PoA Film Discussion v3

Cinematically, I thought this film was the bomb. It is visually gorgeous, and Alfonso is really good at telling a story. I usually like his work. There were elements of the characterization that I was not crazy about, namely Ron and Hermione, but well, we can't have everything, can we? With luck, Mike Newell will do a better job with the trio.

Yeah, I had some confusion issues about the robes myself. Perhaps Snape is like that Davey Gudgeon (relative of Gladys, anyone?) who nearly lost an eye and everybody learned to not do the same. maybe some students back in the day used to just wear the robes because they, like Archie enjoyed a healthy breeze about their privates. But I bet if I was on hand to witness Snape's humiliation, I'd get over that preference pronto, because i wouldn't want to be the next one with my knickers in the air for all to see.

As for the business of the robes, I think that the books make it quite clear they do wear full length robes with only their underwear underneath. Nevertheless, what works in a book doesn't necessarily work on film. Could anyone really imagine Kenneth Branagh or anyone else swanning about in lilac robes as Gilderoy Lockhardt does! It would look altogether too camp. Instead the costume designers cleverly came up with a costume that gave him the look of an Edwardian dandy, consistent with the character but without making him look rediculous. Again, if Lupin were to wear robes as described in the book it would make him appear monkish - not quite right visually. They obviously styled him a little after a kind of Mr Chips figure in shabby tweeds like an old fashioned schoolmaster. It gave the character a rather unassuming, unworldly air but at the same time because of Thewlis's compelling screen presence and attractively distinctive face, he never came across as just a frumpy sad sack. It's that kind of visual tension between styling and actual appearance that was spot on for the character of Lupin - that constant suggestion that there is far more to the man than first meets the eye.

As for the business of the robes, I think that the books make it quite clear they do wear full length robes with only their underwear underneath. Nevertheless, what works in a book doesn't necessarily work on film. Could anyone really imagine Kenneth Branagh or anyone else swanning about in lilac robes as Gilderoy Lockhardt does! It would look altogether too camp. Instead the costume designers cleverly came up with a costume that gave him the look of an Edwardian dandy, consistent with the character but without making him look rediculous. Again, if Lupin were to wear robes as described in the book it would make him appear monkish - not quite right visually. They obviously styled him a little after a kind of Mr Chips figure in shabby tweeds like an old fashioned schoolmaster. It gave the character a rather unassuming, unworldly air but at the same time because of Thewlis's compelling screen presence and attractively distinctive face, he never came across as just a frumpy sad sack. It's that kind of visual tension between styling and actual appearance that was spot on for the character of Lupin - that constant suggestion that there is far more to the man than first meets the eye.
I think many of the books descriptions would, if taken literally, be a bit over the top for the films. On top of that I think that much of the descriptions within the books are, as the books are through Harry's eyes so to speak, quite exaggerated. For example Hagrid was described as having 'feet the size of baby dolphins', something that would be bordering on ludicrous if it was literally put into the film.

IMO that was one of several flaws with POA, a couple of characters, namely Tom, Pettigrew and to a lesser extent Mcnair the exicutioner, were presented as almost charactures when a less extreme representation would have been more appropriate. I'm a bit dubious as to just how the make up and effects people are going to present Brendan Gleeson in the GOF movie as if they take the representation of Moody too literally he'll look too ridiculous to be effective.

Star Wars, miles ahead of all others

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

In another scene in the books, the trio lift their robes over their faces to protect themselves from noxious fumes, if I recall.

I suspect that they were wearing something underneath those robes!


Regardless, this is a pretty irrelevant issue. HP is a character story, not a costume party. The kids have to look like real people - otherwise people will lose the forest for the trees by being distracted by the strange outfits.

This is only my second post here at mugglenet. PoA is my favorite book (because we meet Lupin for the first time) followed by OotP. I was disappointed in some of the changes, but I didn't notice these anywhere else...
they moved the whomping willow and Hagrids hut. Little things like that bother me, but overall, I was pleased with the movie. I can't imagine how difficult it must be to turn a popular book in to a movie (think LOTR and how many have savaged the films).
I look forward to GoF with much anticipation.
As always, More Lupin! Gotta love the werewolf!

I can't imagine how difficult it must be to turn a popular book in to a movie (think LOTR and how many have savaged the films).

Perhaps I misunderstand you, but not many people savaged the LotR films. They were enormously popular with both critics and movie-goers (95+% positive movie reviews and audience responses). There was a tiny minority of hard-core Tolkien fans that disliked the films, but most of them badly misunderstood Tolkien's story in the first place or were much more concerned with narrative details than the actual story.

(Indeed, more than one movie reviewer noted that the movies' edits often were the same as a competent book editor would have done to LotR, which was never editted.)

Not to mention the lord of the rings movies were hours and hours long...and what do we get? poa is like 2 hours, and GoF is two and a half..... *grumble* ......argh. oh well. i cant change their minds now...

Not to mention the lord of the rings movies were hours and hours long...and what do we get? poa is like 2 hours, and GoF is two and a half..... *grumble* ......argh. oh well. i cant change their minds now...

PoA was as long as it needed to be. Here is my quote from another thread which applies equally well to your post:

Where are the mighty battles in a HP story? Where are the thousands of warriors on horseback, the fire-breathing demons, the eagles-to-the-rescue, the winged fell beasts plunging from the skies to attack the battlements of an ancient city?

Nowhere.

LOTR is epic, and worth 3 hours of a grown-up person's time. The HP stores - even GoF with its dragons and merpeople - are far more parochial.

The huge hype for HP1 got people into cinemas, but many did not return for the 2nd film: they - especially men and male teenagers - thought it too childish.

The LOTR films did not lose their audiences, but actually picked up at the BO.

Only HP uber-fanatics want longer films. The ideal solution would be to take a lead from LOTR and produce extended editions with the sort of HP Trivial Pursuit scenes that the fans love.

The think I love the most about the 3rd movie is the soundtrack! It's the best! I really like the end of Finale! Well all of them. It's a great improvement to the second soundtrack!

Not to mention the lord of the rings movies were hours and hours long...and what do we get? poa is like 2 hours, and GoF is two and a half..... *grumble* ......argh. oh well. i cant change their minds now...

To follow up on QB, “you” did change their minds. The Democracy of the Market-place voted, when one fifth of P/SS's audience did not return for CoS. The primary reason? P/SS was too long, with too many unnecessary scenes, and CoS looked to be the same.

If people had liked/wanted long HP movies as much as they liked/wanted long LotR movies, then CoS would not have dropped so markedly in the box office. Had PoA been another 2:45 movie, then I am sure that it would have sold only about 75% of CoS's tickets instead of the 95% or so that it did sell.


QB aptly summarizes why this is the case. Also, LotR was a freak - a complete exception to what we should expect of a fantasy book adaption or can expect to see again from such an adaptation. As a book, it was much closer to a screen-play in that it was heavily event-oriented, with little emphasis on character development. Movies can do events (well, they can do LotR events now - obviously, they could not 20 years ago). Movies are a lousy medium for character development.

HP, on the other hand, is heavily character driven - a lot of the basic plot elements are ideas in Harry's head. For all of the comparisons, HP smacks much more of Tolstoy than Tolkien. As such, it requires a different type of movie adaptation, and it also calls for a more succinct adaptation.


The think I love the most about the 3rd movie is the soundtrack! It's the best! I really like the end of Finale! Well all of them. It's a great improvement to the second soundtrack!

I was amazed by it. I consider John Williams a total hack who basically has made a career out of rearranging the fourth movement of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. Me thinketh that perhaps Williams listened to a little Howard Shore....

I liked POA a lot, but still at the end when the lights of the theater went on again, I was left with a weird feeling. I don`t know how to describe it exactly but I think it had to do with a little bit of what everyone has said so far.
I think one of the great aspects of the movie was buckbeak (awsome!), but my strongest criticism goes to the prophecy. I mean why did they change it?? I don`t see the point of it honestly. Besides I considered the prophecy as an untouchable aspect of the books and yet they changed it. And even more confusing is why did JK Rowling allowed it?
My concern is what are they going to then with Harry`s prophecy, change it as well??

I think the movie was great; the best adaption yet, but there were things that bothered me. Continuity things like; Hagrids hut and the whomping willow being moved. Little things that bothered me.
I understand the neccesity to compress, like taking a line from the book said by X and moving it to Y. The HP movies have a very large cast and the book has many of the "outside" characters making statements that, in the movie, are put into someone's mouth, again, for compression sake.
I would have liked the movie to be a little longer, but that's because I wanted to see more of Remus. :)
I would love it if they could come out with extended versions, but you would need to go into filming and editing with that in mind. That is exactly what Peter Jackson did with the LotR. Maybe they will do that with GoF? I hope that is a little longer as so much happens in it to push the story further along.
I loved the casting in PoA; Gary Oldham is perfect at Sirius and David Thewlis is brilliant as Remus. Not what I pictured when I read the book, but he took the part and made is his.
I love the scene with the boggart when he is playing a record on the phonograph; so inspired.
Oh, and there were reviewers and LotR fans that were unhappy with the film. I was not one of them; I think Peter did a wonderful job with books that are very detailed and have much character development.
Back on topic now; to repeat I think GoF was the best film to date. Gotta wait till Nov to see if my opinion will change. PoA is also my favorite book, too.

Late to this topic, but I decided to vote. I voted the movie as "fair". The movie was decent, I'll admit (I like the atmosphere of the movie and the use of the extra characters, minus that big black kid), but some things was just too off for my liking. Ron's character being my main beef, and how downgraded he is movie wise.

I will just babble along about one of my favorite scenes. A totally unspectacular one. I didn´t got it the first time in the cinema, but it hit me yesterday while watching the DVD. When Harry is leaving the Dursleys he is fuming and doing the typical teenager running away stuff. You see him walking through the suburbia, a dog is barking and he suddenly comes to a stop. cut. and then you see this roundabout. the yellow street light. everything dripping with rain. and reality just hits you (and him). that there is actually no place to go.
I´m just blown by this scene ( maybe i´m pathetic). But i think it pictures so perfectly this phase while you´re growing up and from time to time you feel like running away. And you never get past the city limits and just hang around the bus station. I think Cuaron is really good at showing adolescence.

Okay, here's what I thought of the third film:

Visually, It was brilliant. Alfonso Cuaren is an amazing director, the set decorators are awesome, the costumers sucked (I no likey the modern-ness), the whole visual of this movie was incredible. I also like the music. But in terms of story, it was too confusing and shallow for anyone who may not have read the book(s). I've read them many times (obviously) so I had no trouble understanding what was happening, but my friend who had never read the books didn't get it at all. They left out too much (which, yes, I understand you must do with movie versions). They didn't play up the Maurader's enough, there was no sense of brotherhood or friendship with them. You didn't get that warm fuzzy feeling inside when you learned about how Sirius, Lupin and James were best friends. And Wormtail was creepy. I mean, I know he's spent many a year as a rat, but still. Not that that's a bad thing. He needs to look really scary or little kids won't dislike him. Anyways, enough rambling. I guess the basic point I was trying to make is in the first few sentences.

ALAN RICKMAN IN A DRESS.

I think POA is a great movie, but I also think the first two were great. We own all three of them on DVD and watch them all the time. For me, the difference between POA and the first two movies as far as the wearing robes thing goes, is that you see the kids outside of class the majority of the time. They are in uniform in all of their classes. There is just a lot of activity outside of the classrooms.
I also wanted to say what an awesome character I think Professor Lupin is -- my compliments to JK for creating another wonderfully deep character with many aspects that we don't learn about in his first appearance.
Also, to anyone who is only watching the movies and not reading the books -- no movie will ever be able to compare with the wonderful books that JK has written - with her excellent character development and with the twists and turns that we never see coming.

POA was a pretty good movie. We get to see Lupin for the first time wich is good. I think the part were Hermoine grabed Ron's hand was a nice treat added in (Mostly because I'm all for Ron+Hermoine :love: ).

Probably my biggest problem of the Prizoner of Azkaban was it's look. Is the blue/black tint everything supposed to be dramatic? I found it to be monotonous and just dreary. Also everything seemed to look older and more deteriorated including some of the people. It's hard to make three 13 year old kids look sick but this was the effect of the color tones used. And poor Dumbledore looked just dreadful, from the gowns he wore, his constantly tied beard even his fingernails looked like he was dying right before our eyes. This tint made everything depressing and I thought it would have been so much more interesting and dramatic to go more with the color palette of the first two movies, I hope they don't repeat this with Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.
Everyone seems to have an opinion about the future so I will throw my hat in the ring as well.
I beleive that while Hermione and Ron are sort of discovering feelings I really believe Hermione will one day turn Harry's head, he'll quit being smothered by his past and look to the future, and I can think of no one more suited to Harry than Hermione, both strong, fiercly loyal and together an unbeatable pair in adulthood. Wouldn't it be tasty after Professor Dumbledore steps down from the head of Hogwarts Harry, Hermione and Ron become the Heads of Hogwarts. All bringing their particular strengths to the task and bringing new strength and vitality to the old school?


Interesting POV. I thought just the opposite, I LOVED the way this movie was filmed...I thought it was dark, but also absolutely beautiful, IMO. :tu:

I would love it if they could come out with extended versions, but you would need to go into filming and editing with that in mind. That is exactly what Peter Jackson did with the LotR. Maybe they will do that with GoF? I hope that is a little longer as so much happens in it to push the story further along.
I agree, it would have been nice to see a larger and longer extended version for the DVD and those willing to buy it--it would definitely make a profit with the gargantuan, cosmopolitan size of the Harry Potter fan base. However, shorter extented version to exist, as far as I'm aware. In 'Chamber', I know that Lockhart's 'test' about himself is on there along with an extented Harry and Snape scene in 'Stone'.

I loved the casting in PoA; Gary Oldham is perfect at Sirius and David Thewlis is brilliant as Remus. Not what I pictured when I read the book, but he took the part and made is his.
Well said; I agree. :tu: Many of the actors and actresses that portray the characters never look as I pictured, but they do fulfill the role quite respectfully.

well the only book to movie i've seen (or at least that i care enough about to comment on) is Lotr and of course if u compare how the Lotr book was adapted to a movie and how harry potter 3 was adapted to a movie i would say that harry potter 3..... SUCKS! The one thing that ticked me off is seeing the great hall for the first time... i always imagined it to be a HUGE place but in poa i bet the bottom floor of my house is bigger then that and only 5 ppl live with me! "great hall can hold 1000+ people)

The only thing I didn't really like in POA was the dirt. I don't mean lived in dirt which makes it rather homey. I mean, for example, Dumbledore's fingernails. OMG did you see them? He looks like he was digging up bodies . . . three weks ago . . . and still hasn't washed!!

Well, to amend that, I would love for them to be longer, LotR did just fine. Even if they only extended the DVD versions I'd love it!!

I absolutely loved Cuaron's Harry Potter movie. Incidentally, book 3 is my favorite Harry Potter book and movie 3 is my favorite Harry Potter movie. No offense to you Columbus fans out there, but I didn't like the first two movies. They were too Home Alone-ish, gift-wrapped Christmas present-ish for my taste (does that make sense?).

Not that there's anything wrong with a cheery, light mood, and I love many of Columbus' other movies, but I've always perceived the Harry Potter world as more darker than that. Cuaron did a perfect job of re-creating the tone of the book, IMO.

I also loved that he didn't follow EVERY SINGLE DETAIL in the book. If the movie is going to be exactly like the book, it takes the fun out for me (Again, just my individual preference talking here ;-P) I liked that there were some new things to look forward to. In fact, I would have liked it better if Cuaron tampered more with the script (but keeping true to the essence of the book, of course. *note: essence, not detail).

Not that the movie was perfect. I do feel that the Mauderer's Map, among other things should have been explained so that nonreaders wouldn't have been lost.

Also, the actors who played Lupin and Sirius weren't exactly how I pictured them. I imagined someone more rugged and classically handsome (but gaunt and 'ruined' by his time in Azkaban, of course. I’m sure make-up artist can do a good job) for Sirius. He was more 'energetic' than I imagined, too. I imagined a silent, brooding man with a hateful glare for the wanted poster, not a guy thrashing about in anger.

I'd have liked someone less like a tweedy college professor for Lupin. I also missed Richard Harris as Dumbledore (can't be helped, but still).

I also missed seeing a few regular cast members, but I don't see how Cuaron could've fit in all those extra people without considerably extending the movie or making it seem redundant. So, forgiven. ;-)

Other than that, just fabulous. I can only hope the rest of the movies are as good as the third one.

P.S. I like comparing HP movies by different directors, so I hope WB will continue the (recent) tradition of changing directors for every movie.
Hope they don't change the actors, though. they aren't perfect, but changing actors will have a risk of completely disconnecting the new movie with the former movies.

POA was better in a cinematic-special effects way, but the choppiness of the script, editing, ruined it for me. I still think its the best movie in the series. The acting by the trio was better, the music okay,. I don't know its something about POA that really irks me.

I think the amazing thing about POA is the reaction of the fans --- we either LOVE it to pieces, or HATE it intensely! Well, it makes an impression whichever side you're on..
Originally, I didn't like it as much as the first two --- I guess I liked the "cute little Harry learning about Magic" style, rather than a more grown-up Harry confronting his parents' deaths etc. Well, how dumb could I be? The books were written for the ages of the kids in them , in other words, PS would appeal most to the 11 yearolds, starting new schools, then the second book would be mainly for 12 year olds, and POA would elicit response from the teenagers --- not to say the books or movies are limited to any age group (I'm nearly 60, for Goodness sake!) but I have to let the movies and the stories "grow" to fit the characters they contain. Otherwise, this saga of Harry would be a series of sequels and not a serial at all.
Hey, I pick at the errors, I criticize the acting and directing, I moan about the casting but in the end, I LOVE THEM ALL!!!!!

I absolutely loved Cuaron's Harry Potter movie. Incidentally, book 3 is my favorite Harry Potter book and movie 3 is my favorite Harry Potter movie. No offense to you Columbus fans out there, but I didn't like the first two movies. They were too Home Alone-ish, gift-wrapped Christmas present-ish for my taste (does that make sense?).

Not that there's anything wrong with a cheery, light mood, and I love many of Columbus' other movies, but I've always perceived the Harry Potter world as more darker than that. Cuaron did a perfect job of re-creating the tone of the book, IMO.

I also loved that he didn't follow EVERY SINGLE DETAIL in the book. If the movie is going to be exactly like the book, it takes the fun out for me (Again, just my individual preference talking here ;-P) I liked that there were some new things to look forward to. In fact, I would have liked it better if Cuaron tampered more with the script (but keeping true to the essence of the book, of course. *note: essence, not detail).

Not that the movie was perfect. I do feel that the Mauderer's Map, among other things should have been explained so that nonreaders wouldn't have been lost.

Also, the actors who played Lupin and Sirius weren't exactly how I pictured them. I imagined someone more rugged and classically handsome (but gaunt and 'ruined' by his time in Azkaban, of course. I’m sure make-up artist can do a good job) for Sirius. He was more 'energetic' than I imagined, too. I imagined a silent, brooding man with a hateful glare for the wanted poster, not a guy thrashing about in anger.

I'd have liked someone less like a tweedy college professor for Lupin. I also missed Richard Harris as Dumbledore (can't be helped, but still).

I also missed seeing a few regular cast members, but I don't see how Cuaron could've fit in all those extra people without considerably extending the movie or making it seem redundant. So, forgiven. ;-)

Other than that, just fabulous. I can only hope the rest of the movies are as good as the third one.

P.S. I like comparing HP movies by different directors, so I hope WB will continue the (recent) tradition of changing directors for every movie.
Hope they don't change the actors, though. they aren't perfect, but changing actors will have a risk of completely disconnecting the new movie with the former movies.


Totally agree with you. I like some of Columbus's films, such as Home Alone and Stepmom, but I definetly think he was the wrong guy for the Harry Potter films. He made them too Hollywood. He also didn't know how to make the children act. All he did was teach them how to do expressions, not what their characters were about.

The essence is indeed, important. I thought PS got some of the essence from the book, what with everything being new to Harry, but I thought CoS failed miserably. It was totally flat, and very uninspired. PoA was perfect. Dark, and very magical. Columbus did make PS magical, but PoA built on a different style of magic. Mysterious magic.

The Problem with the HP movies are that they don't cover everything. I mean I'd rather see everything from the book rather than a cut down version. I saw a post where a member had some beef with the rotten heads in PoA and their right. Warner Bros. spend time on doing new characters like that when they could have used the time to do other stuff.

I agree. The books will always be better, which I have mentioned several times in other threads. It would take a 6 or 7 hour movie to include all the aspects of the book. The other problem with the HP movies is that they do not always follow the books exactly -- which can be confusing if it has been a long time since you have read the books. I am re-reading SS right now and I cannot believe the differences between the book and the movie. I should re-read POA, too and see how far off the movie actually is. But of all the movies, POA is by far my favorite.

I absolutely loved Cuaron's Harry Potter movie. Incidentally, book 3 is my favorite Harry Potter book and movie 3 is my favorite Harry Potter movie. No offense to you Columbus fans out there, but I didn't like the first two movies. They were too Home Alone-ish, gift-wrapped Christmas present-ish for my taste (does that make sense?).
Bloody brilliant post, fifteenstones. Your post pretty much sums my feelings for 'Prisoner' and the first two pretty well. Another contribution to the fact that more people enjoyed 'Stone' and 'Chamber', was because that is what we are used to. Those two films set the parameters of how people with depict and imagine the third film and Cuaron brilliantly crossed those undefined 'rules'--if you wish to call them, and created an easy-flowing family movie. Of course I still have my objections, but the overall film in itself it excellent.

Bloody brilliant post, fifteenstones. Your post pretty much sums my feelings for 'Prisoner' and the first two pretty well. Another contribution to the fact that more people enjoyed 'Stone' and 'Chamber', was because that is what we are used to. Those two films set the parameters of how people with depict and imagine the third film and Cuaron brilliantly crossed those undefined 'rules'--if you wish to call them, and created an easy-flowing family movie. Of course I still have my objections, but the overall film in itself it excellent.

I definetly agree :D. That's also why so many people say it butchered the book. It was faithful to the book and kept the essence of the story, but since it wasn't as annoyingly faithful like the first two, it got flamed.

It was good though COS was sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooo
much better.

It was good though COS was sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooo
much better.


May I ask why? The only way I find it better is in terms of being faithful, nothing else. If all you are judging it on is it being close to the book, then that's hardly fair.

I found the first two movies very fun and followed the books fairly well. I thought C Columbus did a great job on them. POA was my favorite book at the time so I was looking forward to the movie. I was sorely disappointed. I think the directors should have to read the series before they direct. All that Mexican shruken head stuff. The whole Knight Bus was part that could have been left out. I am really looking forward to a new director in GOF.

I found the first two movies very fun and followed the books fairly well. I thought C Columbus did a great job on them. POA was my favorite book at the time so I was looking forward to the movie. I was sorely disappointed. I think the directors should have to read the series before they direct. All that Mexican shruken head stuff. The whole Knight Bus was part that could have been left out. I am really looking forward to a new director in GOF.I absolutely loathed POA when I saw it....the first time, anyway. My son, his friends, and I---we all had a good time trashing it....then, being the HP fan that I am, I thought to myself---you just didn't give it a chance. So I returned to see the movie the next day, with my son and his friends in tow....and we liked it better the second time around...and the third....and the 12th...I'm pitiful, what more can I say.
The Shrunken Heads were very irritating, but JKR said she liked them, and wished she'd invented them herself (thank you GOD she didn't).
The Knight bus scene was important in regards of how Harry left the Dursleys, but did they have to smack Dan/Harry into the window twice?

I agree with all of you. I do watch the POA movie quite a bit, but there are a lot of things in it that I hate. The shrunken head being foremost. The other detail that bothered me a lot was the use of spines for candle holders. Why would these people use a human part that way? This was not a horror movie. Not dracula. More like a Voodoo kind of thing. The use of these items clearly indicate a disrespect for human life since the only way these items exist is because someone died and had their bodies desecrated. That offended me because I associate that with evil. I am glad that JKR didn't come up with that idea because it is a bad one not worthy of a great storyteller like herself. I see the people in the books as being just like us only with gifts that set them apart. The people in the books that use skulls and bones and the like are the dark wizards who do not respect others or life. Clearly the people in Harry's sphere have a deep regard for human life and use theirs gifts to protect, not kill.

I agree with all of you. I do watch the POA movie quite a bit, but there are a lot of things in it that I hate. The shrunken head being foremost. The other detail that bothered me a lot was the use of spines for candle holders. Why would these people use a human part that way? This was not a horror movie. Not dracula. More like a Voodoo kind of thing. The use of these items clearly indicate a disrespect for human life since the only way these items exist is because someone died and had their bodies desecrated. That offended me because I associate that with evil. I am glad that JKR didn't come up with that idea because it is a bad one not worthy of a great storyteller like herself. I see the people in the books as being just like us only with gifts that set them apart. The people in the books that use skulls and bones and the like are the dark wizards who do not respect others or life. Clearly the people in Harry's sphere have a deep regard for human life and use theirs gifts to protect, not kill.I always thought of this as a great visual---not as desecration...Here we see Harry, he's about to face his worst fear, he's nervous and unsure, yet---Lupin is there. He stands by Harry, tells him how to perform the spell, and protects Harry when he initially fails....Lupin is aiding Harry to stiffen his resolve (grow a backbone) and face his fears.

Not me. I think the director did not do his homework and just because the story had a werewolf in it he decided it was a horror flick. When Harry accidently landed Knockturn Alley he was in a dark arts shop. The items in it were skulls, human bones, severed hands, etc. These are all things associated with the dark arts and would not have any place in a school. Especially one that takes a firm stand against such things. I stand my opinion.

Although, it seemed the actors had a good time, and JKR seemed to be okay with the way things turned out, let me just say that I am really glad JKR is not limited to time, budget, special effects, etc. I would only hope that people who see the movies would also take the time to treat themselves to the details and extra storylines in the books.

Not me. I think the director did not do his homework and just because the story had a werewolf in it he decided it was a horror flick. When Harry accidently landed Knockturn Alley he was in a dark arts shop. The items in it were skulls, human bones, severed hands, etc. These are all things associated with the dark arts and would not have any place in a school. Especially one that takes a firm stand against such things. I stand my opinion.
I agree with kingwidgit—the ‘spinal’ candles (as you described them) were solely for visualization. They did not change my perspective of the film in no form nor did I even notice them. However, in dealing with dementors at the scene, it only aids the mystery and spookiness of the seconds to come.

You can't compare the movies to the books.
JKR said yhat cuaron put things in the movie that without knowing it foreshadow things that will happen in the last two books.
I think they are
1. Ron and Hermione holding hands
2. The crow on top of Fudge's head will mean he dies.

PoA was my favorite book, but I found myself disgusted with the movie. I have actually just finished watching it again on HBO and still could not bring myself to really enjoy it. I didn't like some of the disgustingly sentimaental lines that seemed to be forced into the rest of the dialouge (the part where Dumbldore is speaking to the school and waves the candle out and then lights it again, for example). I also hated the way that the map was never explained, and was further irritated by the behavior of SIrius. Though he is portrayed as a little unbalanced in the books (IMO) this movie makes him look like a true mad man. I find myself being uncomfortable with him throughout rather than warming to him as I did in the novel.
Interestingly, my dad was watching the movie with me this time. He has never read the books, and, though he was paying attention (not sleeping) he was totally lost at some parts. He couldn't understand why Snape didn't know what the map was and Lupin did, or why Lupin knew how to work the map. I really wished they would have been clearer on this, as it was so very vital to the story.

The other detail that bothered me a lot was the use of spines for candle holders. Why would these people use a human part that way? This was not a horror movie. Not dracula. More like a Voodoo kind of thing. The use of these items clearly indicate a disrespect for human life since the only way these items exist is because someone died and had their bodies desecrated.

I've read somewhere that these candles actually tell time. You can see Roman numerals written on the candle (VII, VI, V) and when a part of it melts, an hour has passed. Cuaron added a lot of stuff to further the "time" plot in the movie like the sundial and the big clock in the courtyard. And I really think the "spine" look is just to make them cooler looking, and I didn't even associate them with spines until you talked about it.

I thought the film was good except for four things:
(1) Set inconsistency, since when has the giant bridge existed?
(2) Lupin looked horrible with a mustache.
(3) The movie had a Heron bias, while I feel the book had a Harmony bias.
(4) Alterations from the story, nothing ticks me off more and this is why I will probably not watch the fourth movie. How dare they have the audicity to greatly alter the storyline of the Goblet of Fire.

I actually liked the third movie, probably because it was so different than the books- a lot more artsy than the previous two.

But the one thing that bugged me donkeys for dollars was the werewolf. It was hideous! It looked more like an enlarged, demented monkey with giraffe legs! I was hoping it would resemble more of a wolf... but there ya have it.

I didn't like some of the disgustingly sentimental lines that seemed to be forced into the rest of the dialouge (the part where Dumbldore is speaking to the school and waves the candle out and then lights it again, for example).
Really? I loved that dialogue with the candle, with Dumbledore. It portrayed his mystifying character and touched on the impact of the presence of Dementors. The line, in my opinion, was in no way maudlin nor clichéd: it was clear representation of Dumbledore’s character.

I also hated the way that the map was never explained
Ah, yes: the infamous, ‘missing’, and ‘important’ information of the Marauder’s background history. I will remain on my opinion: the information wasn’t needed. It would have indulged ‘Prisoner’ into including further information which the film (and literature) already distributed plenty of. I, and the friends and family that have seen it, did not find ‘Prisoner’ confusing nor questioned Lupin’s ‘unapparent and mysterious’ knowledge of the map. The movie flowed quite smoothly without it and that particular bit of information would be much more useful and applied in ‘Order’ rather than ‘Prisoner’ (where all we need it for, is the knowledge of who created the map).

(1) Set inconsistency, since when has the giant bridge existed?
I believe, if I’m not mistaken, that there was a set change from the second to the third movie to Scotland. I can’t quite remember the absolute location, however.

(4) Alterations from the story, nothing ticks me off more and this is why I will probably not watch the fourth movie. How dare they have the audicity to greatly alter the storyline of the Goblet of Fire.
Altercations are necessary if screenwriters and moviemakers are going to adapt a multi-hundred page book into a decent and award-worthy film; it’s only inevitable. The intricate world of Harry Potter isn’t going to condense into a short two-and-a-half our film without confusing the audience with an opulence amount of sub-plots (which wound together quite nicely in literature) and entertaining them properly. Besides, all three movies contained the greater plot of the literature; they only disregarded, improved, or furbished the sub-plots and small parts within the greater plot.

I actually liked the third movie, probably because it was so different than the books- a lot more artsy than the previous two.
Brilliantly said, My_Snape. I agree.

I thought the film was good except for four things:
(1) Set inconsistency, since when has the giant bridge existed?
(2) Lupin looked horrible with a mustache.
(3) The movie had a Heron bias, while I feel the book had a Harmony bias.
(4) Alterations from the story, nothing ticks me off more and this is why I will probably not watch the fourth movie. How dare they have the audicity to greatly alter the storyline of the Goblet of Fire.
[1] I know what you mean...mainly regarding the move of Hagrid's Hut and the Whomping Willow. Other set moves weren't so disturbing to me...hardly anyone noticed that they've moved the quidditch pitch to a different location in each film.
[2] :rolleyes: , Bother, another 'tache hater...what's wrong with it? :huh: ...some fellow Lupin fans of mine actually said it looked like a dead caterpillar on his lip.
[3] I think the books clearly show which way romance is blowing, as do about 46,000 CoS forum members...and most of us can't even agree to disagree. JKR has deliberately not answered these questions, which makes it all the more harder, waiting for HBP...I ship Hms Chocolate by the way! :eyebrows:
[4] I guess if JKR is pleased with how the movies have played out, then we fans should be too...though I really didn't like other people in the movies saying someone else's line in the book..."If you want to kill Harry, you'll have to kill us too!"

I actually liked the third movie, probably because it was so different than the books- a lot more artsy than the previous two.
Brilliantly said, My_Snape. I agree.
Actually that probably sums up what I don't like about POA. Alfonso was so concerned with displaying his work of art that he missed out on much of the story.

The film was good but it could have so easily been brilliant.

Actually that probably sums up what I don't like about POA. Alfonso was so concerned with displaying his work of art that he missed out on much of the story.

The film was good but it could have so easily been brilliant.

(Not to be rude Deevo, but you call PoA a "Barry Crocker" but you have also called it a good film. What are your true opinons?)

Do you mean that he should have cut his art and added more scenes? I thought it was fine. What I hate about the first two is that their is about 0% of artistic licence, which just made them as bland as white walls. PoA had much more, which is one of the many factors which make it a real movie, not a book on screen (ie. CoS).
I'm not saying that everything was as clear as it could have been, more scenes could have been added to make Sirius more of a threat, more shrieking shack etc., but most of those aren't heavily important in the end, they just made more emphasis, so I can forgive Alfonso for not including them.

(Not to be rude Deevo, but you call PoA a "Barry Crocker" but you have also called it a good film. What are your true opinons?)
I'm really not sure just what you are getting at here, my true opinion of POA hasn't changed at all despite suggestions to the contrary. Now you are presumably referring to this post (http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.php?p=2329170&postcount=1139) that I made in the Something you DID NOT like about either Movie 1, 2, and/or 3 (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=39328) thread. To reiterate what I said please allow me to quote:
Visually POA was probably the best of the HP films, as for the storytelling it was a right Barry Crocker.

The other time I used the referance was in the Movies you could watch over and over (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=40341) thread with this post (http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.php?p=2243691&postcount=324):
Like I said on another thread PS and COS are pretty good, POA is a bit of a Barry Crocker but I bought it anyway to maintain the set.
While I maybe should have been clearer with that particular post and said 'relative to the other two' given that the discussion was on several movies and we weren't specifically discussing POA in that thread I thought at the time my comment was sufficient.

Apologies for rabbiting on a bit here, I just wanted to clear up any confusion. I hope this helps.

The only thing I didn't like in PoA about the muggle clothes was that GoF won't have any muggle clothes jokes in it (ie. dress-wearing wizard), that is one of the funniest things in the book.

PoA was my favorite book, but I found myself disgusted with the movie. I didn't like some of the disgustingly sentimaental lines that seemed to be forced into the rest of the dialouge (the part where Dumbldore is speaking to the school and waves the candle out and then lights it again, for example). I also hated the way that the map was never explained, and was further irritated by the behavior of SIrius. Though he is portrayed as a little unbalanced in the books (IMO) this movie makes him look like a true mad man. I find myself being uncomfortable with him throughout rather than warming to him as I did in the novel.



Well put. Sirius was suppose to be a very good looking guy. Did he get all those tattoos in Azkaban?

I think the movie was great! I was hoping it would be diiferent from the 1st two!

OK, I liked the movie after the first time I watched it. I was so disappointed with it the first time. I hated the way they changed the beginning, did not like the shrunken heads (annoying really) did not like the way they changed the way Harry learned about Sirius and I especially did not like the fact that they left out the firebolt scene.:grumble:
I know the directer had the scene at the end I just thought the in-fighting between the three of them was important. The conflict between Ron and Hermione was downplayed considerably.

Now, having said all of that, when I watched the film again I admit to enjoying it. I think the trick is to let some time elapse between reading the book and watching the movie. Well I still don't like the firebolt scene-doesn't really do anything for the movie-but other then that :tu:

OK, I liked the movie after the first time I watched it. I was so disappointed with it the first time. I hated the way they changed the beginning, did not like the shrunken heads (annoying really) did not like the way they changed the way Harry learned about Sirius and I especially did not like the fact that they left out the firebolt scene.:grumble:
I know the directer had the scene at the end I just thought the in-fighting between the three of them was important. The conflict between Ron and Hermione was downplayed considerably. I really to not like the DD character much, I think the actor that played Gandalf in the LoTR movies would have been better.

Now, having said all of that, when I watched the film again I admit to enjoying it. I think the trick is to let some time elapse between reading the book and watching the movie. Well I still don't like the firebolt scene-doesn't really do anything for the movie-but other then that :tu:

All in all, the movie was great. It was fun to watch and I'm still watching it when I have some spare time.
Still, there were a couple of things which I really couldn stand for!

1. DUMBLEDORE
Why did they have to change Dumbledore? In the book, he is described as being a very powerful wizard and had tha looks of a mighty fighter. They did a spectacular job with Richard Harris (RIP). That robe suits him perfectly. His appearance shows the inteligence in years and the power in stranght.
But what they've done with Gambon is just...ewwgh! He looks more like a hippie old man! I can't see all of his might and power, nor his wisdom (except that bit when he talks about Harry with Snape, in the Great Hall). I really don't like this Dumbledore, and that's my final word on it!

2. The set
Ok, everyone knows that the set has been awfully changed, especially the lenght from Hogwarts to Hagrid's hut.

3. The werewolf
How many of you imagined a werewolf to look like that? None? Thought so.

4. The Quidditch Game
Since when Harry wore goggles? Does it say in the books? Please qoute!
He was supposed to wear only his glasses, but ... oh well ...

There might be a couple of things I missed in mentioning, wich I'll post later.
Still, I liked the TimeTurner theme and the "Save Sirius" quest.

Welcome to Cos, hermy_grngr!


3. The werewolf

I really liked how they did the werewolf. It wasn't something that had been done before, it was unique. You could see the humanity behind it, which I thought was a nice touch. No, it's not how I pictured the werewolf but I don't think that matters.

Reading this thread and another about the HP movies, has just made me think...

Would the fans who did not like the representation of PoA in the cinematic format have been more satisfied with the film, if Gryffindor had been depicted winning the Quidditch House Cup?

Or, does it lie deeper than that... Like for instance the unrealistic portrayal of Ron and Hermione's relationship where in the book they spent more time arguing and not speaking to each other than holding hands and building sexual tension... (a point which just didn't sit well with me when I saw the movie)

I really do not get why so many fans wanted to see the Quidditch cup, or more Quidditch. Only one match contributed to the story, the rest were their purely for fun in the books. As the movie was already going long, I'm glad they never added on another Quidditch match.

Reading this thread and another about the HP movies, has just made me think...

Would the fans who did not like the representation of PoA in the cinematic format have been more satisfied with the film, if Gryffindor had been depicted winning the Quidditch House Cup?
Maybe, the Quidditch cup was tied into the firebolt story and in all fairness was pretty secondary to the overall story. Not that I'm that keen on how the little quidditch that was shown in the film was done but that aspect of the story was a bit supurfluous.

Or, does it lie deeper than that... Like for instance the unrealistic portrayal of Ron and Hermione's relationship where in the book they spent more time arguing and not speaking to each other than holding hands and building sexual tension... (a point which just didn't sit well with me when I saw the movie)
Overall POA the movie was good as far as movies go (I voted good in the poll) but as a representation of Jo Rowling's book POA I felt it fell down in several areas of telling the story. The poor characterisation of some of the key roles, most notably Ron which incidentally had been a problem with all of the films to date, was only a minor issue with the film as a whole.

I think the reason people were upset about the lack of Quidditch is mainly because certain characters they liked that were mainly to do with quidditch were cancelled out once it was known they were dropping the quidditch house cup final storyline all together - so this meant no Wood, Johnson, Bell and even Fred And George as the Beaters as well as Flint, Montague and Draco as the seeker. Those Tom Felton fans were probably wanting to see him in his quidditch gear again and were disappointed when he wasn't, plus if there was quidditch included it would have meant more screen time for Felton, so maybe he wasn't too impressed with that either.

Yeah, I did miss the other characters dealing with Quidditch, especially Oliver. I was looking forward to that line of his where he went on talking about how he didn't care if Harry got tossed off the broom, so as long as he caught the snitch to McGonagall. :lol:

I really liked the movie. It's my favorite of the three. I've always imagined the third book a bit darker. Maybe because we very early on discovers that there are others than Voldemort who wants to kill Harry. And that "they" (Sirius, later Pettigrew and the rest of the DE) are on the loose. So that the movie is a bit darker didn't bother me at all. Actually. The only thing in the WHOLE movie that did bother me was the werewolf had too little hair. But later on I convinced myself that there is a limit on how much hair a human can grow. (atleast I think so) So I'm not ashamded to say that I love the movie. And I'm really in love with the end of the movie when Sirius tells Harry that he can find those he loves inside himself. It was something like:

Sirius: You are probably tired of hearing this. But you look so like your father. Except for your eyes, you have ...
Harry: My mothers eyes, I know.
Sirius: You know. The ones we love never really leave us. You can always find them (thouches Harrys heart) in here.

So thouching. I always crie like a baby everytime I see it in the movie. :upset:

one thing i hated the most abt POA is how they portrayed Ron's character(i'm not saying all this b/c I think Rupert is a good actor or something).... I remember Alfonso saying in one of his interview that Rupert is OK(Danielle n' Emma r good)...i think rupert's first impression on alfonso wasn't good(remember he didn't write his essay)
i'm not blaming anyone but maybe (just maybe) alfonso portrayed ron's character as in reference to rupert....did i explain this in aright manner?......
i'm sorry if i wrote anything wrong.....
i'm not keeping any expectations from GoF b/c i know ron's character in GoF is limited

one thing i hated the most abt POA is how they portrayed Ron's character(i'm not saying all this b/c I think Rupert is a good actor or something).... I remember Alfonso saying in one of his interview that Rupert is OK(Danielle n' Emma r good)...i think rupert's first impression on alfonso wasn't good(remember he didn't write his essay)
i'm not blaming anyone but maybe (just maybe) alfonso portrayed ron's character as in reference to rupert....did i explain this in aright manner?......
i'm sorry if i wrote anything wrong.....
i'm not keeping any expectations from GoF b/c i know ron's character in GoF is limited

I agree about Ron's character. His personaility is almost completely different to the one in the books. Except I believe that it's mostly Kloves's fault, as Rons whiny attitude began in CoS.

Has anyone else noticed this?

When Ron and Hermione are bickering about Crookshanks a little over halfway through the movie, Hermione's wearing a white jacket-type thing with a bronze/blue pattern and two Ravenclaw-style eagles printed on it.

I guess this could egg on the "Hermione's the Heir of Ravenclaw" theorists.

I didn't have time to go through the whole buttload of PoA discussion threads for something related to this, so if someone's brought it up, deal. x3

I wouldn't say Ron was "completely different" in books and films. He's still Harry's comic foil, just as Hermione is Harry's serious foil.

They have overdone the clownishness, somewhat.

All together I thought POA was a fantastic film. The one downfall I feel is that it seems a little short. The different season went by to fast. I did love the new look of the castle and the creatures were better. As always I felt that Albus has a hidden plan that no one knows about. Definately fun to watch and watch again.

(Not to be rude Deevo, but you call PoA a "Barry Crocker" but you have also called it a good film. What are your true opinons?)

Do you mean that he should have cut his art and added more scenes? I thought it was fine. What I hate about the first two is that their is about 0% of artistic licence, which just made them as bland as white walls. PoA had much more, which is one of the many factors which make it a real movie, not a book on screen (ie. CoS).
I'm not saying that everything was as clear as it could have been, more scenes could have been added to make Sirius more of a threat, more shrieking shack etc., but most of those aren't heavily important in the end, they just made more emphasis, so I can forgive Alfonso for not including them.
I totally agree. The first two were bland and BORING and not emotional at all. POA was excellent. It was a film, after all, not a book. Would people rather have a crappy film that is true to every detail or a great film that fudges a little?

I totally agree. The first two were bland and BORING and not emotional at all. POA was excellent. It was a film, after all, not a book. Would people rather have a crappy film that is true to every detail or a great film that fudges a little?

Exactly. Their is no way to make a movie that keeps most information entertaining, it just wouldn't work. I find PoA to be the most entertaining of the three, and unlike the first two, it isn't difficult for me to watch, because I felt Cuaron was more trying to make it work as a movie and a adaptation, not a visual aid for the books.

Interestingly, I found this quote today:
"...What is the justification of spending money if you are just going to produce a series of pictures alongside the dialogue of the novel? You've got to offer an interpretation of the novel." –– Andrew Davies: Pride and Prejudice Screenwriter.

IMO, PoA is the best of the 3 HP movies. As a whole, I liked it a lot. It was far more exciting than the first two.
I completely agree with WizardWannabe about the sets. Hogwarts HAS to be a warm and comforting place. The sets in PoA would be more in place in the last 3 movies. I also feel that the kids have to wear robes all the time except in the muggle world, because the books clearly say so. And I am a teeny bit disappointed about the complete deletion of the last 2 Quidditch matches and no mention of who won the Cup.
But all in all, Cuaron has managed to create a wonderful cinematic experience. Kudos to him !

I don't know if this is the right thread for this niggling little question! On the Marauders map, Harry spots Pettigrew with FOOTPRINTS. If he was still Scabbers (and harry didn't spot him so we have to assume he was a rat), why didn't the name say Scabbers? Also why didn't the footprints show as little paw prints? (do rats have paws?). In the film credits, they do a really cool job of showing shoe-prints turn into barefoot -prints turn into dog paw-prints. What a shame to take all this trouble withthe credits (which most people walk out on) and miss it from the movie!

I thought PoA was good, but I do not enjoy the beginning. It felt like My face was pressed against Harrys. Way to close to the action, i didn't feel like i was a part of it, i felt like i was on top of them and in the way. Also, is still missing Richard Harris, so was not impressed by DD, hopefully after a movie or two I will be able to judge the new DD on his own merit, and not compare the two.

According to an "expert" who replied to a post of mine, most of the people who disliked POA disliked it because IT FOLLOWED THE BOOK TOO CLOSELY> I had posted that people disliked it, in part because it didn't follow the book. I also said I thought the movie was cut a bit short. But, our "expert" said I'm wrong, again most people disliked POA because it was "too long".

I got off that thread because I thought I was dealing with a fool.

I think I mentioned in a previouse post, that I liked the movie the second time I watched it. The major faults with the movie imo is Gambon is not a good DD, Ron and Hermione are in conflict for much of the book and I think the firebolt present was important. I don't mind scenes being left out as much as I mind changing them. It is annoying.

According to an "expert" who replied to a post of mine, most of the people who disliked POA disliked it because IT FOLLOWED THE BOOK TOO CLOSELY> I had posted that people disliked it, in part because it didn't follow the book. I also said I thought the movie was cut a bit short. But, our "expert" said I'm wrong, again most people disliked POA because it was "too long".

I got off that thread because I thought I was dealing with a fool.

While I must admit that I can't see how someone would dislike PoA for following the book too closely, I think he/she has a point about the length. The thing is, you're looking at it from the point of view of HP fans, the type who have read the books six or seven times, own all sorts of merchandise, etc...while he/she is looking at it from the point of view of someone who has either not read the books, or maybe read them once, but is not really a fan of HP persay. The 141 minute running time of PoA is rather long compared to most movies, and parts of it (especially the time-turner sequence) do drag on a bit, so I can see how someone might think it was actually too long, when many big HP fans think it was way too short.

I think it was way to short and thst the director cut out to many things. It was good over all though but I hope GoF is better and longer. What made me mad was they cut out the explanation of the Marauders Map and the part about the Sneakoscope. I still wonder what part forshadow some of the things in the next books. :cool:

I think the movie was good. It cut out some things but it was still good, close to excellent if only it didn't change things so much and didn't feel so rushed. I think the movie goes by very fast.

They left out an important part from the book which is to let the reader (or viewer) know that Lupin, Wormtail, Sirius, and James are those of the nicknames that showed up on the Maurauder's Map.

And other simple movie things. After Hermione and Harry went back through time, some sequences are different from when they first occured.. for example: when Harry conjoured the patronum spell there was no horse or whatever it was but when he saw it from Sirius's side there was. Those have nothing to do with the movie but basic common sense...

I personally did not enjoy the PoA Movie. Why? Well first of all, they did change ALOT of things from the book, but I totally understand that that is what happens. You can't expect the movie to be exactly like the book, but I do feel that there were certain important parts that were left out, like the the fact that they never explained who the Marauders were, and their links to James.

Also I thought the certain "additions" were pointless and degraded the books/movie. There was no need for the shrunken heads in my opinion, and all of that weirdness between Hermione and Ron just made me feel uncomfortable. (Don't get me wrong, I truly believe that Hermione and Ron will end up together in the end, but it looked soooo awkward in the movie.) Also I thought Lupin's werewolf look didn't give the character enough credit, it made Lupin seem like a pansy.

But all of that aside, the thing that really peeved me off was the way Alfonso changed EVERYTHING!!! The castle looked totally different; the location of Hogwarts in comparison to Hagrid's house and the Whomping Willow changed dramaticly; the Whomping Williow looked MUCH smaller; the common room enterence moved; the fat lady looked like a drag queen; and that's all I can think of right now.

Anyways when I got home, I wondered why the movie was SO different from the first two. Surly, I thought, a new director couldn't have made THAT big of a difference. But later that week I read a interview where Alfonso was talking about making the PoA, and he admitted that not only had he not read ANY of the books, but he didn't even take the five hours to watch the first two movies!!!!

WHO DOES THAT??!!??!!

I mean really, you're making a movie that is part of a series, I understand that you want to "make it your own", but you can't go and change such big pieces of the movie to the point where the movie is unrecognizable from the series!!! If you want to make it your own, change the smaller things, change the lighting and camera angles (which Alfonse did, probably without knowing, well yes, without knowing it cause he never watched the movies :rolleyes: ).

Argh! Anyways, I am not crazy incase any of you may think so. When I went to see PoA, I went with my boyfriend and his sister, both of them had seen the first two movies but had never read the book. Within twenty mintues of the movie, they were both completely lost and confused. I had to explain what was going on to them the whole time. And then the part that really got to me: the movie had reached the part where Harry was at Hogwarts, my boyfriend leaned over to me and said, "So where is Harry supposed to be now??" I looked at my boyfriend, "He's at Hogwarts, his school." My boyfriend looked back at me with rised eyebrows, "That's his school? How come it looks so different??"

After that I withheld my comments until after the movie was finished. Anyways, in my opinion, the movie was a big flop, and it's a shame too because I know PoA is a lot of HP fan's favorite book in the series so far. :no:

Anyways when I got home, I wondered why the movie was SO different from the first two. Surly, I thought, a new director couldn't have made THAT big of a difference. But later that week I read a interview where Alfonso was talking about making the PoA, and he admitted that not only had he not read ANY of the books, but he didn't even take the five hours to watch the first two movies!!!!

WHO DOES THAT??!!??!!



After that I withheld my comments until after the movie was finished. Anyways, in my opinion, the movie was a big flop, and it's a shame too because I know PoA is a lot of HP fan's favorite book in the series so far. :no:

Yes, the changes are annoying in continuity terms, but in terms of being faithful to the book I find the changes were needed. In CoS, the Womping willow is in a courtyard, right next to the school, hardly a good place to hide a Werewolf in. Secondly, Hagrids hut was also right by the school, which doesn't make it a chore to walk there, like it is in the books.


I remember reading in a interview that he read all of the books after he got the job, and he saw the first 2 films. Reading the books wasn't even neccesary, as that was the screenwriters job. IMO, you can tell Alfonso has read the books, as he got the spirit of Hogwarts spot on.

Sorry if I'm repeating oters, I haven't had a chance to finish reading yet.

But what I don't understand is why the trio are wearing muggle clothes during their visit to Hogsmead and on other occasions. The adult wizards sort of complain about having to wear "muggle" clothes, so wouldn't that mean that underage wizards typically don't wear them either? Wouldn't they feel more comfortable and fit in better while wearing their cloaks and robes in an entire magical village? This just seemed odd to me.
Other than that, I liked the film a lot, but as always, I enjoyed the books more.

Also I thought the certain "additions" were pointless and degraded the books/movie. There was no need for the shrunken heads in my opinion, and all of that weirdness between Hermione and Ron just made me feel uncomfortable. (Don't get me wrong, I truly believe that Hermione and Ron will end up together in the end, but it looked soooo awkward in the movie.)

Well, then it looked real. Two 13 year olds who don't know what the heck they are doing will look quite awkwards. It's called "The Two Virgins" syndrome.....

Anyways when I got home, I wondered why the movie was SO different from the first two. Surly, I thought, a new director couldn't have made THAT big of a difference.

But they can! Columbus was blamed widely for the poor quality of the first two films. Many people felt that in the hands of a competent director, the movies could have entertained adults as well as kids. Columbus also was blamed for completely muddling the CoS story.

But later that week I read a interview where Alfonso was talking about making the PoA, and he admitted that not only had he not read ANY of the books, but he didn't even take the five hours to watch the first two movies!!!!

WHO DOES THAT??!!??!!

Well, the people who have read Harry Potter represent a minority of the populations. It probably would not have appealed to Cuarón on first appearances: it is a boarding school series book (he is a devote socialist) with the reputation as a kids story (he's an adult).

As for "who does that", the answer is: a lot of people. 20% of the people who saw P/SS could not be bothered to see CoS - they'd seen enough HP, thanks. I know a lot of people who walked out of P/SS after sitting there for two hours and seeing no sign of a story or plot beginning. None of them saw CoS.

(Interestingly, almost all of them eventually rented PoA, saw it on cable or an airplane flight; with one exception [someone who thinks that Harry Potter is hopelessly stupid in print or on film], they all were very surprised to see a good movie.....)

As a movie afficianado, Cuarón would not need to see all five hours to realize what the movie critics and most of the public had been saying: the first two movies were poorly done and the series needed radical redirection. WB understood this - there is a reason why nobody begged Columbus to stay (and why a lot of entertainment reports suggested that he was asked to resign).


BI mean really, you're making a movie that is part of a series, I understand that you want to "make it your own", but you can't go and change such big pieces of the movie to the point where the movie is unrecognizable from the series!!!

The idea never was to make one cohesive movie. They initially thought that they would be changing the kids after three movies (not realizing that the HP kids age, I think!).

More importantly, there is another major concern with a series: retaining the audience. Not only did P/SS fail to sell as many tickets as expected, only 80% of the audience returned for CoS. The audience reactions for CoS suggested that only 80% would return for PoA - and because PoA would not get the big holiday boost, they were expecting only 75% of the money.


BAfter that I withheld my comments until after the movie was finished. Anyways, in my opinion, the movie was a big flop, and it's a shame too because I know PoA is a lot of HP fan's favorite book in the series so far.

How can you say that it is a flop?? It was the first HP movie to get good critical reviews. It was the first HP movie that was rated as good or better by 90% of the audience (which should give you an idea of how few HP fans like you that there really are!). It was the first HP movie to sell more tickets than expected - it almost got back as many people that CoS turned off.

And this myth that it confused people is just silly. Surely some of the movie critics or some of the general movie fans at Box Office Mojo or other places would have commented on this - yet almost none of them did. The things that they criticized were things inherent to JKR's plot and story.

I thought it was a great movie! I was a little disappointed that they never told who moony wormtail padfoot and prongs were, and I think they could've been a bit more careful with things (spelling moony like mooney and putting harry's scar on the wrong side) but it was really good. Except for lupin's mustache! ok everyone's probably heard enough complaining about that but it was really annoying. good movie though. Yay! 3 cheers for the harry potter peoples! :tu:

(spelling moony like mooney and putting harry's scar on the wrong side) :

Well, the mooney thing was meant to be a in joke because one of the crew members last name is Mooney, and the scar thing was because the image was flipped.

I thought that Sirius' Azkaban prison uniform was eerily reminiscent of the Auschwitz uniforms - the thick vertical stripes, the cut, and even the tattoo (though Sirius' was on his chest not his arm). It seems that JK Rowling has drawn many parallels between the Nazi Regime of WWII and the Death Eaters of the Magical World, and this is yet another allusion to that, it seems. Does anyone else see the similarities?

I think that when you watch all three films it is easily apparent that someone different directed the third film from the first two. POA has a much faster and dramatic look than the other two which I enjoyed and it really captured how everyone was growing up. 5 stars.

It was good but not the best. I found it made the whole sort of harry potter world a bit darker! Maybe its just me but i thought the first and second films were better:sigh:

I really loved the movie and thought it was much better than the first two. One of the things that really sticks out about the first movie is the acting - Daniel and Emma in particular seem very awkward and amateur. Which is fine I guess, seeing as it was their first movie. But the acting in the 3rd movie was just SO much better than the first two (except for Rupert Grint who always seems to get Ron down perfectly). Daniel and Emma are growing beautifully into their Harry/Hermione roles.

It was good but not the best. I found it made the whole sort of harry potter world a bit darker! Maybe its just me but i thought the first and second films were better:sigh:I liked the first two films immensely...but the whole intent of the 3rd book and 3rd movie is to be darker, which Cuaron managed to achieve with POA, and he did that fantastically.
The 4th book/movie are dark, but not as dark as book 3/5...I'm really looking forward to the next movie...

It was good but not the best. I found it made the whole sort of harry potter world a bit darker! Maybe its just me but i thought the first and second films were better:sigh:

It was not just you, but close to it! PoA was much more popular with movie-goers and movie-critics. It was unpopular only among two groups of people: people who think that Harry Potter is just dumb in the first place (i.e., a few movie critics, who only watched the movie because they had to do so - and even most of them commented that it was far superior to the first two movies), and a small minority of "literalist" HP fans.


That left 90% of the people who saw it saying "hey! A good Harry Potter movie! Who knew that you could do that?"

But what I don't understand is why the trio are wearing muggle clothes during their visit to Hogsmead and on other occasions. The adult wizards sort of complain about having to wear "muggle" clothes, so wouldn't that mean that underage wizards typically don't wear them either? Wouldn't they feel more comfortable and fit in better while wearing their cloaks and robes in an entire magical village? This just seemed odd to me.

Well, in the books, they are supposed to be wearing school robes over muggle clothes. That did not look right on screen, so they gave them school uniforms as well. (JKR agreed with this decision in the first movie after they realized that her general description just did not work.)

Also, the books state that the Weasley kids, at least, wear Muggle clothes during the holidays. Given that many of the students are from Muggle homes, they would feel most comfortable in normal clothing.

I personally didn't like the PoA movie. I understand that you can only put so much in the movies, but some of the changes were really drastic and important to the rest of the series. Also, I didn't like some of the casting such as Peter Pettigrew(just not right) and Sirius Black(I think Gary Oldman is to old for the part).

Unfortunately one person's opinion doesn't change much

I really find alot of the furore surrounding this film from some of the fans to be sort of funny but then mostly pointless. I think it says alot that JK herself has said that she thinks it was good and the best of the films so far, ecause she got what it was; an ADAPTATION.

Adaptations are just that, adapted to suit the wider audience and the different artform. The first movies echoed the books weakly, but certainly didn't reflect the sense of creativity and imagination that the books contained.

Alfonso Cuaron injected that much needed creativity and imagination in there and as such made a very strong movie that can rival any other fantasy film out there. It was always apparent that something so distinctive wouldn't please everybody, but it doesn't change the fact that rejuvenation is better than plodding along in a rut of average work.

It kept the soul of the book, and rejected the surrounding content that wasn't neccesary. The books are always going to be a more complete experience, a more in-depth representation of the HP world, but then that is to be expected in such different mediums. People are already saying that OrderOTP should be split into two movies, or what definately HAS to be in the GoF movie, and I can't help thinking that people are missing the point.

Movies are not books and visa versa, all we should really ask for is the spirit ro remain the same and for a director to use the different medium to its upmost, something that Cuaron did so well.

As for the darkening of the series through PoA...

...HP books are far from being without darkness of their own. Maybe its language is diluted because of the the 'children's books' status, but this is far from Disney. There is light and Dark and Grey, true evil and death - which makes me wonder how people are surprised that the movies might do this. Harry's world is a dark one, and one which is maturing quickly and thus the movies do too.

Nothing is going to be able to please all fans but PoA came closest to being as perfect as it could be.

I really find alot of the furore surrounding this film from some of the fans to be sort of funny but then mostly pointless. I think it says alot that JK herself has said that she thinks it was good and the best of the films so far, ecause she got what it was; an ADAPTATION.

The other thing to remember is that JKR is much more interested in people understanding the story than learning the details. What she wants people to take out of each book is the greater meaning, not the Quidditch scores.

So, for PoA, she wanted people to understand that the truth is not only not what we think it is, but even when it is, we do not always understand what it means. She also wanted people to see the key moments where Harry figures out what really happened, even though it would have been much easier for him to believe something else. (The choice between what is right and what is easy appears much earlier than GoF in the books, after all!)



Movies are not books and visa versa, all we should really ask for is the spirit ro remain the same and for a director to use the different medium to its upmost, something that Cuaron did so well.

Indeed, two different narrators are not the same story tellers even if the medium is the same! J.R.R. Tolkien noted this in his studies of ancient languages and mythologies. In particular, he noted that stories had to change their details in order for the "truths" to remain true, due to the evolution of language and the evolution of cultural values. Translating across media (something that he did not really consider, as the alternatives really were spoken or written for him) provides the same problem: a set of words on a printed page do not carry the same meaning as those words put into action on stage or screen.


As for the darkening of the series through PoA...

...HP books are far from being without darkness of their own. Maybe its language is diluted because of the the 'children's books' status, but this is far from Disney.

People tend to forget that, until Saturday morning cartoons came along, childrens' stories tended to be fairly dark, with much death and suffering. Of course, this was preparing children for a world in which many of their siblings and friends would die before reaching adulthood. Things are a bit different now, but HP's "darkness" is much more in line with traditional childrens' stories than the modern "Miller LIte" versions.

I thought the movie was good for the time limit allowed. The changes from the books to the movies are neccessary. I still couldn't help noticing that there were a lot of differences. I don't think the thrid movie should have been so adventure only. I think there are so much more to the books then you ever see in any of the movies. PoA wasn't too bad though. I thought you could feel the relationship between student and teacher well. I just would have liked to have seen Harry's somewhat sad mood more. It's seems to me the more books the more mood changes Harry goes through. I think book three was the start.

I really find alot of the furore surrounding this film from some of the fans to be sort of funny but then mostly pointless. I think it says alot that JK herself has said that she thinks it was good and the best of the films so far, ecause she got what it was; an ADAPTATION.

Exactly. I think the people who say PoA was a terrible movie due to the omissions of "important" details like the Marauders would do well to remember that J.K. Rowling herself has said it is her favorite film of the three. If anyone is qualified to judge the importance of this information, it's the author!


Alfonso Cuaron injected that much needed creativity and imagination in there and as such made a very strong movie that can rival any other fantasy film out there. It was always apparent that something so distinctive wouldn't please everybody, but it doesn't change the fact that rejuvenation is better than plodding along in a rut of average work.

Well, it's always going to be impossible to please everybody, regardless of how the movie is done. Cuaron was successful in that he pleased a higher percentage of us than did Columbus. I believe that Cuaron's vision of PoA was necessary in turning around the series...another Columbus-type film and many viewers who hadn't lost interest already may have been driven away for good.

It kept the soul of the book, and rejected the surrounding content that wasn't neccesary. The books are always going to be a more complete experience, a more in-depth representation of the HP world, but then that is to be expected in such different mediums. People are already saying that OrderOTP should be split into two movies, or what definately HAS to be in the GoF movie, and I can't help thinking that people are missing the point.

Again, you're right on. The books and the movies are two separate entities...they do not (and should not) need to be identical. The movies need to stay at a reasonable length, and now that they have gotten to the longer books, the only way to do this is to get rid of anything that is unnecessary and/or does not translate well to the screen.

I liked the castle and whomping willow alot more in SS and CoS

I liked the movie very much. Since I don't compare it to the books I seem to like it a lot more than other HP fans, as most of them around here (where I live) often do. I thought the director did a good job and I liked most of the actors, especially Remis and Sirius' actors. I'm still having trouble liking Harry in the movies though, I just can't get the right feel for him. I'm getting used to him though, after watching the movies loads of times. There's something about the look of him- he just looks odd sometimes, I don't know what it is. But, I actually liked him a bit better after I watched the interviews on the DVD (same with Malfoy), something about the warmness in them. They seem like such nice kids. Wow, I got a little off topic, sorry!

The PoA was very rushed I thought. It diden't stay to the book that well ,like the opening was different from the book, and it just seemed like a clutter in the Aunt Marge seen. The Knight bus was o.k. I diden't like the alien head guy, very dumb. I also diden't like how they switched places with the whomping willow, and Hagrids hut.

The Dementors were great in the movie. Another thing that seemed strange was the quiddidch match, Extremly rushed. They diden't tell who moony,padfoot, and prongs really were, which is a need to know thing. I will give credit to the acting, and the final part of the movie when they found out about Sirius and when they went back in time. Exellent part.

I liked the first 2 better than the 3rd. It followed the book , and you knew what was going on. The plots were good in the first 2, and I loved Harris as Dumbledore a million time better than Gambon,(which I thought he was terrible) I am glad that there is a new director, Alfonzo in my opinion was not good. I hope Newell will do better, but I wish Columbus still was the director. Overall the movie was rushed, and diden't follow the book, which I think is a must for the movies to be half as good as the books. But thats just my opinon, I know people think it was great,and Columbus stunk ,but not in my eyes.

OMG! I loved this moovie. It was like the best film I've ever seen! My only complaint is: not enough Dan!!! He acted his scenes sooo well! I like, was amazed! All the other actors and actresses acted pretty well too but not as great as Dan!!!! OMG but Sirius was pretty hot too but not as hot as Dan!! :rotfl:

Dan's really improved since the 1st film, i.e his voice! I love him!!
He's great! Hmm...if only! :D

i just have to say one thing about movie two, what happened to the death day party?! other than that the movies were good.[]

i just have to say one thing about movie two, what happened to the death day party?! other than that the movies were good.[]

CoS was a very mediocre movie. It included at least two entire scenes (Knockturn Alley and the Whomping Willow) that had nothing to do with the story, and several scenes that took 5+ minutes to make a single point that could have been transferred to another scene.

The Death Day party would have been another such scene. It does touch upon the loyalty theme that is the CoS story, but it does so very obliquely. It does not contribute anything to the plot, either.

The plots were good in the first 2

If P/SS had a plot, then Columbus never found it (as about half of the movie critics noted). He muddled CoS's plot pretty badly, too.

I liked Poa except for the werewolf and when Harry was crying...those parts seemed funny to me. The dementors i loved tho i'm glad it didn't look like the wraiths in lotr. Everyone who hadn't read the books and saw the movies didn't get the whole maruders thing either

I didn't like the fact that all of the backstory about the Marauders was cut. This was probably the book that contained the most info about James, and while I understand that not everything in the book can be part of the movie, surely they could have cut something else. I also wish they had not cut Lupin's opstical course. Hermione's boggart is funny!

CoS was a very mediocre movie. It included at least two entire scenes (Knockturn Alley and the Whomping Willow) that had nothing to do with the story, and several scenes that took 5+ minutes to make a single point that could have been transferred to another scene.
Yes and no, the knockturn alley scene served to reinforce the existence of the 'dark side' of the wizarding world if you will and had it been shown in full and not cut the exposition would have been more to the point. As for the whomping willow I'll agree that it wasn't a crucial plot point in this film but it's overall importance to the storyline of the series can't be understated. I do agree there are some scenes that drag out a bit but better that than the rush job that POA was.

The Death Day party would have been another such scene. It does touch upon the loyalty theme that is the CoS story, but it does so very obliquely. It does not contribute anything to the plot, either.
Actually I agree there, though a passing mention could have been achieved.

If P/SS had a plot, then Columbus never found it (as about half of the movie critics noted). He muddled CoS's plot pretty badly, too.
Whoo, harsh. If anyone was guilty of muddling the book storys then Alfonso would have to take the prize but that's just my preferance. I figure for all his childishness in the presentation (these first two storys were from a more childish perspective compared to later works anyway so it was appropriate) he at least remained relatively faithful to the books.

I'm still of the opinion that COS is the best of the movies to date. I've got high hopes for the next film as GOF is my favourite of the books to this point, that may change in a couple of days though.

Does this guy only know like 3 different methods to change scenes? Technically, he seems to have less skill than a high school film student. This director totally sucked. So glad he's not directing the 4th movie. Plus, Dumbledore was a poor casting/acting choice. Other than that, I liked the movie.

Does this guy only know like 3 different methods to change scenes? Technically, he seems to have less skill than a high school film student. This director totally sucked. So glad he's not directing the 4th movie. Plus, Dumbledore was a poor casting/acting choice. Other than that, I liked the movie.

Rowling wants Cuaron to return for one of the later films, so nee-ner, nee-ner.

Technically, he seems to have less skill than a high school film student. This director totally sucked.

Cuarón is a very highly regarded director by people who study film. Columbus is, um, a director according to the same people.


Plus, Dumbledore was a poor casting/acting choice.

Michael Gambon is a highly esteemed actor. Richard Harris also was, but his performance was greatly hindered by his very poor health. He was getting chemo treatments at the time and simply could not project Dumbledore's vitality into the role. (It's a great shame - but they really should have cast someone much younger from the start, as it is easier for a middle aged man to look old and act young than for an old man to look old and act young.)

I loved the way Columbus gave the first two movies a dark feel to them.

However, the third movie was just way too..meh. The shrunken heads were lame. I'm definitely not a fan of Cuaron's portrayal of POA.

Cuarón is a very highly regarded director by people who study film. Columbus is, um, a director according to the same people.
I'm sure he's a superb filmmaker ... of his own films. The problem I always had with his POA was precisely that, it was his POA, not Jo Rowling's. To me it's important that the makers of any filmic adaption remember where the story came from and in this respect Columbus was effective. To be fair though his style was really only suitable for the first two as these are the only storys that could really be considered children's storys (or at least storys about children), from POA on they all have a much more mature focus and the films should reflect this.

I have high hopes for Mike Newell but frankly, I'm also bracing myself for another less than perfect story. After all GOF was, till last weekend :evil:, my favourite of the books.

I think what most people have a problem with the POA movie is that it is perhaps one of the only earlier HP novels that is actually universally loved by all those who read HP. Other books in the series such as COS and GOF, even OOTP and most recently HBP, are normally having divides in if the book is good or not in the plot advancement of HP cannon. Hence, POA as a movie has a higher than usual expectation rate when it was made into a movie. It had many fan and non fan faves in it

- The Marauders
- The intro of Remus Lupin and the whole werewolf spin.
- The WHomping Willow's signifigance is shown to it's fullest.
- Buckbeak is introduced.
- Sirius Black, after being only mentioned in passing in previous books, is bought out to the full in POA, and gives the book series a much needed ' adult' edge with the whole ' mass murderer after harry' spin.
- The theme of loyalty and friendship between the trio and it's shadowing in the Marauder backstory.
- James is given more of a background by being liked to Sirius, Remus and Severus.
- Quidditch Cup where Gryffindor FINALLY beat Slytherin after eight years.

Granted, some of these things were left out of the final cut due to time restrictions and what not, but I think overall the main reason POA has such a half/half divide in how people like or love or loathe it is because it is a universally liked book in the series. It is, in essence, a halfway mark where we start to loose some of the childish ways of PS and COS and the adult world is slowly creeping in on us and the trio. This is why I think Cuaron was perfect for this movie, especially if you watch his previous movies The Little Princess and " And Your MOther Too'. He is adept in blending the childlike with the teenage, giving it a darker, sinister edge that was much needed if the series was ever going to survive the farce that was the dysmal COS and even the mediocre PS.
It is intrigueing though to think how this will bode for the movie versions of OOTP and HBP, both definately the darkest chapters in the series we have recieved so far. Themes of death, love, jealousy and sex rear their heads in these, so it will be amusing to see how WB and Columbus ( who is still serving as an executive producer I think ) will handle them. GOF may show us how they are going to, and by the recent reports of the advance screenings it sounds they are following POA path. One wonders if PS and COS have already done too much damage by labelling HP a kiddies series that no ammount of reworking can salvage it.

I'm sure he's a superb filmmaker ... of his own films. The problem I always had with his POA was precisely that, it was his POA, not Jo Rowling's.


Hmmm, I distinctly remember reading in a interview Jo saying that the movie isn't meant to be hers, it's Alfonso's baby. So, I guess she disagrees with you.

Edit: I found the interview.
Rowling says she was drawn by Cuaron's ability to make a film out of classic children's novels. "I'd seen A Little Princess, which I thought was an excellent adaptation, not a very literal adaptation, but very faithful to the emotional truth of the story."

Similarly, she sees the movie as "Alfonso's version of my world. It's his baby. For the very obvious reason that books and films are such different media, to do a very literal adaptation maybe wouldn't serve the material best, and I think he's done exactly what I hoped he would do. He's put a lot of humor in there, and I think it's fantastic. I'd be very, very surprised if most people didn't find their favorite parts of the book in that film."

Hmmm, I distinctly remember reading in a interview Jo saying that the movie isn't meant to be hers, it's Alfonso's baby. So, I guess she disagrees with you.
:huh: And your point being?

I'm not Jo Rowling, while I love the books she's written to the point where she's my equal favorite author (Along with Anne Mccaffrey) that doesn't automatically mean I'm going to agree with everything she says or does nor should it.

I think that the POA wasn't as good as the first 2. I didn't know that the POA director didn't direct the 4th. I thought he already did. Now that I think about it, there weren't a lot of different transitions in HP3 (at least it's a break from the ever-popular "disolves" and "fades"). They didn't have enough Quiddich and they cut out to many of the good parts as well.

After leaving the Shrieking Shack, Harry and Hermione are tending to Ron. Sirius walks on ahead of them, and Hermione urges Harry to accompany him - saying "go with Sirius, I'll stay here/back with Ron. It will be alright."

Does anyone else think this could foreshadow the end? JK Rowling said that at least one scene sent shivers down her spine. This, simple as it is, could ... the dialog could easily be replicated later on, d'you think?

Rowling wants Cuaron to return for one of the later films, so nee-ner, nee-ner.

Doh! http://forum.e46fanatics.com/images/smilies/banghead.gif He may have done other films in the past, but he certainly looked like an amateur in PoA. Or maybe he's never edited a film before or used special effects and left that stuff up to other people. Hard to imagine a director not having a hand in final editing though.


Michael Gambon is a highly esteemed actor. Richard Harris also was, but his performance was greatly hindered by his very poor health. He was getting chemo treatments at the time and simply could not project Dumbledore's vitality into the role. (It's a great shame - but they really should have cast someone much younger from the start, as it is easier for a middle aged man to look old and act young than for an old man to look old and act young.)

I'm sure Michael Gambon is a fine actor. I just don't think he did a very good job in PoA. Hopefully, he'll do a much better job in GoF.

I loved Richard Harris' performances in the first two films. If his health hindered him, it musta only been in the physical stuff. I loved how he inflected words, facial expressions, etc. Even his wink was particularly good. That's one of the things that bothered me most about Gambon. His wink was horrible compared to Harris'.

Does anyone else think this could foreshadow the end? JK Rowling said that at least one scene sent shivers down her spine. This, simple as it is, could ... the dialog could easily be replicated later on, d'you think?

Quite possibly. A lot of us suspect that Harry will choose to give up his own life at the end. Sirius' and Lupins' lines to Harry that he is more like his parents than he knows and that someday he will see that would foreshadow this.

Ron and Hermione (and perhaps Ginny) will be there at the end, you can be certain. Harry's parting lines to them could easily seem a paraphrasing of those lines.


If so, then look for VII to have less of a tear-jerker ending and more of a Noah's Flood ending.

Or maybe he's never edited a film before or used special effects and left that stuff up to other people. Hard to imagine a director not having a hand in final editing though.

Most people consider the film to have been very well edited, especially in comparison to the first two (which had pacing that could best be described as "turgid").




I loved Richard Harris' performances in the first two films. If his health hindered him, it musta only been in the physical stuff. I loved how he inflected words, facial expressions, etc. Even his wink was particularly good. That's one of the things that bothered me most about Gambon. His wink was horrible compared to Harris'.

Well, a wink is a wink to me.

As for Harris, his vocal performance was fine in P/SS, but his voice was so weak and strained in CoS that it was a little tough to bear. I felt really bad for the guy, knowing that he must have been suffering greatly while doing the performance. He also lost the expressiveness that he had in P/SS (and which Gambon did so well). This really was not his fault: chemo completely saps a person.

The real problem was that CoS Dumbledore was just so obviously frail. You could see people supporting him fairly frequently, too. That was a shame because part of what makes Dumbledore's character so entertaing is the youthful vigor that JKR projects for him in the page. It was there in P/SS and PoA, but it was absent in CoS.


Again, it was not Richard Harris' fault. Most people that I know thought that they had gotten him back for PoA, having figured that someone else played the role in CoS. (Most of them did not realize that it was Richard Harris or Michael Gambon underneath all of the hair! Otherwise, they would not have made that mistake...)

I think that the POA wasn't as good as the first 2. I didn't know that the POA director didn't direct the 4th. I thought he already did. Now that I think about it, there weren't a lot of different transitions in HP3 (at least it's a break from the ever-popular "disolves" and "fades"). They didn't have enough Quiddich and they cut out to many of the good parts as well.

Hmm, I don't recall any transitions in the first two films. It was just scene-scene-scene-scene etc.
At least in PoA, we got fades and disolves. Things such as the drawing turning into the quidditch match or him looking into the window in the train, made the film extra special.

The transitions in PoA were excellent.

I really didn't like how Alfonso Curon made changes to the settings, as in moving things around at Hogwarts. I believe that once you have a place set up, it should remain that way. Since I've argued this a million times before so I won't go into detail about it again.

On the other hand, I like how the darkness of the book was depicted in this movie. At times it seemed like there was some overacting, but I think that the overall tone of the book was represented very nicely. The actors are maturing along with the characters so they are able to show the emotional span that the characters are going through. As far as acting and tone, this is my favorite movie. As far as the sets and cinematography, I think the other two are better.

Alfonso Curon ruined the best HP book so far IMO. I have posted on this before and could rant, like you, for pages. His arrogance got in the way of staying true to the book and he ruined the movie.

Alfonso Curon ruined the best HP book so far IMO. I have posted on this before and could rant, like you, for pages. His arrogance got in the way of staying true to the book and he ruined the movie.

I disagree, Hudson. I think that he chose a different style for the Harry Potter movies (visual scenery, darkness, etc.) and just because the style was different from the first two films, people didn't like it. I personally enjoyed it, but even if you didn't, how can you say that he ruined the book? He definetely stayed true to it and I thought he made it exciting to watch on screen.

I disagree, Hudson. I think that he chose a different style for the Harry Potter movies (visual scenery, darkness, etc.) and just because the style was different from the first two films, people didn't like it. I personally enjoyed it, but even if you didn't, how can you say that he ruined the book? He definetely stayed true to it and I thought he made it exciting to watch on screen.

Very well said Dobby4Pres!

Cuaron did stay true to the main story and theme of the book, to which I thank him for. I thought the movie did the book-to-movie transaction perfectly- something which I cannot say for the first two movies, which were too by the book for their own good. I would like once again to post a quote which is important to remember.

"...What is the justification of spending money if you are just going to produce a series of pictures alongside the dialogue of the novel? You've got to offer an interpretation of the novel." –– Andrew Davies: Pride and Prejudice Screenwriter.

I disagree, Hudson. I think that he chose a different style for the Harry Potter movies (visual scenery, darkness, etc.) and just because the style was different from the first two films, people didn't like it. I personally enjoyed it, but even if you didn't, how can you say that he ruined the book? He definetely stayed true to it and I thought he made it exciting to watch on screen.

Many small things that to me were just irritating. His excuse for leaving out meaningful things was time, but then he added things like the STUPID scene of Harry and them eating the candy and making animal noises. That scene was just embarassing. The other big one that irritated me was changing the Hogwarts grounds.....pointless. Another was the Lupin not letting Harry do the buggot. In the movie he jumped between the buggot and Harry AFTER it had changed into a dementor, but then later said he feared it would be Voldemort.....hello!? It had ALREADY turned into the dementor! Harry seeing Wormtail on the marauders map...terrible. Dementors flying...bad. The petronus being a shield that the dementors would feed on instead of the person!? Then the dementor will just sit there feeding until the wizard drops it and then it will go after the wizard again.

But the unforgiveable sin IMO was not explaining who Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs were. Harry's petronus means so much to him because it is the image of his father. People who only saw the movie do not understand this.

Many small things that to me were just irritating. His excuse for leaving out meaningful things was time, but then he added things like the STUPID scene of Harry and them eating the candy and making animal noises. That scene was just embarassing.

That is called "development." It shows you Harry being a kid and why he likes Hogwarts, and also shows you what the magical world is like. It also is very much in keeping with the humor of the first three books and even through GoF.


The other big one that irritated me was changing the Hogwarts grounds.....pointless.

Sure there was a point. The original grounds were drab. Besides, almost nobody noticed this.

Another was the Lupin not letting Harry do the buggot. In the movie he jumped between the buggot and Harry AFTER it had changed into a dementor, but then later said he feared it would be Voldemort.....hello!? It had ALREADY turned into the dementor!

Lupin began to move before it happens, actually.


Harry seeing Wormtail on the marauders map...terrible.

Why?

Dementors flying...bad.

Yeah, that ruined OotP for me.....

Harry's petronus means so much to him because it is the image of his father. People who only saw the movie do not understand this.

Harry did not know what it was until after the fact. It's nice, but it probably came off as a bit contrived. This was dropped after test screenings. Evidently the audiences did not think it was important.

Sure there was a point. The original grounds were drab. Besides, almost nobody noticed this.

There are scenes in subsequent books that will not work with the grounds layed out this way.


Lupin began to move before it happens, actually.

Watched a clip of it the other day on HBO. He did not.


Harry seeing Wormtail on the marauders map...terrible.

Why?

Because seeing that took some of the teeth out of the shrieking shack scene. I am not a super-duper dedicated fan, but I thoroughly enjoyed the books and felt that the shrieking shack scene was the BEST scene in the whole series to date. The way he messed with that just bugged me.


Harry did not know what it was until after the fact. It's nice, but it probably came off as a bit contrived. This was dropped after test screenings. Evidently the audiences did not think it was important.

If you feel that way then why aren't you on www.cuaron.com? I personally do not feel JKR's writing is contrived. I have read thousands of books in my life and I think she is a gited and talented storyteller.


You have your opinion and I have mine. We will just have to agree to disagree.

There are scenes in subsequent books that will not work with the grounds layed out this way.

Really? Which?


Because seeing that took some of the teeth out of the shrieking shack scene. I am not a super-duper dedicated fan, but I thoroughly enjoyed the books and felt that the shrieking shack scene was the BEST scene in the whole series to date. The way he messed with that just bugged me.

Yes, but by the time the Shrieking Shack happens, most readers realize that not everything is as it appears. The Firebolt sort of gives away that Sirius Black (the big black dog) might not be trying to kill Harry and we know something is up with Scabbers.

The movie needed to put that into the movie-goers mind: somethings are not as they appear. The book leaves a few clues about Scabbers: he's way to old, he's been upset since the time Sirius escaped, he's missing a finger, etc. The reader should have had suspicions of him by this point. The movie does not have time for such subtlety, so they needed a different approach.

Also, the Shrieking Shack scene in the book does include the only idiot plot of the series. Why does Lupin spend all of that time reminiscing about his childhood when he is about to turn into a werewolf??? It is not as if he does not get half a dozen reminders that he is a werewolf or even that he needed to take his potion that day. That would have looked really bad on film.


If you feel that way then why aren't you on www.cuaron.com? I personally do not feel JKR's writing is contrived. I have read thousands of books in my life and I think she is a gited and talented storyteller.

One, perhaps I am writing on Cuarón.com! Two, I am not sure how that statement follows The most important point here is that when I wrote that it would appear contrived, I meant on the screen. A line/passage/scene that comes across that seems to flow in a book can look arbitrary on the screen. The trick in an adaptation is to convey the meaning of a scene: something like this would be lost in translation and thus has to be radically redone or omitted.

That being said, Harry's stag is somewhat arbitrary. It does not stem from any of the interactions or plot build ups. It just sort of happens that way. We get an explanation of what it is after the fact. Indeed, we still do not know how it turned out that way, as Harry knew nothing about an association between his father and a stag.


You have your opinion and I have mine. We will just have to agree to disagree.

Agreed! However, JKR herself said that Cuarón did a very good job of telling her story. He certainly told the story that I read in the book.

"Agreed! However, JKR herself said that Cuarón did a very good job of telling her story. He certainly told the story that I read in the book."

As I have said many times even if you did not like a movie based on your book, would you bad mouth it and cost yourself millions of dollars? I am glad you liked the film. Different strokes for different folks.

Oh, and the scene in the book that does not work with the new grounds is in book 5 when Harry looks out of the castle and Umbrage's goons are attacking Hagrid and McGonagall. Harry is looking out of the Astrology tower and the fight is outside Hagrid's cabin. You can't see Hagrid's cabin from the castle in PoA.

So what? That is a very trivial matter!

Some of us have collaborated on a script for OotP and we decided that the Order members should be picked off one by one, and that exams are mere background material not worth spending time on. I, for one, would contrive to have Harry nearby when Hagrid is attacked - more dramatic. Have McGonagall prevent him from intervening, then have her attacked separately. Then punch the point home by giving the kids this kind of dialogue:

Harry: We're alone.
Ron: They've all been taken away.
Hermione: There's still Snape.

Boys.... puke.....

OK, :D - could do better. But there are many ways this part of the narrative could be handled. The location of the tower is neither here nor there. They could pull the thing down and still produce a good adaptation of OotP.

i love all the movies, but the first two are WAY better than the third one. the third one just felt so rushed. i dont normally care about book to film, but they should have explained who the marauders were. but the whole movie just gave me the impression of being rather hasty. and i didnt like the way they all wore normal clothes. that was bad. the movie lost a lot of the magic the first two had because of the hastiness of it all. but i must admit-i love what they did to tom feltons hair. makes him hotter than he was, if thats possible.

As I have said many times even if you did not like a movie based on your book, would you bad mouth it and cost yourself millions of dollars?

You are correct in that she probably would not have bad mouthed the movie. I do not think that JKR is quite Ursula LeGuinn.

However, your argument is misleading in that JKR would have phrased her praise entirely differently than she did if she disliked the movie. She would have damned it with faint praise or made utterly innocuous noises. She certainly would not have called it the best of the three so far (unless she really disliked the first two!).

JKR also would not have made public that she wanted Cuarón to come back and do another HP movie. Odd, but she never made any comments like that about Columbus....


As for liking PoA, it was not just me. Audiences responded far more favorably as did the critics. A much greater proportion of the PoA audience will return for GoF than returned from P/SS to see CoS. Indeed, the word of mouth was good enough that a lot of people that did not like CoS and P/SS must have gone to see PoA.

Indeed, had the other movies been as bold in their adaptation, HP movies probably would be raking in $350M a go....


Oh, and the scene in the book that does not work with the new grounds is in book 5 when Harry looks out of the castle and Umbrage's goons are attacking Hagrid and McGonagall. Harry is looking out of the Astrology tower and the fight is outside Hagrid's cabin. You can't see Hagrid's cabin from the castle in PoA.

First, that is utterly trivial. No one will worry about that three years after PoA. Second, it probably is incorrect. From the top of an Astronomy Tower, one probably could see over the trees to where things were.

Given that most of the audience did not realize that there was a new actor playing Dumbledore, I really doubt that anyone will notice this.

Great minds again.....

I give POA a 3 out of 5 because of the mistakes in the movie..............we see Harry/Ron/Hermione going down to care of Magical Creatures and they are walking down the side of the castle and if you look back at other shots of Hogwarts you'll notice that the road or piece of earth they are walking on is not there. Also some parts of the castle keep changing like the location of Hagrids hut. We see Harry flying through two towers when he is riding Buckbeack and the towers look tall and spiky, if look at SS, when Hedwig is flying you see the towers but they are much, much more shorter. The Womping Willow's location changed too, in CoS it was near the greenhouses and in PoA it's near the Forbidden Forest, then how did Harry and Ron go up that hill with their trunks and school bags in CoS?

i love all the movies, but the first two are WAY better than the third one. the third one just felt so rushed.

I don't believe it was rushed at all. Fast Paced, yes, but I think it got the story told.

[QUOTE=merry18 the movie lost a lot of the magic the first two had because of the hastiness of it all. but [/QUOTE]

That was magic? I thought it was a childlike influence over the whole films which made them unwatchable at times. Cuaron made real magic with PoA, in the sense that it had the atmosphere of the books.

Compared to the book, the POA movie just didn't do it for me. It strayed from the book to much in my opinion. Its just really hard to compete with that good of a book. The first two movies were great though, i thought. I don't see how they are going to cram GOF into a time-slot that is less than 3 hours. It is 735 pages!

I give POA a 3 out of 5 because of the mistakes in the movie..............Also some parts of the castle keep changing like the location of hragids hut. We see harry flying through two towers when he is riding buckebeack and the towers look tall ans spiky, if look at SS, when hedwig is flying you see the towers but they are much, much more shorter. The womping willow's location changed too, in COs it was near the greenhouses and in POA it's near the forbidden forest, then how did harry and ron go up that hill with their trunks and school bags in COS?

These can't really be called "mistakes", because Cuarón chose to change aspects of the setting to fit with his vision of Hogwarts. We can probably expect the next directors to change bits too if it suits them, and why shouldn't they? These small changes didn't affect people's understanding of the story, we still knew that the towers were the towers of Hogwarts and that the Whomping Willow was the Whomping Willow.

Well, all the cast members' hair is getting shabby (RON) and I personally thought they looked more true to their characters in the 1st and 2nd movies, clean cut and well-kempt.

Also, they're wearing regular clothes, even at Hogwarts again! GRRRR... that angered me. The first and second movies were much more true, if you ask me. Prisoner of Azkaban didn't do it for me. And the Goblet of Fire pictures don't look too promising, at least to ME.

Also, Richard Harris was the ONLY Dumbledore. Moment of silence for my all time favorite actor, he was truly magnificent.
M
O
U
R
N
I
N
G

S
I
L
E
N
C
E

As for this new Dumbledore... he was... I hate to be blunt, but terrible in POA. I was thinking Ian McKellen (Gandalf The Grey and The White, Lord of the Rings) would be much better for the role than the current one. I mean, c'mon, his beard was in a PONY TAIL!


I know I have strong views... and I hope someone agrees with my opinions.

I find a lot of people think this was the best out of the three but I thought it was the worst. I like the other two because they stick to the main storyline plus there are so manny funny parts. Unfortunately my fav. seen was cut out of the first movie. It's where Hermione asks Ron, "What are the three most crucial ingredients of a forgetfulness potion?" Ron : "I forget." Her: "What are you going to do on the final exam?" R: "Copy of you!" Her: "No you won't!" I find that so funny and it's also funny how Seamus cannot pronouce "appreciate". I also think they did an excellent job in casting the role of Gilderoy Lockhart. "I didn't get rid of the Banden Banshee by smiling at him" *huge smile* and Filch's line "Oh dear...we are in trouble."

Anyways to the point. I was really upset the first time I saw PoA. I thought the shrunken head was annoying and the scene with the Monster Book of Monsters was too long. Also they turned Tom the barkeeper in to a hunchback freak. He wasn't like that in the other movie. The only part I liked was the ending. However when I watch the movie now I think it is OK. I just have to get used to it.

I also agree with LicoriceWand, Ian would make an awesome Dumbledore...maybe they never asked him but if they did he might not even sign on because it is so long.

I love POA. I think it was fantastic because despite having taken out A LOT of plot points, and storyline...it made for a GREAT FILM BY ITSELF. See this is why I'm a movie fan first, then an adaption fan second. I love it loads better than CoS, because even though CoS covered most if not all the plot points of the book...that's all it was plot points. It was incredibly boring because it didn't bring anything new to the table.

I love how the movie has so many things going on at the same time where you just rewind and just see a scene over and over again. The way Malfor reacts to Harry trying to tame Buckbeak while Ron and Hermoine are front and centre. The movie pictures of Sirius Black. I love the small comedic touches, of Harry and the boys enjoying candy, Hermoine and Ron's awkward double entendres. Memorable music, the smartness of the whole time turner thing.

As for Gambon's Dumbledore...I love it. I had no problem's with Harris' Dumbledore, in fact I too agree that he was basically the Definative Dumbledore in look and personality. I would have loved to see Harris live long enough to film GoF and shoot the scene where he blasts down the door near the end of GoF all ****** off.

However I truly do love Gambom's Dumbledore because of the feeling of PoA. I truly felt that he played a perfect Dumbledore for the particular movie. His distracting everyone from what's happening behind their backs, his more devious child-like wit, as opposed to Harris' innocent child-like wit. I feel that Gambom's performance (although lacking in the exact look), embodied not the character itself, but another facet of the character that's one of many that make up Dumbldore.

Whether or not that transfers over to his second outing in the silver (lol Dull grey) bearded wizard. Me personally, I felt CoS really didn't do anything for me, everyone's perfomance was pretty poor, even Harris'. But we'll have to see.

It's quite too bad because considering OoTP more serious tones, I doubt that Cauron would be able to come back to direct another film. I would have loved for him to have done GoF, but OoTP would be fun to do...if only to showcase the Weasley Twins wreaking fun havoc.

I do think they should make Hermione uglier in the films though with her bushy hair and rabbit teeth. Then again they need to attract a male audience some how although she is ugly either way. Also I don't like the Parvati twins in the third movie. Their acting skills do not look promising plus they play a big part in the yule ball in the next movie and they don't look devloped enough. They look like they're in gr 5.

Oh and the fourth movie trailer looks awesome but Cedric Diggory is supposed to be handsome but he is sort of ugly.

POA is, without a doubt, the best of all the movies so far. The one true complaint that I have is the whole "Titanic scene." Yeah, you know what I mean! Harry flying on Buckbeak over the lake and the Hogwarts grounds, looking like he's the "King of the World", and taking up about half an hour of the film. :td: Terrible! What a waste of time and energy!!! In the book, his ride lasted about thirty seconds, not thirty minutes! My god! Whew!

I guess I'll always have a pet peeve when it comes to the movies, just because they can't follow the books verbatim.... But that's just what happens when you have them memorized, cover to cover, I think all obsessed HP fans would agree with me on that one!!! :elaugh:

Also I don't like the Parvati twins in the third movie. Their acting skills do not look promising plus they play a big part in the yule ball in the next movie and they don't look devloped enough. They look like they're in gr 5.

Well, I suppose you'll be happy to know that the Patil twins are being played by different girls in GoF than in PoA or the previous movies...although I'm not sure how "developed" you wanted them to look in PoA, considering that they were only 13 in PoA. :lol:

I guess I'll always have a pet peeve when it comes to the movies, just because they can't follow the books verbatim.... But that's just what happens when you have them memorized, cover to cover, I think all obsessed HP fans would agree with me on that one!!!

Well, I won't argue with you too much since you did say that PoA was your favorite movie ( ;) ), but I'm pretty obsessed and I don't want the movies to be like that. If I want a verbatim copy of the books, I'll reread the books. The movies should entertain me while not dragging on forever.

I thought it was bad how the marauders were not explained.
Also, the end with Harry's face and him shouting HE WAS THEIR FRIEND!!!!
was really like :huh: :rolleyes:

ye thats true. i don't think that danielle radcliff is a good actor at all! Emma and the one who plays ron are way better. Don't yuou think?

I liiked the bit where harry got on the hippogriff though. And when the dementors got on the train. :tu:

I think so to Emma and Rupert are great.

I thought it was bad how the marauders were not explained.:
Yea, that made me pretty mad and still makes me mad evry time I watch that scene in the shrieking shack.They never explained:
1) How Lupin knew how to use the map and how he got to the shack
2) How Snape got to the shack in the nick of time
3) Why Snape hates Lupin and Sirius and vice versa so much
4) And never told the nicknames of the marauders (probably goes under how they didn't explain them but oh well :huh: )

I feel that this movie was the least true to the books of all the movies. By taking out the quidditch and certain characters, they completly changed the story. Also, did anyone notice that Harry didn't get his new broomstick until the end. This completely eleminated the animosity between Ron and Hermione that ran through the book. Well, That is what I thought of the movie.

This completely eleminated the animosity between Ron and Hermione that ran through the book. Well, That is what I thought of the movie.

I think they still managed to keep a semblance of it with Ron accusing Crookshanks of killing Scabbers. It pretty much continued when Ron didn't appologize to Hermoine in Hagrid's cabin.

I feel that this movie was the least true to the books of all the movies. By taking out the quidditch and certain characters, they completly changed the story. Also, did anyone notice that Harry didn't get his new broomstick until the end. This completely eleminated the animosity between Ron and Hermione that ran through the book. Well, That is what I thought of the movie.

I don't really see how taking out the quidditch changes the story of PoA...if I recall correctly, the most important event that happens due to quidditch in PoA is Harry seeing Sirius and being attacked by the Dementors during a match. Harry playing quidditch, in itself, is not important to the story, so we can't see three quidditch matches in each movie. The Sirius/Dementor quidditch scene was left in the movie. Also, I thought they were able to keep the Ron/Hermione animosity intact fairly well with Crookshanks and (hey, look at me, does anything seem strange about me?) Scabbers. Care to elaborate on which characters that were left out that changed the story?

POA is, without a doubt, the best of all the movies so far. The one true complaint that I have is the whole "Titanic scene." Yeah, you know what I mean! Harry flying on Buckbeak over the lake and the Hogwarts grounds, looking like he's the "King of the World", and taking up about half an hour of the film. :td: Terrible! What a waste of time and energy!!! In the book, his ride lasted about thirty seconds, not thirty minutes! My god! Whew!

Was I the only one who liked this scene? I found the scene exhilirating and it made me imagine how cool it would be to actually do that- fly on a hipogriff! I thought the scenery was great and IMO this scene is a perfect example of the magic that Cuaron added to this movie that the other movies lacked. It made something completely fantasy look realistic and believable.

Oh yeah, and I know you weren't serious when you said it (just exaggerating to make a point) but there is a big difference between 30 minutes and 2 minutes.

Was I the only one who liked this scene? I found the scene exhilirating and it made me imagine how cool it would be to actually do that- fly on a hipogriff! I thought the scenery was great and IMO this scene is a perfect example of the magic that Cuaron added to this movie that the other movies lacked. It made something completely fantasy look realistic and believable.

I thought it was a perfect scene. Especially leading up to it. The entire class moving back, singling out Harry. When Hagrid says it's time to ride him, Harry's look is priceless like "***?" His reluctance to go was pretty darn funny and best of all, just seeing the scope of hogwarts was pretty darn cool. It was a very good "cake" scene IMHO. Sure there's the king of the world look to it, but it looked cool nevertheless. It just amazes me how well they put the entire thing together. With the bluescreen, the CG and how they managed to connect the bucking hippogriff machine to synch up with the CG animation just makes me go "wow".

GAAH! I loved the flying-on-Buckbeak scene too! It just made me happy. ;) The best part of it was probably the music, #6 on the soundtrack . . . just amazing!!

.... And I just don't understand people who prefer the first two movies to the third one! Arrrr . . . Dude, I found this review (http://www.hatrack.com/osc/reviews/everything/2004-06-06.shtml) of the PoA movie by Orson Scott Card!! You know, the author of Ender's Game? He's my hero. (Card, not Ender . . . although he is too)

I like the scene as well, except for the point at which Harry puts out his arms exactly like in Titanic...that was a bit much. The part at which the entire class backs up, leaving Harry to appear as though he volunteered to ride Buckbeak, was great.

Thanks for posting that review, Emlyn...he sums up my feelings about the movies perfectly!

Excellent review from OSC.

One nitpick:

and he shows us a wild, untamed north country of England that makes the magic come to life.

It's actually Scotland.

Was I the only one who liked this scene? I found the scene exhilirating and it made me imagine how cool it would be to actually do that- fly on a hipogriff! I thought the scenery was great and IMO this scene is a perfect example of the magic that Cuaron added to this movie that the other movies lacked. It made something completely fantasy look realistic and believable.
Actually I loved that scene save for the 'king of the world' pose, something more like a raised fist or similar would have felt more appropriate. Still apart from that I thought Buckbeak was one of the film's highlights.

Many people say that scene was totally unneeded, but I think things like that are important in movies too.

Actually I loved that scene save for the 'king of the world' pose, something more like a raised fist or similar would have felt more appropriate. Still apart from that I thought Buckbeak was one of the film's highlights.

For some reason I imagine that to be even cheesier. :huh:

The more I think about it, the more I realize that it's very different to compare the 3 movies. They're all excellent in that their tones seem to fit the respective books; the change seen in PoA, & what I think makes it most people's favorite movie, is appropriate given that's where the books turned darker & more mature. It's really not fair to say PoA was better or worse than the first 2 films because the themes are not on the same plane.

Aside from that, one criticism I have that I think is fair is the change in the school sets. When I first saw SS I thought, wow, this place could really exist: it looks like some old place hidden away somewhere that I could one day stumble across. But the more I watch PoA the less realistic the whole environment seems, namely that courtyard area from which the students depart for Hogsmeade. Every time I watch those scenes all I can think is wow that looks like it's made of plaster (or whatever), & it really takes away from the movie as a whole. I don't know if Alfonso Cuaron had an issue with the interiors established by Chris Columbus, but beautiful as that hillside was, I found myself longing for the days when a lot more of the production value was put into the castle's set design. But as with the scripts, I suppose compromises do have to be made... :shrug:

Aside from that, one criticism I have that I think is fair is the change in the school sets. When I first saw SS I thought, wow, this place could really exist: it looks like some old place hidden away somewhere that I could one day stumble across. But the more I watch PoA the less realistic the whole environment seems, namely that courtyard area from which the students depart for Hogsmeade. Every time I watch those scenes all I can think is wow that looks like it's made of plaster (or whatever), & it really takes away from the movie as a whole. I don't know if Alfonso Cuaron had an issue with the interiors established by Chris Columbus, but beautiful as that hillside was, I found myself longing for the days when a lot more of the production value was put into the castle's set design. But as with the scripts, I suppose compromises do have to be made... :shrug:

I thought the grounds in PoA were more realistic for a school set in Scotland myself, but I understand what you mean. The problem I had with the previous grounds were that it was as if Hogwarts was on a flat lawn in England, when it is pretty much the opposite, and Hogwarts has a much bigger area then that.

Actually I loved that scene save for the 'king of the world' pose, something more like a raised fist or similar would have felt more appropriate. Still apart from that I thought Buckbeak was one of the film's highlights.
For some reason I imagine that to be even cheesier. :huh:
It would have been cheesy, yes, but at least it wouldn't have been such an obviously recognisable piece of parmesan.

I'm not saying that's the only way it could have been done either, just that of all the ways that scene could have been done that part of it felt the least appropriate and most contrived.

I thought the grounds in PoA were more realistic for a school set in Scotland myself, but I understand what you mean. The problem I had with the previous grounds were that it was as if Hogwarts was on a flat lawn in England, when it is pretty much the opposite, and Hogwarts has a much bigger area then that.
Oh I'll most definately agree with you on that one, my problem with the scene changes was the inconsistency with the previous films not the setting itself. Had they used the POA setting from the beginning it would have been perfect.

I just rewatched this movie tonight and felt ashamed at how often I looked at the screen and thought "Harry Potter's really good looking..." His voice was really deep too, I never noticed that when I watched it before. Anyway, I'm not creepy or old or anything, I'm only like 4 years older than Dan... I was just disturbed because I'd never thought that he was that hot before and I've seen the movie tons of times. Anyway, GREAT Movie overall. The special features are especially great. I love the tour of Lupin's Classroom/Office!! CAN'T wait for GOF (in case you can't tell from my signature.)

I just rewatched this movie tonight and felt ashamed at how often I looked at the screen and thought "Harry Potter's really good looking..." His voice was really deep too, I never noticed that when I watched it before. Anyway, I'm not creepy or old or anything, I'm only like 4 years older than Dan... I was just disturbed because I'd never thought that he was that hot before and I've seen the movie tons of times. Anyway, GREAT Movie overall. The special features are especially great. I love the tour of Lupin's Classroom/Office!! CAN'T wait for GOF (in case you can't tell from my signature.)
I can't say I have experienced that yet... ^^;; The tour of Lupin's classroom was interesting. I'm sure I've said it before but I liked the game of chasing Scabbers with Crookshanks. If only they would have let the cat get the rat...

i was wondering if anyone could help me out:

in the scene when Harry comes around after he fell off his broom during Quidditch, there are a few people standing around his bed, all the people you'd expect like ron and fred and george and other quidditch players but then there's a black girl in a biege jacket who looks extremley bored.. me and my friend laugh at her every time in that scene just because she's so RANDOM. i don't understand why on earth she's there, who the hell is she?

Angelina Johnson, I think, as she is still on the team and will become captain in OOTP. She also has her hair braided like Johnson, which is why I think it is her you see, but you are right in that she does look bored, but perhaps that is what the director wanted her to look. Angelina is a serious person I think, so perhaps he wanted her to look serious? Anyway, I like the Quidditch scenes in POA, mainly as it looks a hell of a lot better than the scenes on PS and COS, which were amateur when comparing the special effects and how fast paced and ' realistic ' playing style. Plus, I love the weather elements, making it seem a more dangerous proposition when being on a broom and trying to find the quaffle or snitch in amongst the players, the rain and the bludgers. It is the only quidditch scene out of the three movies I wish the director actually extended, as it was perfect in every single way, in my opinion at elast, of how quidditch was supposed to look in a movie realm.
On a related topic, although Oliver was not present on the match, did you catch how they still put in a Keeper guarding the hoops digitally? I thought it was rather well done, and I had to laugh becasue when I saw it, I was thinking of seeing SB watching that and probably cursing along the lines of ' ' They replaced fabulous me with a @#@ digital guy!'. lol!! :)

Angelina Johnson, I think, as she is still on the team and will become captain in OOTP. She also has her hair braided like Johnson, which is why I think it is her you see, but you are right in that she does look bored, but perhaps that is what the director wanted her to look. Angelina is a serious person I think, so perhaps he wanted her to look serious? Anyway, I like the Quidditch scenes in POA, mainly as it looks a hell of a lot better than the scenes on PS and COS, which were amateur when comparing the special effects and how fast paced and ' realistic ' playing style. Plus, I love the weather elements, making it seem a more dangerous proposition when being on a broom and trying to find the quaffle or snitch in amongst the players, the rain and the bludgers. It is the only quidditch scene out of the three movies I wish the director actually extended, as it was perfect in every single way, in my opinion at elast, of how quidditch was supposed to look in a movie realm.
On a related topic, although Oliver was not present on the match, did you catch how they still put in a Keeper guarding the hoops digitally? I thought it was rather well done, and I had to laugh becasue when I saw it, I was thinking of seeing SB watching that and probably cursing along the lines of ' ' They replaced fabulous me with a @#@ digital guy!'. lol!! :)

Actually I believe it is Lavender Brown. Angelina is played by the same actress from the first two movies, she is in the scene with the firebolt.

I disagree, as the actress who is in this scene we are talking about is too ' masculine' in appearance when you compare her to the petite actress who portrays Lavender Brown in the POA movie. They look similar, but I am sure they are not the same. Also, Lavender Brown would not be with the quidditch players in the hospital I think, it would mainly be the team members and Harry's friends.

I disagree, as the actress who is in this scene we are talking about is too ' masculine' in appearance when you compare her to the petite actress who portrays Lavender Brown in the POA movie. They look similar, but I am sure they are not the same. Also, Lavender Brown would not be with the quidditch players in the hospital I think, it would mainly be the team members and Harry's friends.

Girl in hospital wing: http://www.veritaserum.com/galleries/albums/poa-screenshots/thumb_poa0514.jpg

Angelina:
http://www.veritaserum.com/galleries/albums/ss-screenshots/normal_0421.jpg

They look pretty different to me.

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

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

Amen to both of these! My biggest complaint. It really lacked magic in that way! The whole film was sadly less magical than the first 2.

I think it had a lot to do with that director. But isn't there a new director for GOF? Here's hoping!

Oh my... I watched CoS the other day.

I can't get over how much BETTER PoA is than that tripe. Words cannot express how angry I got watching CoS, thinking in every single scene how it could have been done better. The whole thing reeked of a B-movie. I had to watch PoA to settle my blood pressure.

Exactly. Columbus is essentially a B movie director who is sometimes handed a large budget. Home Alone is about his level.

i beleive that PoA was a good film but was not great, with the addition and changes of the scenes from the first two but then again it sets up for the 4th movie being darker and a wee bit glomier

COS was a movie that could have set the series up nicely for a more adult and darker feel, as from COS it is that the series gets evidently darker and much more adult themes come into play. However, it was handed to a Director who, while good at doing kids films like Home Alone and so the directing stlyle suited the juvenile tone of PS, it did not however suit COS. Many felt Alfonso should have been given COS, thus setting the darker tone earlier in the series and thus saving it from mediocre reviews and fans turning off it in the movie universe. Then, POA could have been handed over to a director with an even darker edge, like James Cameron or David Fincher.

COS was a movie that could have set the series up nicely for a more adult and darker feel, as from COS it is that the series gets evidently darker and much more adult themes come into play. However, it was handed to a Director who, while good at doing kids films like Home Alone and so the directing stlyle suited the juvenile tone of PS, it did not however suit COS. Many felt Alfonso should have been given COS, thus setting the darker tone earlier in the series and thus saving it from mediocre reviews and fans turning off it in the movie universe. Then, POA could have been handed over to a director with an even darker edge, like James Cameron or David Fincher.
I think that Cuaron's timing was perfect. CoS was definitely darker than SS, but at that time, Harry Potter was still touted as primarily a children's series. (Now, the movies are marketed to a much wider age range.) It wasn't clear that the series was getting progressively darker until the next books were out. I think that Columbus made a couple of kid movies with the first two, and sometimes it's hard to watch them because they're fairly blah, but I think that the movies needed to start with a more innocent base.

I also think that PoA is a real turning point for the movies NOT ONLY because of what Cuaron did for it, but also because the kids were maturing more and were becoming better actors. If he had directed CoS, I doubt the kids would've put forth such good performances. They were still growing as kids and actors. I don't think Columbus stifled them, but they were still getting the necessary experience to grow as actors in later films. By the time Cuaron got to them, they were old enough to take a giant step forward in their profession. If Cuaron had got to them a couple of years earlier, I don't think it would've been as successful.

Who was the boy that was black and kind of big? He only said a few lines in the whole movie... I think he was the one that said that the grim was the sign of death. Who the heck was that supposed to be? He came out of nowhere. During the movie, one of my friends pointed him out to me and I couldn't stop laughing because if you watch him closely he looks like he's wasted. There are some points (I think one of the times was in Potions class) when he'll be in the background and he'll be staring off blankly. It really does look like he's wasted, no joking. Does anyone know who he is?

Who was the boy that was black and kind of big? He only said a few lines in the whole movie... I think he was the one that said that the grim was the sign of death. Who the heck was that supposed to be? He came out of nowhere. During the movie, one of my friends pointed him out to me and I couldn't stop laughing because if you watch him closely he looks like he's wasted. There are some points (I think one of the times was in Potions class) when he'll be in the background and he'll be staring off blankly. It really does look like he's wasted, no joking. Does anyone know who he is?
I have been trying to figure out who he is, too. I want to say Dean Thomas, since it looks like he's in Harry's year, but I'm pretty sure the kid who was supposed to be Dean was in the first two films (and this one), and this new kid wasn't.

*scratches head*

Who was the boy that was black and kind of big? He only said a few lines in the whole movie... I think he was the one that said that the grim was the sign of death. Who the heck was that supposed to be? He came out of nowhere. During the movie, one of my friends pointed him out to me and I couldn't stop laughing because if you watch him closely he looks like he's wasted. There are some points (I think one of the times was in Potions class) when he'll be in the background and he'll be staring off blankly. It really does look like he's wasted, no joking. Does anyone know who he is?He was a British schoolboy who won a publicity contest to be in the film and say a couple of lines.

Who was the boy that was black and kind of big? He only said a few lines in the whole movie... I think he was the one that said that the grim was the sign of death. Who the heck was that supposed to be? He came out of nowhere. During the movie, one of my friends pointed him out to me and I couldn't stop laughing because if you watch him closely he looks like he's wasted. There are some points (I think one of the times was in Potions class) when he'll be in the background and he'll be staring off blankly. It really does look like he's wasted, no joking. Does anyone know who he is?

I could have sworn he was the Half-Blood Prince ( ;) ), but alas, no...he is pretty funny though, completely random and inexplicably present for anyone who has read the book!

I think PoA was better than the other two movies mostly because the actors are getting better as they grow older... but the movies will never be as good as the books in my opinion.

I have some questions about the 2-Disc Widescreen Edition DVD:

Is there no commentary? I can't find it so the answer is evidently no, but for some reason I thought there was a commentary by Cuaron.

On the back of the DVD cover, it says that the special features includes an interview with JK Rowling, as well as an interview of the cast conducted by Johnny Vaughan and Lead Raucous (who plays the shrunken head). I can't seem to find either of those items on either of the disks. Does anybody know where to look?

Thanks!

I have some questions about the 2-Disc Widescreen Edition DVD:

Is there no commentary? I can't find it so the answer is evidently no, but for some reason I thought there was a commentary by Cuaron.

On the back of the DVD cover, it says that the special features includes an interview with JK Rowling, as well as an interview of the cast conducted by Johnny Vaughan and Lead Raucous (who plays the shrunken head). I can't seem to find either of those items on either of the disks. Does anybody know where to look?

Thanks!
I don't believe there is a director's commentary. :(

The interviews are DEFINITELY on the second disk. I would be a lot more helpful if I were to actually look for them on the disk right now...but if memory serves, they're under Divination. Maybe under Care of Magical Creatures, too. Or was that something else? Oh, I bet my advice is useless... (I'm afraid that if I pop the disk in, I'll want to watch it all night!)

I don't believe there is a director's commentary. :(

The interviews are DEFINITELY on the second disk. I would be a lot more helpful if I were to actually look for them on the disk right now...but if memory serves, they're under Divination. Maybe under Care of Magical Creatures, too. Or was that something else? Oh, I bet my advice is useless... (I'm afraid that if I pop the disk in, I'll want to watch it all night!)

yup, no commentary, & yes, the interviews are under divination...under hogwarts grounds are the making-of features that include more little interviews

I voted excellent. :) I really liked the film and I think Cuaron did a great job. The film was much more interesting than the other two, I felt Hogwarts atmosphere. It had touching moments (Sirius and Harry), a lot of funny things (It`s spiders! They want me to tapdance! - Tell them you don`t want to. - Ah, right... :)). I liked that the Trio wore casual clothes, not robes all the time. And the ending was really unexpected. I was sitting in the cinema and was shocked when I saw the titles. I didn`t belive the film was finished. :) And Dan, Rupert and Emma played much better that in the previous films, I really like Hermione in this movie, more than anybody else. So I`m really looking forward to GoF - the trailers are amazing! :):):)

hellow fellena 90 and welcome to the COS forums! I think that POA more or less saved the series from B grade mediocracy, as now the POA DVD's are still selling strongly while COS AND PS are now in some bargain bins in target and big w.

hellow fellena 90 and welcome to the COS forums! I think that POA more or less saved the series from B grade mediocracy,
I'm kind of hoping GOF will do that, POA was a classic case of 'what could have been but wasn't' for me.

as now the POA DVD's are still selling strongly while COS AND PS are now in some bargain bins in target and big w.
I'd be interested to see some figures to back that up as all three are now in the discount shelves at my local Target (no Big W where I live). Mind you they'll probably pop them up the front again when GOF is closer to release much like they did with the first five books when HBP was released.

The film was great! I just thought they should have put in the last quiddtch match. That would have been awesome! Also my fave part was Hermione punching Malfoy!!! *The little white ferrit*:rotfl:

I liked it. As a matter of fact, I liked it the best out of the three. But the lack of information on the marauders was the most disappointing. Then there was no Quidditch final, Harry's freeze frame (*shudder*), the untimely appearance of the Firebolt and Hermione's strange howl. But I thought the Dementors looked really cool and the Trio looked exactly as I picture them in my head when I'm reading the books. And Gary Oldman made a fantastic Sirius and Thewlis was a good Moony even though I was hoping Liam Neeson to play that part. Gambon was an ok Dumbledore but he did a good job nonetheless. Anyway, I gave it 4 stars.

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.
But then where did flitwick go???...

But then where did flitwick go???...

Why does it really matter? Professor Flitwick is virtually useless in the book so they got the actor to do something else.I don't see how Flitwicks absence from PoA is any different then Professor Sprouts or Madam Pomfrey's.

I like all of the Harry Potter films.

I was glad to see PoA get darker than the first 2, but I think that Cauron took too much liberty with the plot (like where the Firebolt arrived at the end of the film when it should have happened half way). However, it was still good.
The only thing that I really didn't like was the lack of school robes, which took away from the Hogwarts atmosphere I think.

Other than that, the effects were great, the actors were even better and I think that Cauron did a fairly good job of getting the book to fit into less than 3 hours. It is a pity that the movies can't be longer.

Why does it really matter? Professor Flitwick is virtually useless in the book so they got the actor to do something else.I don't see how Flitwicks absence from PoA is any different then Professor Sprouts or Madam Pomfrey's.

Actually Flitwick was there. It was the same actor too. They just changed his appearance, that's all. He's the one conductiing the choir in the beginnng of the great hall scene. You see him again next to Snape when all the kids are sleeping in the great hall (because of Sirius's entry into Hogwarts).

Actually Flitwick was there. It was the same actor too. They just changed his appearance, that's all. He's the one conductiing the choir in the beginnng of the great hall scene. You see him again next to Snape when all the kids are sleeping in the great hall (because of Sirius's entry into Hogwarts).
Earlier in the thread we discussed how its the same actor, but in the cast hes listed as "choir conductor"...and I love flitwick...he's important...

Actually Flitwick was there. It was the same actor too. They just changed his appearance, that's all. He's the one conductiing the choir in the beginnng of the great hall scene. You see him again next to Snape when all the kids are sleeping in the great hall (because of Sirius's entry into Hogwarts).

But surely if the actor was playing the same character they would have credited it as such?

i think that the movie was good for those who haven't read the book. but for thoughs of us that read the book, know that they cut out at least half of it. but of the things that they did use the movie was very well done. so i think it is somewhere between fair and good.

I read PoA waaay before the movie came out, and I didn't bother to re-read it beforehand. So for someone who forgot a lot of the details about the book (I still do since it's the only book I don't own) and went to see the movie, I thought it was fantastic. I loved the darker atmosphere and tone. It was much more mature, yet it still had a playful spirit about it.

I actually wish I hadn't re-read "Goblet" now...

But surely if the actor was playing the same character they would have credited it as such?

Warwick Davis wasn't credited? Are you sure? That is him. Flitwick just got a makeover over the summer is all. :p

I liked POA movie overall, but was a tiny bit disappointed when the marauders wasn't explained, I'll live though. I knew going into the movie that it wasn't going to follow the book faithfully, scenes would be moved or truncated, lines said by other characters other than those who said them in the book and bits-n-peices of the book that wouldn't see the light of day in the movie. I do that with all book to movie adaptations so it eases the let down better so that I can enjoy the movie. Sirius and Lupin were portrayed nicely by Gary O. and David T. though I wish that they gave the role of Dumbledore to Sir Ian McKellan, but Gambon was pretty good I must admit. Contrary what most people think of SS/PS and CoS, they were done nicely and I give Columbus two thumbs up for a job well done, even though a few don't like Mr. Columbus. So I hope that you can live with him being one of the Executive Producers of the HP films, because as such he has the right to change, edit or cut things out of the movies he deems unnecessary. Though I'm sure he wouldn't without consulting the other E.P's.

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone can help me on this. My friend was telling me of some editorial or forum which said that JK Rowling was surprised when she saw POA movie, because by mistake they showed an aspect in the plot, which kinda affects the entire series. Ive been trying to find out what that is.....any else came accross this???

Thanks

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone can help me on this. My friend was telling me of some editorial or forum which said that JK Rowling was surprised when she saw POA movie, because by mistake they showed an aspect in the plot, which kinda affects the entire series. Ive been trying to find out what that is.....any else came accross this???

Thanks

There's been a few threads discussing this. I think the major one is that Ron and Hermione will eventually end up together. But one theory that kinda supports the Lily Snape connection (which I don't subscribe to, but it kinda makes sense) is:

One thing I noticed his how Lupin talked about Harry's mother, how caring she was and how she managed to see the good in people, even if the person themself is pretty much self loathing.

I think in that sense, it could refer to a possible compassion for Snape, despite being the little dark arts geek he was in school. Sure it might have referred to Lupin as well, but her compassion probably extended to everyone, not just Jame's friends.

http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=60508

There's been a few threads discussing this. I think the major one is that Ron and Hermione will eventually end up together. But one theory that kinda supports the Lily Snape connection (which I don't subscribe to, but it kinda makes sense) is:



http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=60508

Thanks mate,
I dun buy the lily thing ....i though JKR might be sayin sumthing more deep. well thanks again...

JKR has said that there were one or two things in PoA film which foreshadowed events in the last books and which, as she watched them, gave her goosebumps.

Snape protecting the trio and Lupin talking about Lily's compassion have been suggested.

I have a question I'm just wondering where Goyle was during some of the scenes. Instead he was replaced with some skinny tall slytherin. Like did the actor have some kinda illness or scheduling problem?

He was not replaced, that actor is an unnamed Slytherin in the credits but is likely to be Zabini in the HBP movie...

He was not replaced, that actor is an unnamed Slytherin in the credits but is likely to be Zabini in the HBP movie...

Well I'm not saying replaced since he did appear in some scenes as Goyle. But I'm just wondering why he wasn't accompanying Malfoy to continue the "anti trio" formation of Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle. I just want to know whether it was intentionally done or becuase the actor who played Goyle was sick or had other things to do on those shooting days.