PoA Film Discussion v3

I was really dissapointed that there weren't more 'deleted' scenes...I was hoping that would fill in some of the gaps that were missing in the film. Oh well. *shrugs*

BTW, the guy conducting the cast/filmaker interviews - was it Johnny Vaughn? Is he a well known british figure or is he just some random guy they got to do the interviews? Just wondering if anyone knew...

Maybe it is her favourite movie so far, but there are still bound to be parts that she doesn't agree with. I retract my original comment about her not being totally happy about it ;).

Even if that were true, the fact that she said that it is her favorite means that if she does have things there that she doesn't agree with, at the very least you can say that among the films done so far, POA has the one with the LEAST amount of stuff she didn't agree with. Don't you think?

yeah johnny vaughn is quite well known in britain, he used to host the big breakfast, and was also a film critic

Even if that were true, the fact that she said that it is her favorite means that if she does have things there that she doesn't agree with, at the very least you can say that among the films done so far, POA has the one with the LEAST amount of stuff she didn't agree with. Don't you think?

I'd have to check up on that, but you are probably right :D. It just seemed strange to me that she liked POA the best when its narrative structure makes less sense than the other films — too much was left unexplained for my liking. The technical aspect of the film was good, but the plot wasn't explained well enough, in my opinion.

I think the description of the lion on JK's website is Ron in animagus form. This could be further backed up since it was also said that there were scenes in CoS which foreshadowed future events, and Hermione turning into the cat accidentally by using the polyjuice potion is preparing us for another of the trio to take on feline form later on.

Didn't JK say somewhere that none of the trio were going to become animagi? I'm sure that was brought up in another thread that I posted in...

Didn't JK say somewhere that none of the trio were going to become animagi? I'm sure that was brought up in another thread that I posted in...

I found that about Harry not becoming an animagus. I was said during an interview (http://www.hogwarts-library.net/reference/interviews/19991020_NPCLuncheon.html):

We're going to take a few more questions and um, the next one is: "Will Harry ever turn into a *shape-changer* like his father?"

J.K. Rowling:
No, Harry's not in training to be an animagus. If you ... unless you've read book 3, you won't know ... that's a wizard that ... it's very, very difficult to do. They, they ... learn to turn themselves into animals. No, Harry is not ... Harry's energies are going to be concentrated elsewhere and he's not going to have time to do that. He's got quite a full agenda coming up, poor, poor boy.

I didn't find any mention of other characters though. Maybe it was in another interview.

I didn't find any mention of other characters though. Maybe it was in another interview.

It would be good to see Ron and Hermione become animagi :eyebrows: , but it is a shame that Harry won't :(. JK said that 'he's not in training', and that applies to the present, but does that mean that there is a chance of him becoming one later? :huh:

I don't think it's Ron myself mainly because of the grey hairs, could be Lupin redescribed or as an animagi :shrug:
I think it's and adult anyway, maybe the new dada teacher

However after seeing the interview with Curon and JK I noticed Curon's statement that he had to use what was already in place but also wanted to twist it and make it his own and if you don't like it oh well. Well...........that P****D me off! It was not his movie, if he wasn't making it for the viewers then why do it?
:huh: ***! *cough* Sorry.
In essence this was Cauron's movie. He was chosen to direct it, therefore he is in CHARGE. Despite the fact that these movies are based on JKR's books, they do not belong to her. She moniters things, makes sure everything is in the spirit of her world (no little poeple anyone), and checks that everything of essential value is included, BUT she does not sit down and write the screenplay. That is Kloves' job.

Also, why the heck wouldn't Cauron want to leave his mark on this film?! He uses JKR's brilliant source material, but he takes some (very good) liberties to make it more cinematic, more enjoyable, and better than the movies before. He is charged with coming into something that is already established, keeping to the guidelines of what has already been done, and at the same time making it unique. If you noticed, he said that in the beginning they chose a theme, and anything that did not fit with that theme or wasn't horribly important to the plot got axed. That is what happens when adapting a book to film. You have to pick some theme and stick with it, otherwise you're movie will be a jumbled mess of everything.

Another thing, when you say "making it for the viewers" I hope you didn't mean making it exclusively for the fans. That dead horse has already been beaten enough.

I just think that in the third movie.. they spent way too much time on the scenery of the film. It seems they dedicated most of their time and budget to make it a "pretty" film to watch. The Harry Potter series is Epic, and the movies deserve that kind of setting.. but it seems they skipped over so much just to make it look nice.. they ended up losing so many important points of the plot.
Well, I half-way agree with this. I think they did spend a lot more time on the imagery in the film, but I thought it was a good thing. I know many poeple got put-off that a thirty second clip of bird flying, an umbrella flying, and bats flying could make it in the movie while other things could not, but I thought these were all nice little transition images. I really liked how the film looked. The darker, more sinister colors and images were wonderful for this movie, in my opinion, and although I missed some things from the book, I don't think it was because too much time was spent making the film look pretty. Also, and this is just my personal opinion, I don't really consider Harry Potter an epic, really. Why? I'm not sure, it is certainly on a large scope, but when I think of epic I think of huge on the same scale as Lord of the Rings or A Song of Ice and Fire.

But there are random kids you've never seen, having pretty major parts

I noticed that too, and the character that especially caught my eye was the boy that was with Malfoy in the Hogsmeade scene (Where Harry has his fun) and again with Malfoy in the scene where Hermione had her fun. Was he meant to be a replacement for Goyle/Crabbe? (I can't remember which actor plays which). I'm sure I saw the other half of the Crabbe-Goyle partnership earlier in the film... :shrug:

Well, I half-way agree with this. I think they did spend a lot more time on the imagery in the film, but I thought it was a good thing. I know many poeple got put-off that a thirty second clip of bird flying, an umbrella flying, and bats flying could make it in the movie while other things could not, but I thought these were all nice little transition images. I really liked how the film looked. The darker, more sinister colors and images were wonderful for this movie, in my opinion, and although I missed some things from the book, I don't think it was because too much time was spent making the film look pretty. Also, and this is just my personal opinion, I don't really consider Harry Potter an epic, really. Why? I'm not sure, it is certainly on a large scope, but when I think of epic I think of huge on the same scale as Lord of the Rings or A Song of Ice and Fire.

The series is epic in terms of its imagination and scope, as you say Raethul, and I agree with your view that the darker colours (UK spelling ;)) and images were very effective, but I was disappointed that the film didn't have more body to it - In my opinion it lacked the overall structure of the previous HP films.

Yeah, I think Cuaron asked JK if he could put a graveyard in the movie and she said no because it was in a later book or something......don't quote me on that because what I said didn't really make any sense :shrug: I just remember reading about a graveyard somewhere in the forumsNo, this one is true. Cuaron wanted the graveyard, but obviously there is one in GoF, so she said no. Everything was passed though JKR. At this point in the series, I would expect that she wields a lot of clout and veto power. Maybe not in the first one, but definately by now. I think if she was really concerned about something, or didn't agree with it, she would win. However, from the sounds of her interviews, she will compromise, as long as there is a good reason for it.

No, this one is true. Cuaron wanted the graveyard, but obviously there is one in GoF, so she said no. Everything was passed though JKR. At this point in the series, I would expect that she wields a lot of clout and veto power. Maybe not in the first one, but definately by now. I think if she was really concerned about something, or didn't agree with it, she would win. However, from the sounds of her interviews, she will compromise, as long as there is a good reason for it.
I think Cuaron wanted to put a graveyard on the Hogwarts grounds

I think POA is a good movie. It had a lot of cool stuff and the music is always what I hope it would be really. I really wasnt expecting anything more of it either. Sirius Black is a great character.

All I have to say about the DVD is, I absolutely HATE HATE HATE HATE HATED the shrunken head in the cast interviews! I just wanted to put on some boots and kick it out of the interviews! Dah!

yeah, I agree! it was sooo annoying... and so unnecessary too...
I mean, really! do they think everyone who will watch harry potter is gonna be under the age of 8 and think the shrunken head funny...apparently they do.. (I mean, honestly!it's even pg12 over here..) and the guy who did the interviews... I don't blame him for not knowing anything about harry potter really, but they could have chosen someone who can at least pronounce the words right...argh...

but the interviews were good anyways. I was so disappointed that they didn't have any on the first one, and the ones on the second one kinda sucked too, because they put it together weirdly...

and what I was hoping for on each dvd so far and what has not been fulfilled is something behind the scenes... I mean, they have that on every freaking dvd. and I really would want it on this one!!!

oh, and someone else said that bit with the graveyard - yeah, I noticed that as well... I was thinking 'just saved yourself there, alfonso, she would have cut your head of if you would have told evrybody something they weren't supposed to know...' but then again, she only tells them what needs to be told...
oh, but I bet the graveyard is gonna be VERY inportant. it sort of connects with the whole ghost, afterlife and death thing.. oh, and the god-thing. but this is for another thread to be discussed in.. :angel:

I like the dvd tho. the features are A LOT better than on the first two ones...
but I'd rather have many more interviews than all them games I'm never going to lay...

After going on a marathon PoA movie viewing, I have noticed several things that have been addressed in these threads. This is a long one!!

Things I didn't Like:

1) Ron's character. I noticed a lot of comments from people who said that Ron was not depicted well in the movies. I definately agree with this. The character of Ron in the books is a more sarcastic, funny but brave person. PoA depicted Ron as a scaredy-cat who was constantly whining and crying in fear. Out of any cheese in the movie, this was definately it. Ron is a Gryffindor. He is supposed to have the quality of bravery, and in the movie, Ron was screeching and crying all the time. It's too bad, because I like the character and actor. That part was unfortunate, but I guess they decided to place less focus on Ron.

2) Hermione screaming. When she was on the Hippogriff and riding the branch of the Whomping Willow, she did not seem like the confident Hermione we all know and love. I would have expected her to be less scream-like, but that's just my opinion. Other than that, I thought they did Hermione well. My only other beef is that punch scene. Too much focus was on her doing this, especially in the previews.

3) Ron focus on the rat. The shippers may not like this, but when the trio hug "threesomely", the rat then bites Ron and scampers off. Ron goes running after him, then Hermione yells Ron's name. I kinda thought it was funny because they way she yells at him is like her saying "I'm HUGGING you, and your worried about a stupid rat!" He seems too preoccupied by a rodent to me. Just odd. Someone mentioned Mrs. Weasley running after Ron in the train. It did seem odd, but I think it was supposed to be embarrasing for Ron, to have his mother chase after him like that in public.

4) Malfoy and company being wimpy. I know that Malfoy is a mama's boy, and in some parts, he came off annoyingly mean, but whenver he was attacked, he turned into this complete wimp, along the lines of Ron. Can't see this guy becoming a Death Eater, can you? Does anyone notice less Goyle also. Lots of Crabbe, but the other sidekick was new.

5) Harry almost laughing when he asked Fudge about why he didn't get punished. Would you really say anything? I'd shut right up and stay quiet. However, I think Radcliffe was trying not to laugh in the scene with Tom offering him food, etc. It seems to me Radcliffe couldn't keep a straight face and was trying not to burst our laughing. :lol:

6) Boggart scene - they should have had more kids face the Dementor. It would have showed the various fears, set up a safe and confy atmosphere, and then wham, Harry is stopped.


Things I Liked:

1) Aggressive Harry. I loved the scene with the Dursley's, Aunt Marge and Harry being angry with the whole lot of them. Just loved it, especially with Harry being the typical standofish, "screw you" angry teenager. I also though Pam Ferris - as Aunt Marge - did a great job. The interaction between the two was great. She was excellent. One thing I noticed was that the Dursley's themselves were portrayed as mellower. They allowed Marge to be the annoying, evil adult. The Dursley's were just there as filler.
Also, in the Shrieking Shack scene. Harry physically attacks Sirius, then magically attacks Snape to find out more information. That is something that you notice about Harry throughout the movies (and books). Whenever they are in situations of danger, Harry will immediately take the lead and essentially boss his friends around and get them moving. You see it in PS/SS, when Harry, Ron and Hermione are going through the obstacles to get to Quirrell. You see it in CoS when Ron and Harry are in the Forbidden Forest and the Chamber itself. You then see it in PoA, through the entire Shrieking Shack and Forest scene.

3) New Dumbledore. I know a lot of people don't like him, but I always pictured Dumbledore as more spry and mischievious as the "new" Dumbledore is. I did like Richard Harris's protrayal, but I think it fits in better with the "feel-good" atmosphere of the first two movies. In some cases, I actually think casting should have been reverse. In the first few books, Dumbledore is portrayed as youthful and quick. By the time OotP comes around, Harry notices how old Dumbledore is getting. Richard Harris would have been great as the Dumbledore who's older and more tired. Alas, Mr. Harris is not longer with us - RIP. :sad:
I got a kick out of the scene where Harry and Hermione run up to Dumbledore.
Harry: "We did it", Dumbledore "Did what? Goodnight....."

4) The birds who keep flying into the Whomping Willow. It showed the change of seasons, while also adding a bit of humour and visuals to the movie. Same with the camera pan of the single leaf falling on the ground, then the Whomping Willow shaking off the rest. Nicely done, good artistic vision. Same with the different areas of the castle never seen before. The images of time (with the many clock shots) was nice also.

5) The Fat Lady. Whoever the actress is did a nice job. I really got a kick out of the "Singing" scene and her freaking out over being attacked by Sirius Black.

6) The quick pace of the movie. It moved quick and fast, and it still seemed longer then usual.

7) The new location for Whomping Willow and Hagrid's Hut. It makes more sense. Hagrid grows many plants. He raised many weird animals, etc. To have him steps within Hogwarts with that stuff isn't right. He needs to space to raise these things. Same with the Forbidden Forrest. The Forest cannot be so close to the castle, since it is a threat anyway. It actually makes more sense that it should be located farther away from the kids, etc. The Whomping Willow I guess was out farther away from the castle also. Again, safety for the kids. You wouldn't want the tree to be too close, for fear of Whomping some kid!!! :p

6) Tom in the Leaky Caldron dragged Harry around and trying to offer him food. That was pretty funny. Madam Rosmerta also was good, especially when she is complaining about the Dementors in her pub.

7) David Thewlis as Lupin. He did great portraying this kindly teacher with a great personality. I really like his character.
Gary Oldman as Sirius Black. No one does crazy better!! He was well-cast for me.

Other Things

The Robes/Clothes. I mentioned this in another post. I actually like seeing them in regular clothes. Most kids are not going to be wearing their school clothes on the weekend. They want to be comfortable.

The lack of detail and information. Stepping outside the box of being knowledgable about the Harry Potterverse, I understand why they cut out a lot of detail. If they want to appeal and create a story for those watching who have never read the books, the cuts makes sense.

You are not supposed to be fed that much information like in the books. I think they looked at it like this. All you need to know is that the Maurauder's Map shows information about the school and where everyone is. In the Shack, all you are supposed to get from it is that Sirius was wrongly imprisoned for Pettigrew's murder. Pettigrew betrayed Harry's parents. Sirius and Remus are friends of James/Lily and find out. Sirius wants to kill Pettigrew for his betrayal. That's it. More detail and conversation would get too complicated and take too much time. For someone who doesn't know the whole story, that is all they need to get from it. False Accusations, False Imprisonment, Betrayal, etc. I thought about that last night when watching. Too much information and detail would confuse. They wrote it to give a general idea to those who don't read the books.

Also, the Shack scene was somewhere in the middle of the book and movie. You couldn't go longer with it because you still had much more to cover, in terms of the werewolf attack and time-turner scene. So it cannot be too long.
Overall I enjoyed it very much. That's just my opinion above that I wanted to share. Now I have to stop my marathon viewing because I am moving in two days, and the DVD gets packed away, which is why I am marathon-viewing in the first place. :sad:

1) Ron's character. I noticed a lot of comments from people who said that Ron was not depicted well in the movies. I definately agree with this. The character of Ron in the books is a more sarcastic, funny but brave person. PoA depicted Ron as a scaredy-cat who was constantly whining and crying in fear.Absolutely agree with you here. I love Ron, and I adore Rupert Grint, but the screenwriter, director, whomever you want to blame, have certainly transformed his character into the extremes. He was never that cowardly, usually only around things he was genuinely afraid of (ie. spiders). Hopefully this will change in the next films, and I have especially high hopes for the new screenwriter that they've hired to take over (is it for OotP? I can't recall). 4) Malfoy and company being wimpy. I know that Malfoy is a mama's boy, and in some parts, he came off annoyingly mean, but whenver he was attacked, he turned into this complete wimp, along the lines of Ron.Indeed, he was quite whimpy. Even in the first two films I found him considerably less-whimpy than in this one. Just as they did with Ron's character, they tried to make him into this stereotypical bully who's all talk, but is a crybaby at heart. It didn't work for me, and it certainly won't work for later films as I see Draco's character having a much darker path than trembling in the face of a Hermione punch. 1) Aggressive Harry. I quite liked him this way too, Dan played it quite well and it gives us a little taste of how aggressive/demanding he gets by the fifth book.

It's my favorite of the films, without a doubt, and thus the only one that I've been interested in owning. And honestly, aside from the things that I had issues with (mainly the characterizations of Ron and Draco), I thought it was a brilliant film and a pretty good adaptation for the book. :)

2) Hermione screaming. When she was on the Hippogriff and riding the branch of the Whomping Willow, she did not seem like the confident Hermione we all know and love. I would have expected her to be less scream-like, but that's just my opinion. Other than that, I thought they did Hermione well. My only other beef is that punch scene. Too much focus was on her doing this, especially in the previews.


In her defence I think it's safe to say that anyone'd be freaked out by riding a VERY angry tree.

The Fat Lady. Whoever the actress is did a nice job. I really got a kick out of the "Singing" scene and her freaking out over being attacked by Sirius Black.

She is Dawn French - actually a famous comedian rather than actress, which may explain why she was so perfect in that role.

I know what you mean about the robes, its okay for the kids, but I thought it odd that Mr and Mrs Weasley looked more conventional.

Somehow this, coupled with the more evil slant of the wizarding world generally (eg the carriages going to Hogwarts and the scary song) made for a very unnerving atmosphere. It was almost like the two worlds weren't so separate anymore. In the other films, its clear where muggleworld ends and wizardworld begins and we know our place as outsiders as an audience. Plus it all seems fun in the wizarding world.
The darker tone and the blurriness of the two worlds in PoA made the wizarding world seem...
A) More possible
B) More frightening

I hated the film when I saw it at the cinema, but it has grown on me now I've seen the dvd a few times. I like the atmospheric nature and the visualisation eg the time references, the changing seasons, Hogsmeade, the shrunken heads. I've even grown more used to the new Dumbledore.
I don't understand the way Malfoy is portrayed though - the way he snaps at hermione one minute and then cowers in front of her before running away - why doesn't he pull out his wand after she hits him?
I don't think Ron is done justice either - everything seems to be edging him away from Harry and towards Hermione.

I know it's really petty, but one of the things I hated most was the new Dumbledore's dirty fingernails! Call me anal retentive, but no, Dumbledore should not have dirty fingernails! But it was symptomatic of the general air of grubbiness that the new director instilled in the wizarding world, and for me it just didn't work.

Alright, a few things. I didn't even notice that Dumbledore was a new actor. eep.

Also, my friend who saw the movie in the theatre and then the dvd is very upset. she thinks that they cut several scenes when they put it on dvd. I, myself, didn't see the movie in the theatre so I don't know about this. can someone help, perhaps?

she says...

-after they [harry & hermione] get back [after going back into time], snape and the minister of magic come charging in and accuse harry and hermione of helping sirius escape, and dumbldore defends them and then they go away

-there's another quidditch match, where malfoy and his friends dress up like dementors to scare harry

-and hermione snitches on the firebolt [she also went on to say that Harry didn't get the firebolt at the end, but more towards the middle]

-they go to hogsmeade again, and malfoy sees harry.

-they try to appeal buckbeak's execution.

-they actually explain why hermione needed the timeturner.

does anyone else remember this? I personally think she's just crazy, but maybe not. :P

Okay, I'm on a POA movie marathon, being off for the Thanksgiving holiday and all and I just absolutely adore this film.

So apparently there are clues in this movie that will be addressed in book 6 and I've been watching the film with an eye to that and here's some wild speculation I've come up with (I know, call me crazy).

Hermione will either become a werewolf or work with them. She said the oddest thing in the DADA class when answering the werewolf question. Words to the effect of, "the werewolf only responds to the call of it's own kind." And then what does she do later in the movie? She howls like a werewolf to stop Lupin/wolf from attacking Harry. In POA the book, Hermione, because of the workload she's taken on is constantly being described as looking as tired as Prof. Lupin.

I cannot shake the whole Ron will betray Harry and Hermione feeling because of that scene where Hermione comforts Harry after he's overheard McGonagall, Rosmerta, and Fudge.

Another thing that stuck out, which I don't know if it means anything or not, but in the three out of four times after Harry passed out, Hermione was the one who woke him. 1) After the first dementor attack on the train. 2) After the Hufflepuff Quidditch game in the hospital. 3) In the hospital again, after the whole dementor attack at the lake.

Just some observations.

Alright, a few things. I didn't even notice that Dumbledore was a new actor. eep.

Also, my friend who saw the movie in the theatre and then the dvd is very upset. she thinks that they cut several scenes when they put it on dvd. I, myself, didn't see the movie in the theatre so I don't know about this. can someone help, perhaps?

she says...

-after they [harry & hermione] get back [after going back into time], snape and the minister of magic come charging in and accuse harry and hermione of helping sirius escape, and dumbldore defends them and then they go away

-there's another quidditch match, where malfoy and his friends dress up like dementors to scare harry

-and hermione snitches on the firebolt [she also went on to say that Harry didn't get the firebolt at the end, but more towards the middle]

-they go to hogsmeade again, and malfoy sees harry.

-they try to appeal buckbeak's execution.

-they actually explain why hermione needed the timeturner.

does anyone else remember this? I personally think she's just crazy, but maybe not. :P

That was from two up. That happened in the book but not the movie.

Ok, i'm not sure if anyone's mentioned this yet, but in the scene when it's night and harry's in the corridor with the Marauder's Map and looking for peter Pettigrew (Right after the "you tell those spiders Ron" :rotfl: ) Well if you look closely on the map it says that harry is outside a room called "The Room of Doom" I wasn't sure if it was just something cool that they added in, or if it was important.

I think your friend is right, although someone else needs to verify this - but now you say it, it really is familiar. I only saw it once at the cinema so now I'm worrying that I've read the other scenes and am imagining them, but I think they were there - especially these...
-after they [harry & hermione] get back [after going back into time], snape and the minister of magic come charging in and accuse harry and hermione of helping sirius escape, and dumbldore defends them and then they go away

-there's another quidditch match, where malfoy and his friends dress up like dementors to scare harry

-they go to hogsmeade again, and malfoy sees harry.
Ok, i'm not sure if anyone's mentioned this yet, but in the scene when it's night and harry's in the corridor with the Marauder's Map and looking for peter Pettigrew (Right after the "you tell those spiders Ron" ) Well if you look closely on the map it says that harry is outside a room called "The Room of Doom" I wasn't sure if it was just something cool that they added in, or if it was important.
Cool catch - I will have to check that out! I only noticed the lost wands room, but I'm sure there's loads more to see if you watch it closely enough! A friend also swears that she saw two sets of footprints meet facing each other in an empty room during the credits, but I couldn't see that.
I cannot shake the whole Ron will betray Harry and Hermione feeling because of that scene where Hermione comforts Harry after he's overheard McGonagall, Rosmerta, and Fudge.
oooo, I'd be interested in knowing why you think this! There's a thread called Foreshadowing a betrayal? in muggle studies...

What I find strange was that JKR stated there was a lot of foreshadowing in the PoA film, not just one scene. JKR also stated that it was foreshadowing for book 6 and 7 too and that it gave her goose bumps listening too it as she had not placed this information in the books. I know the corridor that Harry walks down in the dark when looking for Pettigrew was not in the book. I am just wondering why Snape was in the same place as Pettigrew on that night, did he no where to find Peter with out the map?

Alright, a few things. I didn't even notice that Dumbledore was a new actor. eep.

Also, my friend who saw the movie in the theatre and then the dvd is very upset. she thinks that they cut several scenes when they put it on dvd. I, myself, didn't see the movie in the theatre so I don't know about this. can someone help, perhaps?

she says...
-and hermione snitches on the firebolt [she also went on to say that Harry didn't get the firebolt at the end, but more towards the middle]

-they actually explain why hermione needed the timeturner.

does anyone else remember this? I personally think she's just crazy, but maybe not. :P


I definitely remember that they explained why Hermione neede the time-tuner.
Harry definitely got the firebolt in the end!

the time turner is explained in the theatre the same as the dvd, as well as the firebolt at the end. The book on the other hand has the firebolt being given to Harry at Christmas and Hermione turning it into Professor Mcgonagall. Because she does believe (Hermione) that it was sent with harming intent towards Harry.

I just remembered that at one point in the book Hermione is so tired that she falls asleep and misses her classes at one point and I think that is when the timeturner is explained. I can't be absolutely positive that it is explained at that moment.

Apparently Sky News just announced that PoA won the children's BAFTA award for best film this year beating Finding Nemo and Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.

That is not bad really, the winners are not up on there site yet but where announced last night.

Alright, a few things. I didn't even notice that Dumbledore was a new actor. eep.

Also, my friend who saw the movie in the theatre and then the dvd is very upset. she thinks that they cut several scenes when they put it on dvd. I, myself, didn't see the movie in the theatre so I don't know about this. can someone help, perhaps?

OK having seen the film several (make that 5) times at the cinema I think your friends imagining things... Most of these things happen in the book but not many happened in the film.


-after they [harry & hermione] get back [after going back into time], snape and the minister of magic come charging in and accuse harry and hermione of helping sirius escape, and dumbldore defends them and then they go away

-there's another quidditch match, where malfoy and his friends dress up like dementors to scare harry

-and hermione snitches on the firebolt [she also went on to say that Harry didn't get the firebolt at the end, but more towards the middle]

-they go to hogsmeade again, and malfoy sees harry.

Definatley didn't happen in the cinema version.

-they try to appeal buckbeak's execution.

-they actually explain why hermione needed the timeturner.

These happened in both the cinema and DVD/video release...

She is Dawn French - actually a famous comedian rather than actress, which may explain why she was so perfect in that role.Thank you - she's really good in that role. I hope she continues.

I don't understand the way Malfoy is portrayed though - the way he snaps at hermione one minute and then cowers in front of her before running away - why doesn't he pull out his wand after she hits him?Good point. Malfoy hates muggles with a passion. I don't see why he wouldn't attack one - girl or not. Movie-Malfoy was just a joke in terms of character. It will be interesting to see Mike Newell's take on Malfoy.

Also, my friend who saw the movie in the theatre and then the dvd is very upset. she thinks that they cut several scenes when they put it on dvd. I, myself, didn't see the movie in the theatre so I don't know about this. can someone help, perhaps?I only saw the movie in theatres once when it came out, so I don't remember very well, but I did think that a scene or two was missing. I do remember one publicity shot that never appeared in the movie but thought I remembered it from the theatre release. It is the shot of Harry and Ron leaning on the table in Divination with the Crystal Ball between them. Harry and Ron are staring at the ball, but Ron has a bored expression on his face. This never showed in the movie. Instead, Ron was sleeping then woke up quickly. Was that publicity shot even in the movie?


I know the corridor that Harry walks down in the dark when looking for Pettigrew was not in the book. I am just wondering why Snape was in the same place as Pettigrew on that night, did he no where to find Peter with out the map?That scene was in the book. Harry was walking the corridors and was caught by Snape. Snape tells Harry to turn out his pockets, but in the book Harry had parchment and some candy from Hogsmeade in his pocket. The conversation was longer between the two and bit more nasty. Lupin rescues Harry. Snape obviously thinks that Harry was in Hogsmeade, but wasn't Harry looking for Pettigrew in the book too? It was night and Harry was in Hogsmeade that day, but Harry was roaming around at night....

Ok has can anyone put the dvd in for me and go to the frame that is 17 minutes and 36 seconds? There is a number there that jumps out on the bottom right hand corner of sirius blacks wanted poster. the number is 301. It's just a flash I had to slow down the speed and then pause to make sure I was seeing what I was seeing.

I will need to watch the DVD several more times, but did they give Dumbledore any lines from the book? (I know I am exaggerating, but it seems like the majority of his dialogue was pulled from nowhere.) I like the new Dumbledore, he brings a nimbleness and humor that was missing from Richard Harris' portrayal (although I liked RH's look better, he just didn't move the way the books describe Dumbledore--never could see him rushing anywhere like the book character does).

I hated the scaredy-cat portrayal of Ron. I also thought the animosity between him and Hermione was down-played too far. All those scenes of the Whomping Willow (in the wrong place!!! ugh!) could have been left out (okay, I did enjoy the slapstick humor of it, poor little CGI birds) with the time being used to show how much the Scabbers incident tore Ron and Hermione's friendship apart.

Malfoy was also too wimpy. And what was with the wands to the throats? I can see doing that with a knife, but a wizard has no need to threaten that way. Hermione and Snape both did that.

What a poor werewolf they turned Lupin into. What was the point of the class needing to know how to distinguish a werewolf from a wolf? They don't resemble one another in the slightest. Where was the fur? Nice sequence for the transformation, but rather pointless result.

What a choppy, disjointed film PoA is. I fully understand the need to chop book parts, especially as they get longer, but I think if I hadn't read the book I wouldn't have liked the movie at all. Or maybe because I read the book I hated the way the movie jumped around and added stuff that wasn't in the book. It's like Lord of the Rings--first movie very faithful to the book (as was HP 1), but the third movie was terrible by comparison--too much departure from what was written. If the book is too long and makes the screenwriter leave things out, then there is no good reason to be adding things that are not in the book (shrunken head, lady in the road, Marge floating over London, Harry sitting on a rock crying).

While I did enjoy the movie (and I base this on the fact that I never checked my watch during the theater screening), I hated the fact that it departs so much from the book. Hagrid's hut and the Whomping Willow aren't anywhere near where they should be (and I suppose their placement was dictated by the Scotland location), Sirius' permission letter (to Hogsmeade) was replaced with the Firebolt (another item for the unshown wedge between Ron and Hermione) and Ron has no owl for the next film. The dementors can fly--what?!? The dementors can freeze water and plants?!? The books made me think they affected minds, not objects without brains--cool look in the movie, but the effects....yeesh. I suppose it was to give the eerie feeling a physical reality because they couldn't tell the theater to crank the AC at those points...I really wanted to hear the voices Harry heard when he encountered the dementors and thus was completely disappointed with those scenes.

I never got the feeling from the books that Hermione magically appeared in her classrooms, but it happens several times in the movie. To be consisitent with that, Harry and Hermione should have been transported out of the hospital wing instead of having to run downstairs...that didn't fit.

Ah, I could go on and on about why this movie was enjoyable yet disappointing. Just one last thing and I will go watch it again (no, wait, it's Monday, there's football tonight!). The Fat Lady has always worn a pink dress in the books. While portraits can move around, we have yet to see any change their clothes. The entrance to Griffindor's common room is not in the middle of a staircase and I have never gotten the impression that any other portraits were close enough to hear the students give the password (it's a terrible idea the way the portraits move around and gossip).

Heh when my Mom was watching the movie and the Whomping Willow attacked the birds she was like... mean tree! I was laughing so much.

Speaking of Whomping Willow... my favorite scene was the one where they fought the Whomping Willow... that was so funny. Hermione landing on Harry... HAHAHA!

So, here is a question for the group. How was Harry practicing magic in bed without getting into trouble with the MoM?

So, here is a question for the group. How was Harry practicing magic in bed without getting into trouble with the MoM?

Ah yes... one of the many mistakes... Many notice it. It was a Mistake!

So, here is a question for the group. How was Harry practicing magic in bed without getting into trouble with the MoM?

Same thing in the second movie when Hermione repairs Harry's glasses in Diagon Alley.

I was wondering the same thing Alkamax!

Anyway the film is OK, but there will NEVER be enough Snape scenes. The shrieking shack scene was the one that I was really looking forward to and to be honest Alphonso didn't do it justice. They spent too much time with Dawn French (what was wrong with the original fat lady?) trying to break a silly glass for a start. They could have used that time elsewhere to illustrate the more important parts of the story. For some perverse reason I just really wanted to see Snape floating through the tunnel with his head bouncing about.

Anyway I just have to accept the fact that the films will never contain everything from the books, and that some of the scenes will be cut or changed to suit the running time of the film.

Same thing in the second movie when Hermione repairs Harry's glasses in Diagon Alley.

This has been argued that Muggles couldn't see that magic... so it wasn't illegal.

This has been argued that Muggles couldn't see that magic... so it wasn't illegal.

Yeah, I know it has been discussed but I just wanted to point out, for Alkamax, that it was not exclusively in the third film.

The other question about Harry doing magic under his bedcovers on Privet Drive is why was it so difficult for him to keep it going? Lumos is a first year spell....

The other question about Harry doing magic under his bedcovers on Privet Drive is why was it so difficult for him to keep it going? Lumos is a first year spell....

But it's not exactly the same spell. It's Lumos Maxima, like an improved Lumos. I found it funny that Harry, a teenage guy, was playing with his wand in bed. It was a nice touch.

The other question about Harry doing magic under his bedcovers on Privet Drive is why was it so difficult for him to keep it going? Lumos is a first year spell....

That did get me thinking... then I remembered it wasn't Lumos but Lumos Maxima that he used... so it might have been harder to use.

I found it funny that Harry, a teenage guy, was playing with his wand in bed. It was a nice touch.

All I will say is :wow:

Ok. Am I the only one who found that funny or I just have a twisted mind.

Ok. Am I the only one who found that funny or I just have a twisted mind.

*points at his twisted mind*

i found it funny... :rotfl:

*points at his twisted mind*

i found it funny... :rotfl:

Just wanted to make sure. I still like my twisted mind.
I was wondering if that scene was done like that on purpose.

I still like my twisted mind.
I was wondering if that scene was done like that on purpose.

I'm pretty sure that was done on purpose. Cuaron made it no secret that he wanted this film to be all about the transition from childhood to adolescence. Of course, most if not all teenage boys Harry's age do that certain nighttime (heck, even DAYTIME) activity. The opening scene is an allusion to that activity and shows that this movie is going to be about a boy beginning his adolescence.

I'm pretty sure that was done on purpose. Cuaron made it no secret that he wanted this film to be all about the transition from childhood to adolescence. Of course, most if not all teenage boys Harry's age do that certain nighttime (heck, even DAYTIME) activity. The opening scene is an allusion to that activity and shows that this movie is going to be about a boy beginning his adolescence.

Yes that's true, it was on purpose. I read (I think in The Guardian somewhere) about that scene's connotations... The growing up theme is also aided by the rate at which the young actors are growing up at, which is to say, remarkably fast - It seems like only yesterday when Dan Radcliffe was three feet tall and had the voice pitch of a boiling kettle :lol:.

Hey all, I started a thread on this and it was locked telling me to go here instead.

I was also just notified that the article calls oliver wood 'adam wood'. I wrote the site and the writer said he had a friend named Adam Wood and crossed the two up. He thought it was funny and 'apologizes' to the wizarding community and should have it changed before more people view the site.

Here is the link again:
http://www.canmag.com/news/3/3/248

Moviebuff Lance

There are a lot more differences than listed on that site, Moviebuffuc. And, wow, my copy of the movie says Harry finds out Sirius is his godfather, not Snape as it says there.....Must be a special edition (sorry for the sarcasm, I think the movie does not do justice to the book. I realize "Snape" is a typo on the site you mentioned).

I personally don't care about the transition from book to film. Both were great, and keep me interested.

The DVD has no feature-length commentary. How lame is that? What's the point of a DVD without a commentary from the director? I really like Alfonso Cuaron's interpretation of the book and I would have loved a commentary from him.

I really like Alfonso Cuaron's interpretation of the book and I would have loved a commentary from him.

Ditto. My guess is: the producers didn't think enough kids would be interested in hearing a commentary and not enough adults will be buying the DVD who'll be interested in a commentary. Still, that does not explain why the heck A Cinderella Story would have a commentary.

In and of itself, PoA is a great kids action film. Heck, it beats having to sit through Spy Kids 3-D one more time. My point is, the film is great. The third book is great. But the third movie, in my opinion, does not do the third book any justice.

Case in point: I am the avid PotterHead in my circle of life. One of my film maker friends came to me after seeing PoA and remarked how confusing the movie was to her. (She has not read any of the 5 books.) I laughed and asked her what was so confusing. She didn't understand the map sequences. She wanted to know what was the deal with Sirius being a dog. She didn't understand the importance of Animagi to the story.

Over lunch, I had to tell the story to her without telling the story to her because she wants to read the books. Ugh! What an exasperating lunch!

I think the third movie is remarkable in that, with a consistent dark atmosphere, it brings out the psychological dimension of Harry's adventure, and illustrates that Rowling’s child hero stuggles even more in his psyche than on conventional battlegrounds.
PoA has an artistic indentity to it, and is definitely something deeper than a blockbuster action movie---although this is not to say the actions themselves are not eye-catching. Nevertheless what I've enjoyed more is the dramatic tension among the characters, which is much enhanced in the script. My two favorite scenes are the entry of Dementors, the shrieking shack confrontation, and the farewell of Sirius---when he says to Harry those we truly love never leave---Oldman just has a way to give so much emotional depth to a line simple as that.

The visuals of this movie are stunning. I particularly like the Wimping Willows seasonal change, and Beakbuck's flight.

Of course, this movie also has serious flaws---yes, I'm talking about the failure to fully introduce the Maurauders. Would it kill the studio by making the movie only 5 minutes longer to integrate this necessary background story? There are also other moments that are glaringly wrong---like Harry crying, Ron echoing Snape in calling Hermione an insufferable know-it-all, Hermione messing about how her hair looks from the back. All these jokes and tears are common movie gimmicks, making these moments very tacky.

Despite these flaws, I still enjoyed the movie tremendously. I only hope that the forth and fifth films would be even better---for, hey, Rowling's books deserve that.

I noticed that the scene where Harry is standing by the clock.. looking out onto the grounds.. (yet another scene that could have been used to explain alot of things but didn't because it "looked" better and made you feel sad for him instead).
well anyway.. he's looking out, his face right up on the glass almost...
then the scene where they are by the infirmary.. and you look out the clock from the inside.. it appears that Harry would have had nowhere to stand.

I noticed that the scene where Harry is standing by the clock.. looking out onto the grounds.. (yet another scene that could have been used to explain alot of things but didn't because it "looked" better and made you feel sad for him instead).
well anyway.. he's looking out, his face right up on the glass almost...
then the scene where they are by the infirmary.. and you look out the clock from the inside.. it appears that Harry would have had nowhere to stand.

Acutally, if you pause the scene looking out from the infirmary, there is a little bridge/scafolding right by the clock face, where Harry easlily could have stood. Also he wasn't under the cloak in that scene. I think that some people just need to understand the language of film, you can't just say "Harry's sad about not going' and then drop it, you have to illustrate it properly. AC said that that is what the POA movie is really about is Harry's emotions. Scene like that make you really feel like you are in Harry's shoes, sure they don't give us new information, but they help drive home themes that we have already been intoduced to. You really feel for Harry, so I think that that scene along with others are very important and I would tak ethem over the Marauders any day (even though I like the Marauders story, mind you).

Ah yes... one of the many mistakes... Many notice it. It was a Mistake!

Here we go again. It was NOT a mistake, Harr ywas given that spell as homework at the end of his second year, so he was required by Hogwarts to do it. Dumbledore probably has an agreement with the MOM so that certain spells can be used as Homework. And enen that without that explanation, in OOTP Harry gets in trouble for using a Patronous, bu nobody ever mentions that he used Lumos at the same time. Lumos just looks like a fancy flashlight to Muggles.

I like that article that I listed above because it DID point out the major, important, details.

The thing that worries me is that these books are getting a whole lot longer, and the films can't go any longer. Directors are going to have more problems fitting it all in. This is really important since one of the cooler things to the Harry Potter books is Rowling's attention to small details. Details that can have important consequences and can mean a lot to Harry. Directors, usually look over these small details, even though they may really be huge details.

Moviebuff Lance

I always had the thought that it was a little bit of a given that PoA was going to be better then the first two movies. They're teenagers now and their brains are going on overload for everything. Things are getting darker and a lot more dangerous. PoA has always been my favorite book because of these things. And it makes me happy that Harry finally has someone like family to call his own. It has a more hopeful ending. Just my two cents though.

PoA is a the turning point in the book series. The trio is getting older and life is just getting darker-more complicated. It only makes sense that the movie becomes the turning point for the films, but alas, we won't know that until we see GoF.

I just noticed this while I was watching my PoA DVD.
In the DADA classroom Snape says "there are different ways to become a werewolf: when you have the power of shape-shifting..."

Daes that mean that Tonks could be a female werewolf??

Wouldn't that just make her an Animagus then? And Hermione would know if she was already because a wizard has to be registered and seeing as how Tonks is an Auror I doubt she'd be an illegal Animagus like Harry's fater and his friends. Or I could be totaly wrong and the reason she isn't registered is BECAUSE she's an Auror and its being kept confidential.....

Flippergirl, this is not about being an animagus, it's about being a werewolf!

And another thing seems like they keep moving the entrances to the Griifindor tower And I lose my since of direction in the castle. I did like what thy did with the Hogwarts grounds in the PoA. What did ya'll think

But the point of the werewolf is that you CAN'T control it.... when a transformation CAN be controlled you're considered an Animagus.

But maybe it is natural for a shape-shifter to born a werewolf, without controling it.

I personally love the movie! REMEMBER: movies CAN'T be the books! I think it did such an awesome job, the only thing that really bugs me is that they don't change Dan's (Harry's) eyes to green. but i'm not complaining!
but again... this is my personal opion.

The reason for not changing them was because Dan can't wear contact lenses (delicate eye's don't cha know ;) ) and it would cost a fortune to go frame by frame and change his eye colour digitally. It is a shame but an understandable one... Can you imagine being the one who has to sit at a computer for hour after hour just changing the colour of his eye's?! Actually on second thoughts don't answer that one! Hehe.

Not sure if this is the right place to ask this, I tried looking through loads of posts on time travel and couldn't find the discussion, and I didn't want to start a thread if there already is one....
...But what is going on with the characters in the background of the hospital scene when Harry and Hermione are going back the three hours. Slowing it down makes it look like its Lily, James, Sirius and Lupin...but I may be totally imagining things, 'cos how would that be possible!!! So, someone please give me another theory...or point me to a thread where its being discussed?
Thanks!

I'll take the job of sitting at a computer digitally doing Dan's eyes! No problem ...

Can't wear contacts, eh? I've worn both soft and hard contacts, and I know they're a pain, but they seem like an important point. everyone keeps saying how Harry has his mother's eyes ...

But - as most people have said - the movie doesn't make much sense anyways, though it is still enjoyable. I definately like it more than the first two - it's much more *real*, and brings out how wide and wonderful the magical world of JKR is. Even if it makes no sense to non-readers.

Poor Brandalyn74! I had a similar experience recently too .. you just want to buy them the series and say "read it! it will all make sense then! and if you don't like it I'll hex you till next Thursday!"

Hello again! I've been away from these forums for a while now and I've spent the past hour catching up on every most that I have missed since. Quite interesting points being brought up here. There isn't much for me to say on the bigger topics brought up here so far since most has been said already. There are a few things that I would like to touch on, just for the sake of conversation.

The DVD has no feature-length commentary. How lame is that? What's the point of a DVD without a commentary from the director? I really like Alfonso Cuaron's interpretation of the book and I would have loved a commentary from him.

I have heard many complain about this lacking feature of the dvd and I would have to agree. I believe that a lot of us are actually wanting to hear Alfonso and Kloves, etc. explain themselves for why they altered and changed as much as they did. Some of you won't admit that, that's fine, but a lot of you secretly know that to be the truth, so I say it now. Besides the commentary from interviews and various speculation on the matter, a lot of folks wanted more explanation from the creators. And this isn't just about the trivial things like the uniforms and such, but on more major topics like the Marauders Map and the pacing and why certain plot points got cut, etc. Perhaps they knew or know that people are upset by some of the things they have done and are apprehensive to come forth about it. Hiding something we don't know? Maybe. Just a thought. Don't lose your marbles on me now...

All these jokes and tears are common movie gimmicks, making these moments very tacky.

You make a good point. Some of those additions or touches did seem like mainstream Hollywood fare, but then again that's also kind of to be expected from these kinds of films. But like I said, you do have a point.

The thing that worries me is that these books are getting a whole lot longer, and the films can't go any longer. Directors are going to have more problems fitting it all in. This is really important since one of the cooler things to the Harry Potter books is Rowling's attention to small details. Details that can have important consequences and can mean a lot to Harry. Directors, usually look over these small details, even though they may really be huge details.

I agree. Sometimes I begin to feel as if the Potter films are finished in terms of being able to properly tell the story in a proper manner with less and less time to do it in. Unless you make some big decisions, like two volume films (Kill Bill) or intermission, I don't see any hope of a film like GOF coming off as admissable without hacking it bits. I mean, if you though POA was hacked (and I did), then just think of what GOF would look like when you're dealing with material that is nearly as long as the first three books combined. Not many others seem to be concerned with this, as it is too early to really speculate that far into it, but I'm just a little uneasy when I think about it. At least Newell is going to go back to what the films were like in the first two movies to some degree. Things will look familiar again, I think. Just from the photos I've seen of the sets and what not, I get the faint impression that Newell is thinking "Okay, Alfonzo had his fun. Let's get back to the real McCoy." A lot of you will disagree with me on this, and that's fine. By all means, disagree. That's just my initial impression with what little info I have to go on at the moment.

I would just like to say one last thing. I have noticed over the years that a large percentage of people seem to always follow the same suit when it comes to their opinions on a film that is part of a series. More often than not, a person will say that they liked such and such film because it had this and did that. Usually, they refer to the most recent film in its series (assuming there are more planned). What I am saying, is that a lot of people unfortunately say that like a film as their favorite solely because it's the most recent addition to the franchise. Most don't even realize that when they say such things. It usually applies to the younger crowd who are more for the novelty of something (like a new toy, for instance) than for what has been around for a while. Almost as if they got bored with it. But more in the sense that because it is new and it is really fresh and unique, it all of the sudden becomes their new favorite when they may not even be seriously asking themselves why it is they feel that way. I don't mean to be insulting to anyone, but that's how it is and I can tell with some people on here by the way that they describe their opinions. Again, this isn't everyone who liked the film that I am talking about, just a large fraction of them, say 3/5 at best.

Therefore, a lot of these same folks will go and see GOF and regardless of how well it is made or how faithful it was to the book, it will immediately become their new "favorite" movie of the Potter franchise, just like a kid would favor a new toy over the old one. I'm not saying that there is a huge problem with this in the long run. It's just slightly annoying when these people base their opinions with this particular sentiment as their foundation and then they go and post on it. There aren't any specific examples that are concrete, but I sometimes just get that vibe when reading some peoples' posts. Whatever. I've said enough already.

Sorry for being so long-winded. Can't help it. Gotta be thorough when you argue something ya know?!! lol Right.

I'll take the job of sitting at a computer digitally doing Dan's eyes! No problem ...
You know I knew some kind caring soul would be willing to take up the roll! Hehe.

Can't wear contacts, eh? I've worn both soft and hard contacts, and I know they're a pain, but they seem like an important point. everyone keeps saying how Harry has his mother's eyes ...
Some people can't actually wear them at all because they hurt their eye's. Found this on one website...
Some of the conditions that might keep you from wearing contact lenses are: frequent eye infections, severe allergies, dry eye (improper tear film), a work environment that is very dusty or dirty and inability to handle and care for the lenses properly.
Plus he was only 11 when he first started doing the films so they could hardly force him to wear them if he found them uncomfortable! I can't remember where I read about it but it was in one of the film magazines before PS came out.
I agree it would be great if his eye's were green but if Dan can't wear contacts and the price of doing it digitally means you'd lose some of the other special effects then to be honest I can live without them. Besides they can always give Lily blue eye's to match...

Ok, I haven't read all the above posts, but did anyone else feel like in the POA movie, they made it seem like Lupin had feelings for Lilly Potter. Having read all the books a number of times, I never once got that feeling at all. I think in several areas Alfonso took some liberty that while maybe it didn't contradict the themes of the books, they didn't align with the themes or ideas in the books. Anyone else feel this way?

Ok, I haven't read all the above posts, but did anyone else feel like in the POA movie, they made it seem like Lupin had feelings for Lilly Potter. Having read all the books a number of times, I never once got that feeling at all. I think in several areas Alfonso took some liberty that while maybe it didn't contradict the themes of the books, they didn't align with the themes or ideas in the books. Anyone else feel this way?

J.K. did mention that Cuaron inadvertedly foreshadowed things that will happen or will be revealed Books 6 and 7. Perhaps this is one of them.

Jo has veto power over changes, additions and cuts in the films so as not to contradict anything in the books plotwise or themewise. Most, if not, all the things you see in the film has J.K.'s approval.

Don't know if this was mentioned, but was anyone a bit annoyed by the fact that they changed some of the scenery in the movie? I mean, like Hagrid's house was different, the Gryffindor entrance was different from the other two movies, and the whole castle seemed a bit different. I know the director changed the mood a bit for the film, but why would they change set pieces? It just really annoyed me I guess.

I kind of agree on the changing of the set pieces. Somehow I still think the whomping willow looked scarier in the second film. I mean, I like how it's on a hill and all, but it just looks oddly different and out of place because of the change... not at all like the one in the previous film - almost like it's a completely different willow (even though we all know it's not).

I sure pity all those HP newcomers who haven't read the books... They are sure to feel very very confused with the changes and parts that aren't explained.

I liked the movie but was terrible disappointed that the Hogwarts rule about the uniforms must have changes since nobody had to wear the black robes any more. It sort of took out the special feeling of togetherness. Very sad!!! :sad:



I am with you on that one. It didn't looked magical for me, without the cape. The way the wizard world leave looks like they still have a very old style in clothes ( a few century old ). They all like wearing they robe. When they are in Diagon Alley they all wear the robe so why would they logically go and run to change in muggle clothes every occasion they have. I know they are young adults but being raised by wizard at least halves of the school student, they would not have the habit to go shopping for the lates trend. So for me I just assumed that, when they are in the world of wizards they would not have the problem that we all have as muggle of what to wear in the morning. By the way, when Harry lives in Muggle world he's clothes should be really big on him. Did not notice that since the last 2 movies. Same problem with Hermione's hair. I guess they will just cut out the part in GOF during the big Ball where she is suppose to have sleak her hair so much even Ron cannot reconise her

Don't know if this was mentioned, but was anyone a bit annoyed by the fact that they changed some of the scenery in the movie? I mean, like Hagrid's house was different, the Gryffindor entrance was different from the other two movies, and the whole castle seemed a bit different. I know the director changed the mood a bit for the film, but why would they change set pieces? It just really annoyed me I guess.

Yes. It's been mentioned. Like a billion times.

I will say this though: If you are annoyed by the changes, it's your problem. Not the movie's fault. The moviemakers did what they felt would be made into a better film which I feel is even closer to the spirit of the books. The first two movies lacked that certain magic. The third one has more of it.

Besides, they moved this film from England to Scotland. J.K. said Hogwarts is actually LOCATED in Scotland. Aren't the moviemakers more faithful to J.K.'s vision by moving this film from England to Scotland?

Yes. It's been mentioned. Like a billion times.

I will say this though: If you are annoyed by the changes, it's your problem. Not the movie's fault. The moviemakers did what they felt would be made into a better film which I feel is even closer to the spirit of the books. The first two movies lacked that certain magic. The third one has more of it.

Besides, they moved this film from England to Scotland. J.K. said Hogwarts is actually LOCATED in Scotland. Aren't the moviemakers more faithful to J.K.'s vision by moving this film from England to Scotland?

Oh please don't let CajunFry see this. I can feel another argument coming on! ;) I agree with you btw. I loved the look of the new film and to me the settings were more how I'd imagined them than the first two but I'm not starting that one again. Read back over the last few pages to get an idea of what I mean!!!! :)

I also didn't like Hermione's "model" apperance. Since when does she have nice wavy brown hair? I thought it was bushy.
One more thing folks, bear with me. I really DID NOT like the werewolf. It was hairless for heaven's sake!

Sorry to be so negative... I was just pretty disapointed. I am the kind of person who likes the movies to be like the books. Thanks


Exactly. The books are the best so why starting to change thinks. If the formula works why changing it just because?? and not only that but I really thought the movie was boring. Saw it twice at the theatre, once just regular theatre and once Imax and even now that I bought it, I still fastforward most of the movie.

I kind of agree on the changing of the set pieces. Somehow I still think the whomping willow looked scarier in the second film. I mean, I like how it's on a hill and all, but it just looks oddly different and out of place because of the change... not at all like the one in the previous film - almost like it's a completely different willow (even though we all know it's not).

I sure pity all those HP newcomers who haven't read the books... They are sure to feel very very confused with the changes and parts that aren't explained.

The whomping willow was scarier in the second film... I agree.

This one was a lot different. Yes, it was mean during the scene where Harry and Hermione were trying to get past it... (my favorite scene :D)

In other scenes the tree was just funny... whacking birds... heck, my Mom said "Bad Tree!" in a funny way... that is how I saw it. it was a bad tree in a funny way!

*sighs*

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

J.K. said this was her favorite of the movies so far. She could've said "it was alright", "Cuaron did a good job", "I loved the Dementors", etc. But she said it was her favorite. Even if she is contractually obliged not to say anything negative publicly about the film, she needn't have said it was her favorite. J.K. strikes me as a blunt, honest woman. I don't think she would've said the third is her favorite just to kiss up to the studios (Besides, she's already worth billions. She don't really need the money from the movies).


Ya!but it was a new director so she was probably trying to ease the way to a new type of filming to the third movie and not scaring everybody with new changes. So MAYBE she really liked it or MAYBE she did not, we will never know...

I This movie had way more emotional depth imo. Great job by Kloves and Cuaron. I had fallen out of the HP fandom, but seeing this movie made me run to the library and grab Order of the Phoenix and read it and I'm a hardcore fan.
I give this movie an A.


May I ask: was that the first time you read the book since it came out??
So you did not like HP any more because you did not like the movies??
I thought it would be the opposite for a HP fan. Don't you like the books first and then maybe enjoy the movies??

I thought this move was the best one so far from a techincal perspective. The thing I liked least was that in the first two movies, everything was always bright blue skies and lush green grass. The fact that the environment actually changed and became drearier really fit the tone of the book. The only adapatation thing that got left out that I missed was that they forgot to mention the creators of the Marauder's Map.

[QUOTE=natemac]I think the punch was one of the highlights of the movie! It made Hermione an awesome character in the movie, and she looked better than ever.

I bet you that's because she apparently wrote a 10 page essay on her character, that the director ask them to do and probably that's why she's got all the good line. Poor Ron didn't do his homework so he got the winy obnoxious lines.

May I ask: was that the first time you read the book since it came out??
So you did not like HP any more because you did not like the movies??
I thought it would be the opposite for a HP fan. Don't you like the books first and then maybe enjoy the movies??[/QUOTE]

Excuse me, but whilst I will respect your opinion, who are yout to defin what being a fan means? We are all fans for different reasons, and we all love HP for different qualities it poseses, but the point is that we all LOVE Harry Potter. Wheither it be book, film, o video game, we all have the right to be a fan by our own standards. It just like when people say that certain paitings, films, or music, don't count as art. No one has the right (myself included) to define what it means to be a true fan. All respect intended.

May I ask: was that the first time you read the book since it came out??
So you did not like HP any more because you did not like the movies??
I thought it would be the opposite for a HP fan. Don't you like the books first and then maybe enjoy the movies??

Excuse me, but whilst I will respect your opinion, who are yout to defin what being a fan means? We are all fans for different reasons, and we all love HP for different qualities it poseses, but the point is that we all LOVE Harry Potter. Wheither it be book, film, o video game, we all have the right to be a fan by our own standards. It just like when people say that certain paitings, films, or music, don't count as art. No one has the right (myself included) to define what it means to be a true fan. All respect intended.[/QUOTE]

Oh!la,la
Somebody is upset. Sorry was not my attent. I was just wondering being a member of Mugglenet, I though most people would have read the latest book by now ( december ). Sorry did not wanted to start something I was just asking.

Oh please don't let CajunFry see this. I can feel another argument coming on! I agree with you btw. I loved the look of the new film and to me the settings were more how I'd imagined them than the first two but I'm not starting that one again. Read back over the last few pages to get an idea of what I mean!!!!

Oh rela! How you flatter me!!! hahaha Honestly, I laughed out loud when I read that. Had you not stepped in when you did, I would have reposted from my earlier entries to make a point. As it is, I don't have to do that and get into it all over again. It seems as if neither of us would like to go to war again on the same old subject, unless, of course, new criteria presented itself, and then I would be forced to act. lol You so funny!!!!

Alas, my fellow Potterites, I just couldn't help myself. I had to respond to some of the things that I'm seeing here as of late. Some good. Some just off the mark. But mostly good. So, here goes...

I bet you that's because she apparently wrote a 10 page essay on her character, that the director ask them to do and probably that's why she's got all the good line. Poor Ron didn't do his homework so he got the winy obnoxious lines.

So, you're saying that Emma Watson was granted more liberties and/or privileges due to the fact that she wrote a long essay on her character and was therefore kissing up to the director? I think that is a bit absurd, really. Whether or not she did it for that purpose is irrelevant. However, I highly doubt that it would have any effect on Cuaron giving her better or more important lines than the other actors. Favoritism just doesn't seem logical to me in this manner. Anyone else have a different opinion?

May I ask: was that the first time you read the book since it came out??
So you did not like HP any more because you did not like the movies??
I thought it would be the opposite for a HP fan. Don't you like the books first and then maybe enjoy the movies??

Excuse me, but whilst I will respect your opinion, who are yout to defin what being a fan means? We are all fans for different reasons, and we all love HP for different qualities it poseses, but the point is that we all LOVE Harry Potter. Wheither it be book, film, o video game, we all have the right to be a fan by our own standards. It just like when people say that certain paitings, films, or music, don't count as art. No one has the right (myself included) to define what it means to be a true fan. All respect intended.

You are misinterpreting what she was trying to say. She was not attacking nor questioning anyone's definition of 'fan' or even saying that there is only one way to love HP. That's totally untrue and everyone here knows it. She was merely pointing out that, in general, the vast majority of HP fans fall in love with the Harry Potter books FIRST and the movies SECOND. Nothing more. I can see how it may have come off as a bit hostile to you, but I know she meant well by it. I do agree with you on the other points that you did make, however. Well said.

Don't know if this was mentioned, but was anyone a bit annoyed by the fact that they changed some of the scenery in the movie? I mean, like Hagrid's house was different, the Gryffindor entrance was different from the other two movies, and the whole castle seemed a bit different. I know the director changed the mood a bit for the film, but why would they change set pieces? It just really annoyed me I guess.

:drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :nc:

Prisoner of Azkaban...

I liked the film, I felt the feel was right in a way it hadn't been quite there in the other films. I'm glad the director took Hogwarts up to Scotland, the atmosphere was perfect. The lack of consistancy of the sets is disappointing, but I do prefer the new ones.

Complaints:

* The Shrunken Head. Especially on the cast interviews.

* How long would it have taken to say - yeah we were all friends at school and when they found out I was a werewolf they became animagi - James became a stag.

* Why was Lupin hairless? Isn't he meant to look like a wolf with only slight differences?

* When did the dementors learn to fly?

* What was the dog in the clouds at the Quidditch match about?

* Where was the Quidditch!?

And that's about it. One thing I was particuarly interested in was Lupin's talk on the bridge about Lily. I assume that Lily's story is going to be a bigger part of the next two books, and perhaps a friendship, or something more, with Lupin will be revealed. I think it is significant because the director cut out James' story in favour of Lily's.

The animals and the hippogriff scenes were down well, but although we know Malfoy is a snivelling git, it's hard to see him retaining respect from the slytherins if he was as cowardly as he appears in the films.

Spirited

* Why was Lupin hairless? Isn't he meant to look like a wolf with only slight differences?

* When did the dementors learn to fly?

* What was the dog in the clouds at the Quidditch match about?

* Where was the Quidditch!?

Spirited

Let me answer these complaints:

- The filmmakers wanted the werewolf to be half-man/half-wolf to distinguish it from real wolves.

- In the books, the dementors glide. A poster here pointed out a passage that Dementors probably COULD fly if they wanted to. Besides, personally I think making the Dementors fly made them look more menacing on the screen.

- Probably to symbolize the Grim. If you look at the shape in the teacup and the shape of the clouds in the sky, they're very similar.

- If you mean the Quidditch Cup, well, I'm with you in a way. I would've loved to see the Gryffindors win the Quidditch Cup but unfortunately, Quidditch scenes are very expensive to shoot and the Quidditch Cup is not a very important part of the main plot anyway (Just a subplot that helps enrich the story in the book). It's gonna be boring to non-HP readers.

Oh rela! How you flatter me!!! hahaha Honestly, I laughed out loud when I read that. Had you not stepped in when you did, I would have reposted from my earlier entries to make a point. As it is, I don't have to do that and get into it all over again. It seems as if neither of us would like to go to war again on the same old subject, unless, of course, new criteria presented itself, and then I would be forced to act. lol You so funny!!!!
Glad to be of service ;) I don't think I can handle more circular "discussions" (as in it goes round and round and round and... ;) ). Let's face it my dear we are never all going to agree so getting heated is pointless. And no that was not a request for the "discussions" to cease. :) Variety is the spice of life and all that! :p

[QUOTE=Spirited]The lack of consistancy of the sets is disappointing, but I do prefer the new ones. ))

Well, I actually studied the films Hogwarts EXTENSIVLEY and I know it's geography by heart (I can draw you a map of where everything is in each film in a heartbeat). And Hogwarts wasny changed at all, just added onto. Nothing existing was changed (with the exeption of the Gryfindors Common room, the whomping willow, and hagrids hut, whic hall have very good explanations). The courtyard, the greenhouses, the place where Hagri'ds hut used to be, all of them are stil lthere in POA (as seen in the buckbeak sequnce), so one can theorize that Hogwarts is just added onto every now and then. A school thats by my church added a whole new wing a year ago, witch is about as big as a whole parking lot! Here are further explanations:

Hagrid's Hut: He has just been appointed to COMC teacher, so the tiny hut he had in the first two would work at all, notice that his new one is larger, and has more books and magical creatures in it.

Whomping Willow: well, the great thing about HP is that magic dosenall sorts of stuff. Now, I have my own explanations of the WW, but most here would consider it ridiculous, so unless someone wants to hear it I will keep it to myself. But the easy summary: It's magic!


(QUOTE) What was the dog in the clouds at the Quidditch match about? (QUOTE)

Harry is getting paranoid, and starts seeing the Grim everywhere. It's just his eyes playing tricks on him. He's too worried about Trelawny's word.

I didn't have a problem with the consistency of sets, however i hated the petronus i think it looked rubbish and it didn't look any thing like it was described in the books, especially considering harry makes one in the 5th book and it canters around the great hall in the DADA exam.

Just wondering and i dont have time to look through all these posts but has anyone noticed in the scene in PoA when Harry and his class mates are sleeping in the great hall and Dumledore talks about dreams and then there is a part where it shows the stary sky in the great hall it was also slightly cloudy. If you look closely at that image the starts and clouds make what looks to me like a pheonix its a giant bird. Has anyone else seen that? The first two times i saw it i really didnt see it but i watched it last night and thats what it definatly looked like.

Overall, I like the film, but I tend to like bits and pieces of it rather than really liking the film as a whole. I don't mind changes and additions, per se; it's a film and not the book, and it's an interpretation of the book. No matter which film it is, that will always make the movie versions interesting--someone else's viewpoint and vision.
A random like about this film--Harry's hair was finally right; he looked as if he'd combed it with a lawn mower. If he combed it.
Aunt Marge was thoroughly odious in her brief scene time. Applause to the actress who captured Marge's dreadfulness within two seconds.
David Thewlis was not at all my mental picture of Lupin; however, I really liked his performance and it fell into the category of 'someone else's viewpoint.' Gary Oldman was excellent as the maniacal Sirius who's not as crazy as the trio thinks.

But hard to overlook...the plot holes. "Vengeance is sweet"--why, Severus??? We don't even know that you know these people. And, worse, Sirius' "Haven't you taken your potion tonight, Remus?" Well, obviously not; also--what potion? nobody said anything about a potion; and, besides...how would you know, Sirius? you've been in prison--you know less about the potion than the audience does!!
Can we have a rewrite, do you think?

Overall, I like the film, but I tend to like bits and pieces of it rather than really liking the film as a whole. I don't mind changes and additions, per se; it's a film and not the book, and it's an interpretation of the book. No matter which film it is, that will always make the movie versions interesting--someone else's viewpoint and vision.

Exactly. Me too.

But hard to overlook...the plot holes. "Vengeance is sweet"--why, Severus??? We don't even know that you know these people. And, worse, Sirius' "Haven't you taken your potion tonight, Remus?" Well, obviously not; also--what potion? nobody said anything about a potion; and, besides...how would you know, Sirius? you've been in prison--you know less about the potion than the audience does!!
Can we have a rewrite, do you think?

Yes they did leave a lot out, but you only have so much time. In my opinion, they should have released an extended version like Lord of the Rings.

Personally, I hated the end of POA. Harry's face frozen on the screen blurred, it's not that I don't like Harry's looks it just that it's weird. What really annoyed was the Patronus part when the stag just exploded a lot of light out. I actually yelled out "That's not what happens!" and I've never said out-load in the middle of a film that something didn't happen in the books. I liked the ending when the stag canters into the Dementors...

Personally, I hated the end of POA. Harry's face frozen on the screen blurred, it's not that I don't like Harry's looks it just that it's weird. What really annoyed was the Patronus part when the stag just exploded a lot of light out. I actually yelled out "That's not what happens!" and I've never said out-load in the middle of a film that something didn't happen in the books. I liked the ending when the stag canters into the Dementors...

I don't like the end either. But again, the filmmakes put their vision into the film. Everyone sees something different in their mind.

Personally, I hated the end of POA. Harry's face frozen on the screen blurred, it's not that I don't like Harry's looks it just that it's weird. What really annoyed was the Patronus part when the stag just exploded a lot of light out. I actually yelled out "That's not what happens!" and I've never said out-load in the middle of a film that something didn't happen in the books. I liked the ending when the stag canters into the Dementors...

Who are you to say that's not what happens? That's how the filmmakers felt that the best way to convey the Patronus. Should they consult you for every little detail?

I hate it when people complain about the film because it's not exactly the way they imagined when they read the books. NEWSFLASH: It's almost never going to be that way. If you can't accept that fact, then you're just setting yourselves up for disppointment. Perhaps you should just stick to the books.

But hard to overlook...the plot holes. "Vengeance is sweet"--why, Severus??? We don't even know that you know these people. And, worse, Sirius' "Haven't you taken your potion tonight, Remus?" Well, obviously not; also--what potion? nobody said anything about a potion; and, besides...how would you know, Sirius? you've been in prison--you know less about the potion than the audience does!!

Ooo, that's actually the part that I liked most about that movie. We've seen the kids run around having their crazy adventures, then we catch a snippet of Sirius, Snape, and Lupin interacting like that. And we get the feeling that they've had some adventures of their own. We don't need to have any set-up with Severus saying "Yes I know Lupin and Sirius." That scene draws us into their relationship already.

(Bear in mind I haven't read PoA yet, but I have read online that they have known each other from before. Do correct me if I've found inaccurate information, of course....)

Ooo, that's actually the part that I liked most about that movie. We've seen the kids run around having their crazy adventures, then we catch a snippet of Sirius, Snape, and Lupin interacting like that. And we get the feeling that they've had some adventures of their own. We don't need to have any set-up with Severus saying "Yes I know Lupin and Sirius." That scene draws us into their relationship already.

(Bear in mind I haven't read PoA yet, but I have read online that they have known each other from before. Do correct me if I've found inaccurate information, of course....)

There's a lot more to that background story than you know.

Who are you to say that's not what happens? That's how the filmmakers felt that the best way to convey the Patronus. Should they consult you for every little detail?

I hate it when people complain about the film because it's not exactly the way they imagined when they read the books. NEWSFLASH: It's almost never going to be that way. If you can't accept that fact, then you're just setting yourselves up for disppointment. Perhaps you should just stick to the books.

Amen. Just as I said above, everyone sees it differently.

It's good to read a comment from someone who's not read the book, to get an opinion on how the Shack scene came across to someone who doesn't know the back story of the Marauders and Snape. Only one of my friends hadn't read PoA; interestingly, she had the same reaction--she picked up the idea that there was something going on with Snape, Sirius, and Lupin, beyond what was actually seen/said in the film. She and I agreed that major credit needs to go to the actors...Rickman versus Oldman was downright scary: could Oldman have possibly been more condescending and contemptuous (my favorite line in the film--"and play with your chemistry set")? would anyone in his/her right mind ever want Rickman snarling and glaring at them in such fury? My view is that they filled in the blanks left by the screenplay.

There's a lot more to that background story than you know.

Oh yeah, I could tell; just like how I hear that there's more significance to the stag than the movie showed. When Sirius and Harry were standing there looking at the castle, I expected them to talk a bit longer. Just a line or two could have added a whole lot more to the scene.

Hopefully GoF will fill in a lot of stuff they left out of PoA. My brother thinks the stag was all about the "white stag" or the "green man of the wilds" from legend, and he doesn't want to know what the movie left out....

Oh yeah, I could tell; just like how I hear that there's more significance to the stag than the movie showed. When Sirius and Harry were standing there looking at the castle, I expected them to talk a bit longer. Just a line or two could have added a whole lot more to the scene.

Hopefully GoF will fill in a lot of stuff they left out of PoA. My brother thinks the stag was all about the "white stag" or the "green man of the wilds" from legend, and he doesn't want to know what the movie left out....

Here's a totally off the wall idea: read the books!!

Here's a totally off the wall idea: read the books!!

Working on it. ;)

Is there foreshadowing of Fudges death in the PoA. I think its a possibility there is a scene by hagrids hut right after harry and hermione save buckbeak and a crow/raven landed on Fudges head. I believe that that kind of bird can be symbolic of death. Notice they where everywhere before harry and hermione went back in time. They made the scene more erie. Could that be foreshadwoing fudges death? What do yall think?

I didn't particularly like the end of PoA either... Too abrupt in my opinion. First Harry was flying around and then, 'Huh? That's it? The end?!' I would've preferred a slightly less abrupt ending, much like the ending of the first movie, which I had thought to be the best ending of the three movies so far. It gives a sort of lingering feeling to the viewers... One that makes you want to stay on and not leave the magical world... It was the best sort of ending for a Harry Potter film (in my opinion at least) because that's what every book seems to give you... The same sort of lingering feeling...

On another note, I thought the patronus was, well, weird. I expected it to charge the dementors down or something. It looked more like shields than what the book described patrounuses to be like. But then I suppose it was hard to make Harry sort of 'hidden' by the patronus, like it was in the book, so that past-Harry would mistake future-Harry for James.

Is there foreshadowing of Fudges death in the PoA. I think its a possibility there is a scene by hagrids hut right after harry and hermione save buckbeak and a crow/raven landed on Fudges head. I believe that that kind of bird can be symbolic of death. Notice they where everywhere before harry and hermione went back in time. They made the scene more erie. Could that be foreshadwoing fudges death? What do yall think?

It's a well known fact that Alfonso Cuaron put an unintentional clue into the film. He put something in to add to the style/effect and it foreshadows something, but he didn't know it. But JK isn't telling us what it is, it could be what you mentioned or it could be something else. There's another thread for this, in fact.

There are laods of things I've noticed that could possibley forshadow upcoming events. There are way too much for me to be sure though.

Ok...I found no mention of this, but I think it deserves one...
Everyone comes out of the whomping willow passage and snape turns to yell at the trio and Lupin turns into the werewolf. Snape, seeing this, shields the trio with himself and holds them back. I love this movie, and that is, by far, my favorite moment. It gives Snape's character much more depth...Makes me believe (much more than Dumbledore's word) that he really is a reformed character, that he would put himself in harm's way for a group of characters that he doesn't care for...

Lupin's comments about Lily and Snape protecting the trio were the two most significant changes I thought Cuaron made. Since JKR has the final approval on the material in the films, both must mean something. And I think the film telegraphed Snape's ultimate role in the books. In some ways, I feel the films jump ahead slightly; because they lag behind the books and the audience already knows the direction of some plot lines or character developments, in some aspects the movies seem to reflect not only the book being filmed, but some later information as well--none so blatantly as PoA.

By the way, how much greater an impact would Snape's protectiveness had, had the film audience known the backstory about his nearly dying at the hands (Paws?) of Lupin as a teenager? Ah--there's that nasty plot hole again!

Is there foreshadowing of Fudges death in the PoA. I think its a possibility there is a scene by hagrids hut right after harry and hermione save buckbeak and a crow/raven landed on Fudges head. I believe that that kind of bird can be symbolic of death. Notice they where everywhere before harry and hermione went back in time. They made the scene more erie. Could that be foreshadwoing fudges death? What do yall think?
I think it was just put in for comic relief.



I didn't particularly like the end of PoA either... Too abrupt in my opinion. First Harry was flying around and then, 'Huh? That's it? The end?!' I would've preferred a slightly less abrupt ending, much like the ending of the first movie, which I had thought to be the best ending of the three movies so far. It gives a sort of lingering feeling to the viewers... One that makes you want to stay on and not leave the magical world... It was the best sort of ending for a Harry Potter film (in my opinion at least) because that's what every book seems to give you... The same sort of lingering feeling...
I agree 100% :tu:

It almost gave me the impression that Cuaron ran out of film or something... :lol:

I agree that the ending is rushed. It's a horrible ending, but mostly that's the only part of it the critics hated.

Perhaps instead we could have simply watched Harry fly off into the sunset, then fade to black. A bit more traditional ending perhaps, but it certainly would have worked better than what we ended up with, imho. :eyebrows:

Perhaps instead we could have simply watched Harry fly off into the sunset, then fade to black. A bit more traditional ending perhaps, but it certainly would have worked better than what we ended up with, imho. :eyebrows:

Am I the only one who loved the POA ending? The freeze frame reminded the audience that Harry had finally found happiness in the darkest of times (IE Dumbledores line). He spends the entire film confused and mad, and unhappy, and begins to think of himself as weak and unworthy of the very school he attends. He spends the entirety of the first films getting an image of himself as being powerfull and couragous, but then in POA he starts to feel awful when it is revealed to him that he isn't all powerful, he has weakneses. All of this just hits him like arock in the chest, and he spends the whole movie making sense of it. But at the ends, he knows he has a father like figure (well two really) and he knows that he has nothing to be ashamed of, and when he gets that Firebolt it reminds him of what he's good at (and exels at for that matter). The look on his face sums up the messageof the whole film for me. But I guess I'm in the minority,

It just seems awkward, almost like Cuaron couldn't think of an ending, so he just, er, well, ended it, lol. I like the idea of the look on Harry's face and all, just not how he races towards the camera and then suddenly stops. It's too abrupt, imho

Maybe - and this is just an idea - Cuaron could have had Harry zoom by the camera, expression and all, then have the camera follow Harry as he flies over Hogwarts, which then sort of dissolves (or perhaps morph) into the Marauders Map with the credits. Anything than just freezing on a close up of Harry's face.

Then again, at least Cuaron didn't do anything cheesy like the ending to CoS, so I guess he gets credit for that, lol :eyebrows:

Hawk1245, youre not the only one who liked the ending ,I did like it, because of everything you said, and this is going to be the last HP movie that ends happy :sad: and besides it was original, I think that putting the Firebolt to the end was one of the greatest and clever changes they made.


But hard to overlook...the plot holes. "Vengeance is sweet"--why, Severus??? We don't even know that you know these people. And, worse, Sirius' "Haven't you taken your potion tonight, Remus?" Well, obviously not; also--what potion? nobody said anything about a potion; and, besides...how would you know, Sirius? you've been in prison--you know less about the potion than the audience does!!
Can we have a rewrite, do you think?

But Severus know him, and to all the ppl who dont read HP, they leave them with the "so Snape knows him" and about the potion thing augh, almost everyone has complained about this, yeah Sirius has been a prison, but he was his friend almost all his life! He knows him very well, and knows that he has to take his potion, and what if the audience doesnt know? Those lines makes ppl think. And besides, almost all audience its ppl who has read HP.

And besides, almost all audience its ppl who has read HP.
Yes, but a good movie doesn't rely on the audience having read the book. :cool:

Having said that, PoA is still my favorite HP move. Then again, I didn't care too much for the first two... :eyebrows:

Quote:
Originally Posted by weasley
Personally, I hated the end of POA. Harry's face frozen on the screen blurred, it's not that I don't like Harry's looks it just that it's weird. What really annoyed was the Patronus part when the stag just exploded a lot of light out. I actually yelled out "That's not what happens!" and I've never said out-load in the middle of a film that something didn't happen in the books. I liked the ending when the stag canters into the Dementors...


Who are you to say that's not what happens? That's how the filmmakers felt that the best way to convey the Patronus. Should they consult you for every little detail?

I hate it when people complain about the film because it's not exactly the way they imagined when they read the books. NEWSFLASH: It's almost never going to be that way. If you can't accept that fact, then you're just setting yourselves up for disppointment. Perhaps you should just stick to the books.

Yeah, and who are YOU to be the one making such a comment when it has obviously been misdirected and misunderstood? What weasley was saying was that that's not how the patronus scene happened in book. That's it. He wasn't trying to tell you or me or anyone else what happens or what should have happened. If you re-read the context, you will find that that is not true, indeed. It's not a matter of what weasley imagined or not, just what the book stated and what the movie portrayed. It was different and weasley just simply pointed out the fact that one didn't happen like the other. Granted, weasley may have been leading you to believe what you thought in the first place, true, but not by what is written on the page , my friend. Correct me if I'm wrong remusjlupin1980, but judging by the form in which weasley made their comment, this is the correct understanding of that statement.

I like the film as a film. But when I compare the film with the book I must say that the film isn't good!!! I mean they haven't even shown us the most important things.

Ya i think the movie was horrible, just a piece of ****.

ydnotkm, that's exactly the problem, if you base a film on a book (or a game) it'll always be compared to the book. And I personally doubt that any director could make a film better than the books.

Am I the only one who loved the POA ending? The freeze frame reminded the audience that Harry had finally found happiness in the darkest of times (IE Dumbledores line). He spends the entire film confused and mad, and unhappy, and begins to think of himself as weak and unworthy of the very school he attends. He spends the entirety of the first films getting an image of himself as being powerfull and couragous, but then in POA he starts to feel awful when it is revealed to him that he isn't all powerful, he has weakneses. All of this just hits him like arock in the chest, and he spends the whole movie making sense of it. But at the ends, he knows he has a father like figure (well two really) and he knows that he has nothing to be ashamed of, and when he gets that Firebolt it reminds him of what he's good at (and exels at for that matter). The look on his face sums up the messageof the whole film for me. But I guess I'm in the minority,

I also liked the POA ending too. Perhaps even moreso because it is an obvious direct tribute to one of my favorite films, The 400 Blows. It's a French film from the 1950's with a young teenaged boy as a protagonist and it too ends abruptly with the boy's face in freeze frame.

I absolutely loved that movie!! it was the best one... that is as a movie tho. If you compare it to the book it was terrible..

::mumbles:: maybe i like it so much cause Lupin is in it.... :D

ydnotkm, that's exactly the problem, if you base a film on a book (or a game) it'll always be compared to the book. And I personally doubt that any director could make a film better than the books.

I know that the film can't be better than the book. But if I sait the most important things I mean really the MOST IMPORTANT tings. my sister has seen the film without reading the books and every few seconds she asked me questions about it. She did't understand the most things ( but she saw the first two films). And when my sister starts to ask questions about anything.....................................

I know that the film can't be better than the book. But if I sait the most important things I mean really the MOST IMPORTANT tings. my sister has seen the film without reading the books and every few seconds she asked me questions about it. She did't understand the most things ( but she saw the first two films). And when my sister starts to ask questions about anything.....................................

I had to (painfully) convince my sister to see it with me, as well as the rest of my family (which include, aside from my sister and myself, my sister's twin brother and my parents.)

I don't think that they wanted to see it at first. I was the only one who wanted to because I was (at that time) the only one in my family who had read the books. But, as it turned out, my sister later became obsessed (and still is), and I got bombarded with questions about it afterwards from those who didn't completely understand it. I was surprised to see that my parents were interested in it...they usually don't have the same interests that I have...with the exception of The Lord of the Rings, an obsession that is strictly between my father and I. My mother hates it for some reason... :td:

I LOVED the movie. Who cares if Cuaron made a few changes, its his call. He left in the important stuff, and overall I thought it was the best Harry Potter movie yet.

I thought the movie was excellent! Chris did an acceptable job, as well, but Cauron's style made the movie so much more enjoyable. The movie didn't stay exactly parallel with the book though, which is alright, since it's hard to do anyways. 4-Stars for me.

overall this was my favourite movieof the 3. I think it was because the film has a different feel about it compared to the first 2. But all 3 movies are great. I saw it on opening night with two of my friends and one of them screamed twice. It was so embarassing. Did anything like that happen to anyone else when they saw the film?

well, personally i thought the film was great (the best of the three). the friends i went to see it with thought it was awful because it left too much of the book out. the way i see it is that you could never put all of any of the Harry Potter books into a movie (if they did, it would be like 10 hours long)
i loved Cauron's style. it made the movie much more interesting. my friend who was sitting next to me and i were laughing just about the whole way through (especially with the part with the bird and the whomping willow)

overall i would give it a 4 star rating. i think they shouldve added a little more history about the mauraders map. but that was just about the only thing that dissappointed me.

But when I compare the film with the book I must say that the film isn't good!!! I mean they haven't even shown us the most important things.
If I hear(see) one more person say that, I think my head is going to explode into a thousand, thousand tiny pieces.

My cousins (11 & 13) still don't understand the whole time-turner thing and i had to exlain about the stag. But everything else they understood fine.

ydnotkm, that's exactly the problem, if you base a film on a book (or a game) it'll always be compared to the book. And I personally doubt that any director could make a film better than the books.
Except maybe Lord of the Rings... But thats an entirely different topic... ;)
I agree though. It's almost impossible to cram everything from a book into a film. Anything that involves long drawn out conversations or lots of dialogue from one character (no matter how important) is usually scrapped. It's rare to find a film that outshines your own imagination or the authors. You have to live with what you get and I say again that what we got in PoA was far from perfect but closer than the first 2 and for that I'm truly happy.

Hi, newbie coming out of lurk-mode, to comment.

I'll say this about PoA - it's the Harry Potter film that finally got me to read the books. (I just finished book five last Sunday).

I thought SS/PS was a cute film, but CoS bored me beyond belief. And neither film really showed me *why* the books were as popular as they were. (Whereas, after seeing LOTR: FOTR for the first time, I loved it so much, I went and bought the book to read only two days later).

When I saw saw PoA the first time, I really liked it. It was much more moody and atmospheric, which I loved. And the story never felt like it was dragging, which was a *huge* problem with the first two films IMO. (Especially in CoS). I was also more impressed with the acting, especially from Dan, Emma and Rupert.

There was only two thing I didn't understand the way I think I was supose to, since I hadn't read the book at the time; one was why Harry's Potronus took the form of a stag - and why Harry thought it was his dad he saw. Second things was, I *did* wonder how Lupin knew that it was a map that Harry had. But I understood pretty much everything else. I think any non-book readers, who at least _paid attention_ while watching the first two films, could. (As I was before now even though, as I said, I mostly found CoS boring. Worst of the three HP films IMO).

Blimey! I didn't realise that POA had as many mistakes in it as it has... According to Movie mistakes, it has a whopping 227 of them! Take a look here (http://www.moviemistakes.com/film3738). Thoughts, anyone? :huh:

There was only two thing I didn't understand the way I think I was supose to, since I hadn't read the book at the time; one was why Harry's Potronus took the form of a stag - and why Harry thought it was his dad he saw. Second things was, I *did* wonder how Lupin knew that it was a map that Harry had. But I understood pretty much everything else. I think any non-book readers, who at least _paid attention_ while watching the first two films, could.
This is about what a friend I went to see the movie with, who hadn't read the books, said. I don't know why book readers are so set on the fact that if you hadn't read the books you would be totally cluelesss! Most of the things you stated above aren't even that crucial to the overall plot...certainly no one would be lost throughout the entire movie just because they didn't elaborate on them further. It's nice to see someone that was inspired to read the books because of the movies (It was the same with me and Lord of the Rings!)

One thing I was particuarly interested in was Lupin's talk on the bridge about Lily. I assume that Lily's story is going to be a bigger part of the next two books, and perhaps a friendship, or something more, with Lupin will be revealed. I think it is significant because the director cut out James' story in favour of Lily's.

This is the impression I got while watching the film and it makes me agree that this is perhaps the part of the film that Rowling says "forshadows things to come in the later books". Rowling also mentions she got shivers watching the bit she is refering to and that particular scene with Lupin talking about Lilly is highly emotional. Purely speculation obviously but perhaps a relationship between Remus and Lilly that never worked out or a love that he never acted on because he knew James loved Lilly.

I am also interested in the Graveyard Alfonso mentions in the same interview that he says they couldn't use because J.K. says it is in book 6. I wonder what relevance if any it has to the plot. Could be a red herring but its not like her to deliberately mislead fans and by the look on her face when Alfonso reveals that information I would think its pretty important.

What do you think?

Blimey! I didn't realise that POA had as many mistakes in it as it has... According to Movie mistakes, it has a whopping 227 of them! Take a look here (http://www.moviemistakes.com/film3738). Thoughts, anyone? :huh:
Most of the mistakes I read were continuity errors, which you'll find in just about every movie if you look hard enough. And some (like Emma saying "Rupert" instead of "Ron") are debatable.

I am also interested in the Graveyard Alfonso mentions in the same interview that he says they couldn't use because J.K. says it is in book 6. I wonder what relevance if any it has to the plot. Could be a red herring but its not like her to deliberately mislead fans and by the look on her face when Alfonso reveals that information I would think its pretty important.

What do you think?

hmm, maybe we'll find out where Harry's parents are buried.

Okay, hopefully I don'tget yelled at for this but I just wanna know if there are like, little secret videos or something on the DVD of the POA. I dunno if this has been talked about but I can't find it anywhere and I've searched the DVD.
Just wanna know.

Thankies

I don't have the dvd, but I found something about a hidden tour of the paintings at this website (http://movieweb.com/dvd/eggs/egg.php?upc=085392844524).

Oh, and :welcome: to the site.

I though PoA was very good-definitely better than the first two in terms of acting and showing how the characters had grown over the year. I thought it was perhaps too dark for PoA-i think the order of the pheonix movie should be like PoA because that is where things get really bad for harry and all on the good side. I thought it was really cool in the movie that they changed and added to hogwarts, but somehow hogwarts lost its warm, safe feel. It was probably supposed to a little, because Sirius does break in, but it didnt really seem very safe to me.

Daniel,Rupert, and Emma now understand thier characters well and how they interact with others and what kind of people they are, so they do a much better job of Bieng thier character. I hope they continue to understand their characters the way they did in this movie.

Cant wait for GoF!!

I always find that the films never match up to my idea of the books. Did anyone else notice in PoA that Hermione's hair was just glamorous and curly, not bushy anymore? Also the Remus Lupin in the film didn't look anything like how I pictured him in my mind. The way the director keeps changing annoys me as well (it's a different one again in GoF I think) - especially in PoA because they so obviously changed the setting of Hogwarts too - because the films are so different to one another (not SS and CoS though because they were by the same director).

Having finished my rant about how disappointed I was with the films, I know that I'll go and see GoF as soon as I can.

Well, having read through some of this thread and noticing how ... vehement ... some posters are in their opinions I'll jump into the fray on the subject.

First up let me say I found the POA movie to be generally a good one. There were some deficiencies both minor and major that I'd like to comment on most of which lie in the hands of the director and screenwriter.

I'll start out with a minor quibble but one that I know will probably attract a negative response from some posters but I'll put it on the table nonetheless and get it out of the way.

Setting:
While I like the overall look of Hogwarts in the film the same could have been achieved without the gross alterations of the grounds from previous films. I don't know if it was the camera angles or a genuine alteration in the set but the great hall seemed almost cramped when it was previously quite a grand setting. Also the courtyard and the setting for Hagrid's hut (though I concede that may have been relocated to aid in his teaching commitments) have drastically changed.

Despite this the overall look and feel of the film is fantastic, probably the best yet in that area.

Writing:
Apart from the pretty ordinary characterisations of some parts, specifically Draco the whimpering coward and Ron the dopey clown, the story itself seemed a bit disjointed. I think it would be a difficult film to follow if you hadn't first read the book as there is much that's only thinly covered or not covered at all.

My biggest quibble with the writing, and with the whole film for that matter, was the failure to explain the Marauder's Map and the significance of it's authors. I'll admit to not having a real good understanding of the mechanics of movie making and the problems involved but on the thread about What you didn't like about the movies (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=39328) I penned a quick addition to Harry and Lupin's final scene that I doubt would have been difficult to include. The white bits are the end of the scene as it was in the movie, the yellow bit's are my amateur scribblings:
Lupin: Don't look so miserable Harry.
Harry: None of it made any difference, Pettigrew escaped.
Lupin: Didn't make any difference, Harry it made all the difference in the world. You helped uncover the truth, you saved an innocent man from a terrible fate. It made a great deal of difference.
Lupin walks around desk.
Lupin: If I am proud of anything it is how much you've learned this year. Now, since I am no longer your teacher I feel no guilt whatsoever in giving this back to you. So now I'll say goodbye. I'm sure we'll meet again sometime, till then (waves wand at map) Mischief managed.
Harry: (As Lupin is about to walk out the door) Professor Lupin?
Lupin: (Stops and looks at Harry) Yes Harry.
Harry: Professor, just how did you know that was a map anyway?
Lupin: How did I know? Well I helped write it Harry, you see I'm Moony.
Harry: Your Moony? Then who are ...
Lupin: Yes Harry, I'm Moony, Sirius was Padfoot, Peter was Wormtail and your father was ...
Harry: Prongs, the stag.
Lupin: Well Harry I've dawdled enough I really must go now. Goodbye for now.
Harry: Bye sir.

Now as I said I'm not a director or a screenwriter but I can't see a scene like that costing much in the way of running time. Even if the one or two minutes it would take were important they could have easily cut some lines of that ruddy talking head to make it up.

The only other real negative I found with the film was the silly ending. The firebolt sequence was another plot element in the book that, like the Ron / Hermione conflict, could have been expanded upon. Even if they just left it as an anonymous gift after Harry's loss of the Nimbus it would have been more appropriate than the what I felt was a contrived upbeat ending. As for that bloody freeze frame bit ...

Now before anyone arcs up I'm not attacking the film, just commenting. All of the negatives that I mentioned were IMO minor ones and didn't detract hugely from the film. In short I liked it but it could have been better.

Me and some of my friends sat and watched PoA again the other night. Now it may just have been the drink talking but one of my friends started a very bizarre conversation about Dumbledore being a time-turner traveller who locked his past self in a cupboard so he could change things. It took me and one of my science mates quite a while to explain why this was actually impossible. She couldn't quite get to grips with why Dumbledore stalled the execution for so long... Other than that we had a great time. Never noticed how long the end goes on for before though. Just when you think it's all over and you can go home it does the whole repeating thing and you start wondering if it will ever finish! It had never bothered me before!

Hagrids hut, the robes, the ties, and the whomping willow chages did make me question why was it necessary. It does throw off the whole continuity of the films unless the next films keep changing hogwarts appearance.

I agree with Deevo that the Marauder's Map could have been easily explained because it is important to the tale - it shows how James,Sirius, and Remus were smart enough to create and use it for their purpose and also why the invisiblity cloke was used so often.

Amen to deevo and buggie. I watched PoA again and found myself liking it less the more I see it (that isn't to say I hate it or anything like that; I'm a firm believer in the idea that any HP film is better than no HP film...though I'll take the books any day!). The reason, I think, is that what is irritating about the film--most of all, to me, the plot holes--were so easy to fix. Look at the time wasted while Cuaron repeats jokes: Dudley getting hit with Aunt Marge's buttons, Harry slamming into the Knight Bus windows, the Willow smacking birds....Couldn't we lose just ONE of those and find out who the Marauders were? Could we lose TWO and find out about Snape's Grudge? (I won't ask for the third and get the Snape-Lupin potion scene in the film.)

On multiple viewings, the continuity problems do stand out more. I happen to love the art of costuming...the emphasis on everybody's (not just the Trio, or the other students) wearing ordinary clothes starts to beg the question: why is any wizard wearing robes? Dumbledore, Snape, and McGonagall actually stand out in the film as oddities, rather than the norm.

As I've said before, there are bits that I really like about this film; I think it's why I really notice what I don't like, because I think the whole could've added up to an even stronger film.

That's odd because the more I see PoA the more I'm loving it and the more the two other films look infinitely inferior in comparison.

I think the reason for not explaining the Marauders is probably because it is more fitting thematically for The Order of the Phoenix (or perhaps Film 7 - who knows?). Cuaron wanted to focus on Harry becoming a teenager. Throwing in the Marauders did not fit in with his vision. Besides, I think even if a person has not read a word of HP, he or she can easily figure it out if he or she thinks about it enough. (Like how the heck did Lupin know how to use the map?) Apparently, Cuaron overestimated the audience's IQ's.

I always find that the films never match up to my idea of the books. Did anyone else notice in PoA that Hermione's hair was just glamorous and curly, not bushy anymore? Also the Remus Lupin in the film didn't look anything like how I pictured him in my mind. The way the director keeps changing annoys me as well (it's a different one again in GoF I think) - especially in PoA because they so obviously changed the setting of Hogwarts too - because the films are so different to one another (not SS and CoS though because they were by the same director).

Having finished my rant about how disappointed I was with the films, I know that I'll go and see GoF as soon as I can.

Ok. Don't go see the films then and stick to the books or make your own film.

Time and time again I see a post of some reader who is disappointed with the films because it "didn't match to his or her idea". The movies, unless you make them yourself will never match your imagination. Probably not even half way. Movies are a different medium than books. They're separate. You can't really compare the two.

If you want a movie that's close or even exactly the way you imagine it, then I'm sorry the movies will always disappoint you because they will probably fall short of your standards. Must the filmmakers consult you on how they're supposed to film it?

Don't expect the films to be exactly like the book and just enjoy the film as a film. If you can't do that, stick to the books. Nothing wrong with that.

All I can say, RemusJLupin1980 is....Wow.

I'm sorry, but it's the slaughtering of Ron's character that gets to me. There was absolutely no good reason not to give him a broken leg or make him unconscious when he should have been. And there is no fathomable reason to give Hermione that line.

RemusJLupin1980.....That was beautiful.

Us Harry Potter fans are actually quite spoiled when it comes to the films. Most Film adaptions (excluding LOTR) are actually so terrible/different that they are unrecognizable. Columbus did page-per-page and all that did was suck out the spirit of the books. Cuaron only deviated a tiny bit....but he managed to atleast get the spirit of the story. And yet because of the ever so slight deviation...we beat the hell out of the movie...or the directing,...or the acting...or a combination of all three.

And about the Ron bashing (which seems to be our main gripe)...In the first movie, he was in character....the second movie....he was butchered (which I blame on columbus as well as Kloves for his childish direction...scardy-cat Ron is a stereotype children's movie best friend). In the third movie, it center's more on the Harry and Hermione friendship (as it also does in the book) than on Harry and Ron's which was the focus of the 2nd book/movie. What ever deviations on his character here sit solely upon Kloves....but compared to the 2nd movie...this time I could actually see the REAL Ron at times.

There...that's my two cents.

wow RemusJLupin1980..just plain wow. i always read people complaining about the movies as well and ive never found quite the words to say exactly what you said. and im sure almost everyone here agrees with you. At least, i certainly do.

Well, I don't. Obviously. It's a discussion board, not a praise board.

I don't like it because it "doesn't match my image" I don't like it because it doesn't match the book - not even close in many respects.

Us Harry Potter fans are actually quite spoiled when it comes to the films. Most Film adaptions (excluding LOTR) are actually so terrible/different that they are unrecognizable.
Actually, LotR had A LOT more changes and liberties taken with it than any Potter film has. I haven't seen any characters as radically changed from their book counterparts as say Denethor or Faramir. This is most likely the hundredth time I've said this, but... Harry Potter fans are lucky as ****!!!! This is most likely why I get so put out over some of things people complain about.

Remus, you're brilliant!

Well, I don't. Obviously. It's a discussion board, not a praise board.
Last time I checked it wasn't a bash board either. This place is meant for debate; therefore, there is going to be some argument. That's what makes this....entertaining!

My problem with the freeze-frame finish (other than it being completely cheesy) is that that event didn't happen at the end of the book. Didn't it happen during Christmas? It's almost as if he forgot about that scene and had to add it in on the end. But the problem with that is that he wouldn't have a broom for the other Quidditch matches of the year. All around, the only way it makes sense is because he has a unique style and stuck with it.

I happen to like the freeze-frame finish because it's a direct reference to one of my favorite films The 400 Blows. It's a French film from the 1950' s about a troubled 13 year old boy and it's one of the earliest examples of a teen angst/teen rebellion film. That, too, ended in a freeze frame shot of it's protagonist.

TRIVIA: Alfonso Cuaron recommended this film to Daniel Radcliffe as a reference to his performance.

I really liked this film. So far, it's my favorite from the films. It was darker, more mature and I loved those aspects of it. I also liked the acting from the trio better. They are improving greatly and I am happy about it. Yes, there were some scenes they cut that I would have love to see, but overall I think it was a great movie. I wasn't dissapointed about the film and I am glad.

I think that PoA is by far, the best movie of the HP series. It's dark and more sirius( haha ;) ) I can't get enough of it. :tu:

Well, I have to say that I have been rather schizophrenic about my feelings on PoA. Although I had read the book several times before, I read it again just before the movie opened. (I think that was my big mistake) I had heard reviews in which JKR had told the director not to exact the book but to capture the spirit of the book. I also heard that JKR was very proud of the movie. Knowing that before I saw the movie put me at ease with an open mind to accept what ever the final product turned out to be.

As I left the theater on opening night I was in an awful state. I was upset at the huge differences in the castle and grounds, upset at the (in my opinion) drastic costume changes, and extremely upset at the amount of pertinent information that had been left out. I asked my husband what he thought of the movie. He liked it better than the first two. Of course he still won't read the books. hmmpf. I spent the next twenty minutes telling him everything that was left out. His big comment, "Oh." Frustrated, I called my brother, the family film connoisseur. Keeping my opinions to myself he went into a 35-minute explanation of how wonderful the film was. I tried to give my objections and explain everything they had left out only to be met with, "Well, I caught on to that." and "That makes sense but it really wasn't necessary to get the film across."

I spent a few days letting my anger mellow. I then saw it again from a different perspective. Does it make sense if you hadn't read the book? Yes.

Then another thought occurred to me. --Brace yourselves, the teacher in me is coming out--
Every time a really great children's book is turned into a movie, elementary teachers cringe a little. (Even if they love the story.) Now we will be swarmed with students trying to take the test on the book because they had seen the movie. This movie is the perfect example of why you should read the book! It turns out that it is easier to create tests because I can put in only questions that deal with specific details that were not present in the movie.

--Yes, I know that students can find the answers by looking on the Internet at wonderful sites like this one. Honestly, if they go to that much trouble to find the answers: 1. They could have read the book by then. 2. They would have to read through a lot of web sites to get to the answers. --Hey, if they did that, they would be reading. That is the goal here is it not?

Now, I have only seen the movie three times since its arrival to DVD. I am pretty sure I am happy with the movie. I have decided that the information that was left out must not be as imperative to the plot as I had originally envisioned.

My only big complaints now are the location of the Whomping Willow, the location of Hagrid’s Hut, and some minor continuity problems.

My only big complaints now are the location of the Whomping Willow, the location of Hagrid’s Hut, and some minor continuity problems.


I agree with everything you have just stated. This last bit, however, is what I have been ranting about since I started posting on this thread, yet a lot of folks believe that I'm being too picky or that I'm trying to impose "how I see it" or "how I believe it should have happened" onto others. It's ridiculous. Time and time again I have done nothing more than point out the differences between the books and the films and what was left out and what wasn't and how any of these changes could have made the film better or worse, as described word for word in the books. A lot of people here don't see it that way.

A shame, it is, that sometimes I cannot get a fair debate without worrying about whether or not I am going to be targeted for something that I have proved over and over that I am not. Okay, so I'm a bit frustrated at some people here and their hard-headedness, but I'm over it now. lol Sometimes I almost think that people say stupid things on purpose just to spark a heated debate! Who knows? That might be happening even as I type this. haha
-
renusjlupin1980, I have to say that you command a lot of respect on these boards and for good reason. You are well-spoken and you possess a lot of insight into whatever it is that you are talking about. Of course, we stand on opposite sides of the spectrum on a couple of issues concerning HP and the movies. As you know, we have debated about this before and let our voices be heard. However, I must make another comment to one of your recent posts. Here goes.

Movies are a different medium than books. They're separate. You can't really compare the two.

I realize that in context, you were referring to katie's post. As it stands, you're correct in you're responses based solely on what she said in her own words. However, this little bit that I have quoted has indeed been mentioned before in the past. I agree with you that film and literature are two different mediums that are separate entities in and of themselves. However, I do not agree that both mediums cannot be compared to one another side-by-side. Yes, this raises other problems and questions regarding interpretation, substance, length, language, etc., but it is not as fallible as you may think to compare the two and get very positive results. After all, debunking this type of comparison really just kind of negates the whole purpose of these forums, do they not? It is true, we are talking about the HP universe, but trying to cancel out film and literature against each other in terms of wanting to compare the two is, in my honest opinion, rather absurd when you think about the practicality of such a statement existing in the real world. This mainly holds with adaptations from book to movie. In this case, it's POA, obviously.

When a book is transformed from mere pages into a feast for the masses, it is automatically granted every right to have the two mediums compared to one another. They are of the same author, same story, same text (more or less), same general effect, etc. When two such mediums are in so close of a relation to one another that denying it would be criminal, particularly because it's an adaptation, then one is granted the right to compare and contrast the two based on the facts from the source material, not the personal opinions of its audience. You have already discredited those who continue to use the latter judgment, which is a good thing and is much appreciated, but you continue to try and separate the books and the films as two things that are incongruent with one another. That is where I disagree with you, as I have stated above. By themselves, film and literature are two completely different things. When put into an "adaptation" perspective, the gap between black and white is bridged and gives way to a more critical study between the two. Therefore, these two mediums CAN be viewed together and be appropriately subjected to further review by a third party, as long as the facts from the source material are present and not remiss.

With all due respect remusjlupin1980, I am not on here to belittle you or to say that you're an idiot (though some people here truly are, as we all know) because you're not. You present many intriguing and challenging arguments and I am hard-pressed to find any decent counters! lol I'm sure that you have a pretty good follow-up broiling inside that head of yours and I am anxious to hear what you have to say. Unfortunately, I wasn't around to argue this particular point with you in the past, but maybe you can give me something to consider for future reference!

Actually, LotR had A LOT more changes and liberties taken with it than any Potter film has. I haven't seen any characters as radically changed from their book counterparts as say Denethor or Faramir.

Uhh no, it didn't. First of all, you have to view LOTR as one complete film, not three separate films. It is a whole. It is the entire story that has been told and everything has been put on screen and is done with. That said, consider the number of hours that LOTR is in total, including the Extended Versions. Some 12+ hours I believe. To date, the HP films TOGETHER total no more than 8 hours in all and we aren't even HALFWAY through the series yet! Therefore, LOTR would of course have more changes made to it because, as of right now, it is much longer in length and in scope than HP. When all seven of the HP movies are released and analyzed as one complete film and everything is finally said and done, THEN you can go and make that kind of comparison. Who knows? We may even see some very radical character changes in the future Potter films. Who knows? By the end of the series, when you add up all of the changes/differences in HP in comparison to LOTR, you may very well have more evidence against HP then LOTR. That is a very possible scenario. But, as it stands, your statement holds no value until we have all the facts and evidence and all HP films are released.

renusjlupin1980, I have to say that you command a lot of respect on these boards and for good reason. You are well-spoken and you possess a lot of insight into whatever it is that you are talking about. Of course, we stand on opposite sides of the spectrum on a couple of issues concerning HP and the movies. As you know, we have debated about this before and let our voices be heard. However, I must make another comment to one of your recent posts. Here goes.


I realize that in context, you were referring to katie's post. As it stands, you're correct in you're responses based solely on what she said in her own words. However, this little bit that I have quoted has indeed been mentioned before in the past. I agree with you that film and literature are two different mediums that are separate entities in and of themselves. However, I do not agree that both mediums cannot be compared to one another side-by-side. Yes, this raises other problems and questions regarding interpretation, substance, length, language, etc., but it is not as fallible as you may think to compare the two and get very positive results. After all, debunking this type of comparison really just kind of negates the whole purpose of these forums, do they not? It is true, we are talking about the HP universe, but trying to cancel out film and literature against each other in terms of wanting to compare the two is, in my honest opinion, rather absurd when you think about the practicality of such a statement existing in the real world. This mainly holds with adaptations from book to movie. In this case, it's POA, obviously.

When a book is transformed from mere pages into a feast for the masses, it is automatically granted every right to have the two mediums compared to one another. They are of the same author, same story, same text (more or less), same general effect, etc. When two such mediums are in so close of a relation to one another that denying it would be criminal, particularly because it's an adaptation, then one is granted the right to compare and contrast the two based on the facts from the source material, not the personal opinions of its audience. You have already discredited those who continue to use the latter judgment, which is a good thing and is much appreciated, but you continue to try and separate the books and the films as two things that are incongruent with one another. That is where I disagree with you, as I have stated above. By themselves, film and literature are two completely different things. When put into an "adaptation" perspective, the gap between black and white is bridged and gives way to a more critical study between the two. Therefore, these two mediums CAN be viewed together and be appropriately subjected to further review by a third party, as long as the facts from the source material are present and not remiss.

With all due respect remusjlupin1980, I am not on here to belittle you or to say that you're an idiot (though some people here truly are, as we all know) because you're not. You present many intriguing and challenging arguments and I am hard-pressed to find any decent counters! lol I'm sure that you have a pretty good follow-up broiling inside that head of yours and I am anxious to hear what you have to say. Unfortunately, I wasn't around to argue this particular point with you in the past, but maybe you can give me something to consider for future reference!



CajunFry: Thank you for your kind words. I truly appreciate it. :blush:

What you said is mostly right. A film adaptation of a book CAN be compared to one another. However it's comparison should NOT be used as a measure of the QUALITY of either of the two mediums.

In other words, you cannot say that a film based on a book is bad because it didn't remain faithful to the book. The Shining (the 1980 version), for instance, didn't stick to the book and only used the book as a springboard. A lot of people didn't like it because it wasn't faithful to Stephen King but as a film in and of itself, it's a favorite among horror fans and cineastes.

If you didn't like the movie because it isn't faithful to it's source material, fine. But you can't say if it's good or bad on the basis of it's faithfulness to the source material. Ideally, the director/screenwriter should not have the obligation to remain faithful to the original source material. They can be inspired by it and use the story and characters to create their own work of art that should be detached and separate from the book.

It sort of like a painter doing a portrait. Not all painters paint realistic drawings, they each have their own style and interpretation of what they see and how they paint it. You can't say you don't like a painting because it's not realistic to it's source material.

In the case of Alfonso Cuaron, clearly he was inspired by the book and CHOSE to remain as faithful as possible while still retaining it's spirit. What he saw in the books was: COMING-OF-AGE OF A TEENAGED BOY. Some of you saw a boy discovering about his father. Some of you saw it's all about Quidditch, etc. But Cuaron was inspired by the coming of age angle. That's the movie he made. That's the painting he made.

I hope I'm clear on this subject.

I couldn't agree more remusjlupin1980. The film is far from perfect when you compare it to the book but I still loved it for what it was. I loved the book (in fact it's my favourite) and was dreading seeing another PS/CoS but I was impressed with both the look and the feel of the film. I know people are annoyed with the changes in the look from the first two and it's true in a way.... Why couldn't the first two of looked as good as PoA? :)

To carry on in the same vain as PS and CoS would have been wrong for any new director. They have every right to inject their own personality into the films. It's a shame the same person can't do all 7 so they all have a similar look (like LotR's) but unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your view...) they don't.

I wouldn't want anyone to take one of the films on and then feel that they are constricted in their vision because of what has gone before. No one has the same imagination or view on the world and for me it makes the films more interesting to have different people's views on the Potterverse.

I hated the first two films which I know a lot of people loved. I loved the third film, which a lot of people hated. I'm sure GoF will change again... Whether I love it or hate it it will be different and I personally think that keeps them fresh.

On the Whomping Willow being moved thing I still maintain (from one of my previous post's) that the new location makes far more sense than the old one but that’s a very old argument that seems to be going no-where so…

On a side note I hated the LotR's books and had to force myself to read them but absolutely loved the films so I think there were an awful lot of changes from the books to the films. All the random witter and pointless characters were cut for a start! But then that's just my opinion... ;)

I've always said the world would be a very boring place if we all agreed...

You make very good points rela. Since I am at school, I don't have a TV yet to watch the movies. I mean I have both of them, just no TV. :sad: I'll try to get one and finally watch the willow scene a little more closely. There is a very good chance that the willow isn't as perfectly placed as I thought it was, if your comments are anything to judge by. You've got me really curious now. I agree with you on the time-turner issue. Hermione and Harry would have had to have gone around the entire castle to get to the points as seen in the film (with relation to book locations). That's a lot of running! I never knew they were champion cross-country runners!! :rotfl: Yeah, the Hagrid's Hut thing really bothered me as well, because it was perfectly fine where it was in the other films. I mean, if they had put it there originally in the first place, it wouldn't so bad. (Yet, it had to be pretty close to the castle, which in POA it wasn't.) But that's not a big issue with me, so I'll let it go.

OK I have finally got photographic evidence of the afore mentioned misplacing of the Whomping Willow in relation to both Hogwarts and Hagrid's Hut in CoS....

The car landing on the ground (after falling out of the Whomping Willow) right next to Hogwarts....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v46/rela00/Whomping%20Willow/6889c3e7.bmp

The car going towards a tunnel like structure in the school...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v46/rela00/Whomping%20Willow/ddd93493.bmp

Going through the tunnel....
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v46/rela00/Whomping%20Willow/d33dbc6b.bmp

Coming out of the tunnel...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v46/rela00/Whomping%20Willow/6a32d876.bmp

And then heading into the trees near Hagrids hut...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v46/rela00/Whomping%20Willow/ba42e2d5.bmp

Now I might be wrong but to me that just didn't seem right!

Am I the only person who HATED the ending of PoA? Harry riding off on his broomstick...honestly, how much time would it have took to just let him have the broomstick on Christmas and have Minerva take it away and give it back after a while?

Am I the only person who HATED the ending of PoA? Harry riding off on his broomstick...honestly, how much time would it have took to just let him have the broomstick on Christmas and have Minerva take it away and give it back after a while?
Actually if you read most of this thread then that has been discussed more than most things (except the placing of buildings and trees of course ;)). A lot of people like it and a lot of people don't but in context of the film it makes quite a lot of sense even if it is wrong (to me anyway). Harry HAS to have the broom for the next film but to have all the chaos over it (arguments about it being off Sirius with Hermione and whether it should be handed in, Hermione telling, it being taken off him and tested, Harry and Hermione arguing and falling out, it being given back to him later in the film)would have taken up quite a lot of time. A lot more time than a simple "Sir how did you know about the map..." But hay... The films are never going to be perfect so why expect them to be. :) Which I know is going to flare up another big argument but hay... My opinion guy's! ;)

No arguments here! We all have our opinions, and I've heard some good ones on here. THe best thing that can happen is that the movies will encourage more people to read the books.

Actually if you read most of this thread then that has been discussed more than most things (except the placing of buildings and trees of course ;)). A lot of people like it and a lot of people don't but in context of the film it makes quite a lot of sense even if it is wrong (to me anyway). Harry HAS to have the broom for the next film but to have all the chaos over it (arguments about it being off Sirius with Hermione and whether it should be handed in, Hermione telling, it being taken off him and tested, Harry and Hermione arguing and falling out, it being given back to him later in the film)would have taken up quite a lot of time. A lot more time than a simple "Sir how did you know about the map..." But hay... The films are never going to be perfect so why expect them to be. :) Which I know is going to flare up another big argument but hay... My opinion guy's! ;)

I never have really thought about that, but i guess it would have taken up a lot of time. They could have just made it so Mcgonagall didn't take the broom off him.

hi all, ive tried to read this all this thread but there is just too much of it. ill have to continue tomorrow. i liked the movie, but i just have one little question of little or no consequence, nevertheless its still bugging me. maybe its already been discussed already, but in about the first half of the movie theres a chubby black boy who has a couple of lines (the one who talked about sirius being like smoke, hard to catch etc). and when i was watching it with subtitles apparently his name is bem? who is bem? why have they added in bem? i know its unimportant but i thought it was weird.
also, lavender brown is in the credits, does anyone know which one she is sposed to be?

I never have really thought about that, but i guess it would have taken up a lot of time. They could have just made it so Mcgonagall didn't take the broom off him.

That would have defeated the entire point of the scene. The falling out between Hermione and Harry&Ron is only partly about raising suspicion about who sent Harry the broom. Because it checks clean, it turns out to be a red-herring.

Instead, it is primarily character development, especially for Ron & Hermione. The dynamic between the two of them is quite different than is the dynamic between Harry & Hermione. Hermione's anger at Ron in GoF for not asking her to the Yule Ball was entirely predictable after that exchange.


Remember, the point of the movie was to tell the story, not repeat the book. The story is about understanding that things are not what they seem, and that often one needs to consider more than one explanation. It also ties into the overall "coming of age" narrative theme. A very important point in one's life (indeed, one that marks a transition to adulthood) is realizing that adults are not always right, and that one should not simply take the word of authority figures. Instead, one should think and act for ones' self.

PoA is a story about a boy learning to think and act for himself. Both the movie and book told that story. The Firebolt did not really contribute much, except to offer the reader a clue that something odd was happening - after all, someone sent Harry a perfectly usable, fantastic broom.

i sooo agree Nightshade !i pictured the wizarding world to be a bit dark and mysterious and PoA was exactly that!!
I also agree...I mean when I started reading the books...I pictured everything to be much darker...not like all "smiley-smiley" if you know what I mean. And I think it also added to the drama, which was cool.

I discovered today that if you watch the time turner sequence where harry and hermione have stuff blurring around them in slow motion, you can see some cool stuff!

1. First you see the same thing you just saw happen in real time happen backwards: Dumbledore tells harry and hermione to use the time turner, then it backs up to harry waking up and hermione telling him they've got sirius locked up

2. this is where the fun stuff starts :) Hermione sits by harrys bed as both he and ron are unconcious, then she backs up to a chair on the other side of the room as Madam pomfrey mends her cut hand, and while this is going on you can see someone (maybe snape) sitting by harry's bedside, and then a little further back you see snape telling dumbledore everything thats happened.

3. after that none of it really makes sense with what we know of the story, but you can see madam pomfrey unwrapping a mummy :) (course it looks like she is wrapping it since it is going backwards)

3. after that none of it really makes sense with what we know of the story, but you can see madam pomfrey unwrapping a mummy :) (course it looks like she is wrapping it since it is going backwards)
I always assumed that was a heavily bandaged Lupin, fresh from a night of fighting like a dog ;)

I saw the movie and I thought it was rather odd how many times Dumbledore visited the Hospital Wing as you could easily see him walk in and out when time turned back at the Time Turn Scene. I found it very odd indeed as in like the books that doesn't happen much that DD is in the Hospital Wing though that was before the LV time and all, maybe a clue of how concerned DD is over his students which we know he is.

I think they did a pretty good job of re-building the hospital wing, but you can tell it is different. Like how the painting in the upright corner is missing, and in Chamber of secrets, when the door of the hospital wing was opened, their was a wall a metre or so in front of it.

I think they did a pretty good job of re-building the hospital wing, but you can tell it is different. Like how the painting in the upright corner is missing, and in Chamber of secrets, when the door of the hospital wing was opened, their was a wall a metre or so in front of it.

Well in PS they used an actual place for the Hospital Wing, but in COS it was a set. In cos the wing where harry was in the first film is visible BEHIND the door, but the wing he is in in COS is beyond that. That is why in PS it is a wall behind the door, and in COS it is more beds. As for POA, the wing is in a different location, so I always (just me BTW) imagined they just built a new one. I know many will scold me for thinking that, but thats just how I think of it.

I was totally disapointed by the PoA movie! Longest of the 3 1st books but it was the shortest out of all 3 films. The directer could have done alot more with it. I was also very annoyed with the muggle clothes. They were always wearing muggle clothes. What ever happened to the robes? ! of the things I loved about the book is that they win the quidditch cup.

I was totally disapointed by the PoA movie! Longest of the 3 1st books but it was the shortest out of all 3 films. The directer could have done alot more with it. I was also very annoyed with the muggle clothes. They were always wearing muggle clothes. What ever happened to the robes? ! of the things I loved about the book is that they win the quidditch cup.

They did wear robes, but only when the students had to (Classes, etc.) You see them wearing other clothes in hogmeade, because it isn't classes. Also, for Buckbeak's execution, their was no classes. I remember in the other movies they wore muggle clothes in both movies breifly.

They didn't wear robes! They were dressed in bormal private school type outfits.

They didn't wear robes! They were dressed in bormal private school type outfits.

Forgive me, but what were those things that went all the way down to their feet and had hoods, and were black. Oh right! ROBES! What were they earing in divination vclass? Or hagrids class? Or the boggart class? Or in the choir? Robes, robes, and yes; more robes.

Forgive me, but what were those things that went all the way down to their feet and had hoods, and were black. Oh right! ROBES! What were they earing in divination vclass? Or hagrids class? Or the boggart class? Or in the choir? Robes, robes, and yes; more robes.

Thankyou for that! You put that perfectly. :p

They did wear their robes, maybe not as much as they did in PS & CoS,but they did. :huh:

maybe it was just bc of the anticipation i felt before the 3rd movie came out, but i was extremely disappointed. There were so many easily fixed mistakes. And another thing. POA was the single Harry Potter book that they could have followed the plot exactly. They could have done every scene in the book, in the movie, exactly. it was relatively short and it was not episodic. but alfonso decided to make POA "his own" and waste important time on stupid , Alfonso-made scences.

I totally agree with the movie being a disapointment. It was the shortest out of all 3 films. That shows alot more could have been put in. I wish it would have explained the maruaders map, and gave him the firebolt at the right time. Also the end of the movie when it's supposed to be may or june seems more like fall. Pumpkins at hagrids, the crows, and the sky looking like it did made it seem like it was halloween time. In the book it's always hot around that time of year.

Alfonso Cauron was told to serve the material. He could have made the movie completely different if he wanted too, be thankful for what you got.

Okay, am I the only HP fan who loves all three films? I am beggining to think I am.

Okay, am I the only HP fan who loves all three films? I am beggining to think I am.I like all three films. Each film has gotten better in my opinion. I didn't expect them to to be exactly like the books. I just enjoyed the ride! :cool: :tu:

I like all three films. Each film has gotten better in my opinion. I didn't expect them to to be exactly like the books. I just enjoyed the ride! :cool: :tu:

Same with me. I thought that PS/SS was great, COS was better, and POA was even better then that. I have high hopes for GOF.

However, I wasn't too convinced about the Herm-Draco scene near Hagrid's hut. It's cool that she punched him rather than slapped in many ways, but I feel that it made her seem a bit out of character as a proper, highly intelligent schoolgirl. Rather, it gave me the impression that she was somewhat of a closet-brawler of sorts. I know that's going a bit far, but I seriously think that a nice, full slap in the face would have made more sense as far as staying closer to the fact that she's a girl and not a boxer.

I also disliked the fact that it was switched from a slap to a punch, but for a different reason. The punch is, of course, awesome and girl-powery. Yet a slap is so much more insulting. IMO, when you punch someone it's out of anger and an intent to hurt, whereas a slap isn't intended to hurt but to display disdain and hatred.

How can people think PoA was better than the other 2 films? It was totally rushed, and so much was left out. Material that explained alot was left out for example the marauders map. Also more about his patronis. I could go on and on but I won't!

How can people think PoA was better than the other 2 films? It was totally rushed, and so much was left out. Material that explained alot was left out for example the marauders map. Also more about his patronis. I could go on and on but I won't!
Well I think the visual style and feel of POA was superior to the previous films it's just the story and direction that was lacking IMO.

How can people think PoA was better than the other 2 films? It was totally rushed, and so much was left out. Material that explained alot was left out for example the marauders map. Also more about his patronis. I could go on and on but I won't!


Well, if you want an answer to that, I will give you my personal opinion on the subject.

The story was emotionly balanced, and consistent. It had the feeling of the books, which is that you feel you are in a magical world, but it still feels like one you could live in. The camera work was masterful, and the acting was the best yet. The way they explored Harry's character was amazing, I really related to him. The dark and mossy green feeling the film had really fit the story, and I personaly didn't find the film to be rushed at all, just because it was shorter then the first two dosen't make it rushed. And everything that was left out can easily be said later, and whilst I would have loved backstory on the Marauders, it can be said in passing in GOF by Sirius. The film was about Harry thinking he is all powerfull (as evidenced by his "Don't worry...I will be" line in COS), he's faced Voldemort twice, he's killed a giant Basilisk. Because of all this he is a smidge full of himself, he thinks he can handle anything, but then along comes the Dementors. He faints at the sight of them, when nobody else does. He starts to think of himself as weak. He starts to long for a real family, which he's never had. He finds this in Lupin, then he learns of Sirius Black's suposed betrayal of his parents. His emotions mix with anger, frustration and sadness, and the need to prove himself to be not weak. By the end of the story, he spares Pettigrew because he sees that strenth and weakness are not decided by what you destroy, but by what you spare. Many other directors would have made this film about a killer being after Harry and Harry finding out the truth, and almost completley abandon the subtext. But POA was faithfull to this emotional character driven theme, and THAT is what makes it a great film in my book.

I think most people like it because it because it was the last movie made. Seems like it works that way with the books as well. You get all excited about it coming out that until the excitement of the next 1 cmes out thats your fav.

I think most people like it because it because it was the last movie made. Seems like it works that way with the books as well. You get all excited about it coming out that until the excitement of the next 1 cmes out thats your fav.

Well, that wasn't my reason. I was really exited about the second LOTR movie, and I ended up loving it, but not as much as the first. I love all three Harry Potter's, but POA is by far my favorite, for the reasons I made in my last post.

I think most people like it because it because it was the last movie made. Seems like it works that way with the books as well. You get all excited about it coming out that until the excitement of the next 1 cmes out thats your fav.
Umm, I don't think so, and I don't know that many people that think like that. Sure people get excited when something new comes out, but that doesn't make it their favorite. A lot of people favor PoA over the first two becuase it was, imo, a better film that the first two by leaps and bounds.

Well the whole PoA story is just a better story IMO. I really thought more could have been done with it though. I really wanted it to be longer. I could sit through Harry Potter for hours, and im sure many other fans feel the same way. It really was rushed too. There is far more stuff going on in book 3 than the other 2. But for some reason the 3rd movie was shortest of them all. I wish they would have put in more quidditch. PoA is where Harry finally wins the quidditch cup! Why couldn't they put more quidditch in the movie? Where else are you going to see quidditch eh? More also needed to be explained about the maruaders map and his patronis. Also the weather was always dreary. I just expected alot more and it wasn't there. Oh and the reason it seems that people make their decisions from the excitement from it's release is from the polls. The most recent book or movie is always what ranks highest as peoples favorites on the polls.

Well the whole PoA story is just a better story IMO. I really thought more could have been done with it though. I really wanted it to be longer. I could sit through Harry Potter for hours, and im sure many other fans feel the same way. It really was rushed too. There is far more stuff going on in book 3 than the other 2. But for some reason the 3rd movie was shortest of them all. I wish they would have put in more quidditch. PoA is where Harry finally wins the quidditch cup! Why couldn't they put more quidditch in the movie? Where else are you going to see quidditch eh? More also needed to be explained about the maruaders map and his patronis. Also the weather was always dreary. I just expected alot more and it wasn't there. Oh and the reason it seems that people make their decisions from the excitement from it's release is from the polls. The most recent book or movie is always what ranks highest as peoples favorites on the polls.

Ya know, it's obvious that when you asked "Why do you like POA more then the firs ttwo?" you weren't really asking, because I gave a full and though out answer, and it has gone completley ignored, and in place of a reply you just came up wit hanother excuse why fans love POA so much. Now, I respect your opinon, and I a msure you have perfectly good reasons to dislike PoA, but that dosen't mean that the only reason people love POA is because it's new. I gave my reasons, and thus my case is laid out.

How can people think PoA was better than the other 2 films? It was totally rushed, and so much was left out. Material that explained alot was left out for example the marauders map. Also more about his patronis. I could go on and on but I won't!

Well, if you want an answer to that, I will give you my personal opinion on the subject.

The story was emotionly balanced, and consistent. It had the feeling of the books, which is that you feel you are in a magical world, but it still feels like one you could live in. The camera work was masterful, and the acting was the best yet. The way they explored Harry's character was amazing, I really related to him. The dark and mossy green feeling the film had really fit the story, and I personaly didn't find the film to be rushed at all, just because it was shorter then the first two dosen't make it rushed. And everything that was left out can easily be said later, and whilst I would have loved backstory on the Marauders, it can be said in passing in GOF by Sirius. The film was about Harry thinking he is all powerfull (as evidenced by his "Don't worry...I will be" line in COS), he's faced Voldemort twice, he's killed a giant Basilisk. Because of all this he is a smidge full of himself, he thinks he can handle anything, but then along comes the Dementors. He faints at the sight of them, when nobody else does. He starts to think of himself as weak. He starts to long for a real family, which he's never had. He finds this in Lupin, then he learns of Sirius Black's suposed betrayal of his parents. His emotions mix with anger, frustration and sadness, and the need to prove himself to be not weak. By the end of the story, he spares Pettigrew because he sees that strenth and weakness are not decided by what you destroy, but by what you spare. Many other directors would have made this film about a killer being after Harry and Harry finding out the truth, and almost completley abandon the subtext. But POA was faithfull to this emotional character driven theme, and THAT is what makes it a great film in my book.

Ahhhh yes...hawk1245, you make very good points and I agree with most everything you just said. However, potter80's original concern was that he didn't feel that POA was better than SS or COS. Yeah, POA is a great film in and of itself, don't get me wrong. The character evolution of Harry Potter was done superbly. In that respect you are completely correct. But again, you explained why you felt, like me, why the movie was great, but not why it was better or worse than its predecessors. I just think that based on your answer you were answering the wrong question with the right answer. As for the movie feeling rushed, I agree wholeheartedly with potter80 that it was indeed pushed more than it should have been. However, I do not say this because the film itself was short. That is not the case. I state this because each scene was done as if it were more of the main idea of that particular chapter in the book instead of addressing the points in a more relaxed fashion.

Upon my first viewing of POA, I was VERY surprised at how quickly the movie began and how quickly it ended. It is true, there were several scenes that actually had some good exposition, but the majority were done in an abbreviated fashion and that's what made it feel as if it were rushed. I don't think that a lot of us were able to get entirely comfortable and into a particular scene because as soon as we adjusted to the new setting and characters, it had already jumped to another part of the story. That kind of makes one feel a bit tense in which you fear that if you aren't 100% alert all of the time, you might miss something. I realize that a lot of you will disagree with me on this, but that is how I feel. :cool:

I think most people like it because it because it was the last movie made. Seems like it works that way with the books as well. You get all excited about it coming out that until the excitement of the next 1 cmes out thats your fav.

You know, despite the fact that I have pointed this out in prior posts, it's nice to hear someone reiterate that fact. It is true that the majority of the people in the world only like something that is new in a series just because it's the most recent. A lot of these folks don't even realize it and would deny it if you called them out on it. I am mainly referring to those who are under the age of 14 or so that are constantly excited about anything that is new, generally speaking. The novelty of a new video game or book or, in this case, a movie plays a large role in the way people view media in these times. Again, that’s a general assessment. Of course there are going to be those vast handfuls out there that are not this way and are actually capable of thinking rationally before they let their initial emotions of excitement get the better of them. So to those of you who are actually sentient beings and not merely naïve individuals with short attention spans, I praise you. :tu:

Well the whole PoA story is just a better story IMO. I really thought more could have been done with it though. I really wanted it to be longer. I could sit through Harry Potter for hours, and im sure many other fans feel the same way. It really was rushed too. There is far more stuff going on in book 3 than the other 2. But for some reason the 3rd movie was shortest of them all. I wish they would have put in more quidditch. PoA is where Harry finally wins the quidditch cup! Why couldn't they put more quidditch in the movie? Where else are you going to see quidditch eh? More also needed to be explained about the maruaders map and his patronis. Also the weather was always dreary. I just expected alot more and it wasn't there.

I agree that the movie could have been longer and it wouldn’t have been a big deal, but as far as the Quidditch goes, I do miss it just as much as any other fan out there. However, I can understand why the cup wasn’t included in the final film. It wasn’t really crucial to the main story line. But, I feel as if they could have at least mentioned outcome of the cup within a conversation or in passing somewhere in the midst of the film. It could have easily been substituted for one of those ridiculous Cuaron scenes (like the shrunken head) or in place of useless banter, just to stay a bit more in canon with the text. Also, I could have used a bit more of an extended Quidditch scene as we saw it in the movie. I’m not saying that I wanted the full play-by-plays as in the first two films, but just a little more to satisfy my hungry Quidditch appetite. I am sure that that would have appeased more fans out there than not.

And the Marauders Map is the most popular gripe with most fans and for good reason too. Cuaron assumed that people would know what it was and who made it. WRONG. :td: If you hadn’t read the book, you’d be clueless about it. It's almost inexcusable to leave out such a crucial bit but, fortunately for him, this is not quite as detrimental as many have made it out be. But it's still bad. :grumble:

I was also a bit disappointed in the portrayal of Harry’s Patronus. I missed it completely the first time and I left the theater wondering why I got cheated out of a good look at the stag that is Harry’s Patronus. However, the second time I watched the movie, I glued my eyes to Harry’s figure when he cast his spell and Alas!, there it was. It was very brief, but I saw the stag for a second or so before it dissipated. Now, the whole execution of the patronus scene could have been better sold to me had it followed more of what the text had originally described it as being and not as vague as it was. The fact that it came out as a burst of just light just made it a bit more difficult to pull the stag out of it, but that’s just my opinion. :shrug:

Oh and the reason it seems that people make their decisions from the excitement from it's release is from the polls. The most recent book or movie is always what ranks highest as peoples favorites on the polls.

This is true. You have to take into account that there are a lot of people that don’t really know how to think objectively about something and so they just blindly go with whatever is freshest on their minds. It’s a fact that exists and I’m not about to think otherwise. That would just be plain ignorant. Then again, you don’t have to just look at the exit polls to get this kind of an observation. Just ask random people the same question and watch how they respond. It’s obvious whether they know what they’re talking about or not. Go figure. :huh:

I also disliked the fact that it was switched from a slap to a punch, but for a different reason. The punch is, of course, awesome and girl-powery. Yet a slap is so much more insulting. IMO, when you punch someone it's out of anger and an intent to hurt, whereas a slap isn't intended to hurt but to display disdain and hatred.

Kudos!! :tu: :tu:

I know this is a bit off-topic, but i wish Professor Lupin never said Pavarti when the girl went up to the snake in Defence Against The Dark Arts. He could have said nothing, or just called a random girl name. At least it's hard to make out what he said, so not many wil notice the casting change.

Did anyone half expect Lupin to start shouting at the kids to "EAT THE CHOCOLATE!!! BY JOVE IT HELPS!!!!"? I thought he was a few minutes from exploding :lol:.[/overexaggeration]

You know, despite the fact that I have pointed this out in prior posts, it's nice to hear someone reiterate that fact. It is true that the majority of the people in the world only like something that is new in a series just because it's the most recent. A lot of these folks don't even realize it and would deny it if you called them out on it. I am mainly referring to those who are under the age of 14 or so that are constantly excited about anything that is new, generally speaking.
Even though people get excited over something new in a long-running series doesn't mean that they will switch favorites everytime based on novelty. I mean everyone was excited when OotP came out, heck I was jumping up and down, but many people still listed PoA as their favorite. I think in this scenario you have too many variables to really say so many people like it because it was new: you had a new director, new cinematographer, a book that is widely considered much better than the previous two, cast that had more time to mature and grow, etc. I think a better example would have been CoS; in that case you had many things that weren't changed as dramatically.

All the same, the newest things in series tend to push the story along further; they tend to be meatier and stronger than begining things. I've always found the first two books in the Potter series to be the weakest, just because things hadn't really picked up yet. PoA is where things really start to get going; it's the story that's pushing it into people's favorite list, not the fact that it's new, because it isn't anymore.

I'm not denying that there are certainly people who do like things because their new. I've most likely been guilty of it myself, if even just on a subconcious level. All I'm saying is that I don't think "newness" is the only factor contributing to people's love of this film.

Ahhhh yes...hawk1245, you make very good points and I agree with most everything you just said. However, potter80's original concern was that he didn't feel that POA was better than SS or COS. Yeah, POA is a great film in and of itself, don't get me wrong. The character evolution of Harry Potter was done superbly. In that respect you are completely correct. But again, you explained why you felt, like me, why the movie was great, but not why it was better or worse than its predecessors. I just think that based on your answer you were answering the wrong question with the right answer. As for the movie feeling rushed, I agree wholeheartedly with potter80 that it was indeed pushed more than it should have been. However, I do not say this because the film itself was short. That is not the case. I state this because each scene was done as if it were more of the main idea of that particular chapter in the book instead of addressing the points in a more relaxed fashion.

Upon my first viewing of POA, I was VERY surprised at how quickly the movie began and how quickly it ended. It is true, there were several scenes that actually had some good exposition, but the majority were done in an abbreviated fashion and that's what made it feel as if it were rushed. I don't think that a lot of us were able to get entirely comfortable and into a particular scene because as soon as we adjusted to the new setting and characters, it had already jumped to another part of the story. That kind of makes one feel a bit tense in which you fear that if you aren't 100% alert all of the time, you might miss something. I realize that a lot of you will disagree with me on this, but that is how I feel. :cool:
:tu: :tu:

Well ,perhaps I wasn't clear enough with my answer. Whist I loved al lthree Potter films, I felt that POA got closest to how the books felt. And also I think that the film wans't afraid to sacrifice memorable books scene (all of whic hI love) in exchange for the intimate character story. I think the characters felt much more real then in PS and COS, even Vernon felt less cartoonish! Example, when Harry asks him to sign the form, he responds "Later perhaps, if you behave." and he says it like he's annoyed or dosen't care much. I think that CC (as much as I loved what he did with the first films) would have had him be much more loud and snappy. Like "Later perhaps! IF you behave!", now both versions fit Vernon, but I prefer the cooler, more nervous one. It just makes him seem like a real life jerk, instad of a cartoon one. I like both directors alot, but what AC did with POA was jfar superior and unique then the first films. That is why I like POA more then the first two films.

POA is by far the best Potter film yet. It has all the elements the good films should have. The camera work is great The acting is solid. The script is on point. Chris Columbus started out well setting up the series, but his vision was unnaturally tidy. I'm glad Cuaron added some landscape to Hogwarts. He gave the Whomping Willow a personality. He gave the castle more personality. The lighting was darker. It was less "Disney". These books are dark and they deal with heavy issues. The films should reflect that. And I felt like it's the first Harry Potter film that has atrue Europian/Brit feel to it. Not a Hollywood version of what England is like. I hope GoF is half as good. Is anyone else worried about how it will turn out?

POA is by far the best Potter film yet. It has all the elements the good films should have. The camera work is great The acting is solid. The script is on point. Chris Columbus started out well setting up the series, but his vision was unnaturally tidy. I'm glad Cuaron added some landscape to Hogwarts. He gave the Whomping Willow a personality. He gave the castle more personality. The lighting was darker. It was less "Disney". These books are dark and they deal with heavy issues. The films should reflect that. And I felt like it's the first Harry Potter film that has atrue Europian/Brit feel to it. Not a Hollywood version of what England is like. I hope GoF is half as good. Is anyone else worried about how it will turn out?



How were the 1st 2 Harry Potter movies Disney? Why should the lighting be darker? I think it's good to have the lighting how it is. In the summer it should look like summer, and in the spring it should look like spring. All I ever saw was fall and winter. At the end of the books JKR always writes about how warm it is outside.

How were the 1st 2 Harry Potter movies Disney? Why should the lighting be darker? I think it's good to have the lighting how it is. In the summer it should look like summer, and in the spring it should look like spring. All I ever saw was fall and winter. At the end of the books JKR always writes about how warm it is outside.


I use the term "Disney" as general cheezieness.And SS and CoS where too cheezie! Good, but cheezie. They had this happy-go-lucky mask on that's just not true to the story. The grounds are perfectly manicured. These no life in the landscape. It's a castle, not a KMart. It can be dark and cold sometimes. Columbus didn't give the sets an authentic feel, they look more like sets.There great but the lighting betrayed the mood. And what's with scenes like the standing ovation for Hagrid in the end of CoS or the obvious green screen shoots out side of Hagrids cabin SS and CoS.? PoA gives life to the landscape. This a huge reason why LOTR is so great as film because they used as many real locations as possible. And each season change was portrayed in PoA through out the movie. By the Whomping Willow or the scene went Hewig is flying and it starts to snow. Hogwarts is in Scotland and it's not Southern California, you can expect sun all the time. If you want to watch Freaky Friday, watch Freaky Friday. I want Harry Potter: the good, the bad and the ugly.

Even though people get excited over something new in a long-running series doesn't mean that they will switch favorites everytime based on novelty. I mean everyone was excited when OotP came out, heck I was jumping up and down, but many people still listed PoA as their favorite. I think in this scenario you have too many variables to really say so many people like it because it was new: you had a new director, new cinematographer, a book that is widely considered much better than the previous two, cast that had more time to mature and grow, etc. I think a better example would have been CoS; in that case you had many things that weren't changed as dramatically.

All the same, the newest things in series tend to push the story along further; they tend to be meatier and stronger than begining things. I've always found the first two books in the Potter series to be the weakest, just because things hadn't really picked up yet. PoA is where things really start to get going; it's the story that's pushing it into people's favorite list, not the fact that it's new, because it isn't anymore.

I'm not denying that there are certainly people who do like things because their new. I've most likely been guilty of it myself, if even just on a subconcious level. All I'm saying is that I don't think "newness" is the only factor contributing to people's love of this film.

:agree: :agree: Yes, this is true. Very true, indeed. However, I already stated that in my post, or did you choose to not quote that portion of it? :huh: Here it is anyway, just in case you missed it:
Of course there are going to be those vast handfuls out there that are not this way and are actually capable of thinking rationally before they let their initial emotions of excitement get the better of them.
As you can see, there really was no need for you to say what you did, albeit correct and in league with what I had first noted as it was. In addition to that, I also stated TWICE that my views were just a generalization. I never said ALL or EVERYONE. Just in general. Nothing more. I also noted this same exact thing later on in the post. Did you read that part too or did you skip over it? I don't know. As long as my posts can be, I wouldn't blame you! :lol: But I will repost it just to be on the safe side:
You have to take into account that there are a lot of people that don’t really know how to think objectively about something and so they just blindly go with whatever is freshest on their minds. It’s a fact that exists and I’m not about to think otherwise. That would just be plain ignorant. Then again, you don’t have to just look at the exit polls to get this kind of an observation. Just ask random people the same question and watch how they respond. It’s obvious whether they know what they’re talking about or not. Go figure.
Here (above) I am talking about the same subject, but only to a different person. Those that you described as being able to actually judge something based on its substance (e.g., the story that you had stated) were the exact people that I was referring to. I thought I was quite clear on that. Apparently I was too vague. I will try harder in the future. :cool:

Well ,perhaps I wasn't clear enough with my answer. Whist I loved al lthree Potter films, I felt that POA got closest to how the books felt. And also I think that the film wans't afraid to sacrifice memorable books scene (all of whic hI love) in exchange for the intimate character story. I think the characters felt much more real then in PS and COS, even Vernon felt less cartoonish! Example, when Harry asks him to sign the form, he responds "Later perhaps, if you behave." and he says it like he's annoyed or dosen't care much. I think that CC (as much as I loved what he did with the first films) would have had him be much more loud and snappy. Like "Later perhaps! IF you behave!", now both versions fit Vernon, but I prefer the cooler, more nervous one. It just makes him seem like a real life jerk, instad of a cartoon one. I like both directors alot, but what AC did with POA was jfar superior and unique then the first films. That is why I like POA more then the first two films.

:sigh: My friend, when I made that post I KNEW full-well what you felt. Everything you said here was already posted by yourself the first time. And WELL supported, I might add. :agree: However, there was no need to further stress your point on the basis that I didn't understand your answer the first time around. As I said before, you weren't answering the question as it was laid out by potter80. You had misinterpreted the post and that's really why I even bothered to say anything in the first place in hopes that things would get cleared up. Apparently, you misread MY answer in turn and again, here I am trying to explain what is really happening and not what you believe to be the current situation. I'm not saying that you're inept or incompetent. You're not! :no: I am just asking you to read the posts a little closer and to make SURE that you completely understand what is there on the page before you make a reply. Unfortunately, this is how most arguments are started on forums like these because someone either wasn't clear enough or they misread the information given to them. Obviously, it is easy to prevent any of that from happening. I am telling you this because I don't want it to become a problem. Things get out of hand and then insults are thrown and then all-out war is waged upon everyone. :lol: I've seen this happen in the past when it could and should have been easily dodged. But, I digress. :shrug:

As far as what you said in your recent post, I agree with you wholeheartedly. No problems there. So, please don't think I am against you now because of this little mishap. :rolleyes: It's highly trivial and not even worth arguing about, so lets just move forward, shall we? :D

It's a castle, not a KMart.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! :lol: :rotfl: :lol: That was hilarious!!! GREAT dysphemism!! :rotfl:

LOL While I do agree with the whole cheesy aspect, I do think that had CC still held the reins with POA he would have naturally darkened the movie since that is what is done in the book. I mean, one can make the assumption that CC would do this based on his record of sticking very closely to the text. I know that that might not have happened, but it could, right? :rotfl: