped before Harry crucioed her...unless she wanted Harry to catch up to her...

It baffles the mind!

Sorry, just nitpicking here. :lol:

I just finished watching OOTP again this morning.

I guess you could say, the death eaters are more sneaky by nature and choose to use a darker effect to cloak themselves for surprise attacks?

OR perhaps in the filmverse, your apparition trails reflects the state of your soul? (Ok that sounds cheesy :lol:). But it is a way to explain it. The members of the Order of the Phoenix who do not believe in killing would have pure entact souls, while death eaters who indulge in the dark arts have split souls and thus their apparaition effect would be darker? I suppose if your body is teleporting, your soul would have to teleport too, right? :lol: Thus why there's soul trails... :rotfl:

Cinematically speaking, it's like old western film symbolism. Black hat = bad guy, white hat = sheriff/good guy. It's nice to imagine that to add to the fear and reputation of being a Deatheater that adding the apparition trail would increase the visibility of you appearing since being just in deatheater garb doesn't seem to translate well enough in the visual medium. I found it personally interesting in that aspect but also a relatively poor choice to flash things up by Yates.

In regards to the stark contrast of morality in a film about grey areas, we could also imagine that they wanted to show the idea that war has two sides, not necessarily good or bad, but opposing forces. Therefore as a idea of escalation, if the Deatheaters had the black apparition trails first, the OoTP would follow suit with opposing colours as a reaction to said escalation in the war.

I just caught most of OOTP on tv before and I thought of something I hadn't before!

I have a theory.

Perhaps during the battle, after Bella kills Sirius, she is immediately dis-armed by Lupin off-screen, hence her "oh damn" expression that I've always mistaken for her feeling bad about killing Sirius! We are seeing it from Harry's POV and it's so frantic and everything is in slow-motion. It makes sense, since Lupin runs up to Harry immediately after and I can't see a wand on Bella anytime after the death scene, and she's without wand when Harry is 'torturing' her and when she escapes.

This would clear up ALOT:

Why she doesn't try killing Harry after hitting Sirius.

Why she looks shocked after killing Sirius.

Why she decides to flee.

Why Lupin doesn't follow Harry. He's got a wand, she doesn't and there's other armed death eaters to take care of.

Why she doesn't apparate away, but physically runs to the atrium. (you need a wand to apparate.)

Why she doesn't duel with Harry and why she doesn't attempt to defend herself.

Do you like it? :D

I have a feeling this was the original intent of the scene before Mark Day was forced to butcher it down to make it shorter. :whistle: The battle is great but it definitely needed to be a MINUTE longer.

I just caught most of OOTP on tv before and I thought of something I hadn't before!

I have a theory.

Perhaps during the battle, after Bella kills Sirius, she is immediately dis-armed by Lupin off-screen, hence her "oh damn" expression that I've always mistaken for her feeling bad about killing Sirius! We are seeing it from Harry's POV and it's so frantic and everything is in slow-motion. It makes sense, since Lupin runs up to Harry immediately after and I can't see a wand on Bella anytime after the death scene, and she's without wand when Harry is 'torturing' her and when she escapes.

This would clear up ALOT:

Why she doesn't try killing Harry after hitting Sirius.

Why she looks shocked after killing Sirius.

Why she decides to flee.

Why Lupin doesn't follow Harry. He's got a wand, she doesn't and there's other armed death eaters to take care of.

Why she doesn't apparate away, but physically runs to the atrium. (you need a wand to apparate.)

Why she doesn't duel with Harry and why she doesn't attempt to defend herself.

Do you like it? :D

I have a feeling this was the original intent of the scene before Mark Day was forced to butcher it down to make it shorter. :whistle: The battle is great but it definitely needed to be a MINUTE longer.

Now THAT, is a great theory :D

I just caught most of OOTP on tv before and I thought of something I hadn't before!

I have a theory.

Perhaps during the battle, after Bella kills Sirius, she is immediately dis-armed by Lupin off-screen, hence her "oh damn" expression that I've always mistaken for her feeling bad about killing Sirius! We are seeing it from Harry's POV and it's so frantic and everything is in slow-motion. It makes sense, since Lupin runs up to Harry immediately after and I can't see a wand on Bella anytime after the death scene, and she's without wand when Harry is 'torturing' her and when she escapes.

This would clear up ALOT:

Why she doesn't try killing Harry after hitting Sirius.

Why she looks shocked after killing Sirius.

Why she decides to flee.

Why Lupin doesn't follow Harry. He's got a wand, she doesn't and there's other armed death eaters to take care of.

Why she doesn't apparate away, but physically runs to the atrium. (you need a wand to apparate.)

Why she doesn't duel with Harry and why she doesn't attempt to defend herself.

Do you like it? :D

I have a feeling this was the original intent of the scene before Mark Day was forced to butcher it down to make it shorter. :whistle: The battle is great but it definitely needed to be a MINUTE longer.

See, I never really paid it any mind, but I suppose that's as good an explanation as any. My Harry Potter geek side says something like "yeah, what's with that look anyway," my movie geek side says "ah, who cares, just go with it." :lol:

See, I never really paid it any mind, but I suppose that's as good an explanation as any. My Harry Potter geek side says something like "yeah, what's with that look anyway," my movie geek side says "ah, who cares, just go with it." :lol:

:rotfl:

It makes so much sense though!!

I thought it was pretty clear that Bella was mocking Harry with that sad face. She's mimicking his grief and is amused by it, as she smiles afterwards. That's how I interpreted it.

I also think the "I killed Sirius Black" with laughter was a giveaway, lol.

Like the two posters above me, I interpreted Bella's tumble on the atrium floor as mocking Harry. She was also luring hm away from the Order so Voldemort could come and finish him off.

Like the two posters above me, I interpreted Bella's tumble on the atrium floor as mocking Harry. She was also luring hm away from the Order so Voldemort could come and finish him off.

Hey yeah, I never thought of that lol. I just thought she ran because Harry was ******* off LOL!! But no, what you said makes more sense to me lol

Like the two posters above me, I interpreted Bella's tumble on the atrium floor as mocking Harry. She was also luring hm away from the Order so Voldemort could come and finish him off.
Yeah, but no running from Dumbledore. Bella has always underestimated her opponents

I thought it was pretty clear that Bella was mocking Harry with that sad face. She's mimicking his grief and is amused by it, as she smiles afterwards. That's how I interpreted it.

I agree, I always thought of it as a mocking face, after all the taunting she was doing in the hall of prophecies especially.

She may have been mocking him a few shots afterwards, but the shot of her immediately after she hits Sirius looks like one of genuine shock to me...Harry wasn't even looking at her for that long...I don't see it as mocking until later on, before she runs away.

I thought of the Bella leading Harry into a trap thing too but...how would she know Voldemort would appear at the Ministry?

She may have been mocking him a few shots afterwards, but the shot of her immediately after she hits Sirius looks like one of genuine shock to me...Harry wasn't even looking at her for that long...I don't see it as mocking until later on, before she runs away.

Shock at besting Sirius. She probably didn't expect to hit him so easily.

Maybe. :lol: Just as many fans were shocked that she got him so quickly. :p

I think this debate just reveals the mistake of cutting the Sirius/Bella duel. The scene wouldn't be so confusing and it'd be more powerful, IMO.

The positive of the way it is now is how very chaotic and sudden and out of the blue it happens which is what I recall was Rowling's intention with Sirius's death, that in war, you could be talking to your friend one second and he's dead the next.

So that's a plus...still the editing could have been better. Editing is my main gripe with OOTP.

I just read this in the IMDB trivia section of OOTP and found it very very interesting:

SPOILER: Harry's scream at the Department of Mysteries was cut out because it was too agonizing.


I always thought it was an artistic choice, but apparently they wanted to tone down the intensity of the film, according to IMDB anyway.

What are your thoughts and feelings on this?

I just read this in the IMDB trivia section of OOTP and found it very very interesting:

SPOILER: Harry's scream at the Department of Mysteries was cut out because it was too agonizing.


I always thought it was an artistic choice, but apparently they wanted to tone down the intensity of the film, according to IMDB anyway.

What are your thoughts and feelings on this?

I, for one, always wondered why they went silent with the scream; I would have preferred that they had just had him screaming his head off at the top of his lungs. That would've been a lot more uncomfortable to watch.

I like how they silenced his scream ... not sure why but it makes it more emotional, for me.

I just read this in the IMDB trivia section of OOTP and found it very very interesting:

SPOILER: Harry's scream at the Department of Mysteries was cut out because it was too agonizing.


I always thought it was an artistic choice, but apparently they wanted to tone down the intensity of the film, according to IMDB anyway.

What are your thoughts and feelings on this?
Definately agree on that. You can tell not only from that^, but how they made sure they had some of the more humorous parts in there, like McGonagall's face off with Umbridge, as sort of a comic relief. It makes sense that they would want that, this has been the darkest movie so far, and they're only going to get darker with the events in the next two.

:cool:I think that scene where Sirius dies was well done , actually that was one of my favorite scenes because it was very true to the book, unlike so much of the other scenes:p

Although Umbridge's "sweet" tone really made me shiver, I do agree that they could've picked a better Umbridge. Imelda is a very good actress, but she does not match the description of her in the book. I can't see the whole frog appearance thing. But the only thing I can imagine about Imelda playing Umbridge is the whole locket scene in DH. I think she'll do a pretty good job on that, what with her "sweet" tone and everything.

I just read this in the IMDB trivia section of OOTP and found it very very interesting:

SPOILER: Harry's scream at the Department of Mysteries was cut out because it was too agonizing.


I always thought it was an artistic choice, but apparently they wanted to tone down the intensity of the film, according to IMDB anyway.

What are your thoughts and feelings on this?

Yeah, the IMDb is right there, I've heard the same from a number of other sources. It actually makes me curious (maybe morbidly) to hear the version with the sound.

I just read this in the IMDB trivia section of OOTP and found it very very interesting:

SPOILER: Harry's scream at the Department of Mysteries was cut out because it was too agonizing.


I always thought it was an artistic choice, but apparently they wanted to tone down the intensity of the film, according to IMDB anyway.

What are your thoughts and feelings on this?


Wow that's interesting, I too always thought it was just how they wanted it for the artistic value. I'd like to hear what it sounded like in a deleted scene or something. Especially when you hear that it is "agonizing".

"Antagonising" would have been a good way to improve some of the emotional content of the film.

The one with Umbridge intimidating Trelawney during her class. Listen to the music. Isn't that the one from HBP entitled "The Book"? If you don't believe me, go check it out! I think it was supposed to be Trelawney's theme.

Who knows how long other tracks have remained unknown until some of the movies were actually out?

Yates nailed the tone of the book. It was structured very well, the script was really well done, and the acting was phenomenal. There were some very beautiful character moments in this movie (Luna and Harry in the forest), the trio talking about Harry's first kiss (freaking hilarious). :lol:

I do think he should have excluded Grawp entirely and had a longer battle (I wish they had shown the Time Room). What I'm still confused about is why they had Lucius, not Bellatrix, battle Sirius...very strange. I was so disappointed that Harry did not go crazy with grief in Dumbledore's office. Other than that, the battle was done very well.

Great, great movie.

Third best Harry Potter movie behind Half-Blood Prince and Prisoner of Azkaban.

Watched it again on Sky the other day and thought it pretty good. The weak spots of the film replicate the weak spots of the novel - the Grawp sub-plot mainly.

It's interesting to hear that there actually has been sound, after sirius dies. I thought it was a good effect, that it suddenly was quiet.This sudden silence underlines how shocking and sudden Sirius death is. It also gives you time to realise what just happened.

I was so disappointed that Harry did not go crazy with grief in Dumbledore's office.

I missed that part too. It was very intense to me in the book. I didn't cry when Sirius died, but later when Harry is alone and let's out all his anger and hatred (or at least tries to) I really was feeling with him.

I think the Movie-Umbridge is perfect (just like her office).
The way she is talking, and looking. Especially when she is torturing Harry and then says something like "Deep inside you, you know that you deserve it."
But I like her German voice better than the original. The German one is a little bit higher and sweeter. But that's just my opinion. :]

Overall, I have been against the OotP movie for reasons I stated in another thread. As this seems more like a thread for those who liked the movie, I'll keep my comments on the positive side.

One of the major props I will give to Yates is regarding the acting, though I'm not sure if the massive improvement in acting skill can be attributed entirely to him (I'm sure there were other factors). Dan Radcliff's acting skills improved significantly from GoF to OotP, same with Rupert Grint's. Emma Watson was still a bit stiff throughout the movie, but she showed some improvement as well.

It was an amazing feeling to go see this movie and remember back to when Dan, Rupert and Emma had all been first chosen to fill the roles. Just to see how far they've come is exciting. I still remember seeing 10-year-old Emma's picture on the front of the TV-Guide (or was it Reader's Digest? I'm not sure). I think OotP managed to bring something else out of them as actors, that extra push of talent that had been hiding beneath the surface.

- Inigo

I liked OoTP, although PoA is still my favorite. I loved the relationship Harry developed though short with Sirius. I also enjoyed the humor in this one. Umbrige with her rules. the torture the kids had to endure after being found out about the DA. She is soo evil in those shots. The music did for me in so many of the parts too. Voldemort and Dumbledore's stand-off was fantastic.