PoA Film Discussion v3

Okay I'm new here and this might have already been discussed, but tell me, why was Harry using magic in the very first scene--in the opening scene!!! He can't use magic during the summer, that's why he gets in trouble a lot!!!! So, why did the director make him use magic when he's not supposed to...didn't he use a flashlight in the book??

Another thing--why was Hogwarts's landscape changed????

Okay I'm new here and this might have already been discussed, but tell me, why was Harry using magic in the very first scene--in the opening scene!!! He can't use magic during the summer, that's why he gets in trouble a lot!!!! So, why did the director make him use magic when he's not supposed to...didn't he use a flashlight in the book??

The books aren't exactly like the books, using magic in the sumer holidays makes the opening scene more interesting.

Another thing--why was Hogwarts's landscape changed????

I think Cuaron was making the third film his own, and wanted to change things (like any good director :)). I wasn't very happy with the big clock tower as it got on my nerves (and before people say "it emphasised the factor of time in the film" i know, and i found it completely pointless!) and i didn't like the mouldy, broken courtyard. It looked as though a bomb had been dropped on it and i always picture Hogwarts as elegant, no matter how old it is! If a teacher seen the fountain had been broken then they would have repaired it, not leave it to rot!

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? Here it is anyway, just in case you missed it:
Of course I read all of your post, CajunFry. I always do, happen to find them very informative and interesting (whether I agree with them or not.:p). It's just that that portion of your post stuck out most of all and by the time I was finished I was only focusing on that part of it. Although, it could also have been the fact that it was around 1:00 in the morning when I posted that! I did go ahead and read it, and comprehend it for that matter, the second time, though. :)


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. I've seen this happen in the past when it could and should have been easily dodged. But, I digress.
Compared to some other forums I've been to, people belonging to this one tend to do that much less often, though it will always take place to some extent on any messageboard. Many people do actually go ahead and read all of the posts, unless it is some ten pages or so, but a lot of people, like you said, don't fully take the time to read all of them slowly enough to get EVERYTHING. (I know I don't all the time. ;) ) The best forum I've been to where this is kept to an almost bare minimum is TolkienOnline's huge forum, but that could also be because the avergae age on there is much higher than the one on here.

: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

No problem, I see your point.
Also, for the otehrs discussing lighting, really 'Dark' is more of a mood thing for me, but good mood is always partaly set by good Cinematography. Because if you look at how literally 'dark' each film is, then 'Chamber of Secrets' is MUCH much darker then POA. Here's my opinon of the lighting of the three films:

PS/SS: Very bright golden. Hint of medieval touch to it, also has bright viberant colors for bright scene,s and more of an aged treasure look to dark mood scenes. The Durlseys and the Quidditch scenes are happy and bright. But when you start dealing with important plot, it gets duller and more colorless. When things are gonig anything but good for the good guys, then the color is dark blue tinted. The lighting really amtches the feeling of discovery, as well as impending darkness that is within this first HP year.
Dp on the film was John Seale.

COS: Extreme departure from the PS/SS look. The stedicam is used alot, almsot exclusivley, wheras PS/SS used more static, pan/tilting cameras. The camera is in almost constand movement. The shakier the camera is, the more intense the scene. The lighting makes long halls drift into shadows as they continue. Moody scenes are dark tined, whist happy scenes are more of a slightly dulled down bright reddish color. Very creepy photography in this film, and the steady-cam use was amazing. The lighting matched the mood of each scene like a tailor made glove.
DP on this film was Roger Pratt.

POA: Very gritty and realistic, and much less colorful then the first two films. The scenes in the muggle world are filmed to great effect with steady-cams. As the story progresses, the color becomes less and less, untill getting back just a little towards the end. Sort of symbolizing the brief moment of happiness before the ultimate doom to come in GOF. The color sceme is very mossy green, slighly swampy; this is a Cauron trademark, all of his films are very green and brown tinted. He directs this to great effect. The natural and realistic feel of this film is nothing short of breathtaking.
DP on this film was Michael Seresin

Sorry about the rant, but I love cinematography. :)

Thankyou, for that it was a good read never the less! :)

I myself, think that Cauron made the muggle world look much realistic and it worked well. So this way anyone can tell the difference between the 'muggle' and 'wizard' world, more. :blush:

De-lurking to say...

I loathed Columbus's films; I thought they were too Hollywood, too Disney. Nor did I care for the first two books.

I loved PoA and thought Cuaron did a bang-up job: this really is the first HP film to be a real film instead of a gaudy illustration of the book it is based upon.

I went back to the books and have now read them all and am re-reading them.

My only regret is that Cuaron is not on board for Films 4 and 5.

Wow, hawk, you were really paying attention!
I love the cinematography in PoA. I love that kind of colorless, blue-black feel that is has. It almost reminds of the color scheme used in Underworld, except that in the latter's case the blue color was a bit more pronounced.

I wonder what kind of color schemes we're going to get in GoF. From the pictures we've seen, it looks more akin to P/SS, but I'm guessing all of them are pre-computer work.

Wow, hawk, you were really paying attention!
I love the cinematography in PoA. I love that kind of colorless, blue-black feel that is has. It almost reminds of the color scheme used in Underworld, except that in the latter's case the blue color was a bit more pronounced.

I wonder what kind of color schemes we're going to get in GoF. From the pictures we've seen, it looks more akin to P/SS, but I'm guessing all of them are pre-computer work.

Yeah, well very few films use alot of what is called 'digital grading', but it is becoming more prominent, such as in all three LOTR films and the recent (and exellent) "The Aviator". So the pics should differ too mcu hfrom the final lighting. Some scenes do, like the werewolf scene at the end of POA they graded it to look more 'nightish' since it was filmed on an indoor studio.

As for the look of GOF, I think it will be very similar to COS. Why? Because the DP (Director of Photography) is the same guy that did COS, a really good DP by the name of Roger Pratt. This is the first time in the series that the same DP has been used twice, up untill this each film had a different DP. I expect it's tone to be alot like COS, visually.

Yeah, well very few films use alot of what is called 'digital grading', but it is becoming more prominent, such as in all three LOTR films and the recent (and exellent) "The Aviator". So the pics should differ too mcu hfrom the final lighting. Some scenes do, like the werewolf scene at the end of POA they graded it to look more 'nightish' since it was filmed on an indoor studio.

As for the look of GOF, I think it will be very similar to COS. Why? Because the DP (Director of Photography) is the same guy that did COS, a really good DP by the name of Roger Pratt. This is the first time in the series that the same DP has been used twice, up untill this each film had a different DP. I expect it's tone to be alot like COS, visually.

That's one thing I am dreading. I wasn't exactly what you could call a fan of Chamber Of Secrets Cinematography. :td:
Hopefully everything else will be good enough to not make the photography bother me.

That's one thing I am dreading. I wasn't exactly what you could call a fan of Chamber Of Secrets Cinematography. :td:
Hopefully everything else will be good enough to not make the photography bother me.

Really? I thought the Cinematorgraphy was amazing in COS! I thought it captured the mood of the story very well. But, different strokes for different folks.

I gave PoA ****/***** or a good rating, this is because there were a few things that i personally didnt enjoy, for one, i really hated how all the sudden the shots outside the castle had changed, for instance how hagrids home was in a completely different location then it was in the first 2 films, how the willow was also in a new location, second was the directing, dont get me wrong, i thought it was good but it wasnt as good as chris columbus would have done it. some of the shots were boring, and there werent that many amazing shots in the film compared to the other 2. well enough complaining, overall it was a good movie, i can watch it over and over and i cant get bored of it. I just dont think that WB should do so many changes along the way, why change the formula if its working???

and another small comment(complaint lol) about PoA, lol i know it has nothing to do with how good or bad the film was, but the dvd case, why couldnt they stick with the nice booklet? and no ads of other movies at the beggining? lol i know im being a little out of line here and extremely picky, but like i said before, why change the formula if its working???

and another small comment(complaint lol) about PoA, lol i know it has nothing to do with how good or bad the film was, but the dvd case, why couldnt they stick with the nice booklet? and no ads of other movies at the beggining? lol i know im being a little out of line here and extremely picky, but like i said before, why change the formula if its working???

I was a little annoyed by that a while ago, but it's much easier to take out the dvd each time.It takes about ages to put the dvds in and close the booklet each time with Ps & Cos.
Just be glad that the "Year 3" thing is on the side of the case of Poa. :p

I think you're right about the booklet. Whenever I collect something I want to have it neat and precise and the same. Can't have that now! boohoo!

But for the movie: I think it was directed better than he first two films and way more mature!

This is totally irrelevant to what you all were saying but I had to post this. . . I posted on these forums after I saw PoA, talking about what a horrible movie I thought it was, mostly because it was such a departure from the previous two and the book, which is my favorite out of the series. I got the DVD for Christmas, and found to my surprise, that on a second viewing, I was actually enjoying the movie! After many repeated viewings since then, I have to agree with many of you that PoA is the best movie of the three. The cinematography is just stunning, and the acting, for the most part, is better, especially with Daniel, who abandons his catatonic, Oliver Twist like persona of the first two films. For once, we got to see Harry acting like Harry, and the Weasley twins acting like they should. As opposed as I was initially to the casting of Gary Oldman, his performance grew on me and while he's not who I would have chosen for Sirius, he did a great job and some of the scenes with him and Daniel were quite touching. While I didn't care for Michael Gambon as Dumbledore, he is in it so little that I barely had time to notice. While PoA may not have been a direct page-to-screen adaptation, it is almost better this way. Cuaron's film is his vision of PoA, leaving us free to imagine our own when we read the book. The only thing I still don't like is how they changed Hermione's character. . The script was much better than the other two, with hardly any of the cheesy, Home Alone-ish lines that filled the previous two movies. So to quote Dumbledore in Chamber of Secrets (book). . "The best of us must sometimes eat our words".

The 3rd movie didn't capture enough of what was in the book! Yes the cinematography was good but it didn't tell the story as well. If you read the books you know what everything means, but if you haven't read them it leaves many things way to unexplained. The muggle clothes also bug me really bad. Why do they need to wear muggle clothes so often? In the books it's quite clear that wizards don't dress like muggles very often and they don't do a good job of it when they do. They always stand out. Now you could say Hermione and Harry were raised by muggles so they would have clothes and know how to dress. Hermione maybe, but not Harry. All Harry's clothes are hand-me-downs from Dudley. Clothes that don't fit him very well at all. In the PoA movie all 3 of them were dreshed stylishly in muggle clothes. Why would they wear muggle clothes to hogsmeade? It's a wizarding town after all.

Wow...Very, very nice post, CajunFry on the first page of this thread!! :tu: I totally agree with you on every single aspect that you stated. :agree: I have almost exactly the same feelings as you. Of course, I'm just not in the mood to type that big of a post stating all those on here. The whomping willow and Hargrid's Hut was a very displeases aspect of the movie to me that Cauron did. I'm very critical of the movie, and the muggle clothing really made me mad as well. But you can't ask for perfection, but yes, I agree 100%, there are some things that you can't miss if it's already been done correctly in the First two movies. Once again, great post...

Now, for the most part, everything I would've commented on was said earlier on the first page by Cajunfry, but I was for the most part happy with the casting. I didn't like the way Gary Oldman was portrayed because I thought that they could've done a much better job. I thought Michael Gambon did a great job as Dumbledore, though I will miss the late Richard Harris for his perfect portrayal of Dumbledore in the first two. I think Maggie Smith once again did a terrific job as Prof. McGonagall. I was also slightly disturbed by the poor portrayal of Malfoy...also who was this no-name kid with Malfoy in almost every place he went? Goyle was hardly ever with him. It was just Malfoy, Crabbe, and this no-name slytherin. I only saw Goyle twice, and it was very briefly. I didn't like that of course. I thought the punch by Hermione was just a bit too radical and it didn't blend in well. Cauron did a great interpetation on how the timeturner blended in with the movie. For instance, Ron kept making comments on when she had gotten there in classes, etc. I thought that was great. But the worst thing Cauron could've done was change Hargid's hut. It NEVER said they had to go down a steep rocky slope to get to his hut. In my opinion that was a very pathetic measure done by Cauron that should've been prevented. I also have comments on the whomping whillow and the immobulous(sp?) spell by Lupin, but I won't get to that since CajunFry already went thorough that. Overall, it was a great film, but it definitely had room for improvement. I'll just say that I'm glad he isn't directing the GoF movie and I hope everything is fixed atleast to an extent. Sorry if you think I'm too critical, but I thought it had loads of mistakes that easily could have been handled. But overall I say that it was very well done by Alfonso Cauron. :)

This has been bugging me...everyone's all up in arms about the kids wearing muggle clothes in movie 3, when no one seems to mention Arthur in CoS, which seems to be much more of a mistake to me. He gets home and he's wearing slacks and a sweater vest, even though he works at the MoM and in book 4, he admits that he has no idea how to dress as a muggle...I think magic kids do dress in muggle-esque clothes in the off season...esp. those that were muggle raised...

I'm very critical of the movie, and the muggle clothing really made me mad as well.
I still don't know why everyone gets upset over this when the kids are obviously not wearing their robes in the whole of the first movies either. If you'll remember, when Harry, Ron, and Hermione, go down to the third corridor to get past Fluffy, none of them are wearing their school robes. All three of them are wearing some type of sweater and Hermione is wearing a skirt as well. Before anyone jumps up saying sweaters are wizarding cloths because Mrs. Weasley knits them so mcuh, I would just like to point out that Ron WAS wearing a sweater at the end of PoA. It was Harry and Hermione who were not, and since both of them grew up in a muggle household, I don't find this unusual at all. (I can sympathize more with people who complain about the nature of Hermione's muggle cloths as that is a more of a out-of-character problem.)

I know this has been said before, but I'll repeat it, who wears a school uniform on their time off!


This has been bugging me...everyone's all up in arms about the kids wearing muggle clothes in movie 3, when no one seems to mention Arthur in CoS, which seems to be much more of a mistake to me. He gets home and he's wearing slacks and a sweater vest, even though he works at the MoM and in book 4, he admits that he has no idea how to dress as a muggle...I think magic kids do dress in muggle-esque clothes in the off season...esp. those that were muggle raised...
Wow, I never even noticed this!

I will just say that I love all the movies and books - and I know JKR consults on the movies to make sure they don't stray too far from her path, and so they don't add or omit things that are truly important - but I think what bothered me the most about PoA is that several things which I thought were important were left out of the movie.

The first thing was the fact that Kloves didn't write in an explanation about the Mauraders Map. I know they are constrained by time, but it would have taken two minutes to include, (for the movie watcher, not so much the book reader as we all ready know) the facts about who the Mauraders are and about Harry learning his Patronus took the same form his father took as an animagus. I think this point is important in many ways, and will be important as the story concludes.

In my opinion they could have left out the scene where Harry, Ron, Semus, Neville, and Dean were in the dormitory the first night back eating candy and making animal noises. I thought that was a pointless scene when there was so much stuff that should have been included.

I'm not saying I didn't love the movie, as that would be a lie ... I love all the movies and believe they tie in rather well with the books. The movies make the books that much more enjoyable. When I read the books I see the characters as they are portrayed in the movie, (especially Dumbledore - the death of Richard Harris was a big loss - when I read the books, he IS the Dumbledore I see. Gambone, in PoA is portrayed in my opinion as a man who is losing his faculties - he has no eccense of the Dumbledore I see when I read.) Emma is the perfect vision of Hermione, Rupert is the perfect Ron, and of course, Dan is the perfect Harry - there is no doubt in my mind when I read that these are the people I see.

But I do have a complaint about the movies. I don't know if it has all ready been mention as there is no way I could read through all these posts ---- I loved PoA and have watched it at least 50 times, but I think that what the movies really need is not just a great writer and a great director, but they need someone in both positions who is a TRUE Harry Potter fan - not someone just doing a job for a paycheck.

i remember when I went to the theater and saw PoA, the thing about the movie that stuck out in my mind the most was the very ending, when Harry jumps on the Firebolt and zooms off over the lake. I remember, as the frame froze with his smiling face in the middle, a woman, (not a child) said "That's how they ended it?" I heard a few other objections, grunts and grumbles, and I tend to agree - from the perspective of a HP book reader, (and I'm sure the woman in the theater was a fan of the books too) that really wasn't the way someone who love the books would have ended the movie -

I'm looking forward to OoTP - new director and new writer - hopefully Michael Goldenberg IS a HP book fan - or at least becomes one before they start filming the movie as this is my favorite book - and if they try to do it justice in only 2.5 hours, I don't think it's going to work.

They'll have to do it justice in a lot less than 2½ hours - general audiences do not want to watch bloated films.

i just posted in ure thread whimsey and now i see that there wasnt a point this is generally the same thing :D anyways hated it! there was nothing in it that i can say was good except for introduction of buckbeak. (i say introduction cause when harry flew him that was cheesy) also like the shrunken head thingy on the nightbus but that was it. rest was either horrible lines, bad acting (crying scene in hogsmeade after harry find out about sirius), or horrible effects and CG (moony and padfoot)

The big difference? Over 55% of the general public considered PoA to be excellent whereas fewer than 40% of HP fans did. With so many votes, this is highly significant no matter what test you use.

The reason the HP fans only voted 40% is because they know what was omitted and what could have made the film better. The ignorant 55% don't know what could have made the film better and brought Harry's story out more clearly. After all - it is all about Harry. And as far as the length being too long.....that's insane.

The reason the HP fans only voted 40% is because they know what was omitted and what could have made the film better. The ignorant 55% don't know what could have made the film better and brought Harry's story out more clearly. After all - it is all about Harry. And as far as the length being too long.....that's insane.

Alright, I respect your opinion, so could you please say "that think the film could be better" instead of "know the film could be better"? Many dedicated HP fans 9myself included) were more then satisfied with the POA film. So it's not an cold hard fact that POA could have been a better film, any more then its a cold hard fact that it was perfect. Its all perception.

About the discussion of POA voting for the BAFTA...
It shouldn't win!! come on, although I'm a big harry potter fan, the movie is really bad. I mean cinematographically speaking it's not good at all.

Despite all the numbers of movies general public, it has no quality as a movie, it's just a money maker for warner, an entertainment moment.

Alfonso cuaron is not a good director. ¿Have you seen "Y tu mamá también"? The only good thing about it is the discussion that could generate about its theme. The art in the movie is a normal "set art", the actors direction is awful. Look at Gary Oldman!.. Have you seen sid & nancy?? he overacted there but in POA he overacted twice. Sirius was in prison for thirteen years and half an our later he met harry, he met pete and lupin, his old mates, he is inviting harry to his house like if nothing had happened.

And the freeze image of harry at the end..... what could i say?

i tried but i can't accept a man like sirius, having experienced the things he had, putting his hand on harry's heart and saying all those corny things. I really tried but i couldn't....


And I don't think that this movie is miles away from the other two. Just think about it... the first movie had to introduce the characters, the story, everything and I think that a few scenes are very well reslved. (the contrast of the classes for example... macgonagall–snape)

I have a question...I was on imdb.com and it said Forrest Gump was referenced in POA. How? It says the same for CoS.

To Allemande, from the closed post.

I also think Oldman is a great actor, but the problem is how is he directed. And I have, indeed, read the books millions of times. It seems that you misunderstood me, I was saying not that it shouldn't be there, the problem again was how it was said, with no character developing.

I hope you answer here....

I loved the movie, but I was very disappointed by the guy who played Lupin (don't remember his name). He seemed greasy and ingratiating to me.

I think the kids acted MUCH better in PoA. The first two were just....so.....cheesy.....

The kids are only gonna get better. No matter who directs it's only natural that they are going to mature as actors. Gary Oldman is a great actor but he's kind of short lol. It was wierd to see Sirius so much shorter than lupin. I always pictured him being pretty tall. He is such a great actor though so it didn't bother me that much. What did bother me is the size of the black dog he turned into. It's supposed to be an enormous black dog. That dog didn't look very scary or intiminating to me.

Is it just me, or is the nature of discussion in this thread getting vomit-inducingly repeditive? I've posted probably once in all three versions of this thread and not once has the subject changed... "PoA was stupid, didn't have enough in it etc." countered with "Have you SEEN the first two?!?!" and so on and so forth.

Just an observation :p

P.S. Some PoA-haters are using statistics of Potter fans who don't like the movie for their argument... Look at the actual poll at the start of the thread. You'll see that the majority of people thought it was better than average. And these are Harry Potter fans, supposedly the people who hate it most.

Alright, I respect your opinion, so could you please say "that think the film could be better" instead of "know the film could be better"? Many dedicated HP fans 9myself included) were more then satisfied with the POA film. So it's not an cold hard fact that POA could have been a better film, any more then its a cold hard fact that it was perfect. Its all perception.

I really think the line between the film being good and great (award winning) is the fact that Alfonso Cuaron was the wrong director - (simple as I can put it.) He changed too many things that had been stable in the first two movies - he made the character of Dumbledore, now played by Michael Gambon, seem slightly senile - compared to Richard Harris' Dumbledore, there is no contest.

There are parts of the film, eg. the scene when Harry and Hermione go back in time and are across the lake watching the dementors attack the other Harry and Sirius - Harry watches himself on the shore and Harry is supposed to be being attacked by dememtors - he is on his knees with his head back, jerking around - but unfortunately they forgot to put the computer generated dementor in the scene - sloppy work. Also, the fact Cuaron starts the movie out with Harry sitting in bed doing magic, (which all HP fans knows is not allowed outside of school). It's just not consistant.

I could go on, but I won't. All I'm saying is that the film could have won awards if done by someone with more insight into Harry Potter - and maybe a little input from Chris Columbus. I have watched it at least 50 times, so I can't say that it was a bad movie.

Slightly senile? Have you read the books? Dumbledore is a quirky, funny and extremely complex man. He's assertive, strong and quite scary in certain situations. As no such situations arose in PoA, he was just as he normally is. Don't most new student's think he's crazy anyway? Harry certainly did. Harris was an awful Dumbledore, though I don't think it was entirely his fault. Dumbledore was made out to be assertive and straight with only a hint of oddity in all of PS/CoS, but should be the other way around as he is in the books and in PoA.

Harris is twice better than Gambon! Although the portrayed of Dumbledore in the first two movies was too "soft" for me, the Dumbledore in POA is really senil. At least, Harris had the "aura" of a magnificent wizard that Gambon does not.... all the consistence of dumbledore in the books has gone. I really didn't like Dumbledore in POA, it had no weight as a character.

I really think the line between the film being good and great (award winning) is the fact that Alfonso Cuaron was the wrong director - (simple as I can put it.) He changed too many things that had been stable in the first two movies - he made the character of Dumbledore, now played by Michael Gambon, seem slightly senile - compared to Richard Harris' Dumbledore, there is no contest.

There are parts of the film, eg. the scene when Harry and Hermione go back in time and are across the lake watching the dementors attack the other Harry and Sirius - Harry watches himself on the shore and Harry is supposed to be being attacked by dememtors - he is on his knees with his head back, jerking around - but unfortunately they forgot to put the computer generated dementor in the scene - sloppy work. Also, the fact Cuaron starts the movie out with Harry sitting in bed doing magic, (which all HP fans knows is not allowed outside of school). It's just not consistant.I could go on, but I won't. All I'm saying is that the film could have won awards if done by someone with more insight into Harry Potter - and maybe a little input from Chris Columbus. I have watched it at least 50 times, so I can't say that it was a bad movie.

I swear, you didn't listen to a WORD is tated. I said that you shouldn't say that the reason it was bad was because 'it was a bad film' because it's your opinion, not a cold hard fact. Just like me thinking it was great isn't cold hard fact, it's my opinion. And you responed to me saying that by saying 'well the reason it was bad was because AC was the wrong director', again likes it an indisputable fact! I respect your views, I disagree, but I DO respect them. I just wish so many other people would be more respectful of others views and not trash them for liking/not liking POA. Also, all of the flaws you listed have been explaina MILLION times, over and over and over. I wil go ahead and state them:

Anytime you do a film there are horrible continuity problems, so you can't say the film is bad just because of this. And whenever you show the same scene twice, there are gonig to be problems, you just can;t make the scene the same both times. Watch the back to the future movies, or pulp fiction. Time travel and mult-showings from different perspectives always loose that. And Harry in agony is no different, the dementor is higher in the frame when you see it the second time around, which is a mistake, but no worse then MANY mistakes in the first two films. Such as Ron's stuntdouble being clearly on the chess pice when it is stabbed, or the fac that the hallway outside Dumbledore's office is completley incosistant tp where his office is located (you shouldn't be able to see mountains behind Lucious, there are stone buildings there).

As for Harry doing magic at the start of the film, he is doing HOMEWORK! And he is also doing 'Lumos' which is used about five times outside school in the books with no conseqences (Hermionie after the World Cup in GOF, Harry to see the 'Grim' in POA, Ron in GOF, and Harry in OOTP), so Lumos is a minor spell anyway. And I doubt that FLitwick would asign Harry homework without being able to practice. This ahs been corrected amny, many, many times.

About the discussion of POA voting for the BAFTA...
It shouldn't win!! come on, although I'm a big harry potter fan, the movie is really bad. I mean cinematographically speaking it's not good at all.

Despite all the numbers of movies general public, it has no quality as a movie, it's just a money maker for warner, an entertainment moment.

Alfonso cuaron is not a good director. ¿Have you seen "Y tu mamá también"? The only good thing about it is the discussion that could generate about its theme. The art in the movie is a normal "set art", the actors direction is awful. Look at Gary Oldman!.. Have you seen sid & nancy?? he overacted there but in POA he overacted twice. Sirius was in prison for thirteen years and half an our later he met harry, he met pete and lupin, his old mates, he is inviting harry to his house like if nothing had happened.

And the freeze image of harry at the end..... what could i say?

i tried but i can't accept a man like sirius, having experienced the things he had, putting his hand on harry's heart and saying all those corny things. I really tried but i couldn't....


And I don't think that this movie is miles away from the other two. Just think about it... the first movie had to introduce the characters, the story, everything and I think that a few scenes are very well reslved. (the contrast of the classes for example... macgonagall–snape)

have you read the books? You obviously haven't or you'd know that Sirius asks Harry to go live with him straight away. Of course there was more discussion about the marauderers and how Sirius wasn't bad. In my opinion, in the movie, Harry was convinced too fast that Sirius was good. In the books in took him longer, so there is one of many bad things in the movies.

"You're evil"
"No I'm not"
"Ok you're not, you're good"
that's what it sounded like.
I totally agree that PoA wasn't such a good movie either, but being a fan I want it to win all the rewards it can.

Is it just me, or is the nature of discussion in this thread getting vomit-inducingly repeditive? I've posted probably once in all three versions of this thread and not once has the subject changed... "PoA was stupid, didn't have enough in it etc." countered with "Have you SEEN the first two?!?!" and so on and so forth.

Just an observation

P.S. Some PoA-haters are using statistics of Potter fans who don't like the movie for their argument... Look at the actual poll at the start of the thread. You'll see that the majority of people thought it was better than average. And these are Harry Potter fans, supposedly the people who hate it most.
It's not just you MM, I read almost the entire second version thread and all of this one and had a field day in both. It's very repetetive, but as long as there is a bit if debate it doesn't bother me horribly! :D

Despite all the numbers of movies general public, it has no quality as a movie, it's just a money maker for warner, an entertainment moment.
:nc:

In my opinion, in the movie, Harry was convinced too fast that Sirius was good. In the books in took him longer, so there is one of many bad things in the movies
Although I do agree with you about this, there was really no other way for it to be done. Unlike the books, they could not have some ten minute discussion in which everything is explained to the extent that is was. And besides, even with the greater deal of information that was presented in the books, I for one would not be ready to go off and live with some guy I was intent on killing just an hour earlier. I think the scene works just fine the way it is; gets the point across, albeit a bit breathlessly--Sirius is introduced, Lupin's connection is identified (though shallowly), Scabbers is discovered, Peter makes his appearance, Lupin's a werewolf, Sirius is innocent. Accomplishes everything vital to the plot. (Note I said VITAL, as I don't consider the MWPP to be vital at this point no matter how much I loved that little tidbit. Besides, I believe it's been said this is going to be in GoF)

I'm just going to say this....PoA disappointed me greatly. It just lacked something....the storyline was weak and the acting didn't seem as good. I'd much rather stick to the books, but I am hoping that GoF will bring me back to actually liking the harry movies...sigh...

have you read the books? You obviously haven't or you'd know that Sirius asks Harry to go live with him straight away. Of course there was more discussion about the marauderers and how Sirius wasn't bad. In my opinion, in the movie, Harry was convinced too fast that Sirius was good. In the books in took him longer, so there is one of many bad things in the movies.

"You're evil"
"No I'm not"
"Ok you're not, you're good"
that's what it sounded like.
I totally agree that PoA wasn't such a good movie either, but being a fan I want it to win all the rewards it can.

I have, indeed, read the books millions of times. Of course I know Sirius invites Harry, but you didn't get a clue about what I was trying to say. I was talking about the character development, and the transition of the two states of Sirius. In the book you have the necesary pacing for that, but in Alfonso's movie, it is there just because it is in the book but it's forced to fit in the movie. It does not have the proper work in it.

As for Harry doing magic at the start of the film, he is doing HOMEWORK! And he is also doing 'Lumos' which is used about five times outside school in the books with no conseqences (Hermionie after the World Cup in GOF, Harry to see the 'Grim' in POA, Ron in GOF, and Harry in OOTP), so Lumos is a minor spell anyway. And I doubt that FLitwick would asign Harry homework without being able to practice. This ahs been corrected amny, many, many times.


In PoA Harry does lumos after he had already blown up his aunt and thought he might be expelled. Durring the world cups there were wizards all over the place. With all the wizards there and how busy the ministry was I doubt they cared if under aged wizards were using magic there. In Ootp he was in an emergency situation with dementors on him and he did get expelled for using his patronus. He never was just sitting in his bed casting spells.

In Ootp he was in an emergency situation with dementors on him and he did get expelled for using his patronus.

They didn't really seem to care that it was an emergency situation with the Patronus...that being said, he got in trouble for the patronus spell, not lumos.

Slightly senile? Have you read the books? Dumbledore is a quirky, funny and extremely complex man. He's assertive, strong and quite scary in certain situations. As no such situations arose in PoA, he was just as he normally is. Don't most new student's think he's crazy anyway? Harry certainly did. Harris was an awful Dumbledore, though I don't think it was entirely his fault. Dumbledore was made out to be assertive and straight with only a hint of oddity in all of PS/CoS, but should be the other way around as he is in the books and in PoA.

Quirky? Dumbledore is brilliant - one of my favorite characters. I know he seems a bit odd at times, but after all, he's one hundred-and-fifty-years old, he's spent his entire life at Hogwarts, (as far as we know), and spent it around children - (who we know he cares greatly for.) To spend that many years in a school setting, you'd have to love kids and be able to relate to them on their level.

I must also argue the point about Richard Harris - to me he was/is Dumbledore. He portrayed the Dumbledore I see when I read the books. I can't see Gambon trying to do the Prophecy scene, or the scene at the Ministry of Magic in OoTP. I just can't picture him pulling that one off the way the Richard Harris could have. Call me set in my ways - but they will never be able to replace Richard Harris as Dumbledore. His death was a true loss to the role.

In PoA Harry does lumos after he had already blown up his aunt and thought he might be expelled. Durring the world cups there were wizards all over the place. With all the wizards there and how busy the ministry was I doubt they cared if under aged wizards were using magic there. In Ootp he was in an emergency situation with dementors on him and he did get expelled for using his patronus. He never was just sitting in his bed casting spells.

Actaully, at the hearing they never mentioened that he used lumos, just the Patronous. He says he used the Patronous to defend himself, but they don'r ONCE mention Lumos. Also, like I said, it was Homework! He was asigned that spell as homework. How can he do charms homework without getting the incatiations pronouced right, and the hand movements correct?

Harry couldn't even open the cupboard door with is wand because he was afraid to get expelled. He read books but it never mentions him doing any magic while hes doing it. He did his patronus right after he did lumos. With such a big spell like his patronus charm why even bring up lumos? Plus in the movie he was doing lumos maxima, which sounds like alot bigger version of the spell.

I love the Lumos part in Poa- It's one of my favourite scenes. :D

I assumed since the first time I saw it that harry must be doing his homework, it's silly that others think he was doing something illegal.

I assumed since the first time I saw it that harry must be doing his homework, it's silly that others think he was doing something illegal.
Exactly! Don't think for one second that McGonagal and Snape aren't going to give you homework over the summer vacation! And it's really obvious that they do - even mentioned in the book a few times - so it's apparent that it's not illegal.

As for some of my favorite scenes:
- I really like the scene where Harry and other Gryffindor dorm boys are sitting around trying different candies that create animal sounds. It showed truely for the first time that the kids like to have fun at Hogwarts and not chase around Voldemort and run to classes.
- I also like almost every scene with the Maurader's Map since that item is just so intriguing - i'd love to get my hands on one of those :evil:
- And the ending was a better ending to end the Harry Potter film (that's a tounge-twister! ;)). They interestingly put the scene of Harry receiving the Firebolt from Sirius to make it work and conclude the movie. The snapshot at the end though - i'm a bit skeptical. It works in some ways, yet not in others.

Exactly! Don't think for one second that McGonagal and Snape aren't going to give you homework over the summer vacation! And it's really obvious that they do - even mentioned in the book a few times - so it's apparent that it's not illegal.

As for some of my favorite scenes:
- I really like the scene where Harry and other Gryffindor dorm boys are sitting around trying different candies that create animal sounds. It showed truely for the first time that the kids like to have fun at Hogwarts and not chase around Voldemort and run to classes.
- I also like almost every scene with the Maurader's Map since that item is just so intriguing - i'd love to get my hands on one of those :evil:
- And the ending was a better ending to end the Harry Potter film (that's a tounge-twister! ;)). They interestingly put the scene of Harry receiving the Firebolt from Sirius to make it work and conclude the movie. The snapshot at the end though - i'm a bit skeptical. It works in some ways, yet not in others.


I love the ending myself, it's really neat seeing how fast the broom is!, But my cousins who saw it said that "It wasn't a proper ending".

I also really like how the map was done. Nothing like I imagined, but wonderfully done! The footstep's really make it look like a person walking around. :D

I love the ending myself, it's really neat seeing how fast the broom is!, But my cousins who saw it said that "It wasn't a proper ending".

I also really like how the map was done. Nothing like I imagined, but wonderfully done! :D
:tu: Yeah, I know. The map itself was just a whole big puzzle and it's so different than how I imagined it - I adopted it because I just simply love the way they incorperated it into the film. I also love the little ad where it shows Harry just gazing at the map looking at what people are doing (right before the scene where he notices Peter Pettigrew on the map), because it's exactly what we all would have done - just stare at the map and look at where everyone is.

:tu: Yeah, I know. The map itself was just a whole big puzzle and it's so different than how I imagined it - I adopted it because I just simply love the way they incorperated it into the film. I also love the little ad where it shows Harry just gazing at the map looking at what people are doing (right before the scene where he notices Peter Pettigrew on the map), because it's exactly what we all would have done - just stare at the map and look at where everyone is.

The scene with Harry looking for Peter Pettigrew is another one of my favourites! I think good elements to the scene were:

-The Music
-The sound of Peter Pettigrew around Harry. (It was a sort of a tapping noise)
-The Portraits sleeping

When I was watching near the end of that scene, my cousin asked me "Why didn't Snape have to say nox when he stopped Lumos?". I just said that maybe it was a different spell he was using, but does anyone have a better explanation?

When I was watching near the end of that scene, my cousin asked me "Why didn't Snape have to say nox when he stopped Lumos?". I just said that maybe it was a different spell he was using, but does anyone have a better explanation? Advanced wizards can do spells without pronouncing them, it´s just a little harder and less powerfull.
Remember in OotP, in the battle, Hermione silences a DE. His spell still hits her but she survives it because she took the power of his voice before. Molly is doing silent magic all the time when she is cooking.
A little spell like "Nox" shouldn´t be a problem for a wizard like Snape. So there was no mistake.

What I've found is that people who have not read the books really enjoyed the movie, and everything seemed to flow well for them. They didn't seem confused about the storyline at all, and thought the movie was great. I don't think I've heard any complaints from anyone who has not read the books.

All of the negative feedback I've heard is from people (like us) who have read all the books several times. The first two movies followed the books extremely well, where the third movie began to take a bit of a different spin on certain things. What we have to keep in mind is that the movies are not meant to simply reinact the books. As the books get longer and longer, it would be impossible to follow the same format as the first two movies. It's an adaptation, and representative of the books, but it is still meant to be a movie, and Jo simply wanted it to capture the spirit of the stories, which she felt they did, and well too, as this was her favorite movie so far.

I understand the people who have complaints about the movies. It can certainly be frustrating to be expecting one thing and actually see another. We have to just remember that the movies are totally independant from the books. They are a totally separate medium. To me, I try to consider the movies an added bonus, but the books will always be #1. :)

:tu: I agree atherella. The books will always top the movies for sure but I don't have any compliants about PoA. I thought they created a spectacular image with what was given and available to them. They didn't follow to books as closely as some of us would want them to, but they did great and provided excellent bonus material for when we're reading and re-reading. Also, there aren't any movies that I can recall that have followed the book hand-in-hand almost exactly. Of course, I have suggestions they could have done to improve PoA, but I think it was a fairly good movie as it is. :)

The scene with Harry looking for Peter Pettigrew is another one of my favourites! I think good elements to the scene were:

-The Music
-The sound of Peter Pettigrew around Harry. (It was a sort of a tapping noise)
-The Portraits sleeping
I agree, also. The music in general is an overall accomplishment and success for the films. Even though i'm more into Adult Alternative and Hardcore, I could listen to the Harry Potter soundtracks all the time. They're just so entrancing.

While I was dissapointed that POA left a fair bit of the books out my main beef, but by no means my only one, with Cuaron was the inconsistencys with the previous films in set and setting. There was no reason he couldn't have made the film he did with the style and look that he had without the drastic alterations to the grounds.

There were things that I thought Cuaron did well, and things that drove me nuts. I think the film was shot well, and although I felt that Harris was Dumbledore, Gambon did the best he could with it. However, I hated the muggle clothing, I felt that the marauder story line could have been included with some cuts of less relevant material, such as the "Titanic" moment. I thought that the Ron/Hermione moment was a little too early. Harry's incredible disappearing scar drove me nuts. One scene it's there, the next it's gone.

Biggest objection: muggle clothing, give us back the robes! They do so much for the ambience.

I think Cauron had the right to change the sets. It was his movie, not Columbus's one. Sure, it would have been nice to keep the same sets to please us fans, but it was the directors idea to change them.

I think the set was cool although a bit gloomy in general. They could have kept some of the past sets. Cuaron really messed by not explaining the Marauders at all. It was a bit drastic how much the uniforms changed but they're alright.
I began to like the movie very much when I rewatched it.

I think the set was cool although a bit gloomy in general. They could have kept some of the past sets. Cuaron really messed by not explaining the Marauders at all. It was a bit drastic how much the uniforms changed but they're alright.
I began to like the movie very much when I rewatched it.

I think some of the sets from Ps & Cos are going to be in GoF, so that's good news. I wonder which common room entrance they will use in Gof. Each of them were good, but I liked the one is PoA the most because of all the portraits. :)

I liked the entrance in PS/SS and CoS better because it is a corridor and it isn't cramped. It's also stupid the way they changed where the portrait is. Anybody could walk past and her the password and then sneak in, it's stupid. And what did they have to gain by moving it? Couldn't they have just put more pictures in the original corridor. I also like the new Fat Lady better, but i don't like her outfit, it isn't like i imagined.

I liked the entrance in PS/SS and CoS better because it is a corridor and it isn't cramped. It's also stupid the way they changed where the portrait is. Anybody could walk past and her the password and then sneak in, it's stupid. And what did they have to gain by moving it? Couldn't they have just put more pictures in the original corridor. I also like the new Fat Lady better, but i don't like her outfit, it isn't like i imagined.

Maybe the Stairs only let's gryffindoors on it. :whistle:

I think the new Fat lady was much better, more funnier and less of a grump! :p

I think Cauron had the right to change the sets. It was his movie, not Columbus's one. Sure, it would have been nice to keep the same sets to please us fans, but it was the directors idea to change them.
I've never had a problem with the sets and the look, just that they were so grossly altered in layout and landscape from the previous films. If your telling a story and the setting is already established then I feel you're obliged to retain the layout of it.

I loved the movie, but there is just one thing I'm upset or confused about. Does anyone else think that it is weird that Prof. Flitwick is suddenly young. I can not for the life of me see why the producers didn't just get another old guy. Did anyone else notice this? Oh yes and Sirius should have been hot!

I've never had a problem with the sets and the look, just that they were so grossly altered in layout and landscape from the previous films. If your telling a story and the setting is already established then I feel you're obliged to retain the layout of it.

Well they filmed it at a different place, so I guess they couldn't do anything about the landscape. :huh:

I'm mixed on this....as a movie in itself i thought it was very well-made and I loved the added humorous bits. BUT I was dissapointed in all the changes they made
a. the dementors are supposed to be hooded and you can't see their faces....definetly not how it was done in the movie...in the movie they had more like gray spandex stretched across a round head...
b. they didn't explain anything and i went with my mother who had never read the books and she couldn't follow it. plus i know its not just her because i know some other people who havent read the books and they were very lost during the movie as well.
c. it made me REALLY angry that they didn't explain the whole moony, wormtail, padfoot and prongs thing. you're left with the question of who ARE they and who did make the marauders map? a question which is clearly answered at the end of book 3.
d. i know this is pretty small but i'm obsessive sometimes about details....in the book it states that harry's patronus is a stag that gallops around to each dementor and then back to harry but in the book, his patronus is only a stag at the very end and it just stands there while this big white blob surrounds the dementors.

I also agree with the whole thing about Hogwarts being dark in this movie. I missed it's warmth and welcoming atmosphere. it made hogwarts really show because hogwarts is supposed to be that place of which is apparently the safest place in the wizarding world and with the darkness of the movie, you didn't really get that feel.

I miss Chris Columbus!!! But as a movie by itself, if it wasn't an adaptation, then I would have loved this movie ALOT more.

I'm mixed on this....as a movie in itself i thought it was very well-made and I loved the added humorous bits. BUT I was dissapointed in all the changes they made

c. it made me REALLY angry that they didn't explain the whole moony, wormtail, padfoot and prongs thing. you're left with the question of who ARE they and who did make the marauders map? a question which is clearly answered at the end of book 3.


It seems I am the only one in the world who doesn't care that they cut that. They can put it in GoF or they can just not put it in to a movie at all. The movies will be able to get by without it.

It seems I am the only one in the world who doesn't care that they cut that. They can put it in GoF or they can just not put it in to a movie at all. The movies will be able to get by without it.
I don't care much either. I mean, I was bugged that they didn't take maybe 10 seconds to explain who Moony, Padfoot, Prongs, and 'that-other-guy' (:evil:) were and what they contributed to the Map, but I think the audience who didn't read the books either caught on or didn't care about it or it didn't matter to the main plot of the story. Anyway, I agree - the missing detail didn't impede the main story line, but it would've added more background information to the movie.

I don't care much either. I mean, I was bugged that they didn't take maybe 10 seconds to explain who Moony, Padfoot, Prongs, and 'that-other-guy' (:evil:) were and what they contributed to the Map, but I think the audience who didn't read the books either caught on or didn't care about it or it didn't matter to the main plot of the story. Anyway, I agree - the missing detail didn't impede the main story line, but it would've added more background information to the movie.

Exactly, It just would have added some extra information. I don't think the plot of whoever created the Marauders map will become deeply important in the future books.

Does anyone else think that it is weird that Prof. Flitwick is suddenly young.

Just to clear this up, the man you're thinking of - who conducted the choir, was seen with Dumbledore after Sirius attacks the Fat Lady/lockdown and was played by Warwick Davis (aka Flitwick in the first two) - wasn't Flitwick. He's labeled "Choir master" in the credits I believe, if anybody would like to correct me please do. But he wasn't Flitwick - though I imagined Flitwick more like the young "choirmaster" rather than the mutated Muppet we had in PS/CoS.

This is a bit off-topic but it's still about Poa... am I the only one who still cracks up about the Aunt Marge scene? I still find it hilarious. Especially when dudley gets hit by the button.:lol:

This is a bit off-topic but it's still about Poa... am I the only one who still cracks up about the Aunt Marge scene? I still find it hilarious. Especially when dudley gets hit by the button.:lol:

LOL. Yes, this scene was indeed very amusing. It was actually funnier in the movie than I had imagined it in the book. Also, Dudley got hit, not just once, but TWICE by Marge's deadly buttons! The second one puts him on the floor temporarily. lol As for why I think that that scene worked as well as it did, you should really give a huge nod to John Williams for composing such a quirky, comical waltz for Aunt Marge and her "fatty" problem. As a trained musician, I firmly believe that much, if not all, of a movies worth rests in the music that accompanies it. Putting the wrong musical idea to a scene can really have negative influences on the scene overall which thereby casts a not-as-positive review for the viewer. Many will argue this, but as far as common movie-goers are concerned, many of them do not even pay attention at all to the music but at the same they do subconsciously, because they can tell you if they liked the music or not, but not always why or whether or not they felt it really mattered. Classical musicians like me notice the little musical nuances to a score (film in particular) where most do not usually pick up on it directly. I could easily pick apart EVERY scene in the Potter series and tell you what was going on in the music and how it related to its subsequent scene.

For example, Aunt Marge's scene in POA starts off in a moderate waltz with the oboe playing a contemplative solo line (in other words, what are we seeing now, HA, oh look! she’s getting fat!). The violins then answer this question with one of their own, and thus, a dialogue is started between the two. The fact that it is in 3 (three beats to a measure, boom-chick-chick, etc.) gives it a tongue-in-cheek feel of comedy and bounce, which goes hand in hand with Marge as a giant, bobbing balloon. The oboe then gives way to a short flute interlude and then the horns and the tuba (MY INSTRUMENT!!! WOO HOO!!) come in and join party with their own thoughts on what is transpiring on screen, still in a waltz and with comical ideas. A couple of times the waltz meter seems to change into a compound 3 against 2, or a hemiola (sorry for you non-musical folks), which basically translates into an idea of unsteadiness or something that is off-balance (Vernon falls, Dudley falls, Marge...well...you know). This repeats itself again before moving quickly into 1 (a single downbeat per measure) which brings us to the finale of the piece and scene, led by the low brass (I have figured out the tuba part, by the way :cool: ) and continues to drive forward into a presto that is ignited by the strings and then kept moving by the brass playing ascending lines (for Marge keeps going up and up and up...) until we end with a Tchaikovsky-style finale that is as exciting to play as it is to hear. Of the entire soundtrack of POA, this is just one of the MANY tracks that can stand on its own, short as it may be. I apologize for getting really analytical on you guys who weren't prepared for it, but if you can understand a little of what I'm saying then it will really help to appreciate even more than I know you already do.

I've said this in other threads before, but I actually admire and ENVY those of you who know little about music terminology or the language itself because you can listen to a piece of music and just love it and enjoy it just for the fact that it's music and nothing more. We, the conservatory trained folks, find ourselves CONSTANTLY analyzing just about everything we hear and unfortunately, we can almost always pick out the itty bitty mistakes or inconsistencies of a performance. In that sense, it is really too bad for us that we have a harder time just sitting back and enjoying the music without thinking about it like the general public does. Ignorance is bliss, I guess you could say. Then again, it also has its advantages. Besides being able to bore and thoroughly confuse the non-initiated, we tend to have a better idea of what we are talking about (not all of us, though). Anyway, I do not have the faintest idea of how I got onto this topic and this rant. I guess I just felt like talking. Sorry to sound "elitist" you guys. I've been called that before and I really try to not go that far. Anyway, that was my two cents. Cheers! :D

In other words, the music from PoA was good.

I agree the music was good. John Williams is a spectacular composer. However PoA seemed to have a totallt different score than the previous 2 films. For me the music really helps me get into the movie and gives it a certain feel. When you totally change the music it changes the feel. This movie didn't feel the same as the oother 2 and I kind of missed that.

In that sense, it is really too bad for us that we have a harder time just sitting back and enjoying the music without thinking about it like the general public does.

Only if you let it get to you! I'm conservatory trained myself, however I told myself ahead of time I wasn't going to be that girl. What's the point in being classically trained if you can't enjoy music? While I do agree it's fun and interesting to analyze a piece of music (or its engineering/production...Rufus Wainwright is fun for that:)) I don't find it impossible to just enjoy...

...the brass playing ascending lines (for Marge keeps going up and up and up...)
I'm entirely sure that motif (ascending arpeggios then descending scales in the low brass, right?) is quoted from a 'classical' piece (most likely from the romantic time period, but the average joe can't differentiate) that's also quoted in the Clockwork Orange, however for the life of me, I can't place the name...little help?

Only if you let it get to you! I'm conservatory trained myself, however I told myself ahead of time I wasn't going to be that girl. What's the point in being classically trained if you can't enjoy music? While I do agree it's fun and interesting to analyze a piece of music (or its engineering/production...Rufus Wainwright is fun for that:)) I don't find it impossible to just enjoy...

I think you slightly misunderstood what I meant. I probably wasn't clear enough on this. I'll try to rephrase it. I DO love music and I DO love it otherwise I wouldn't dedicate thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours immersed in it every day. It's not that I go into a movie or something and just automatically start to analyze the music and nit-pick things, because I don't. All I'm saying is that people like you and me hear these things much easier than others without having to simply listen solely to the music alone. Also, I don't think I stated that it was impossible to enjoy music for what it is, because again, I do enjoy it because I understand it and it moves me emotionally, just the same as you and everyone else. All I am saying is that critical listening is more natural for us because we have been trained to listen very closely to how things happen and to how they relate to one another. And just to point out, I only analyzed that scene in my previous post to make a point. I don't do that for everything all the time. But, yes, you are correct in your post by saying that one should not let music get to you, especially if you really know what it is that is getting to you in the first place. Though I never let something get to me (unless it's just horrendously bad), I do pick up on things whether I really want to or not. Just part of the musician's ear I suppose. :p By the way Mizaru, what school did/do you go to? I went to Juilliard in New York. Perhaps we could talk more about music. Just a thought. Cheers!

I'm entirely sure that motif (ascending arpeggios then descending scales in the low brass, right?) is quoted from a 'classical' piece (most likely from the romantic time period, but the average joe can't differentiate) that's also quoted in the Clockwork Orange, however for the life of me, I can't place the name...little help?

HAHAHA WOW. As soon as I post, you go and edit right when I'm typing. lol How ironic. Anyway, yeah I believe it could be from the Romantic period, possibly Rimsky-Korsakov or Tchaikovsky, perhaps. And I am in complete agreement with you that it is a quote from somewhere and I've heard it before. Brahms comes to mind, but I don't really see it. I'll have to keep my ears open. :cool:

I agree the music was good. John Williams is a spectacular composer. However PoA seemed to have a totallt different score than the previous 2 films. For me the music really helps me get into the movie and gives it a certain feel. When you totally change the music it changes the feel. This movie didn't feel the same as the oother 2 and I kind of missed that.

I myself think that the first 2 soundtracks get quite repetitive at times, which is diffrent from the Poa score. It's music is mostly different in each track.

Ps & Cos are still great though. My favourite track out of both is "Reunion of Friends" on Cos. It's so beautiful, and makes me happy. :)

Also, I don't think I stated that it was impossible to enjoy music for what it is, because again, I do enjoy it because I understand it and it moves me emotionally

Yeah, I know you didn't sorry...It's just that going to school, all the pretentious...uhm...jerks...yeah... tried to give me the impression that I was an inferior musician because when I went to a performance I wasn't immediately disgusted with the fact that the 4th violin player played the staccato G sharp 10 cents flat. What's the point in paying thousands of dollars on an education that makes you incapable of appreciating music? It has nothing to do with you, really, just them. Sorry ;)

Anyway, I went to Capital (which pales in comparison, really...it's a small Lutheran college in Columbus, OH...in my defense, though, the Conservatory here is well known in these parts!) Send me an owl or whatnot and we can do some music chat!

It seems I am the only one in the world who doesn't care that they cut that. They can put it in GoF or they can just not put it in to a movie at all. The movies will be able to get by without it.


I agree there...and as an added note...everyone's always complaining that the HP movies play toward a younger crowd and should play toward the older people... excluding an open explanation of this, while still providing enough info to figure it out on your own (in my opinion anyway...) was a horribly received attempt to play older...

Just to get this thread active again..Did anyone feel like it was deja vu just before the ending, on your first screening of Poa? It was starting to be a lot like the same scene after Draco got attacked by Buckbeak. I was like "Hmm, This looks familiar". :lol:

Just to get this thread active again..Did anyone feel like it was deja vu just before the ending, on your first screening of Poa? It was starting to be a lot like the same scene after Draco got attacked by Buckbeak. I was like "Hmm, This looks familiar". :lol:

I'm not quite getting your reference here. I guess my closest thing to deja vu was that it seemed that Harry kept waking up in a hospital every so often and then running off again only to get the smack-down laid upon him. Seemed a bit redundant. Interesting thought though...

I meant like how it was the same music, and the same ghosts entering the Great Hall.

I meant like how it was the same music, and the same ghosts entering the Great Hall.

Ahhhh. Got ya. Yeah, you are right. The headless horseman (I believe it was him, not sure) crashed through the windows twice and galloped into the Main Hall. Not sure what the point of doing that was. Anyway, the music they were playing at both instances was Hagrid the Professor from the soundtrack. It is one of my favorite pieces because it uses early Baroque period instruments (recorders, krumhorns (possibly), shawms, drum, tambourine, and strings) which gives the castle that ancient, Medieval type of atmosphere. But yeah, it was almost as if the reel had skipped or something and was about to make us watch that whole segment all over again!

Ahhhh. Got ya. Yeah, you are right. The headless horseman (I believe it was him, not sure) crashed through the windows twice and galloped into the Main Hall. Not sure what the point of doing that was. Anyway, the music they were playing at both instances was Hagrid the Professor from the soundtrack. It is one of my favorite pieces because it uses early Baroque period instruments (recorders, krumhorns (possibly), shawms, drum, tambourine, and strings) which gives the castle that ancient, Medieval type of atmosphere. But yeah, it was almost as if the reel had skipped or something and was about to make us watch that whole segment all over again!

I thought it was the headless horsemen too, but if you look carefully they do have their heads screwed onto their bodies. I'm not sure what it is they are holding in their hands though. It appears to be a small sack. :p

I'm not quite getting your reference here. I guess my closest thing to deja vu was that it seemed that Harry kept waking up in a hospital every so often and then running off again only to get the smack-down laid upon him. Seemed a bit redundant. Interesting thought though...
Yeah that what i kept noticing that to but he laid it down to them at the end though :rotfl:

Ok, another topic.

I must say I loved how they did Hogsmeade. The snow looked really nice and real, and I loved the small carollers. :p

Ok, another topic.

I must say I loved how they did Hogsmeade. The snow looked really nice and real, and I loved the small carollers. :p

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Wow, Blizzard! I don't mean to sound rude or anything, but this came off as just a wee bit desperate in terms of attempting to get this thread up and running again like it was over a month ago! hahaha You gave it a shot the first time around. You know, the one about feeling deja vu and all. After seeing that one fail after about a week (if that), you come back and take a second stab at it. I LOVE IT!!! It was so funny that I actually laughed out loud when I read your post!! Oh man.... I hope you aren't completely offended now that I have spoken, but it just seemed that way.

Anyway, in regards to your affable sentiments concerning Hogsmeade, I would have to agree with you. It actually looked as if they really DID shoot outside and in the snow, hence the reason why the snow looked so real. Of course, I haven't read anywhere that it was indeed shot outside, but in fact it was really filmed at Leavesden Studios. They did a great job with that scene, being indoors and all. It reminded me of the Pass of Caradhras scene in LOTR:TFOTR in the movie. Although it was only a set, it look VERY real and quite cold! The folks who did the Hogsmeade scene did their jobs very well and they deserve props for their work.

Does anyone have a pic of the Hungarian Horntail yet? I would really like see it!

When I see the Lego Toys I do not expect a very good dragon!

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Wow, Blizzard! I don't mean to sound rude or anything, but this came off as just a wee bit desperate in terms of attempting to get this thread up and running again like it was over a month ago! hahaha You gave it a shot the first time around. You know, the one about feeling deja vu and all. After seeing that one fail after about a week (if that), you come back and take a second stab at it. I LOVE IT!!! It was so funny that I actually laughed out loud when I read your post!! Oh man.... I hope you aren't completely offended now that I have spoken, but it just seemed that way.

Anyway, in regards to your affable sentiments concerning Hogsmeade, I would have to agree with you. It actually looked as if they really DID shoot outside and in the snow, hence the reason why the snow looked so real. Of course, I haven't read anywhere that it was indeed shot outside, but in fact it was really filmed at Leavesden Studios. They did a great job with that scene, being indoors and all. It reminded me of the Pass of Caradhras scene in LOTR:TFOTR in the movie. Although it was only a set, it look VERY real and quite cold! The folks who did the Hogsmeade scene did their jobs very well and they deserve props for their work.

I just felt like saying I liked the Hogsmeade part. I had nothing to say regarding the last post, so I just said something else about the movie of Poa.

Anyway, They must have used CGI.
On some pictures of the snow in Hogsmeade, the snow looks really fake. Such as this picture: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v430/Blizzard03/poapic106.jpg
:p

Ok im not sure if this has been dissussed yet or not.


When PoA was released at the movies I heard a number of people mention that the moon came out from behind the clouds, which would be wrong because if the moon was already up Lupin should have already transformed. However in my DVD the moon clearly rises over the horizon. So did people just misinterprate the film version or did they change it for the DVD

Ok im not sure if this has been dissussed yet or not.


When PoA was released at the movies a heard a number of people mention that the moon came out from behind the clouds, which would be wrong because if the moon was already up Lupin should have already transformed. However in my DVD the moon clearly rises over the horizon. So did people just misiterprate the film version or did they change it for the DVD

It's the same on my dvd. I don't recall was it was like at the movies, but I think they would have it arising from the clouds. Most likely those people caught the wrong end of the stick. :p

I just felt like saying I liked the Hogsmeade part. I had nothing to say regarding the last post, so I just said something else about the movie of Poa.

Anyway, They must have used CGI.
On some pictures of the snow in Hogsmeade, the snow looks really fake. Such as this picture: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v430/Blizzard03/poapic106.jpg
:p
It looks like sand, white sand...however, that and the moon detail are just minor details. Not that they provoke a major disgust like it could have cause the blunder of Harry's scar which I always find it like a pretty obvious mistake they should've picked up. Like in movie 1, when at some point, Hermione says Voldemort name when no one were suppose to say it for fears.

I just felt like saying I liked the Hogsmeade part. I had nothing to say regarding the last post, so I just said something else about the movie of Poa.

Anyway, They must have used CGI.
On some pictures of the snow in Hogsmeade, the snow looks really fake. Such as this picture: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v430/Blizzard03/poapic106.jpg
:p

I just noticed something else about this picture that you linked Blizzard. If you look in the lower right-hand area, you'll see that the snow on the ground is not the same color and material as the snowpiles that it lies with. You can see that the snowpiles are just a bit darker than the snow on the ground. There is also an obvious line that tells you that they are separate entities. Natural snow and snowpiles would run into one another SEAMLESSLY and it would also have the same color, regardless if the snowpile and the snow on the ground were different hues (naturally, it would just mix and give it a one-ness nevertheless).

The snow on the ground in this picture does appear to be sand, when you take a closer look. If you know the properties of sand (who hasn't been to a beach??) then you know that dry sand won't stack too high (unlike snow), thus giving it several tiny hills, like in this photo. You can also see some evidence of this by looking at the material on the trios' shoes. It appears to be too thin to be real snow, and dry sand tends to be really thin when it layers onto something. This, however, is questionable as it could go either way. But yeah, it appears to be sand in general. Furthermore, I could have used some nice breath effects to give us the feeling that it's actually COLD. In the studio, it must have hotter than hell in there all layered in clothes and such, but we never saw Harry's breath (at least I can't recall seeing it) when we saw the closeup of his face when he was crying. I could have used some tears there too, fake or not. I digress. But yeah, they should have put some CGI breath in there to help out the scene as far as its environment was concernec. Cheers!

Ok im not sure if this has been dissussed yet or not.


When PoA was released at the movies I heard a number of people mention that the moon came out from behind the clouds, which would be wrong because if the moon was already up Lupin should have already transformed. However in my DVD the moon clearly rises over the horizon. So did people just misinterprate the film version or did they change it for the DVDDid it come from a flat horizon? Mine distinctly comes from behind a mountain, behind faint clouds - yes, but definitely at an angle from behine a mountain.

Ok im not sure if this has been dissussed yet or not.


When PoA was released at the movies I heard a number of people mention that the moon came out from behind the clouds, which would be wrong because if the moon was already up Lupin should have already transformed. However in my DVD the moon clearly rises over the horizon. So did people just misinterprate the film version or did they change it for the DVD

That's an interesting observation. I didn't really catch it upon my first viewing, but I remember seeing the moon come from behind the clouds. Now, as this may be wrong to some of you, it actually kind of makes sense in the way werewolves are traditionally handled. You normally see werewolves only transform when the bright light of the full moon hits them directly or when they see it in full view. In POA, Lupin OBVIOUSLY didn't start any kind of transformation until the light of the moon hit him, and that's when we see his eyes begin to change. It all goes downhill from there.

As far as it coming from behind the horizon, that doesn't seem too logical, as the moon is normally way up in the sky long before the rotation of the Earth causes the beginning of night. To be precise, when the moon is out at any particular stage during the month, it is always up in the sky, you just can't usually see it because of the more powerful light from the sun. That explains why you can see the moon well before nightfall and later in the morning before the sun comes out in its entirety. My astronomical knowledge is a little vague, so I might be a little off. But that's what I remember reading. Anyway, should this actually be true, my statements from above would still hold true. As the moon showed itself from behind the horizon, it cast its light onto Lupin and he begins his transformation. Any thoughts?

Seems like i remember in the dvd that the moon is coming out from behind the mountain but there are clouds that clear also.

i liked the first movie, and i didnt really care for the second, but i absolutly LOVED the third...i think it is the best one that was made. the change in director paid a big part in that, i think. i mean i always liked POA as a book, and i have to admit the movie came pretty close to my imagings of how the set would look, for ever since i finished the book i wondered what the set would look like, im just that sort of person who is facinating on the making of a movie. anyway, i liked the movie, but i felt that some key features were left out. i mean i was very disapointed that there was no background on the maruders, and that pigwidgeon was not introduced. also, why was there no sir codogan? and why have they been so keen to keep peeves out of the movies when he is actually quite an important caractor? i think that jkr should make these 'forgotten' caractors a more important part in the next books. so important that the movie people cannot keep them out of the movie any longer. that would show them...

oh, and im adding to the quote above me that i said earlier....why did they delete all these scenes? i think some of them, like the one with neville and the passwords would have made the movies a little more loyal to the books. i mean it wouldnt make the movie drag on, i mean what two minutes longer...that is reallly gonna make the press mad...and one thing it would definatly do is make the loyal fans of the books like ourselves very happy.

Just remembered something that they missed in the third movie...
Hermione's constant studies in the book made her so tired she looked like she wanted to cry. Remember something like that?
In the movies, however, they didn't show how exhausted she was. They really didn't show a Hermione who is studying all the time, they just make her look like a genius who doesn't study but knows all.
If I hadn't read the books, I wouldn't even thing twice on why Hermione was randomly appearing and Ron saying "Where did she come from?" all the time.
In the book I was wondering how she was doing it.

I don't know why so many people say that they LOVED PoA and that it was SOOO GOOOD! They probably didn't understand ha;f the stuff in the movie, but think it's soo good and has such goooood special effects.

My cousins understood the movie perfectly, so did my parents. I wouldn't say I liked a movie just because of the special effects. That's pretty shallow.

Just remembered something that they missed in the third movie...
Hermione's constant studies in the book made her so tired she looked like she wanted to cry. Remember something like that?
In the movies, however, they didn't show how exhausted she was. They really didn't show a Hermione who is studying all the time, they just make her look like a genius who doesn't study but knows all.
If I hadn't read the books, I wouldn't even thing twice on why Hermione was randomly appearing and Ron saying "Where did she come from?" all the time.
In the book I was wondering how she was doing it.

I don't know why so many people say that they LOVED PoA and that it was SOOO GOOOD! They probably didn't understand ha;f the stuff in the movie, but think it's soo good and has such goooood special effects.
Good point :tu:. However, 'randomly appearing' could be equivilent to the indication that Hermione is doing something strange. It would have added to introduction of the Time Turner a bit better, with the crying and stress loaded onto her, but her sudden appearance in class when no one heard her was enough to cut the line between confusion and the small knowledge that something's might be up. Also, if you didn't notice, as the movie progresses, Hermione's hair and appearance looks more stressed. Her hair becomes messier as if she had been running around and her clothes look more worn and wrinkled. Small clues, observant movie-watchers catch and understand lead, to the climax of the movie with a better understanding.

As you've also said, what is hard to believe that a lot of people liked the movie? The movie was understandable from an outsider's opinion even though they left a few, but minor, scenes from the books. I realize that the explanation of the Marauders is essential, but either they didn't care or didn't notice becuase not many people asked about it, that I know. Anyway, the movie's special effect were decent enough and the plot went by smoothly, in fact smoother than it had been during CoS or SS. You've got to understand the book is progressively getting larger in size and the screen writers won't have much 'wiggle-room' to fit in the smaller details of the books. That's why it always better to read the book than see it's adaption on the big screen.

i lieked/loved this movie tho i did indeed thought a lot more could of been added to it to allow the non book readers to understand it and for the readers to enjoy ;)

runitzandrew, I'm just mad about the marauderers, firebolt, and the stupid ending, that's all :)
Those weren't minor things. People who haven't read the books probably haven't even heard the name "Firebolt" and that it's the best broom in the world, which even Malfoy couldn't get.

runitzandrew, I'm just mad about the marauderers, firebolt, and the stupid ending, that's all :)
Those weren't minor things. People who haven't read the books probably haven't even heard the name "Firebolt" and that it's the best broom in the world, which even Malfoy couldn't get.
Another very fine point :tu:. However, correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't Harry see the broom at Diagon Alley through the window shop?

As for the 'stupid ending', I would have to disagree partially. I think that the scene with Harry recieving the Firebolt from Sirius could have been placed either in the middle of story or at the end like how it was. If it was placed in the middle of the story, it could have made the film longer with scenes that aren't requisite or necessary since it would have to have shown McGonagall taking the broom from Harry and striping it down because otherwise it would have been a complete mystery to who would have sent it. Placing that scene at the end was a better choice, in my opinion. We had just learned that Sirius is Harry's godfather so we don't have the looming mystery of who sent the broom. It also was an appropiate ending. However, I didn't like the freeze frame at the very end. They could have improved that by a stretch, but I thought the ending was superb as a whole.

Also, as for the missing mention of who and what the Marauder's are, was a disappointment for us book-readers. However, if it was watched by movie-goers who hadn't read the book, it would have just added a complex subplot for the watcher to understand. It wasn't completely required but it would have been nice for a mention that Sirius was Padfoot, and that sort. :shrug:

Those weren't minor things. People who haven't read the books probably haven't even heard the name "Firebolt" and that it's the best broom in the world, which even Malfoy couldn't get.
Actually, every one of those was a minor thing. Everyone one of those elements was cut and no lasting damage was inflicted on the plot. Although those things do add a lot more depth and strength to the book and work very well as character builders, none are so important that the plot of the movie suffered. As a HP fan I missed them a bit (especially the MWPP), but to someone who was just watching the film without having read the books, nothing was really lost. Do you really think an average movie-goer is going to give a flip that Harry's broom is so nice; it's not important.

And another thing, I STILL don't understand while people insist on thinking that leaving out a scene or two is going to make the movie a confusing mess. It seems the only people who think the movie is "confusing" to non-readers are the ones who've read the books! All the people I went to see it with that had not read the books had no problem figuring anything out! Heck, some of them even figured out the ending before it happened (The thing with Peter at least).

I don't know why so many people say that they LOVED PoA and that it was SOOO GOOOD! They probably didn't understand ha;f the stuff in the movie, but think it's soo good and has such goooood special effects.
Goodness!!! Just because someone enjoys the movie you think they loved it for all the special effects! I guess it's impossible for someone to enjoy the movie because they believe that it was in fact A GOOD MOVIE!

fine Raethul you didn't have to yell. From what I've read, many book readers hated PoA movie

From what I've read, many book readers hated PoA movie
Strangely enough, I hear that a lot, too. I understand that many book readers had pointed out the smaller details that were missing from the movie plot, but if you look at the movie, solely on the movie without implicationg the book, the movie didn't have a necessity for the minor details. Yet, being a bit hypocritical, I was a tad disappointed by the missing details, myself, but my joy and favoritism of the new film masked that disappointment.

From what I've read, many book readers hated PoA movie


That might be. However, the book readers were a tiny minority of the audience. The general movie audiences thought that this was the first good Harry Potter movie. The plot was not buried under a lot of unneeded exposition, there were far fewer pointless scenes, and the story came through very clearly.

On the other hand, the book readers tended to like the first two movies. We saw how unpopular they were, especially the first one - only 80% of the people who saw it returned for CoS.

PoA won back quite a few people who did not like CoS or P/SS. Given its high approval ratings, it sets GoF for a good box office. If GoF can be like PoA, by which I mean focus on the plot and the story and ignore the background, then the audiences might be really eager for OotP.

However, it will take a second good HP movie to make people forget the first two.

LOL! Dont be silly, well afcourse they are going to end up together!! duuh, why would Cuaron put the holding hands scene? just because he wants? NO! Its a clue, and on the books theres a lot of clues about R&H, and BTW JK said that Cuaron put a lot of clues on the movie, and the holding hands is one of them.


And why people hated the end? I like it, lol, it was cool and original :p and cause Harry ended up with a smile on his face he was happy, on the next movies, Harry wont end smiling...


Cuaron doesn't know what happens in books 6 and 7. He isn't the author, J.K. Rowling is, and she has made it clear no one but her knows what is going to happen. He didn't put the holding hands in as a clue; he was just trying to add a romantic aspect to PoA which didn't exist in the book, or any later books for that matter.

[QUOTE=I guess it's impossible for someone to enjoy the movie because they believe that it was in fact A GOOD MOVIE![/QUOTE]

Maybe if I hadn't read the books, I would have thought PoA was a good movie. But I have, and I loved them, mainly because of the magic and wonder and possibilties that don't exist in the world we live in today. I don't feel that the movie captured any of the feelings I got from reading the books. But don't say that's not possible to do with a movie, because it is. The first two adaptions succeeded, and I was very disappointed with the dark and circus like theme of PoA.

Only 80% returned for CoS? That's not only. That Cuaron Mexican director did a lot of things I didn't like..
I'm gonna name a few for now
changed the location of the gryffindor tower
changed uniforms
Too much muggle clothes!

Only 80% returned for CoS? That's not only.

That was a major “only” - it indicated that one fifth of the people who saw P/SS did not like the movie. That, coupled with lower ticket sales than expected for P/SS (they expected to make $400M in the states but wound up making only about $320M), was a very poor way to start a series. Had the series continued in that vein, GoF would have made under $200M and probably would have been the last movie filmed.

In comparison, it was estimated that over 95% of the people who saw Fellowship of the Ring returned for the Two Towers. Moreover, the video rentals of Fellowship added even more people to the Two Towers' box office.

Video rentals for P/SS had no perceptible effect of CoS's sales.


The good news for GoF is that audience approval for PoA was much higher (nearly 90%), and the video has rented well. It is possible that a lot of people who refused to see PoA because the first two movies were so lackluster will return for GoF - if the movie is not too long and is not criticized in advance for being too slow (like the first two movies were).


changed the location of the gryffindor tower
changed uniforms
Too much muggle clothes!

None of these things have anything to do with the story. Nobody cared about these things. They wanted a tight plot and few(preferably no) scenes that that contributed neither to the plot nor to the story. .

None of these things have anything to do with the story. Nobody cared about these things. They wanted a tight plot and few(preferably no) scenes that that contributed neither to the plot nor to the story. .

Yes, they don’t give anything to the story directly. However, you say that ‘nobody’ cared about these things. Who is ‘nobody’? Are talking about me or those in this forum or the general public or authors or critics? Who is ‘they’? Wow. Please give me an example(s) of a movie that had a really tight plot and few (preferably no) scenes that contributed neither to the plot nor to the story. All I am asking is that you please please PLEASE back up these statements because they don’t look too good by themselves.

That might be. However, the book readers were a tiny minority of the audience. The general movie audiences thought that this was the first good Harry Potter movie. The plot was not buried under a lot of unneeded exposition, there were far fewer pointless scenes, and the story came through very clearly.

On the other hand, the book readers tended to like the first two movies. We saw how unpopular they were, especially the first one - only 80% of the people who saw it returned for CoS.

PoA won back quite a few people who did not like CoS or P/SS. Given its high approval ratings, it sets GoF for a good box office. If GoF can be like PoA, by which I mean focus on the plot and the story and ignore the background, then the audiences might be really eager for OotP.

However, it will take a second good HP movie to make people forget the first two.

Hmmmm... you say that the book readers in the audience were a "tiny" minority.... I highly disagree. At least a third (33%) of the entire audience in the theater had read the books. Now I can see how your "tiny" might be true for the first movie, however unlikely, but against POA I believe that you're way off of the mark. I do not think that the plot was buried under anything. If one actually paid attention to what was going on screen then it was quite clear as to where the story was going.

As far as pointless scenes are concerned, you gotta be kidding! You say that there were many pointless scenes in SS and COS and yet you seem to consider POA to be off the hook in this regard. Since when was an annoying talking head the conductor of the Knight Bus in the book? His stupid comments and lame jokes were *ahem* pointless. The housekeeper at The Leaky Cauldron getting blasted by some creature or wizard in the room was pointless. It had nothing to do with the story, AT ALL. While I loved the choir scene (for the music), that was also pointless. It did little for the story. Hermione complaining about her hair was time wasting and pointless. The Whomping Willow killing little birds was unnecessary and pointless and a rather cruel touch. The list goes on and on…. In place of these pointless scenes could be some other real scenes from the book that actually happened. We could then see who the Marauders were as well as maybe expand on the Sirius/Harry relationship, which was cut way too short to make it logical. We could also have gotten at least a line or so from Oliver Wood about finally winning the House Cup or maybe also expand the scene where Harry is trying to master the Patronus Charm. But, oh wait, these would all just be pointless to you, correct? What exactly IS your definition of ‘pointless’? Some of your comments just don’t make much sense.

What do you mean by less background and more story??? POA could have used more of both, really. However, without proper background there can be no clear storyline. It’s what gives the story its clarity and interest. Again, what is your definition of ‘background’ here? I may just be interpreting this the wrong way.

Finally, why would anyone in their right mind want to ‘forget’ the first two films?? I don’t see how any Harry Potter fan could just so casually dismiss TWO entire films without at least having a VALID reason for it. It’s not like they were bad or anything because, on the contrary, they were very good. Different from POA, yes, but still very good. Plus, how do you reckon that two good films can replace two supposedly bad ones?? That doesn’t really fly in the real world my friend. I really want to know where you are coming from when you make these kinds of comments. Cheers mate!

Finally, why would anyone in their right mind want to ‘forget’ the first two films??
I would. They hurt my brain.

I don’t see how any Harry Potter fan could just so casually dismiss TWO entire films without at least having a VALID reason for it.
Again, I do. What's so invalid about not liking them?

It’s not like they were bad or anything because, on the contrary, they were very good.
In your opinion.

Different from POA, yes, but still very good. Plus, how do you reckon that two good films can replace two supposedly bad ones?? That doesn’t really fly in the real world my friend. I really want to know where you are coming from when you make these kinds of comments. Cheers mate!
It flies in my world. Two good movies will eclipse one bad one. Anyone remember Godfather III? Didn't think so...

CajunFry, hehe, nicely said.
I love the first two movies. They were loyal to the book. I am an HP book fan and I don't want some stinky directors throwing their own junk in the movies. If GoF will be like PoA, WB would lost one more movie fan.

I totally forgot about the Quiddich House Cup.... ehem... I think you know what I'm about so say

CajunFry, hehe, nicely said.
I love the first two movies. They were loyal to the book. I am an HP book fan and I don't want some stinky directors throwing their own junk in the movies.
I'd rather that than a photocopied version of the book. "Loyal" and "scene-by-bloody-excrutiatingly-long-scene" are two very different things.

If GoF will be like PoA, WB would lost one more movie fan.You'll go see it anyway though. And you'll see OotP too. So where's the threat?
If GoF is like PoA I think I'll enjoy it. If GoF is like PS or CoS I'll enjoy it, but will laugh at all the wrong places, throw things at the screen at boring/sentimental/cheezy scenes and generally not like it.

QUOTE BY CAJUNFRY As far as pointless scenes are concerned, you gotta be kidding! You say that there were many pointless scenes in SS and COS and yet you seem to consider POA to be off the hook in this regard. Since when was an annoying talking head the conductor of the Knight Bus in the book? His stupid comments and lame jokes were *ahem* pointless. The housekeeper at The Leaky Cauldron getting blasted by some creature or wizard in the room was pointless. It had nothing to do with the story, AT ALL. While I loved the choir scene (for the music), that was also pointless. It did little for the story. Hermione complaining about her hair was time wasting and pointless. The Whomping Willow killing little birds was unnecessary and pointless and a rather cruel touch. The list goes on and on…. In place of these pointless scenes could be some other real scenes from the book that actually happened. We could then see who the Marauders were as well as maybe expand on the Sirius/Harry relationship, which was cut way too short to make it logical. We could also have gotten at least a line or so from Oliver Wood about finally winning the House Cup or maybe also expand the scene where Harry is trying to master the Patronus Charm. But, oh wait, these would all just be pointless to you, correct? What exactly IS your definition of ‘pointless’? Some of your comments just don’t make much sense.

Right on! Add scene where Lupin drivels on and on about Harry's mum (?), Harry crying, Harry finding Peter Pettigrew on the map, Harry and Hermione getting flung about by the Whomping Willow for about half an hour...etc.

But I didn't like the first two films either. I just don't understand how people can go on about the cheese in the first two and act like there wasn't any in the third one. Come on, guys, there so was!

Only 80% returned for CoS? That's not only. That Cuaron Mexican director did a lot of things I didn't like..
I'm gonna name a few for now
changed the location of the gryffindor tower
changed uniforms
Too much muggle clothes!

Yeah.

Yes, they don’t give anything to the story directly. However, you say that ‘nobody’ cared about these things. Who is ‘nobody’? Are talking about me or those in this forum or the general public or authors or critics?

Obviously the general public and the critics. Read the movie reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Nobody mentioned these things. Instead, they focused on the story and the plot. The negative reviews for PoA were not from Harry Potter purists, but from people who think that that the whole story is stupid in the first place.


Hmmmm... you say that the book readers in the audience were a "tiny" minority.... I highly disagree. At least a third (33%) of the entire audience in the theater had read the books.

That is almost certainly false. Simply look at the numbers of book sales versus ticket sales. Even after the hit on ticket sales inflicted by relative poor audience response to P/SS, the movies were selling as many tickets in the US alone as they had sold books in the entire world.

Only a fraction of those books are sold to people who really are Harry Potter fans.

If you want an estimate of the real fan base, look at OotP's sales. It sold a phenomonal 10 million copies in a week world wide, including about 5 million in the US. The movie sold about 45 million tickets in the US. So, we are looking at about 1/9th of the audience.


For another comparison, look at the proportion of people here who gave PoA a top grade. It is under 40%. Yet look at the proportion of general movie goers who gave it a top grade (see, e.g., BO Mojo or other sites). It was nearly 60%. Those groups are random with respect to people being an HP fan - in fact, given that HP fans are more prone to be on the Internet than non-HP fans (due to age, if nothing else), there probably are a greater percentage of HP fans participating in those surveys than there are in the theaters. Still, over half again as many PoA viewers gave PoA a top mark than for either P/SS or CoS.


As far as pointless scenes are concerned, you gotta be kidding! You say that there were many pointless scenes in SS and COS and yet you seem to consider POA to be off the hook in this regard. Since when was an annoying talking head the conductor of the Knight Bus in the book?

That was not a scene. That was an aspect of one scene, which was necessary - you need the Knight Bus to get Harry to Diagonally.

P/SS and Cos had entire scenes that led nowhere, or that contributed one point that could have been lumped into another scene that contributed (at most) one point.

The housekeeper at The Leaky Cauldron getting blasted by some creature or wizard in the room was pointless. It had nothing to do with the story, AT ALL. While I loved the choir scene (for the music), that was also pointless. It did little for the story. Hermione complaining about her hair was time wasting and pointless. The Whomping Willow killing little birds was unnecessary and pointless and a rather cruel touch.

None of these things were scenes. They were links between scenes or parts of scenes. (Oh, and the bluebird bit was NOT pointless - surely you did not miss the allusion to the bluebird of happiness and the metaphor for becoming a teenager???)


The list goes on and on….

Actually, you have yet to list a scene! You have listed only snippets of scenes or links between them.

We could then see who the Marauders were as well as maybe expand on the Sirius/Harry relationship, which was cut way too short to make it logical.

No, we could not have. By the time these things arose, it was nearing the end of the movie. At that point it was critical to keep the pace moving rapidly, especially given that the story has a “false” ending.

We could also have gotten at least a line or so from Oliver Wood about finally winning the House Cup

That is pointless - the House Cup has nothing to do with the story.

or maybe also expand the scene where Harry is trying to master the Patronus Charm.

That was adequate as it was given.

What exactly IS your definition of ‘pointless’? Some of your comments just don’t make much sense.

It has to contribute to the plot (i.e., the series of events/actions that logically leads to the final events/actions), or to the story itself, i.e., the primary theme (i.e., irony, or, to spell it out, how the truth often is not what it appears to be and how one must struggle to uncover truth - it's quite Zen, really.)

What do you mean by less background and more story??? POA could have used more of both, really.

Movie critics disagreed - they felt that the movie was slightly too long, although after the first two they were willing to cut it some slack.


Finally, why would anyone in their right mind want to ‘forget’ the first two films?? I don’t see how any Harry Potter fan could just so casually dismiss TWO entire films without at least having a VALID reason for it.

It is not the fans, it is the rest of the public. It is not that they want to forget, it is that they do not rewatch the movies or re-read the books. Of course, a lot of them completely forgot the series after the first one, as only a fifth of them returned for CoS.

These movies cannot succeed catering to HP fans.

I am an HP book fan and I don't want some stinky directors throwing their own junk in the movies.
I think I have to strongly disagree here. If a director doesn't add their own mark, they aren't very good directors. Columbus did this, too, but you don't think about it because youhave no frame of reference. It sounds to me like you'd rather just listen to the book on tape/CD. I hear Stephen Fry is wonderful, though he does add his own voices.

not I'm in love with Danied Radcliffe so I want to see the movies. Hm... ok they should add a little bit from themselves, but not change all the small things like the location of the Gryffindor common room...

I thought it was a great movie. I loved the warm golden glow in movies one and two, but I liked the different tones in PoA too. I felt like the other two showed more things but this one was pretty good too. It is impossible to put every little detail in a movie. So, even though this one was a bit scarier and darker, it was well made. I am glad that we finally got to see Hogsmeade, and a little more of the world beyond Hogwarts. I enjoyed the introduction of the magical beasts, and the shrunken heads too. :p

I also wish that Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire be made in to a longer movie with an intermission during it, instead of just a two and a half hour movie, there will be all lot of things left out.

I totally agree. I made the big mistake of getting a coke during the movie and spent the last hour of it ready to explode!!

I wasn't really happy with PoA. I understand that as a screenwriter adapting a book, there are just some things that you have to leave out. But the important scenes should have been left alone, not changed around. The original scenes is what makes the books the way they are.

The ending is what really made me angry. There was absolutely no reason to change it around.

And why people hated the end? I like it, lol, it was cool and original and cause Harry ended up with a smile on his face he was happy, on the next movies, Harry wont end smiling...

At the end of the book, Harry finds out that Sirius is safely hidden, he gets his permission slip to Hogsmeade, and Ron gets a new owl. The story still ends with a smile on Harry's face. The end of the movie made me realize that I should have gone to the bathroom because it was just not worth seeing.

Who says they changed the rules about the robes? They didn't. Harry and the gang still wore them during classes. They just made it more realistic. Do you wear your school uniform (if you wear one) during your free time? You don't, right? Why should wizard kids be any different? Why should they wear robes when going to Hogsmeade? Jeans are much more comfortable!

I disagree. At the Quiddich Cup, in the books the students seem very foreign in wearing muggle clothes. Ron even asks Harry if he looks like a muggle. That was a bit dissapointing, I mean half of the wizardish effect is the fact they wear robes, I think they tried to make the clothes too trendy and Hollywoodish.

Also, I think they changed the movie a lot. I was quite dissapointed in it. I thought the new landscapes were cool, but they were never in the books and different. But I didn't like that it seemed Hagri'd Cabin had moved. Also, I think that in the movies in general, the lead characters are mostly the only ones acting. In the books there are other people too. Characters like Neville, Seamus, and Dean have larger roles. Same with Ginny and the other teachers that were hardly put into it.

I liked the scene where the guys were in their dormitory that was funny, but the one with the Jamican guy seemed a bit unnecessary and too cheesy. Same with Dan hitting the windows so much, it was funny the first few times, but it was too excessive. I loved Gary Oldman though! I think he played a great Sirius. However, I didn't like how David portrayed Lupin. He acted well, I just dont think he's the right Lupin. Lupin seemed more warm in personality in the book and in the movie he seemed more evil, in a way. Also, characters seemed more "speachy." Like in the begnning with Dumbledore talking. And when Lupin talks about Lily, he never seems to say very much about her in the books.

The visual effects were cool and the one Quiddich game they showed was neat, but I wish they woul dhave shown the Quiddich Cup because that was such a cool part of the 3rd book. Oh, and Trelawney's Prediction was cool. The look of the Marauders Map itself was neat, but I didn't like how they didn't explain a lot about the Marauders.

I totally agree. I made the big mistake of getting a coke during the movie and spent the last hour of it ready to explode!!

The movie studios will not allow intermissions. That would reduce the number of screenings, and thus ticket sales. As the studios get almost all of the the ticket sales money, they want screeinings.

I wasn't really happy with PoA. I understand that as a screenwriter adapting a book, there are just some things that you have to leave out. But the important scenes should have been left alone, not changed around. The original scenes is what makes the books the way they are.

Again, from a literary point of view, the PoA movie omitted no important scenes. Everything that developed the central theme (uncovering what the truth really means) and all of the important plot points were there.

The ending is what really made me angry. There was absolutely no reason to change it around.

Yes, there were several reasons. There is far too much exposition in the book. Indeed, it sets up something perilously close to what the renowned scifi/fantasy critic Damon Knight called an idiot plot - i.e., one that only works because people behave stupidly. Had Lupin not gone on giving out his life story and simply turned Pettigrew back into a man, then they could have quickly returned to the castle before Lupin was in danger of turning into a werewolf and before Snape returned.

Instead, Lupin goes on about his childhood. Now, this was fine in a book - it developed Lupin and it developed Harry's father. However, it was fine in the way that good special effects in a movie are fine. And that is because it did not contribute to the main story theme (uncovering the truth behind the truth) nor did it contribute to the plot (Lupin already had recognized the map - why/how he did was unimportant, just as why/how Fred & George worked it out is unimportant).

So, imagine doing this in a movie - it is perilously close to the ArchVillain's monologue that lets the good guys escape the fiendish trap.


Also, you have to remember that your particular views of the movie are a bit iconoclastic. The general public and movie critics thought that the first two HP movies were much too long, with too much exposition explaining details that were not relevant to the plot or the main themes. (Indeed, the main themes were so buried as to be almost unrecognizable).

A tighter, more succinct ending therefore was in order. Had PoA continued CoS's freefall, it would have made just over $200M in the US, and it has been alleged that WB would put the series on hold if the US sales fall below that number. (That is just industry rumor - whether it is true or not, only WB knows.)


At the end of the book, Harry finds out that Sirius is safely hidden, he gets his permission slip to Hogsmeade, and Ron gets a new owl. The story still ends with a smile on Harry's face. The end of the movie made me realize that I should have gone to the bathroom because it was just not worth seeing.

Again, the movie critics and the non-Harry Potter fans (who are the vast majority of the movie going public) disagreed. PoA was the first good HP movie. We did not need Sirius' permission slip, nor do we need to see Pigwidgeon. We got a happy ending, and we also broke the mold - the story ended during the school year instead of at the end. (This slighly formulaic aspect of the book does grate on some people, after all.)



The visual effects were cool and the one Quiddich game they showed was neat, but I wish they woul dhave shown the Quiddich Cup because that was such a cool part of the 3rd book. Oh, and Trelawney's Prediction was cool. The look of the Marauders Map itself was neat, but I didn't like how they didn't explain a lot about the Marauders.

Again, the Maruaders were unnecessary for the plot. The same is true of the book. Once Lupin tells Harry that he knows that it is a map, then why becomes unimportant. Sure, it is nice character development - but it comes too late in the story. Given that the first two movies were so thoroughly criticized for taking too much time (and even PoA was criticized for being too long by most critics), they could not stick in unneeded exposition at that late point. Had there been a way to fit it into the story earlier, then that would have been fine. But there was not.

As for the Quidditch Cup, yes, it is an enjoyable part of the book. But it has no more to do with the story than Tom Bombadil had to do with the Lord of the Rings story. (That was, to quote JRR “nothing.”) It also contributes nothing to the plot - cut that out of the book, and Harry gets to the Shrieking Shack in just the same manner.

The last thing I need is a longer Harry Potter film. I thought PoA went just a little too long, but certainly not in comparison to the "is it over yet?" reaction to PS/CoS. Dragging GoF out over two and a half hours would be severely wrong, as would cutting into two movies. Honestly, whoever thought that up should be shot. Nobody would see it if they felt obligated to watch the other part. I know if I had the DVDs I would want to watch a film all in one sitting, but if the combined running time is over three hours then forget about it.

Again I say that this discussion is going nowhere, except that hardly anybody seems to be backing up their arguments save for Wimsey, CajunFry and a few others. It's just "drop in, bag PoA and leave again" isn't it?

I disagree. At the Quiddich Cup, in the books the students seem very foreign in wearing muggle clothes. Ron even asks Harry if he looks like a muggle. That was a bit dissapointing, I mean half of the wizardish effect is the fact they wear robes, I think they tried to make the clothes too trendy and Hollywoodish.
QUOTE]
[QUOTE=lilly_potter].

At the end of the book, Harry finds out that Sirius is safely hidden, he gets his permission slip to Hogsmeade, and Ron gets a new owl. The story still ends with a smile on Harry's face. The end of the movie made me realize that I should have gone to the bathroom because it was just not worth seeing.

-Yeah that's what I think too. And they do wear their robes to Hogsmeade and places, it says so in the books.

Also, I think there's a difference between a director leaving their mark on the film, through creating a certain atmosphere and tone, and adding bits into the film which IMO don't really add to the film and were a bit unecessary, eg Aunt Marge floating into the sky. I know some people thought it was funny, but I thought it was just a bit childish and over the top.

-Haha!

Geez, I get sick for a few days and come back to find this! Well, at least it looks like life has been put back into the thread! Please continue!

Wimsey!
:clap:

Oh yes, I wasn't yelling at you, xXillusion. I'm a nice little girl. :angel:

My son (13) and I (erm, 29, last I checked) went to see PoA in the theatre when it debuted. Both of us were instantly disappointed with a) not using Glencoe as the main setting, and b) the over-emphasis on time as a visual artistic point.

Having been avid fans whose imaginations had been swayed by the first two movies about how certain things should look, the third movie was frustrating for us. Too much art for the sake of art. It looked good on film, but we felt took away from the story.

I have to say, we both walked out of the movie feeling a bit let down.

well, I did love PoA, and everytime I watch it it gets ten times better, but one thing has always bothered me:
When Lupin is changing into the werewolf, and Sirius asks him if he's taken his potion.
However, the potion is a new invention, and seeing as Sirius had not seen Lupin for twelve years until that night, there is no way he could have about the potion....that always bugs me!!! Continuity people!!!

I think the only reason people were dissappointed was because of what we expected to see becuase it was such a great book. I don't think the film it self was dissappointing at all, like Allemande said, everytime I watch it it gets 10 times better...

Just think about how much it was good than it was bad..seems to make it better.

I admit I was dissappointed when I first saw it, but then I realized it was better than it was bad, and I liked it..I saw it 3? more times in the theater..wow I'm a freak...and then I bought it the first day it came out and I have lost times how many times I've seen it...

I think it was just put in the shadow of the other two movies, which were very interesting, but they were more famliy movies. This one was more of an adventure and had to be taken to a different level, with a different director, I don't think Chris could have done htis film good enough for me.

The important thing is that JKR liked it, and she did, she loved it, so what's to complain about?

I thought that the movie was done surprisingly well due to the fact that the director had to place the movie up to the calibur of the book. Next to OotF, PoA was my most favorite book. I think that the director did a wonderful job adding to the fact that he had to direct this movie after one of the best books ever written. :tu: *applause*

I give it three stars, mostly because it was a very welcome change of pace after the first two movies. Cuaron clearly demonstrated his ability as a director, as well as the actors. The special effects were much better than the previous two movies, so overall it was pretty good. I agree that the soundtrack is amazing, and the movie had more comedic moments than before. My only gripe? Length, it was too short. Obviously they can't include everything, but couldn't the movie stand a bit more consistency? You have all probably heard this before, but as much as I like the "freeze frame" ending, I was wondering about the Hogsmeade permission slip and Pigwidgeon. They will probably be worked into Goblet of Fire. Emma Watson was gorgeous, as usual. Enough said.

My only gripe? Length, it was too short.

This would put you in the minority among the general film audiences. Again, at 2+ hours, many critics and general movie goers (judging from comments on movie sites) felt that the movie was a little longer than necessary.

Still, the nearly universal opinion was that it was the first good movie of the series.


was wondering about the Hogsmeade permission slip and Pigwidgeon. They will probably be worked into Goblet of Fire.

The elements might be, but the explanations are not needed. The general audience won't remember that Harry needs a permission slip; those that do will assume that someone has given him permission to go. Indeed, I do not see any reason for Hogsmeade to be included in GoF, so the next time the audience probably will see it is OotP. Three years after PoA, little things like permission slips will not be remembered.

Pigwidgeon is completely unneeded for the stories so far. There is no reason to waste time in GoF or OotP on him (even if it is just a few seconds).

I think it was excelent,it seems like the movies are getting better & better. Allthough it slowed down a little bit with The Chamber Of Secrets, but The Prisoner Of Azkaban made totaly up for part 2. Not that part 2 was bad, it was just not as great as part 1 & part 3.

I'm jumping in on this a bit late, but I had to respond to this :)

Only if you let it get to you! I'm conservatory trained myself, however I told myself ahead of time I wasn't going to be that girl. What's the point in being classically trained if you can't enjoy music? While I do agree it's fun and interesting to analyze a piece of music (or its engineering/production...Rufus Wainwright is fun for that:)) I don't find it impossible to just enjoy...


I agree. I have a BMus (theory/comp), and I still am able to get completely lost in a great piece of music. For me, my theory knowledge usually just enhances it all. Take Copland's Fanfare for the Common Man for example. I have always loved that piece, and usually get goosebumps just listening to it. I have a piano reduction of it, so I see what he did, and it makes me love the piece even more :)


I'm entirely sure that motif (ascending arpeggios then descending scales in the low brass, right?) is quoted from a 'classical' piece (most likely from the romantic time period, but the average joe can't differentiate) that's also quoted in the Clockwork Orange, however for the life of me, I can't place the name...little help?

"La Gazza Ladra" by Rossini. We just played that in community band last spring, so I noticed that right away :D But you know what they say, "Good composers borrow, great composers steal" :lol: (If I can figure out how to trim down my recording, I'll link to the snippet that's referenced in Aunt Marge's Waltz)

I have to say, I love the score to PoA. While I do like a lot of JW's work, this is the only HP recording I've wanted to buy. But I play bass clarinet (hence my username :) ), so I'm partial to the nifty solo at the start of the Knight Bus :D I'm on a music list where one guy was involved in the music to PoA (he was the music librarian or copyist I think), and he said the Knight Bus music was wickedly hard, especially since movie musicians don't get a whole lot of time to practice. They have to get it right on one of the first tries, I believe.

As for the movie overall, it's becoming my favorite of the three. I wasn't so sure when I saw it in the theater because I wasn't happy about some of the changes. I realize things had to change because of the medium; I just didn't agree with what exactly they changed. But now that I've watched several times on DVD, I'm appreciating it more and more. I think that now I've gotten used to it being different from the first two. I'm just glad they kept in Hermione hitting Malfoy :evil: That little twerp deserves it!

"La Gazza Ladra" by Rossini. We just played that in community band last spring, so I noticed that right away :D But you know what they say, "Good composers borrow, great composers steal" :lol: (If I can figure out how to trim down my recording, I'll link to the snippet that's referenced in Aunt Marge's Waltz)

I have to say, I love the score to PoA. While I do like a lot of JW's work, this is the only HP recording I've wanted to buy. But I play bass clarinet (hence my username :) ), so I'm partial to the nifty solo at the start of the Knight Bus :D I'm on a music list where one guy was involved in the music to PoA (he was the music librarian or copyist I think), and he said the Knight Bus music was wickedly hard, especially since movie musicians don't get a whole lot of time to practice. They have to get it right on one of the first tries, I believe.

You know, I was just talking to my trombone friend the other day and we got to talking about the POA soundtrack. He swore to me up and down that there was a part in POA which sounded exactly like La Gazza Ladra, as you mentioned above. Since I was not really familiar with the work, I asked him to try and sing the line where it occurs. Eventually, I caught the tune and I sung back to him correctly (since I know the soundtrack inside and out). He was like, Yeah, thats it. So I told him that it was from Aunt Marge's Waltz on the soundtrack. I had actually written out the entire part for the tuba about two days after the soundtrack was released, which is the instrument that I play. I think we all know that JW loves to take little motifs from other composers and rework them to suit his needs, which I actually don't have a problem with. I love it. There are only so many musical ideas out there. At some point, you're going to have to use something that has already been done before, it just depends on how you use it.

I believe that the POA soundtrack is JW's greatest Harry Potter work to date. While I am privy more to COS and SS because there are more memorable themes, POA has a different texture and richness that I dig a lot. MagicBclPlyr, I was wondering if your name meant Bass Clarinet when I was reading your post. Then you told us and I was like, Yeah no wonder she loves the Knight Bus opening. Since I myself am a tuba player, I know all the little solos that he puts in there, which as a matter of fact, there is a nice singing melody line in the Knight Bus at one of the breaks. There are other scattered solos as well. But I'm straying off topic. It is true that when you're in the studio, you have to get it down on either the first or second take. Occasionally you have time to work out your part, but usually it's Do or Die. I live in Los Angeles, a mecca for studio playing, so I know. In regards to the Knight Bus music being difficult, then I would have to say MOST DEFINITELY! If you listen to all of the snycopated rhythms and all the other almost random things happening, you could imagine how hard it must have been for them to be able figure it out and nail it within two or three takes. While I don't believe that that was the most difficult sounding of the tracks, it's certainly no walk in the park, that's for sure.

You know, I was just talking to my trombone friend the other day and we got to talking about the POA soundtrack. He swore to me up and down that there was a part in POA which sounded exactly like La Gazza Ladra, as you mentioned above. Since I was not really familiar with the work, I asked him to try and sing the line where it occurs. Eventually, I caught the tune and I sung back to him correctly (since I know the soundtrack inside and out). He was like, Yeah, thats it. So I told him that it was from Aunt Marge's Waltz on the soundtrack. I had actually written out the entire part for the tuba about two days after the soundtrack was released, which is the instrument that I play. I think we all know that JW loves to take little motifs from other composers and rework them to suit his needs, which I actually don't have a problem with. I love it. There are only so many musical ideas out there. At some point, you're going to have to use something that has already been done before, it just depends on how you use it.

He likes to quote himself, too. Did you notice the Indiana Jones music when the boggart turns into a snake? I didn't catch it until I read about it somewhere (that part's not on the soundtrack).


I believe that the POA soundtrack is JW's greatest Harry Potter work to date. While I am privy more to COS and SS because there are more memorable themes, POA has a different texture and richness that I dig a lot. MagicBclPlyr, I was wondering if your name meant Bass Clarinet when I was reading your post. Then you told us and I was like, Yeah no wonder she loves the Knight Bus opening. (snip)

Yeah, I almost used Clarinerd for a username, but thought it might be too much :lol

One of my other favorites on the soundtrack is the snowball fight music. Fun sequence!

I know that JW isn't doing the music for GoF. I don't know offhand who is taking over, but it will be interesting to see how it goes. If I understand correctly, WB owns the rights to the music, so the next composer will be able to freely use prior themes in the score. Should be interesting!

This was my favorite Harry Potter movie.

However, I didn't like that they left the Marauders out or the change of personalities. Maybe "change" isn't a good word - exaggeration, maybe. Harry acted more upset than I remember him in the book. I think the director said it was the whole becoming a teen thing, but it seemed closer to what happened in book five. Hermione's "Is that really what my hair looks like from the back?" line didn't fit her character, in my opinion. The Quidditch winning scene stands out in the series as being the first time in years that Gryffindor won.

I think I liked the movie more than the others because I liked the book better. I think the books keep getting better and better and so will the movies. It didn't feel like such a kids' movie - it was darker. I liked the new sets also, even though it's hard to ignore the big difference from the first two movies.

Well, they can't put everything in, and I understand this, but it doesn't mean that I have to like it. Books will usually be better than movies.

Also, I think there's a difference between a director leaving their mark on the film, through creating a certain atmosphere and tone, and adding bits into the film which IMO don't really add to the film and were a bit unecessary, eg Aunt Marge floating into the sky. I know some people thought it was funny, but I thought it was just a bit childish and over the top.

-Haha!

I was watching the movie the other day, and it occurred to me - without Marge floating away, that would be a REALLY boring scene. If she just blew up and sat there, yeah the Dursleys would freak out, but it lacks in the urgency and action of her floating away has.

About the robes/lack thereof, I only have this to say: it's only being made an issue because we're noticing that they spend a little while in Muggle clothes. And why do we notice? Because most of the posters (the UK ones, anyway), all the other publicity material and the DVD covers feature three teenagers in, well, teenagerish clothing- outfits which they keep on for a solid forty-five plus minutes of the film.

Making the young cast wear robes all the time wouldn't have worked on film, you just don't wear your uniform all the time if you're in boarding school, especially on a weekend out (believe me, I know). And having uniforms was a cinematically necessitated change from the book, because the costume designers found that the robes-over-normal-clothes look didn't work at all on film.

And even if they do wear robes to Hogsmeade in the books, what they wear under the robes is good old normal Muggle clothing! So the movie wasn't that deviant from canon at all, really.

The elements might be, but the explanations are not needed. The general audience won't remember that Harry needs a permission slip; those that do will assume that someone has given him permission to go. Indeed, I do not see any reason for Hogsmeade to be included in GoF, so the next time the audience probably will see it is OotP. Three years after PoA, little things like permission slips will not be remembered.

Pigwidgeon is completely unneeded for the stories so far. There is no reason to waste time in GoF or OotP on him (even if it is just a few seconds).

Movies are not just a plot! I'm not talking about permission slip, i don't care about it, but you can't say that a movie must have all in it, without reference to others (films or anything). If you think that way, then you won't have history, no progress. It is about different levels of apreciation.

A good example is Gus Van Sant last film "Elephant". Everybody would understand the movie as it it is, but for a completely apreciation of the movie you MUST HAVE SEEN "MY OWN PRIVATE IDAHO". If you haven't, then you lose connections drawn by the director.

Moreover, you can't apreciate "My own private Idaho" in its whole if you haven't seen "CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT" by Orson Welles, because of Falstaf alegory. And indeed, you can't watch that movie without at leats knowing Shakespeare's work.

A random thought I just had over breakfast:
remember how, in the PoA interviews on the DVD, JKR says that Cuaron unintentionally put in things that foreshadow what will happen later?
Well, there has been some speculation on these boards that Ron is a seer, and so I thought what if one of those foreshadowing moments is in their first Divination class, and Trelawney says to Ron something like: "Your aura is pulsing my dear. Are you in the beyond? I think you are!" To which Ron says "sure."
Am I totally off base with this, or is it possible?

I've read plenty of posts about what was wrong with the POA movie, I've even made a few myself but in what areas did they improve on the books?

Here's my short list of scenes where I thought the movie actually did a better job than in the book.
Having Aunt Marge float away from the house.
Hermione punching Draco rather than slapping him.
Rosemarita, Hagrid Mcgonnagal and Fudge having a quiet, private conversation about Black rather than in a public bar.

Any others?

I've read plenty of posts about what was wrong with the POA movie, I've even made a few myself but in what areas did they improve on the books?

Here's my short list of scenes where I thought the movie actually did a better job than in the book.
Having Aunt Marge float away from the house.
Hermione punching Draco rather than slapping him.
Rosemarita, Hagrid Mcgonnagal and Fudge having a quiet, private conversation about Black rather than in a public bar.

Any others?

Ha, yeah. At first I thought having Hermione punching him instead of slapping him was the worst thing they could do. But then when I saw it I completely changed my mind...ahh I could watch that scene over and over again and it would never get old...

This is weird...I was just thinking about the Marge scene and her blowing up being better thant he book when I just watched it..thursday night. I loved how it showed her screaming and flipping when he walked outside.


Let's think...(Now the last time I reread the book was before the movie came out, so the book might be overshadowed my the movie in these)

-Ha, this wasn't even in the book, but the whole spiders thing with Ron..
-I think the whole seeing Pettigrew was better than the book, but I forget
-How he took down Sirius in the Shreiking Shack!....He just like..tackled him


I can't remember any others...if those were even true, but again, they are overshadowed by the movie..I might not have remembered correctly.

i think each film they bring out in the series is better than the last, but personal i think that the 3rd movie was the only one that actually was of the same standard of other films realised at the time. so hopefully the nxt 1 will be even beta

I've read plenty of posts about what was wrong with the POA movie, I've even made a few myself but in what areas did they improve on the books?

Here's my short list of scenes where I thought the movie actually did a better job than in the book.
Having Aunt Marge float away from the house.
Hermione punching Draco rather than slapping him.
Rosemarita, Hagrid Mcgonnagal and Fudge having a quiet, private conversation about Black rather than in a public bar.

Any others?


I definitely agree with the adults having the conversation in the private room. I think it makes a lot more sense than them openly talking about it elsewhere.

I'm torn between the book and the movie for the Hermione/Draco fight. I liked it both ways. I think I just liked that Draco got a taste of comeuppance :D

the puchin in the movie was definatly better than in the book!!!! go hermiony

whats a spoiler?

the puchin in the movie was definatly better than in the book!!!! go hermiony
:agree: Yea, these days it's more believable than a slap in the face though I was a bit dissapointed that they made Draco such a wuss in this film.

According to an interview for that scene Tom Felton was telling Emma not to worry and really hit him. Even Cuaron commented in the DVD interviews how well he took the punch. :evil:

I always thought Malfoy was just trying to be funny when he was whimpering when she had the wand on him. He was acting like "Oh, I'm so scared!"

I had a theory about the movie. I think I remember in the interview with the director and JKR she said that Alfonso scared her by putting small omens in the movie that show clues to the future books (not her exact words, but something like that). Anyway... I think that when Harry used Hermione's wand and blasted Snape halfway across the room was the biggest clue of them all. If Harry can't use his wand to defeat Voldemort then I am sure he won't have a problem with Hermiones because obviously it has great outcomes.

I thought Hogwarts looked fine the way it was before,so why did they change it by putting in loads of new objects e.g Clock tower its not even in the book, Hagrid's hut has change inside. I 'm just metion this but don't you thing Daniel looks alittle bit fatter than what he looked like in 1st and 2nd Movie. I not hating on Dan i'm just saying.

i agree, the clock thing was a bit random....and they changed basically the whole landscape of the grounds - it didn't necasarily look worse it just was a bit stupid. Its like i said, they changed the place of the Fat Lady too. I think they had a different director, he probably wanted his own ideas in there.

I just love it when somebody brings up the PoA movie because it allows me to vent.

The clock drove me batty, especially when they had Harry stare out of the clock face. What did that mean? If you hadn't read the books, time was not symbolic at all, because you wouldn't have known about the time turner.

There was a new fat lady because the previous fat lady retired in real life ... can't think of her name right now. So they had to have a new one, but why did they have to change her costume completely?

Then there's Tom, the barman at The Leaky Cauldron. A hunchback? Somebody should tell Cuaron that we take our Potterverse seriously, and he shouldn't make fun of it.

I'll stop now because I could write a small novel on what was wrong with that movie.

Hi luvpotter :D

We have a thread that is entirely devoted to the POA movie -- what you like, what you didn't like, etc. Therefore, I'm going to merge this thread with the other. You can find the thread stickied at the top of the Muggle Studies forum. :)

hi guys,

regarding the new set, i dont know how many times i had to watch that film to get over the fact that they moved hagrids hut, i still obsess about it now,,,but i have just finished ootp for the umpteenth time and have decided it probably a good place to put it, when the kids are doin the o.w.l.s in astronomy they look down,,,to see hagrid get arrested and mcgonagall stnned...i thought this was much better as can u imagine that scene..it wouldnt look half as good if the hut was still on flat ground...

but i did have problem with the position of the lake which harry fought off the dementors...throughout all the books the lake is supposed to be a place where the pupils liked to sit around and study/chill etc...but would you go into the forbidden forest and sit round that lake?

lol

I just love it when somebody brings up the PoA movie because it allows me to vent.

The clock drove me batty, especially when they had Harry stare out of the clock face. What did that mean? If you hadn't read the books, time was not symbolic at all, because you wouldn't have known about the time turner.

There was a new fat lady because the previous fat lady retired in real life ... can't think of her name right now. So they had to have a new one, but why did they have to change her costume completely?

Then there's Tom, the barman at The Leaky Cauldron. A hunchback? Somebody should tell Cuaron that we take our Potterverse seriously, and he shouldn't make fun of it.

I'll stop now because I could write a small novel on what was wrong with that movie.

Your completely right - the clock thing was really random. I agree about the barman too, hes described in the book as wizened but they didn't have to make him completely weird and hunchbacked. I don't no why they did that. It seems really random - its not like it made the film better.

hi guys,



but i did have problem with the position of the lake which harry fought off the dementors...throughout all the books the lake is supposed to be a place where the pupils liked to sit around and study/chill etc...but would you go into the forbidden forest and sit round that lake?

lol

i never thought about that before - but now you've mentioned it, im gonna obsess about it! plus there ment to sail on that lake to an underground place under hogwarts right? so how come its no where near hogwarts?? ooo you've got me started now. i totally agree.

Oh boy. Here comes the Potter fans who gets irritated if the movie shows something that wasn't in the book.

The clock thing wasn't random. Time traveling is a major part of the climax of the film so Cuaron decided to make the clock tower a visual motif. Come on, wasn't it cool that the Time Turner sequence was bookended by the camera zooming through the clock?

I agree with you, remus. The clock was a great idea.

i must dmit i thought adding the clock tower was clever.
the camera zooming through it,,.,,,genius

but still that bloomin lake bugged me. pretty much becase when the first movie came ot, diagon alley ws exactly how i read it in my mind, and i thought it was wonderful, so when i read about the lake, especially when james was watching lily across from it, i imagined it was green and gorgeos, not drk and dank and in the middle of the forbidden forest...

but adding moving stairs, didnt like it at first but like it now, as it enables the chracters to move around different parts of hogwarts, without wasting precious film time of them in the corridor!

I loved thow they did the clock part and I doubt Columbus would have had it in. He probably would have just followed them as the ran the whole time. :shrug:

Chris Columbus probably wouldn't have thought of it.

>>what was up with the jamacian head hanging in the Knight bus?<<

Yeah I found that a little odd, too.

I have been reading and loving the Harry Potter books for several years now but I deliberately avoided the film versions up until recently. I was under the (misguided) impression that the films would be complete trash and perhaps may even ruin the books for me. However, after finally seeing the films I have found myself pleasantly surprised. Yes, of course, the films do no come close to the brilliance of the books, but, in their own way, they are all three fun and somehow magical. The Prisoner of Azkaban (PoA) has always been my favourite of the books; therefore I was most anxious over how this one would be brought to the screen.

Let me first say that PoA the movie is my favourite of the three films. I felt the new director injected it with some much-needed atmosphere, which, at times, the first two films lacked. By choosing to re-locate Hogwarts to the mountains and forests of Scotland, and by using more restrained somber colours, Cuaron was able to show the increasing danger and darkness of Harry's world, which, by the fifth book, has become paramount to the story.

Unlike some people I was not too bothered by the re-loaction of the Whomping Willow and Hagrid's hut. In fact I was actually pleased by them as they fit in more with what I had imagined from the books. Of more irritation to me was the fact that the origin of the Marauder’s Map and the special friendship between the Marauders was not properly explained. Also, it was never explained why people thought Sirius was to blame when actually it was Pettigrew - the swapping of the 'secret keeper' could have been included, although I realise time constraints were properly the main factor in its removal. This idea of friendship and betrayal has always been one of my favourite parts of the books and I was disappointed to find it largely ignored in the film version. Was it just me or did anyone else find that during one of Lupin's discussions with Harry in the film it seemed as if Lupin was not too keen on James at all? Which is ridiculous seeing the strength of their friendship in the book...

I had a small problem with the lake in that I had imagined it to be far bigger and much more inviting. The lake of the movie was lonely and isolated, a far cry from the description in the book; although, as with most things, I can see that this problem is more my own as I simply do not share the same vision as the director/scriptwriter.

I realise at this point it seems like I only had problems with the film, which is not true at all. I really like the PoA movie. I think the acting was great, the teens (Radcliffe, Grint, Watson...) far more believable than in the first two - not that they were bad exactly then. I loved the scene in the Gryffindor dormitory that showed the boys laughing and joking around. It felt very natural. David Thewlis and Gary Oldman were both brilliant as Lupin and Sirius respectively. They are not exactly what I had imagined, as I had always thought of them as younger, but they were quite wonderful in any case. I really liked how Cuaron decided to bring Harry's angst into this film, as it would be unrealistic if Harry's character had no hints of anger at his situation until the fifth film.

I loved the shots of the clock too. They were very inspired and helped emphasise the issue of time, which is very important to this partcular story. The shrunken head in the bus however, was simply irritating and unnecessary.

Okay plainly I could go on like this forever and a day so I shall bring this overly long (sorry!!) entry to a close. I realise that most, if not all, of what I have written has been discussed a thousand times before, but I just wanted to get my opinion out there too. I hope this isn't too big a problem :blush: .

Take care! :)

>>what was up with the jamacian head hanging in the Knight bus?<<

Yeah I found that a little odd, too.

Columbus did come up with it. On the DVD JK Rowling says that he did.

I do like the POA movie. I don't like the added and unneccessary stuff. The shruken head is a bit Jar Jar Binks for me. In fact, it was annoying. I did think the clock thing to be clever, though, because time is a big theme, even before you know it. As for the punch in the face by Hermoine, I prefer the book version. I loved the Buckbeak scene where Hagrid has first class and even though the movie people pretty much all of the quidditch scenes into one, I liked it. Of course, like most I would love for it to be longer.

AND - I wanted the Marauder's map to be explained. It was so masterful and there is no way you could appreciate Harry's patronous if you don't know that his most happy thought was about his father who became a stag when he transformed. It would'nt have been that time consuming or difficult. Movie makers are real bad about going for what is an easy storyline. They don't have confidence in their audience for having any smarts and think we all have ADD. I think it would have enriched the movie and could inspired some more viewers to become readers.

I thnk POA is the best of the 3 movies. Even though some things got changed, when I watch the first 2 again, about halfway through (After Quidditch in 1, and after the dueling club in 2), they get really boring. POA had humor and exciting things all the way through, and really kept me in it, which is why I can watch it again and again.

ok..im definitly missign soemthing...who is this 'nigel'? i keep hearing about?

He's probably just a student with a line or two, I doubt he will have a significant role.

i hate that stupid srunken head

I must be the only one who liked him :(

Come on guys, he wasn't on for very long, and he was amusing.

I can see how people would like him.
But I just didn't like him in a Harry Potter movie. Almost any other movie would've been fine though :)

The thing that bothered me most of all was the prophecy! It wound up not being true at all. And if the prophecy is not true than Trelawney can't be a true seer (or at least give true prophecy from time to time). And if Trelawyney isn't a true seer then why would we believe the whole prophecy about Harry, which is of vital importance to the entire book series and should be to the movies as well!!!!

The thing that bothered me most of all was the prophecy! It wound up not being true at all. And if the prophecy is not true than Trelawney can't be a true seer (or at least give true prophecy from time to time). And if Trelawyney isn't a true seer then why would we believe the whole prophecy about Harry, which is of vital importance to the entire book series and should be to the movies as well!!!!

I'm fairly sure it was almost true, because Peter does go back to his master, except she said it would be that night when it was later.

"IT WILL HAPPEN TONIGHT. THE DARK LORD LIES ALONE AND FRIENDLESS, ABANDONED BY HIS FOLLOWERS. HIS SERVANT HAS BEEN CHAINED THESE TWELVE YEARS. TONIGHT, BEFORE MIDNIGHT... THE SERVANT WILL BREAK FREE AND SET OUT TO REJOIN HIS MASTER. THE DARK LORD WILL RISE AGAIN WITH HIS SERVANTS AID, GREATER AND MORE TERRIBLE THAN EVER HE WAS. TONIGHT... BEFORE MIDNIGHT...THE SERVANT...WILL SET OUT...TO REJOIN...HIS MASTER...."

that would be the actual prediction from the book

"He will return tonight. Tonight, he who betrayed his friends, whose heart rots with murder shall break free. innocent blood shall be spilt, and servant and master shall be reunited once more."

Thats what she says in the movie.

So, yeah, the way it was scripted in the movie, it didn't really happen that way exactly. but in the world of the movie (if you had no knowledge of what really happened in the book) you wouldn't know the difference and for all intents and purposes it would be true. but it still bugs those of us who know what really happened.

I must be the only one who liked him :(

Come on guys, he wasn't on for very long, and he was amusing.
In the right film he would have been quite funny, as it was I felt the combination of the head and the almost blind Ernie was just plain annoying. They could have done a better job having Lenny Henry just play Ernie and be done with it.

I think the reason most people hate him is because of him in the Dvd Interviews. I admit, he was annoying in those,it seemed he was trying to get the cast distracted from answering the real questions. :p I thought he did make the night bus scene more interesting.The little lines that he did have, I thought were a little humerous (Watch out for the pea soup, eat it before it eats you). He could have been cut, but I think all that would have done would have pleased the fans a little, and not make the night bus as funny.

it seemed he was trying to get the cast distracted from answering the real questions. :p
In my mind it was just trying too hard to be funny, and it really didn't work :no:. It doesn't ruin the movie though, which we should be thankful for ;). I liked Ernie for some weird reason, but I thought the Knight Bus scenes would have been better had they stuck more closely to the books...

I think the reason most people hate him is because of him in the Dvd Interviews. I admit, he was annoying in those,it seemed he was trying to get the cast distracted from answering the real questions. :p I thought he did make the night bus scene more interesting.The little lines that he did have, I thought were a little humerous (Watch out for the pea soup, eat it before it eats you). He could have been cut, but I think all that would have done would have pleased the fans a little, and not make the night bus as funny.


Agreed... I did not like the thing in the interviews...

but I loved him in the movie... he was great. Added a bit of humor to a rather (sort-of) dark movie...

Firstly, excellent post sunshine9. And a warm :welcome: to CoSForums! :D

By choosing to re-locate Hogwarts to the mountains and forests of Scotland, and by using more restrained somber colours, Cuaron was able to show the increasing danger and darkness of Harry's world, which, by the fifth book, has become paramount to the story.
The new set design of 'Azkaban', with it's new hilly terrain and mountainous ranges, is actually supported by canon; but much more, it was how I imagined the castle and Whomping Willow to look when I was reading--not some flat and barren landscape. The new feel and tone for the set and the movie, as you've said, also sets the parameters within the angst and almost lugubrious atmosphere we are induced in with 'Phoenix', plus some with the upcoming 'Prince' and Book 7.

I loved the scene in the Gryffindor dormitory that showed the boys laughing and joking around. It felt very natural.
I love the scene, as well. It shows that the teenage boys, are in fact, teenage boys. They love to goof around and have a great time, despite the events that will occur in the future. It sets a more cheerful tone in the midst of Dementors and their somber repercussions, as well.

I loved the shots of the clock too. They were very inspired and helped emphasise the issue of time, which is very important to this partcular story.
I cannot reiterate how much I agree with you here, as well. The Whomping Willow scenes (the one's where it shakes off it's Autumn leaves and Winter frost) helps keep the story moving, as well at the shots of the clock.

I realise that most, if not all, of what I have written has been discussed a thousand times before, but I just wanted to get my opinion out there too. I hope this isn't too big a problem :blush:.
Of course not! Anyone's opinion is always welcomed--in fact, I hope to see more of your opinions around here. They are simply well-stated and very organized. :tu:

The way they did everything with the clock was great. Showed the sense of time that was going with the movie...

Firstly, excellent post sunshine9. And a warm :welcome: to CoSForums! :D
Agreed, :welcome: aboard.

The new set design of 'Azkaban', with it's new hilly terrain and mountainous ranges, is actually supported by canon; but much more, it was how I imagined the castle and Whomping Willow to look when I was reading--not some flat and barren landscape. The new feel and tone for the set and the movie, as you've said, also sets the parameters within the angst and almost lugubrious atmosphere we are induced in with 'Phoenix', plus some with the upcoming 'Prince' and Book 7.
:agree: Oh for sure, the problem I have with it wasn't the look as much as the total disregard for the layout established by films one and two. Once a setting is established in a series, it should be retained for consistency if nothing else. Cuaron could have easily retained the layout and his tone, the fact that he didn't was dissapointing. I'm well curious as to what Mike Newell will do.

I hope Mike will show us some new areas of hogwarts that haven't been seen before (such as the clock tower in Poa). While I loved Cuarons new grounds, I hope he won't change them(and I think I heard somewhere that he isn't.)They need to find a grounds that suits hogwarts, and stick with it.

I hope Mike will show us some new areas of hogwarts that haven't been seen before (such as the clock tower in Poa). While I loved Cuarons new grounds, I hope he won't change them(and I think I heard somewhere that he isn't.)They need to find a grounds that suits hogwarts, and stick with it.

Yeah, I really hope they don't change the grounds. They finally seem to fit the description of the book's Hogwarts. If they changed it, there would be three different Hogwarts grounds...I don't think they should do that..too confusing.

As for the clocks..like some people said..it's cool that Cuaron showed us them, because it is such an important thing to the book and movie. I as still trying to get these thigns straight in my mind...they must have to be going back in time for the rest of their lives..One set comes back and the other leaves..when they come back, the other set leaves...

It's so confusing to me..too much to understand..

I hope Mike will show us some new areas of hogwarts that haven't been seen before (such as the clock tower in Poa). While I loved Cuarons new grounds, I hope he won't change them(and I think I heard somewhere that he isn't.)They need to find a grounds that suits hogwarts, and stick with it.
Actually I think you're dead right, now Cuaron has set up the grounds I'd like to see Mike Newell retain them for consistencys sake.

I disagree with the clock tower though, while time was an element of the POA film we didn't need to be belted across the head with it to remind us of that, the shifting seasons as shown with the whomping willow were quite sufficient.

Actually I think you're dead right, now Cuaron has set up the grounds I'd like to see Mike Newell retain them for consistencys sake.

I disagree with the clock tower though, while time was an element of the POA film we didn't need to be belted across the head with it to remind us of that, the shifting seasons as shown with the whomping willow were quite sufficient.

I always complained that he spent wayy too much time on the trees while he could have been putting more in about the Marauders or stuff in the Shrieking Shack. I always thought he could ahve spent more time there than on the trees that meant nothing to me. I always just figured out on my own that time was passing, and while he did use t he trees to show changing seasons..he did use Lupin who said 'After the holidays,' and when it showed Hedwig leave after that and the background changed to snow. :p

I always complained that he spent wayy too much time on the trees while he could have been putting more in about the Marauders or stuff in the Shrieking Shack. I always thought he could ahve spent more time there than on the trees that meant nothing to me. I always just figured out on my own that time was passing, and while he did use t he trees to show changing seasons..he did use Lupin who said 'After the holidays,' and when it showed Hedwig leave after that and the background changed to snow. :p

The scenes with the Womping Willow hardly went for very long, and they were just their to flow the movie along, and makes us feel like the year is progressing. They could have all been cut, but I'm glad they weren't. :D

Oh for sure, the problem I have with it wasn't the look as much as the total disregard for the layout established by films one and two. Once a setting is established in a series, it should be retained for consistency if nothing else. Cuaron could have easily retained the layout and his tone, the fact that he didn't was dissapointing. I'm well curious as to what Mike Newell will do.
Oh, I agree. Also to keep in mind, between the sets of 'Chamber' and 'Prisoner', they had moved to Scotland rather than England, where they filmed the first two flicks. It would have been a little difficult to find the same grounds as portrayed. The new set change also explains the differents between the castles as well. Despite the discrepancy and the inconsistency, the new terrain and grounds also depict the canon supported in the books.

I always complained that he spent wayy too much time on the trees while he could have been putting more in about the Marauders or stuff in the Shrieking Shack. I always thought he could ahve spent more time there than on the trees that meant nothing to me. I always just figured out on my own that time was passing, and while he did use t he trees to show changing seasons..he did use Lupin who said 'After the holidays,' and when it showed Hedwig leave after that and the background changed to snow.
Could I direct you to this post (http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.php?p=2117701&postcount=653) for my explanation on the purposes of the scenes with the Whomping Willow and the Clock Tower? It's a bit lengthy and i'd much rather prefer to not type it all out again.

Did they not relocate due to difficulty receiving filming permission for the same site as the first two films? I personally preferred the first layout, but not for any elaborate reasons other than I think it fits better with how I'd imagined Hogwarts to look.

Did they not relocate due to difficulty receiving filming permission for the same site as the first two films? I personally preferred the first layout, but not for any elaborate reasons other than I think it fits better with how I'd imagined Hogwarts to look.
I'm not sure, I always got the impression that much of the outside settings from films one and two were CG anyway.

On the subject of settings what about this rumour about the possibility of the films being made outside the UK altogether (http://www.mugglenet.com/newsfusion/fullnews.php?id=114)? I know from the POA DVD interviews that filming in Scotland caused it's own, mainly weather related, problems but despite this the scenery itself was perfect and I really hope the location is retained through all the remaining films.

I'd prefer to have the old location of the first two movies back, but I won't the film if that doesn't happen. I hope they keep the filming inside the UK - it would seem very strange indeed to have anything else. I think that the cost of moving would be very high, and not to mention a gamble - think of the possibility of failure...

I'd prefer to have the old location of the first two movies back, but I won't the film if that doesn't happen. I hope they keep the filming inside the UK - it would seem very strange indeed to have anything else. I think that the cost of moving would be very high, and not to mention a gamble - think of the possibility of failure...

The reason why they are moving is because it is cheaper to film in the Czech Republic. Taxes are incredibly high in the UK, but very low in the Czech Republic. Thus, it is not expensive to move - it is money saving.

Also, it is no gamble. Only a tiny fraction of the audience will notice any changes in the scenary, as it will have been 18 months since they saw the prior movie. They will remember on general things - a big castle, spacious halls, etc.

Remember, attempts to organize boycotts of Lord of the Rings (because of no Bombadil and other changes) and Spiderman (because of organic rather than mechanical websling) had no effect on the box office. Similarly, the infamous "fan weekend," in which Star Wars fans organized mass viewings of Phantom Menance to push it back in to the #1 slot had no effect - PM's box office tally dropped 50% that weekend.

So, some attempt by HP fans (who are not as numerous as SW's fans were in 1999) to boycott a movie over something as trivial as scenary will have less of an effect than that.

(Also, given JKR's apparent dislike of SW, do you really want to emulate their fans in any way?)

Remember, attempts to organize boycotts of Lord of the Rings (because of no Bombadil and other changes) and Spiderman (because of organic rather than mechanical websling) had no effect on the box office. Similarly, the infamous "fan weekend," in which Star Wars fans organized mass viewings of Phantom Menance to push it back in to the #1 slot had no effect - PM's box office tally dropped 50% that weekend.

So, some attempt by HP fans (who are not as numerous as SW's fans were in 1999) to boycott a movie over something as trivial as scenary will have less of an effect than that.

(Also, given JKR's apparent dislike of SW, do you really want to emulate their fans in any way?)

I didn't mean failure in that sense ;). I meant failure to accurately reproduce the castle structure of the other movies. I think that many fans would notice the changes, they are very observant, and some get very annoyed at any change...

I meant failure to accurately reproduce the castle structure of the other movies. I think that many fans would notice the changes, they are very observant, and some get very annoyed at any change...

Well, the fans are a tiny fraction of the audience. Just as long as they keep the general appearance the same, 99% of the people won't notice and 99.5% won't care.

Well, the fans are a tiny fraction of the audience. Just as long as they keep the general appearance the same, 99% of the people won't notice and 99.5% won't care.
Sad but true. :sad:

Well, the fans are a tiny fraction of the audience. Just as long as they keep the general appearance the same, 99% of the people won't notice and 99.5% won't care.
Indeed :agree:. It's merely my personal preference that they should keep the setting as similar as possible...

I, personally, felt that this movie was the best so far. For one, the characters don't look like they're five years old, which is always a plus. The tone is darker- as it should be when setting the stage for the fourth movie. Even though some things were left out, I try to think of the films as separate from the books...so that I can sit back, relax, and enjoy them both in their own right. I refuse to pick apart the films with a fine-toothed comb, because then how could I possibly enjoy watching them?

I, personally, felt that this movie was the best so far. For one, the characters don't look like they're five years old, which is always a plus. The tone is darker- as it should be when setting the stage for the fourth movie. Even though some things were left out, I try to think of the films as separate from the books...so that I can sit back, relax, and enjoy them both in their own right. I refuse to pick apart the films with a fine-toothed comb, because then how could I possibly enjoy watching them?

I agree. I myself have never complained about the cuts from the movie, because I simply don't care. A Harry Potter movie should be a good movie first, a adaptation second, and thats what PoA was.

Indeed :agree:. It's merely my personal preference that they should keep the setting as similar as possible...

Suffice it to say, but that is indeed my major gripe about POA, in addition to the Marauders thing. Artistic license is to be expected, so that's not the point. Like you said, I merely prefer to have the settings as consistent to one another as they can be. This isn't nit-picking or over-analyzing, despite what many here claim this to be. It's just a desire for consistency in setting, nothing more. However, despite the fact that I just explained myself, I'll probably hear it again about how people like you and I are not focusing on the movie and more about what we want, what was bad, the negative aspects of the film, etc. Rubbish, I say. lol

However, despite the fact that I just explained myself, I'll probably hear it again about how people like you and I are not focusing on the movie and more about what we want, what was bad, the negative aspects of the film, etc. Rubbish, I say. lol

Yes, you will!

The #1 job of an adaptation is to tell the story. PoA did that brilliantly - it was an excellent story about a boy discovering the concept of irony and learning that one cannot just take the accepted truth at face value.


It was the first HP movie that succeeded in telling a story. CoS's story about the pros and cons of loyalty and disloyalty got buried - the movie was easily 45 minutes too long, with several scenes that contributed nothing to the story. It has never been clear to me that P/SS really has a story; in this casee, a good adaptation would have inserted one.

The settings can change, the actors can (and will continue to) change, etc. If the adaptation is poor (a la CoS), then replicating the scenary and actors won't do a thing to save it. If the adaptation is good (a la PoA), then the movie-critics and the vast majority of the movie going audience will not even notice the changes and enjoy the story.

I loved the third film, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban! I have a lot of favourite parts in the film, including the "spider nightmare", poignant one b/twn Harry and Sirius ("they will always be found here" scene), and a lot of others. The script and acting were done superbly, and convincingly. Ok, they may not have been exactly how I perceved them in the books (esp. Sirius and Lupin), but who cares-their acting is what counts. A couple confessions regarding the first time I ever saw it:

When I first saw Lupin’s werewolf, I thought it was a Minotaur .
When Lupin (as a werewolf) howls at the moon, at first I had thought: “Oh, come on! How clichéd can you get?” However, now that scene makes me feel sad for Professor Lupin (more on that now).
I think Thewlis did a great Lupin, as he was a very accurate picture of Lupin in the books. As for that werewolf scene:
In the scene where he (obviously quite painfully) turns into a werewolf in the light of the full moon, Hermione approaches the professor, and had asked “Professor? Professor Lupin?” the werewolf stares back at her, whimpering. Then suddenly, he makes a long hoooowwl at the moon, making Hermione (Emma Watson) leap back a couple steps. I interpreted the howling as a sign of the faintest recognition of Hermione. But knowing that he has no control whatsoever over the werewolf’s brain, he howls in anguish…at the moon, no less. :sad:
Wow, they sure took Snape's (Rickman), line to heart about the dementor's Kiss: "it is said to be almost unbearable to witness...". It was quite a dark, disturbing scene where you literally see Sirius' and Harry's souls being sucked out of them. :wow: But then it's a relief at the end when Harry and Hermione rescue him thanks to the Time Turner, and he is freed from the cell somewhere in the towers of Hogwarts.

Star Rating: ****/*****

I gave it 4 stars. It was great but missed some of the plot

I gave it 4 stars. It was great but missed some of the plot

I did not notice any of the plot missing. The only things cut were narrative details.

(The movie would not have gotten such great reviews if there had been any plot holes of any sort, after all - movie critics are pretty brutal about those.)

Yes, you will!

The #1 job of an adaptation is to tell the story. PoA did that brilliantly - it was an excellent story about a boy discovering the concept of irony and learning that one cannot just take the accepted truth at face value.


It was the first HP movie that succeeded in telling a story. CoS's story about the pros and cons of loyalty and disloyalty got buried - the movie was easily 45 minutes too long, with several scenes that contributed nothing to the story. It has never been clear to me that P/SS really has a story; in this casee, a good adaptation would have inserted one.

The settings can change, the actors can (and will continue to) change, etc. If the adaptation is poor (a la CoS), then replicating the scenary and actors won't do a thing to save it. If the adaptation is good (a la PoA), then the movie-critics and the vast majority of the movie going audience will not even notice the changes and enjoy the story.

Okay, please tell me where in my posts did I ever say that it was a bad adaptation? When did I ever disagree that POA was outrageously off from the book? Since when did saying that one wanted more consistency between the films ever give the impression that the person saying this believed the movie itself was a bad interpretation?

Your first two stanzas were completely irrelevant to what I had just stated. Even the third was mostly off-topic with what I had originally posted. You're beating a dead horse, preaching to the choir, etc. I cannot stress this enough that I AGREE with you on this. However, we are talking about CONSISTENCY, not subject matter or plot or the general quality of the film. Don't turn a simple and legitimate argument into a tool for your own cause, which happens to be unrelated, in this case.

*SIGH*

I shall say this again, since you or others probably find this amusing; I expect things to change between directors of films that belong to a series. I've said this a countless number of times. Actors, style, angles, colors, narrative, dialogue, CGI sequences, etc. They are all EXPECTED to be a little or more different than the previous guy. You make it sound like I'm fighting you and everyone on this issue; like I'm lobbying for ABSOLUTE EXACTNESS BETWEEN ALL FILMS or something. If I am, then quote me from a previous post and then we will talk, otherwise, get this thought out of your head because it becomes ridiculous banter and I end up repeating myself over and over again only to have the same people accuse me (and others) of the same ridiculousness. My sole argument has, and always will be, the need for consistency between the locations and settings within the films, so that they may act as a WHOLE and not as separate PARTS of a whole.

I shall explain to you what I mean......AGAIN.


Take, for instance, the Whomping Willow. While it is not entirely crucial to the film overall that it be in the same exact place as we saw it in COS, it is important that it at least maintain its proper function and magical properties. In this respect, it failed. My very first post on this thread went into great detail on this and why I thought it was a very pointless move to change this so drastically. Check the first few pages if you want to know more. Anyway, it only slightly bugged me to see the Whomping Willow in its new place about a mile from the castle doors. Since I knew the Whomping Willow scene in great detail from the book, I wasn’t going to start getting upset over it so soon until I saw the scene fully laid out later in the film. It was at the point when the kids follow Ron into the trees depths (or more likely, get quite lucky in surviving its onslaught by being thrown down it) where things got really idiotic. By this point, I was thinking to myself, “Wow, it looks like Crookshanks is quite useless in this movie. Fair enough. Not a big deal. Never liked that stupid cat anyway.” By the time we reached the Time Turner sequence, it all added up. So I could have lived (barely) with the Whomping Willow being moved deep into the forest and I could have lived with the absolute luck in Harry and Hermione getting under the tree, but I certainly could not live with the fact that all one had to do was say “Immobulus” to the tree and it suddenly let anyone in. Right at that point, everything just compounded itself and turned into a disaster. The Whomping Willow is something of a magical marvel, a mystery within itself. It is supposed to have a certain charm about it in which you couldn’t figure out how the darn thing worked. That was why I liked it in the books, it was just a great curiosity. Now, however, all of that was instantly stripped away and what was left was nothing but rogue tree that fought back, nothing more. Like we haven’t seen that before (Old Man Willow, a la LOTR).


Now, as I have said before, this huge change wasn’t imperative to the overall flow of the film. However, anything and everything that involved the Whomping Willow made absolutely NO SENSE whatsoever. It was completely non-believeable and uninteresting. It just made the entire concept of even having the Whomping Willow there in first place really asinine. It made perfect sense in the book, but it doesn’t even come off as passable garbage in POA. As much as you disliked COS, at least the Whomping Willow there had a purpose and served it up quite well, instead of, say, it brandishing mighty thorns filled with deadly poison or something in which to further endanger the boys. In that case, you might as well just have had the car crash into the tree and be done with it. No sense in making it worse than it already is. The Whomping Willow, in conjunction with Hagrid’s Hut, are two highly questionable “adaptations” from book to film. AGAIN, for the third time, these weren’t necessarily crucial the movie as a whole, but both lacked any reasonable distinctions of being believable, as both are so far askew from their original moorings that any attempt at a logical explanation for them is futile. This is why I am an advocate of consistency. It lowers the confusion rate and maintains a better flow (setting-wise). Of course critics and the general audience won’t catch these changes, they’re not avid fans like us. However, for a lot of fans, these changes make absolutely no sense at all. The more you try to make any logical sense of it, the more questionable the motives become. It’s all one big conundrum that could and should have been avoided in the first place. But, then again, all you’ll say is that it just didn’t have an important role in the movie; that it was a minor aspect of the story; that it only had one small purpose. Well, gee, in that case, I wish I could have thought of that… Perhaps I should have stated this at least THREE TIMES to get the point across……blimey…


The bottom line is this: changing the settings, sets and scenery, e.g. Whomping Willow, Hagrid’s Hut, etc., from one movie to the next allows for further inconsistencies to occur and more confusion, thus leading to more questionable decisions being made and a severe lack of flow and one-ness existing between each film. This does not apply to anything else like costumes, props, CGI sequences, and anything else that may be considered menial or of little consequence. I’ve not once said that I wanted everything to be a carbon-copy of each other, because that’s just stupid reasoning and we all know it. None of us wants this, so I say this to certain folks on this board, quit assuming that some of us do. I, for one, will always back up any argument I make and with respect to those who wish to counter it. That’s why we are here. Others, however, will make a claim and then just let it stagnate with no means of an explanation. You know who you are. Folks like Wimsey, remusjlupin1980, Magical_Me, Blizzard, Alfonzo and sunshine9, as well as myself, always back up our comments with good, supporting evidence and thoughts. While we don’t all agree on many things, it just makes understanding one’s point of view much easier. On that note, I commend you all. Cheers mates!:cool:

Okay, please tell me where in my posts did I ever say that it was a bad adaptation?..... Your first two stanzas were completely irrelevant to what I had just stated.

No, my two paragraphs (stanzas? I was not writing a poem!) are relevant perfectly relevant. I simply was implying (and I genuinely do not intend this to be a pun) that you are missing the forest for the trees, that is all. If you let the trivial details overwhelm you, then you'll miss all the fun in life!


Take, for instance, the Whomping Willow. While it is not entirely crucial to the film overall that it be in the same exact place as we saw it in COS, it is important that it at least maintain its proper function and magical properties.

It's properties did not change. We now saw that it had more properties than we had been shown (indeed, all that anyone would remember is that the tree attacked things). It kills birds, it breaks brooms. When the audience sees that Ron is underneath it, and then is dragged under it, they know that the two remaining kids have a problem.

Moreover, those PoA scenes served an important purpose. The early scenes with the Whomping Willow were Chekov's Rule Inverse. It is a gun that is fired late, so it has to be shown early. (They also occupy a grand total of about 60 seconds, and are always shown as breaks between scenes; these breaks are needed in cinematic theater, and the movie-makers wisely used them for break, metaphor [bluebird of happiness get's squashed, making way for the ravens of death and gloom later] and humor all in one fell swoop.)

The Willow's purpose remained the same and should have been obvious to the audience - it became an obstacle separating Harry & Hermione from Ron.

As for Crookshanks, he already had served a purpose - he provided a plausible reason for Scabber's disappearance.


As much as you disliked COS, at least the Whomping Willow there had a purpose and served it up quite well, instead of, say, it brandishing mighty thorns filled with deadly poison or something in which to further endanger the boys.

Actually, I enjoyed CoS. I merely thought that it was a bad adaptation because it failed to focus on the story and because it did too many things to turn people off on HP films. The latter especially is a shame the CoS (when one should and should not be loyal to a person/cause) is a good one for kids and adults. The PoA, GoF and OotP stories also are good stories for kids and adults, but no-one was going to be left if 80% of the audience walked out of the theater thinking "I'm not seeing anymore HP movies."

The Whomping Willow was an example of why. It was completely unnecessary in CoS. The Willow served NO further purpose in the story. It should have been cut. It could have been introduced in PoA just as easily (indeed, all of the bird scenes that you loathe did just that). Indeed, it had to be re-introduced in PoA, anyway - it had been 18 months since people had seen CoS and most of the audience was not going to remember it.

(The book does this, too, but with speech and memory; however, in a verbal medium, it would be done with words even if its actions are described; in a theatrical medium, the audience needs to be shown.)

So, in one movie, the Whomping Willow is used in accordance with Chekov's (Inverse) Rule (the gun fired late is shown early), and in another it is used in a way contrary to Chekov's Rule - the gun shown early never amounts to anything. Indeed, the one thing that it did do was not needed - the car was breaking down in mid-air and was going to crash land anyway. Ron & Harry were in trouble for being seen by Muggle using a flying car. The WW could have been completely cut and the vast majority of the audience would have been none-the-wiser.


Conversely, had the WW been sprung on the audience late in PoA without it being shown and the moviemakers hoping that Hermione's one line would remind people of something they saw 18 months earlier, then a lot of people would have been wondering from where it came.

(I'm sure that vague memories of CoS 18 months before would have hit them eventually; however, as numerous political elections in the US and UK have shown, most people do not remember anything from more than 6 months ago....)


The bottom line is this: changing the settings, sets and scenery, e.g. Whomping Willow, Hagrid’s Hut, etc., from one movie to the next allows for further inconsistencies to occur and more confusion, thus leading to more questionable decisions being made and a severe lack of flow and one-ness existing between each film.

That is your bottom line. Obviously, I won't tell you that you cannot have it. Why you (or I or anyone) enjoys a movie is up to our own subjective tastes. Sure, it would be cool if they could film the HP movies like Jackson filmed LotR, in the sense of provided visual continuity.

However, I see no evidence that this is the bottom line for more than a tiny fraction of the audience. Nobody I knew commented on the change of scenary. Very few comments on places like BO Mojo mentioned this. Nobody I knew even noticed that Dumbledore was played by a different actor. (This was not true of BO Mojo people, but then those people are real movie buffs and people like Richard Harris and Michael Gambon stick out to them.) On the other hand, many people I know thought Hermione was played by a different actress!

The bottom line for people such as this is: tell the story, i.e., what it all means transcending a bunch of events and lines. Being concise is important, so you invest time showing something early, use it in someway that affects that plot and/or story and/or character development before the movie ends. Being informative is important, so if there is an important plot element that is important before the ending, then emphasize it early. More importantly, do it in 2 hours, because I have school, a job, kids, etc., with which to deal.

Do that in GoF, and these people might actually go to the theater this time instead of renting the DVD or watching it on a plane, too.

All of the evidence that I can see suggests that this latter view is not only the majority view, but that it vastly predominates over the "continuity" view. The movies have to work according to that supermajority, or there will not be an HBP movie.

I loved the scene in the corridor at night when Snape catches Harry with the Marauders Map. It was a great example of how the film by not being entirely literal actually captured the essence of the text better by exploiting those very things that film does so well ie. visuals. The way Lupin emerges as such a gentle presence from those dark depths to 'rescue' Harry was inspired. There was Snape, all in black, with his white face looking so menacing and Lupin all warm and tawny looking - great visual contrast! Rickman and Thewlis together - does it get any better? Rickman would normally overshadow a lesser actor, especially when he is the one playing the darker character and yet in that scene you really sense that for all his kindly unassuming ways, Lupin, is a man to be reckoned with.

Regarding the uniform situation - if you look at the early drawings of ron, hermoine and harry in some of the HP merchandise, you see they always have their muggle clothes underneath their school robes and not the sweaters, ties and slacks. This was an addition added to the movies, but in the books they wore muggle clothes underneath their robes. There is even pics of Harry playing quidditch in muggle clothes and just a robe, the classic being him in a red and white striped shirt and blue jeans. This was replaced when they made a complete quidditch uniform for when they had the matches.

O really? I always thought they wore only their robes.

Because on OotP book, the bit where James turns Snape upside down, they could see Snapes underwear.

And in GoF book, when Harry examines his dress robes that mrs. Weasely gets for him, it says that they were not different from him school robes, just a different coour (green).

And anyway, isn't that the way most witches/wizards wear their robes?

Anyhow, I was kinda of surprised when I read that the guy in the bar where they meet up for their fisrt meeting in OotP, of D.A., is Aberforht. But i'm not sure if it's true.