PoA Film Discussion v3

The way it was in the film was exact with the way it was written in the book, Goyle did not appear in a lot of scenes but the unnamed kid did... and also I meant Nott not Zabini...

That unnamed Slytherin guy with Malfoy and Crabbe was Nott? I had no idea...

That unnamed Slytherin guy with Malfoy and Crabbe was Nott? I had no idea...

Nott is the only other Slytherin boy in that year besides Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle (and Zabini but he's black) so it's him by process of elimination. But it's unlikely Steve Kloves intentionally wrote him as Nott or anything. The Goyle actor probably just couldn't make it and they needed some other guy to hang around Malfoy (cuz a bully with only one lackey really is nothing). It's not like he's important so it's nothing to worry about. If you want to think of him as Nott (and I do cuz it just makes me feel better) go ahead.

Oh ok. I thought that there was an official confirmation or something that the guy really was Nott. Thanks for the clarification :)

I dont know if this has been mentioned before earlier ( I didnt look back at all 33 pages), but did anyone else realize that the POA's theme song sort of, Something Wicked This Way Comes, comes from the Shakespeare play McBeth, the 3 weird sisters (witches) say it during one of the Acts.

I dont know if this has been mentioned before earlier ( I didnt look back at all 33 pages), but did anyone else realize that the POA's theme song sort of, Something Wicked This Way Comes, comes from the Shakespeare play McBeth, the 3 weird sisters (witches) say it during one of the Acts.

Double double toil and trouble, fire burn and cauldron bubble =)

Yup, it's when the 3 witches make a prophecy (ironically) to MacBeth.

Double double toil and trouble, fire burn and cauldron bubble =)

Yup, it's when the 3 witches make a prophecy (ironically) to MacBeth.


Yea, I watched that play today in school, and when they said that im like That is so from Harry Potter :). Then I put two and two together and was like ohhh, thats where they got the idea from, the Shakespeare play MacBeth.

Yea, I watched that play today in school, and when they said that im like That is so from Harry Potter :). Then I put two and two together and was like ohhh, thats where they got the idea from, the Shakespeare play MacBeth.
No no, you've got it all wrong. Shakespeare was actually Ron who used a time turner to go back in time to write all those glorious plays. :p

I really liked POA except that they did not explain the Marauders.
In the dvd Cuaron explains that he had to make the path to Hagrid's hut steep so the trio could partly see the Buckbeak execution (actually a pumpkin)
One more thing, I don't know if this fits under foreshadowing, but when Hermione hugs Ron and Harry hugs Hermione, Harry looks like an outsider. In HBP, Harry worries about this very same thing when he realises that Ron and Hermione have thing for each other

I love POA!! Emma showed a lot of girl power in that movie!! Go Hermione!

Anyways, if I wasn't a reader, I would think that it was great!! But I was a bit disappointed cause had to cut a few of my favorites.. But it was good..

I love POA!! Emma showed a lot of girl power in that movie!! Go Hermione!
Yea, pity it was at other character's expense :sigh:.

Anyways, if I wasn't a reader, I would think that it was great!! But I was a bit disappointed cause had to cut a few of my favorites.. But it was good..
Actually to give credit where it was due there were a couple of scenes where the film did improve on the book. The first was where Hermione decked Draco rather than just slapped him as was in the book. Even Jo herself seems to have adopted this as it's mentioned in Half Blood Prince. The second was the conversation between Fudge, McGonagall, Rosmerta and Hagrid. Having such a discussion in private was much more plausable than in a crowded pub half full of students where anyone could (and did) overhear them.

Apart of the details already mentioned by other members (marauders missing, Ron and Hermoine switching quotres, etc) I did not enjoy this movie as much as the others.
PoA book is one of my favourites because to me there is a great tension and depht in the whole book, which becomes more and more and which is in no way reflected in the movie.
Tension:
Buckbeak issue: the hearing and the appeal, Hagrids despair, Ron and Hermoine trying to help.
Hermoine: Ron and Harry not talking to her and her getting more and more near a nervous breakdown.
Draco and Harry enemisty: The culmination in the Quidditch final, one of the most exciting sequences in the books.
Harrys flashes of his parents death becoming more and more precise (screaming-Voldemorts laugh-his mother pleading-his father)

Depht
In this book we get the first knowledge about Harrys past and family. About how they died. About their relationship with different characters (Peter, Sirius, Lupin, Snape). About some secrets.

With this I don't want to say that they should have left all this inside, of course you need to cut sequences. But I believe that the mood, the ambience of the book was not quite reflected in the movie.

And I don't like when they add pointless scenes (Fat Lady singing, for example)

But generally the movie was Ok.

I know I am gonna be crucified for saying this out in the open, but I HATED PoA.
First off, where is the plot, you do not learn that it was his father who made the Marauders map, they don't even say that harry's father is an animagus, and that is something important for the story.
Then, Sirius and Lupin. Sirius can change into a dog, no prob there but isn't he supposed to be a bear like dog and nog a tramp. make him big for crying out loud. Lupin, the werewolf, he looked like someone crossed a rat and a cat, put a little engorgio on it and then shaved it. In other words, the werewolf was extremely badly done
And last but not least, it's time for my favorite problem with this movie namely, dementors don't fly, they hover, and last time I checked hovering is not flying. I know this last one is looking for stuff to say about the movie but the flying dementors really got to me ya know, it was like they were flying on a bromm dureing that quidditch match.
And a little more about quidditch wouldn't have hurt anyone either, I mean, they won right, so why not tell that.

The movie has been on heavy rotation on the HBO channels lately. I respect others opinions and all, and I know every movie has it's flaws, but I really don't get some of the "hate" for this movie. Everyone is so up in arms about the lack of Marauders explanation. It's an interesting detail in the books but NOT in the movies. They are 2 different things. Besides, it's not THAT important! The Marauders give some background details on James, which is nice character development for the books, but in the movies James (and Lily) are simplified into "Harry's dead parents who were great wizards".

I do think that it would have been nice to mention that James was an animagus, so as to explain the white stag form that Harry's patronus takes. And Sirius's "The map never lies!!!" line did seem a bit funny because all we knew about the map's origin at that point was that it was taken from Filch's office. Why would Sirius be so passionate about knowing about it?

But these little things didn't ruin the movie at all. I think some are getting a bit carried away.

People do make a big deal about the things left out of the movie...However, I dont care, PoA is my favorite book and movie so far....The acting was very well done..I think Dan did a great job of portraying Harry becoming his own person who is capable of taking care of himself...Ron cracked me up in the movie...
I know this movie left out some things but what Harry Potter movie hasnt?

People do make a big deal about the things left out of the movie...However, I dont care, PoA is my favorite book and movie so far....The acting was very well done..I think Dan did a great job of portraying Harry becoming his own person who is capable of taking care of himself...Ron cracked me up in the movie...
I know this movie left out some things but what Harry Potter movie hasnt?
I had less of a problem with what was left out of the movie (barring the Marauders which would have only required a short exposition scene) than the unnecessary rubbish that was included. I mean was it really crucial to the story to see how many tweety birds that the whomping willow can swat or the Python-esque tree shedding it's Autumn leaves. For that matter the scene with Velma, sorry Harry, and Hermione getting into the tunnel beneath the tree started promisingly but soon degenerated into a Roadrunner cartoon. The less said about the shrunken head on the Knight Bus the better though the prescence of those in the Three Broomsticks worked reasonably well.

All up it wasn't a bad movie but with minor changes in the story and the setting it could have been an outstanding one. Still Warners can't complain, they've already got my $15 from the cinema and my $30 for the DVD. Though I have already seen Goblet of fire twice on the big screen and may yet see it once more, it was that much of an improvement.

I know I am gonna be crucified for saying this out in the open, but I HATED PoA.
First off, where is the plot, you do not learn that it was his father who made the Marauders map, they don't even say that harry's father is an animagus, and that is something important for the story.


No-one is going to crucify you. :) However the A plot of PoA is a combination of the plots of Great Expectations and Pride and Prejudice: chief protagonist gets the good guy and the bad guy mixed up, unravels the truth and gains a father figure.


That's the plot.

Who is or who isn't an animagus and who made a map are narrative details. I understand that fans wanted to see these on the screen, but they are not important to the plot, as I have outlined it above.

Unless you think the plot of PoA is completely different? In which case: what is the plot?

answer: it's about sirius black being fanciable.

I gave it a 5 star. It was the best yet (On DvD anyway)

it was a poor adaptation..i expected better..even though i bought the heavenly expensive DVD(oh, why, why) and am regretting it now...could have bought the pirated version..no, it would not be worth even that..oh well..its Harry Potter!
GOF makes up for it though. but i still rate POA the lowest.:td:
well, thats just me...i'm shocked at the poll results actually!

So what exactly constitutes a "good adaptation" of a book? That they include every single little detail? I don't agree with that. I think as long as the main plot, the main themes, and the characters are captured accurated (or nearly so), it's fine. I think PoA did that splendidly and thus was a great adaptation.

So what exactly constitutes a "good adaptation" of a book? That they include every single little detail? I don't agree with that. I think as long as the main plot, the main themes, and the characters are captured accurated (or nearly so), it's fine. I think PoA did that splendidly and thus was a great adaptation.

a "good adaptation" means the characters being consistant with the originals (not to mention absence of over-acting) and the main idea being portraid correctly and not wasting time on unnecessary details and plot. there. and getting the emotions right..as POA to me is a very emotional book.
:p
but hey, everyone to his own...

I think that Prisoner of Azkaban was the worst movie of the four. It was the sudden change that really got me. Plus the camera lighting, I didn't like, either. In went from nice and warm to cold and preppy.

it was a poor adaptation..i expected better..even though i bought the heavenly expensive DVD(oh, why, why) and am regretting it now...could have bought the pirated version..no, it would not be worth even that..oh well..its Harry Potter!
GOF makes up for it though. but i still rate POA the lowest.:td:
well, thats just me...i'm shocked at the poll results actually!

I am with you, 100%, :D!

I loved POA. I saw PS in theaters when I was 13 and disliked the adaptation greatly and therefore refused to go and see COS.

I had no intention of going to see POA until I saw the trailer and saw that there was a different style to it. I did not know that there was a director change and when I realized there was, my anticipation for that film grew greatly.

I saw the film in theaters and loved it. The cinematography, direction, score, art direction and performances were all a step up from before. The story was there and better than it had been in the first two movies. This was the film that, in my opinion, saved the franchise

I saw the film in theaters and loved it. The cinematography, direction, score, art direction and performances were all a step up from before. The story was there and better than it had been in the first two movies. This was the film that, in my opinion, saved the franchise

It seems apt for someone so observant of such things to have a signiture pic from Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind :)

I loved the movie....it didnt stay tooo much to the book but its good to add a little flavor of the directors to the film and thats what Alfonso did, i think he did a good job. My sisters (who know nothing of the books but LOVE the movies) sanid it was the best movie out of the four that came out, (I have three sisters and the oldiest, i think only loves the movie because the director is the same director of one of her favorite movies: Y Tu Mama Tambien)

It seems apt for someone so observant of such things to have a signiture pic from Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind :)

Funny, I was thinking the same thing. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is my #1 favorite movie, closely followed by Amélie.

I wonder if that's saying something about the majority of people who like POA. Is it possible that people who liked POA (especially as their favorite Potter film) all like the same kind of movies? It would be interesting to know. POA is probably in my top 10.....humm, maybe top 15 favorite movies. I would have to actually stop and think about it, but I know it's up there as a favorite for me. It's one of those movies that I can watch over and over again, and enjoy it every time.

I know, for me personally I prefer a film with depth, layers, and a film that has imagination, and POA has that.

I enjoy PP, COS, and GOF, but POA is on a different level then the others. The other films ended up feeling flat and one dimensional. I don't feel that the other films captured the magic the way POA did. Now....POA is not perfect, but I think it came closest to capturing the magic and feel of Harry Potter then any of the other films.

I enjoy PP, COS, and GOF, but POA is on a different level then the others. The other films ended up feeling flat and one dimensional. I don't feel that the other films captured the magic the way POA did. Now....POA is not perfect, but I think it came closest to capturing the magic and feel of Harry Potter then any of the other films.

Magical feel means different things to different people...but PoA was certainly the smartest and best made movie by far. It does share the sesibilities more of a more arthousey film with outstanding direction than in does to the usual blockbuster genre.

It seems quite likely that people who like PoA for the style of direction would like other films like that - things like Eternal Sunshine, Magnolia, Donnie Darko...films that come into the mainstream (a couple more than others), but definitely don't have typical mainstream sensibilities.

I felt that the problem with PoA is that it failed to capture the feel of the book. I get the same feeling watching and reading GoF despite the masterfully simplified plot, but PoA is just....weird. The pacing was strange, starting the first climax halfway through the book. The plot felt loose and awkward. I understand PoA was harder to adapt than Gof, but I felt that too many scenes had no bearing on the plot, and too much CGI was wasted on pointless things. There was great eye-candy, but the movie failed to tell a story.

PoA was the est of the first 3, but im still angry about them leaving all the good-stuff about the marauders out ? i mean why did they do that. you didnt get the whole point of the book in the movie, which is a sad thing. but the rest was really brilliant, except the changing set ? it annoys me a bit,

I loved POA. I saw PS in theaters when I was 13 and disliked the adaptation greatly and therefore refused to go and see COS.

I had no intention of going to see POA until I saw the trailer and saw that there was a different style to it. I did not know that there was a director change and when I realized there was, my anticipation for that film grew greatly.

I saw the film in theaters and loved it. The cinematography, direction, score, art direction and performances were all a step up from before. The story was there and better than it had been in the first two movies. This was the film that, in my opinion, saved the franchise
I'm with you. I loved the artistic side of it, and thought that it was quite a good adaptation, with suprisingly few plot holes which the other movies seem so prone to.

Most importantly, I felt that PoA captured something of the feel of the Harry Potter world, which I do not feel the other three movies do to any degree. In fact, I find the others quite dissapointing that way. It's why I always tell people that they cannot just see the movie...they have to read the book! :D
I enjoy PP, COS, and GOF, but POA is on a different level then the others. The other films ended up feeling flat and one dimensional. I don't feel that the other films captured the magic the way POA did. Now....POA is not perfect, but I think it came closest to capturing the magic and feel of Harry Potter then any of the other films.
:agree: that's what I'm trying to say here.

Those points made, I must admit that there were a few awkward things in PoA...I could have lived without that ending too...but overall it was such an improvement that those little things really don't matter that much to me. :)

By the way, I voted 4 stars (good).

When I first saw it in theatres, I was a bit dissapointed. It didn't even feel like I had just watched a Harry Potter film, because it was so different than the other two previous films.

- The music had almost changed completely and was a bit lacking.
- There were too many 'fade to black' shots, which got rather annoying.
- Michael Gambon had replaced the late Richard Harris.
- There was barely any background plot present regarding Sirius, Lupin, Peter, James, Lily and Snape, which I felt was very crucial and important to include, as it begins to relate more to the 5th book's plot and up.

But as I watched it a second, and then a third time, I began to adapt to it. The orginiallity and creativeness of a new director is exactly what we needed. I began to except the idea that it might actually be a good idea to have a new director for each new movie.

With each new director comes new, fresh, original ideas; Each one so far has brought something different to the plate, which is important for these movies. Within each movie, the characters evolve and grow just a little, so naturally the movies should too, in my opinion.

Besides GoF now, PoA is one of my favorite Harry Potter movies.

It is an enjoyable film and has a refreshing atmosphere to it. Though, IMO, could have been longer due to lack of the book's story.

I've said this before in other threads, but I solemnly believe that this is the best movie so far. I love every minute of PoA. The way is shot, the transitions between different scenes, and even the acting is outstanding. Yeah, I felt that Daniel could have done a better job at acting like Harry, especially when he finds out that Sirius is his godfather.
The director, Alfonso Cuaron, did an excellent job getting his version of the movie across, at the same time making sure that the plot and story of the book was accurate to the book. I really love this movie, but I hope that OotP will be better. !Fingers crossed!

I love PoA, the movie and the book. Curon really interacte with the actors/actresses, and he looked like he enjoyed his work which means the trio must have enjoyed it just as much.

poa was the best movie even after gof . it really has got the magic!!!!!!!

The music had almost changed completely and was a bit lacking.


:wow: Woah, I thought the PoA score was excellent and definetly much better then the one for Chamber of Secrets, if not Philosopher's Stone. I thought the score in the first two films was a little repetitive and not all that it could have been.

I think POA is the only HP film to actually use it's soundtrack successfully in order to complement the scene and convey what the words and scenery could not. I mean, every time I hear that pipe music in POA I get shivers up my spine and am anticpating what is going to happen, while in the other three ( I include GOF in this ) the music is just....by the numbers and not really inspiring save for the main theme ( hedwig's theme ) and perhaps the music they used in the Graveyard scene in GOF with Voldemort resurrection. In fact, POA's soundtrack is the only one I think to truly capture the essense of the mystery and old time feel that the place where Hogwarts is should feel like, and in doing so makes us suspend out disbelief much more efficiently in order to enjoy this world we have stepped into.
Of the last remaining films to be filmed in this series, I hope that at least OOTP is more in style and tone to POA than the others, as I think that it is the only book that should be represented in this manner with it's darker tone and adult plotlines and characters. If they go all PS and COS on my **** they I will definately loose my faith in this series and WB handling of it.

I think POA is the only HP film to actually use it's soundtrack successfully in order to complement the scene and convey what the words and scenery could not. I mean, every time I hear that pipe music in POA I get shivers up my spine and am anticpating what is going to happen, while in the other three ( I include GOF in this ) the music is just....by the numbers and not really inspiring save for the main theme ( hedwig's theme ) and perhaps the music they used in the Graveyard scene in GOF with Voldemort resurrection. In fact, POA's soundtrack is the only one I think to truly capture the essense of the mystery and old time feel that the place where Hogwarts is should feel like, and in doing so makes us suspend out disbelief much more efficiently in order to enjoy this world we have stepped into.
Couldn't agree more with most of this. Of course, it being particularly effective in almost every other area of film contributed greatly to the effectiveness of the score, something which lacked in the first two films.

Personally, I like the movie, I find it kind of stupid that people don't like it only because of minor detials.

I think POA is the only HP film to actually use it's soundtrack successfully in order to complement the scene and convey what the words and scenery could not. I mean, every time I hear that pipe music in POA I get shivers up my spine and am anticpating what is going to happen, while in the other three ( I include GOF in this ) the music is just....by the numbers and not really inspiring save for the main theme ( hedwig's theme ) and perhaps the music they used in the Graveyard scene in GOF with Voldemort resurrection. In fact, POA's soundtrack is the only one I think to truly capture the essense of the mystery and old time feel that the place where Hogwarts is should feel like, and in doing so makes us suspend out disbelief much more efficiently in order to enjoy this world we have stepped into.
Of the last remaining films to be filmed in this series, I hope that at least OOTP is more in style and tone to POA than the others, as I think that it is the only book that should be represented in this manner with it's darker tone and adult plotlines and characters. If they go all PS and COS on my **** they I will definately loose my faith in this series and WB handling of it.

I agree Solaris23. The music in POA is just another layer added to the film which makes it so good in my eyes.
The POA soundtrack felt like it was specifically made for each scene. Events and scenes had a music theme to them and it ran throughout the film. I really do love the soundtrack. It adds to the magic and feel of the film so well unlike the other Harry Potter film soundtracks. The music flowed with the scenery and visuals so well!!! Now, GOF wasn't horrible, and I prefer the GOF soundtrack to the PS and COS soundtracks, but after having such a magical, wonderful soundtrack for POA the GOF felt flat and just didn't compare in my opinion.

I was really hopping to see Alfonso Cuarón back for OOTP (POA and OOTP are tied for my favorite HP books and POA is my favorite HP film so far.) I thought he did a wonderful job with POA....YES there are some things I would change if I could, but he was able to capture the magic and feel of HP for me in POA. I think he would have done a wonderful job with OOTP as well, since they both have a dark feel and carry this dark mood. I just hope this new guy can capture OOTP right, and I hope he takes notes from Cuarón's film instead of the other Potter films and I hope the new musical Composer takes notes from POA as well.

POA seems to hit a note with people who are particular fans of movies that are sort of independent and left of field from what a typical audience member is used to. Arthouse I guess you could label it. I noticed that fans on POA also like movies such as Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind, Donnie Darko, Alien 3 and so on. Movies that are vastly different in terms of the normal visual, narrative and plot devices that we are used to and films that do not hand all the answers to us on the plate like a normal blockbuster would. POA gives the audience what it wants but at the same time does not - it is a movie that takes what has been before it in PS and COS and gives us a completely different spin to it that may or may not be to everyone's liking.
Another thing to note is that POA is also like the other movies listed above when it comes to DVD. The movie itself may not have done mass amount of profit at the theatre due to it being so different and not easy to digest, yet is a film that is perfect for dvd, where you can play it at will and take your time to catch all the little intrecies, visual cues and double meaning in the way the director wants to convey something visually instead of using the narrative. That is part of why I sometimes compare POA to Donnie Darko in a lot of ways in that it is a film that can be watched multiple times on DVD and everytime I can appreciate it from a new and different angle, with new themes and ideas that expand from the original plot point and thus opening the film to a wider and broader audience appeal. PS and COS are prisoners ( pardon the pun ) of the fact they are movies that stick religiously to the text and not taking the advantage of expanding or interpreting the world differently from the book, which leaves it open to very few people who have not read the book nor would care to if they were bored with how long and linier the whole thing was, COS more so than PS in some ways. GOF I exclude from this as it is mainly built as an action blockbuster and in doing so did it's job as it should - made WB a truckload of money and kept the series in the public eye.
And as for PS keep on stating that PS is the most popular because it made a heap of money - just because a film made a lot of money does not necessarily mean it is a good film to begin with. There was a heck of a lot of media hype and promotion gone into getting PS off the ground and so it would have beenn insane for someone around then NOT to be interested in at least seeing the movie once, if only to see what all the promotion and hype was all about. This is the norm for all blockbuster movies and particularly one that is to spearhead a franchise like HP or LOTR, Spiderman and the Batman franchise. It is only the later movies that tell us whether or not the series is actually got legs and worth our time and money and in the case of POA and to a lesser degree GOF, I think the franchise looks healthy so far.

I agree Solaris23. The music in POA is just another layer added to the film which makes it so good in my eyes.
The POA soundtrack felt like it was specifically made for each scene. Events and scenes had a music theme to them and it ran throughout the film. I really do love the soundtrack. It adds to the magic and feel of the film so well unlike the other Harry Potter film soundtracks. The music flowed with the scenery and visuals so well!!! Now, GOF wasn't horrible, and I prefer the GOF soundtrack to the PS and COS soundtracks, but after having such a magical, wonderful soundtrack for POA the GOF felt flat and just didn't compare in my opinion.

I was really hopping to see Alfonso Cuarón back for OOTP (POA and OOTP are tied for my favorite HP books and POA is my favorite HP film so far.) I thought he did a wonderful job with POA....YES there are some things I would change if I could, but he was able to capture the magic and feel of HP for me in POA. I think he would have done a wonderful job with OOTP as well, since they both have a dark feel and carry this dark mood. I just hope this new guy can capture OOTP right, and I hope he takes notes from Cuarón's film instead of the other Potter films and I hope the new musical Composer takes notes from POA as well.

OMG! Neptune! what am I going to do? This is the first time I have disagreed with you! I think Im going to cry.:upset:

I actually really didnt like this movie. POA is my favorite book of all time and I thought they didnt do it justice. I was very disappointed that they left out important things, like who Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs are, and then put in things that not only were not in the book, but they were insignificant, like the boys eating the candy that causes them to make animal sounds. There was no reason for that scene and yet the creaters of the Marauder's Map is so essential to the plots in other stories that they should never have left them out! Also I didnt like the way they rearranged things in the movie. For example, in the book, Harry gets the Firebolt for Christmas and the taking away and "stripping down" of the broom causes a huge fight between Harry and Ron and Hermione. In the movie, however, Harry receives the broom at the end of the year and the fight between the trio is almost non-existant.

I could go on and on (as I have with people in person) about this movie and how disappointed I was, but I think you get the picture. Overall I would have to give it a :td:

POA seems to hit a note with people who are particular fans of movies that are sort of independent and left of field from what a typical audience member is used to. Arthouse I guess you could label it. I noticed that fans on POA also like movies such as Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind, Donnie Darko, Alien 3 and so on. Movies that are vastly different in terms of the normal visual, narrative and plot devices that we are used to and films that do not hand all the answers to us on the plate like a normal blockbuster would.

It's really funny you should say this because Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind along with the film Amélie (which could also be put into the same category as a Art-house type of film) are my top two favorite movies. I also really like Donnie Darko, but I prefer Alien 1 and 2 over 3..... :) POA is most likely in my top 10 favorite films as well. While I do tend to be drawn to the Art-house type films, I do also like the Hollywood films as well (Aliens, Jurassic Park, LOTR, The Goonies...)

Now, saying that, I do agree that POA can appeal more to this type of audience. PS and COS I saw as fun, children's films, which used the book as script to show it's magic. There was nothing special about them as films, and Columbus didn't add anything to them to make them stand out. Luckily we have JKR's wonderful story, but that is the only reason I see PS and COS working, not because they were good films.

PS and COS were very child friendly, cupcakes and rainbows, bright colors and fake bright green grass, where as POA was gritty, real life atmosphere and colors. Real life rocks, trees and the castle is surrounded by hills and mountains. The grass isn't bright green and perfect, but there is dirt and rock there as well. Top off the real life atmosphere and scenery with the presents of Dementors and the look and feel of POA is perfect. But, it's not just the look of POA, but the feel and the way the story was told. It felt like Harry Potter to me. It was done well IMO.

GOF was....well, like you said, an action blockbuster. I can enjoy it, but the heart and soul, and character development of the story was missing or at least lacking. The Triwizard Tournament was not the real story in GOF like some people believe. The story was the ever lingering presents and oncoming threat of Voldemort, and it was down played in the film and replaced with over long action sequences.

The POA film was able to give me a different look at the POA story then just the book version. It not only captured the magical Harry Potter feel that the book has, but it made it real, and the film gave POA depth that the other films failed to do.

All, of course...In my opinion

*EDIT*

OMG! Neptune! what am I going to do? This is the first time I have disagreed with you! I think Im going to cry.:upset: :lol: :p

Awww don't cry...hehehe

Not everyone can always agree on things. I see things in POA that other people don't. No big deal. We all like different things.

It's funny, but when I saw POA in the theater I was disappointed and let down. I had a lot of mixed emotions about the film. It wasn't until I got the DVD and watched it at home was I able to start to really appreciate and enjoy it. Every time I watch POA I notice something new that gives more depth and adds more to the film experience. I can now watch POA over and over and enjoy it ever time and never feel board.

When I first saw GOF in theaters I really enjoyed it. I actually thought I might have liked it as much, if not more then POA. Once I got the film on DVD and watched it more, the more I got sick of it, board and realized how much I appreciate POA. GOF did the exact opposite for me the POA did,

Different strokes for different folks. :tu: :D

I don't exactly have clear impressions in my head over two years after I last saw the film, but I have to agree its soundtrack was amazing, especially the Window To The Past theme (the one that plays as Sirius flies away). It's one of the most beautiful pieces of music I've ever heard.

I don't exactly have clear impressions in my head over two years after I last saw the film, but I have to agree its soundtrack was amazing, especially the Window To The Past theme (the one that plays as Sirius flies away). It's one of the most beautiful pieces of music I've ever heard.

I agree Drusilla, the scene with Sirius flying away on Buckbeak is one of my favorite scene's in the film. It's so bitter sweet, and it really reminds me of the feeling I had when reading that part in the book, plus the music is so stunning it just adds to the scene. I associate that piece of music with Lily, James, Sirius and their past together. It's nice that they have a theme.

Why has it been two years since you've last seen the film? You should watch it again, it really get better and better the more you watch it......well, for me at least it does.

After seeing it in the theatre, I saw the film on DVD after that came out, but I didn't really sit through the entire thing- people kept coming in, going out- stuff like that happens when you're on a laptop in a dorm room.

I associate that piece of music with Lily, James, Sirius and their past together. It's nice that they have a theme.

Me too! I've always been a Marauders fan, and it was nice, getting to see Lily and James as a young couple (even if it was for a total of three seconds, in the photograph).

After seeing it in the theatre, I saw the film on DVD after that came out, but I didn't really sit through the entire thing- people kept coming in, going out- stuff like that happens when you're on a laptop in a dorm room.

Aww that sucks. You should really try and check it out again some time when you have don't have a bunch of distractions. It's a wonderful film IMO.

Me too! I've always been a Marauders fan, and it was nice, getting to see Lily and James as a young couple (even if it was for a total of three seconds, in the photograph).

I'm a fan of the Marauders as well, especially Lupin :love: . I love your avatar by the way, I too love seeing that picture in the film. It's a bit bitter sweet...

The POA film was able to give me a different look at the POA story then just the book version. It not only captured the magical Harry Potter feel that the book has, but it made it real, and the film gave POA depth that the other films failed to do.

I agree. The difference between PoA and the rest of the films are that it had a different flavor of darkness which made the Potterverse very much like canon. That is exactly how I personally imagine the series developing into - I also imagine the film soundtracks playing at the back of my mind when reading the book :D One of the few drawbacks, the reason being explained a few posts back about the film being independent, included some inaccruate character portrayals. It's understandable because of filming purposes but I didn't quite agree with it, especially with Hermione's heroine in pink imagery.

One of the few drawbacks, the reason being explained a few posts back about the film being independent, included some inaccruate character portrayals.

Not inaccurate, but differing from your interpretation.

It's understandable because of filming purposes but I didn't quite agree with it, especially with Hermione's heroine in pink imagery.

POA was the book where Hermione stood out in the story. The entire time we know she has this secret and we know how stressed out she has been. Hermione's biggest change and a lot of her character development happens in this book. I personally think Emma played Hermione very well in POA, and I though everything she did was in character. Her take-charge-know- it-all attitude came across well in the film. Her stress and annoyance came across well, and her anger and emotions were handled well.

Now for the Pink.....I never had a problem with Hermione wearing pink. It's just not that unthinkable to me to think that Hermione may own a pink zipped-up sweatshirt out of her entire wardrobe of clothes. I think pink gets a bad rap actually. Yes it's a "girly" color, but Hermione is a girl, and nowhere in the books does it ever say that Hermione doesn't wear pink and only wears primary colors....lol. It actually never says in the book what she is wearing when wearing muggle clothes, so I can't understand why it is so crazy that Hermione would own and wear a pink sweatshirt.

When it comes to the characters, fans will try to impose their own view on the text rather than taking from the text.

Hermione in CoS giggles as the pink confetti falls in the Great Hall, sleeps with Lockhart's card under her pillow and (it is unsubtly hinted) even sends the DADA teacher a Valentine card.

This is canon Hermione, even as the bossy, rule-obsessed brain box is canon Hermione.

POA was the book where Hermione stood out in the story. The entire time we know she has this secret and we know how stressed out she has been. Hermione's biggest change and a lot of her character development happens in this book. I personally think Emma played Hermione very well in POA, and I though everything she did was in character. Her take-charge-know- it-all attitude came across well in the film. Her stress and annoyance came across well, and her anger and emotions were handled well.

I agree that Emma Watson had done well in the film, but nowhere did it show stress over what she was going through in her third year due to classes in the film, which IMO had contributed quite a bit to her character development. But this I suppose wasn't necessary here because of filming purposes as I mentioned above.

Now for the Pink.....I never had a problem with Hermione wearing pink. It's just not that unthinkable to me to think that Hermione may own a pink zipped-up sweatshirt out of her entire wardrobe of clothes. I think pink gets a bad rap actually. Yes it's a "girly" color, but Hermione is a girl, and nowhere in the books does it ever say that Hermione doesn't wear pink and only wears primary colors....lol. It actually never says in the book what she is wearing when wearing muggle clothes, so I can't understand why it is so crazy that Hermione would own and wear a pink sweatshirt.

Maybe I should rephrase by saying that the "heroine in pink" was a figure of expression because I don't have a problem with her wearing pink at all since it's one of my favorite colors :D By that I meant that Hermione's image in PoA was that of a classic heroine who dodged tree roots and taking up a line which put Ron in a cowardly light instead of showing the loyal and true friend that he is - "if you want to kill Harry, you'll have to kill us too." That is what I meant by incorrect character portrayals, but once again, they were all done to develop the film which is perfectly understandable.

I just didn't like the POA film. It wasn't at all like I was expecting it to be. I didn't feel like the magic of the books was there at all.

I was really disapointed about the Mauderers. I know that you can't put everything from the books into the movies, but I think it's a big part of the books. To me, without the Mauderers, I felt like something was missing.

I also thought that Hogwarts just didn't look right. I don't know, I just didn't like it.

I just didn't like the POA film. It wasn't at all like I was expecting it to be. I didn't feel like the magic of the books was there at all.

I was really disapointed about the Mauderers. I know that you can't put everything from the books into the movies, but I think it's a big part of the books. To me, without the Mauderers, I felt like something was missing.

I also thought that Hogwarts just didn't look right. I don't know, I just didn't like it.

You are entitled to you opinion, but I have to disagree :D

I personally found POA to be the most magical, and I feel that the film has the feeling of Hogwarts and Harry Potter above the other films, and I feel it's the best adapted. When I read the books my vision of Hogwarts and the school grounds, trees, grass, mountains, lake, color, and overall look and feel is a lot closer to what was portrayed in POA and GOF. My minds vision of the Potter universe has a "lived in" feeling and a authenticity to it, not a perfect, clean, bright, safe look like PS and COS.

The story, in my opinion, was told just fine. It had a great flow, great transitions, great scenes and it told the point of the story. As much as I love the film, and think it's the best so far, there are things...if I want to be picky, that I would change / add.

1.) During Lupin and Harry's "good-bye" scene at the end of the film, when Lupin hands Harry the map back, I would have had Harry ask Lupin how he knew how to work the map. Then Lupin could say something like..."You mean you haven't figured it out?"......then he can go into a short explanation about the map and the Marauders.
(this added would maybe stop people from complaining so much about the film...)

2.) I don't hate the werewolf, but if it were up to me I would re-design the werewolf.

3.) I would shorten the Whomping Willow attack and not have the Hermione grabbing Harry part.

4.) I would not end the film on a close-up shot of Harry, instead I would show him flying off over the lake to parallel it a bit with the Buckbeak scene...

Now, those are really the only changes I would make, but I am being picky here because I really do like the film.

I would shorten the scene where the Monster Book of Monsters attacks Harry in the Leaky Cauldron, and use the time salvaged from that scene to include a bit about the Marauders. After all, the Monster Book is only used once later on in the film, in a gag with Neville, so the time spent on it in the LC is rather expendable.

I would shorten the scene where the Monster Book of Monsters attacks Harry in the Leaky Cauldron, and use the time salvaged from that scene to include a bit about the Marauders. After all, the Monster Book is only used once later on in the film, in a gag with Neville, so the time spent on it in the LC is rather expendable.

I personally like the monster book scene, and I would cut down the time used for the Whomping Willow attack before I would ever cut that. The explanation about the map and the Marauders doesn't have to take that much time in the film. A short explanation during the scene where Lupin gives Harry the map back would work fine, and not take up a lot of time.

Plus, it's the shortest of the films so far, with a run-time: 141 min (PS:152 / COS:161 / GOF:157) So, two minutes or so added to the film, without even cutting anything wouldn't even be overrunning the film.

In a perfect world a scene explaining about the map and the Marauders would have been added, but even without it I love the film and I feel it's the best out of the 4. Better then GOF and WAY better then PS and COS. IMO

1.) During Lupin and Harry's "good-bye" scene at the end of the film, when Lupin hands Harry the map back, I would have had Harry ask Lupin how he knew how to work the map. Then Lupin could say something like..."You mean you haven't figured it out?"......then he can go into a short explanation about the map and the Marauders.
(this added would maybe stop people from complaining so much about the film...)

I don't think leaving the Marauder's Map out hurt the story, though keeping it in would have enriched the story. Though I wouldn't stick it at the end like that, as if it were an afterthought. Out of the whole Marauder storyline, I think the only pertinent points were what Harry learns about James as a person in particular. This contributes to his decision to spare Wormtail. So I'd put bits of the Marauder backstory throughout the film before that, like in the bridge sceen between Hary and Lupin, and the Shrieking Shack scene.


2.) I don't hate the werewolf, but if it were up to me I would re-design the werewolf.
3.) I would shorten the Whomping Willow attack and not have the Hermione grabbing Harry part.
4.) I would not end the film on a close-up shot of Harry, instead I would show him flying off over the lake to parallel it a bit with the Buckbeak scene...


Agreed on these counts.

Changes I'd have made:
- fix the infamous Ron-Hermione Line Switch (not just for characterization purposes; it's more dramatic)
- Change how the punch scene was directed it. While the violence against Malfoy is in the book, Emma acted it a bit too cool, as if Hermione were proud of it. It's hard to explain, but the punch scene rubbed me the wrong way in the film and came off as cheesy, though it was a great dramatic moment in the book.


Hermione in CoS giggles as the pink confetti falls in the Great Hall, sleeps with Lockhart's card under her pillow and (it is unsubtly hinted) even sends the DADA teacher a Valentine card.

This is canon Hermione, even as the bossy, rule-obsessed brain box is canon Hermione.

Not to mention, Hermione wore a pink nightgown in PS/SS, during the Midnight Duel. :wow:

I don't think leaving the Marauder's Map out hurt the story, though keeping it in would have enriched the story. Though I wouldn't stick it at the end like that, as if it were an afterthought. Out of the whole Marauder storyline, I think the only pertinent points were what Harry learns about James as a person in particular. This contributes to his decision to spare Wormtail. So I'd put bits of the Marauder backstory throughout the film before that, like in the bridge sceen between Hary and Lupin, and the Shrieking Shack scene.

Oh I agree. I don't think it hurts the film at all. I was just saying.... if I wanted to be really really picky about the film I would add in that scene...but I really do love the film the way it is. (it's actually in my top 10 favorite films...)
Honestly, I think I would want that scene added in not for MY pleasure, but so to stop people always complaining about it and claiming the movie horrible because the Marauder were not fully explained.


Changes I'd have made:
- fix the infamous Ron-Hermione Line Switch (not just for characterization purposes; it's more dramatic)
- Change how the punch scene was directed it. While the violence against Malfoy is in the book, Emma acted it a bit too cool, as if Hermione were proud of it. It's hard to explain, but the punch scene rubbed me the wrong way in the film and came off as cheesy, though it was a great dramatic moment in the book.

I can live with either one personally...

Not to mention, Hermione wore a pink nightgown in PS/SS, during the Midnight Duel. :wow:

That's right. Good catch :tu:

The whole pink thing I feel is for a visual cue to let us know that despite all that Hermoine is, she is still female and since female identified as a mainly 'girly' color this helps the audience identify her as still very much the female voice of the main three and the audience who are female can identify with her then. Indeed, the main reason I think people note the pink jumper in POA that she wears ( along with the rainbow colored belt and hipster jeans ) is that it is a very muggle attire and the pink just makes it stand out more in the dark and dreary colors that surround them.
And while we are on the subject of clothing and POA, they did in fact wear muggle clothing a lot in PS and COS, but it is only noted more in the newer movies as in POA and GOF promotion posters and teasers the main characters were always shown dressed in muggle attire, whereas in PS and COS the posters showed them in their robes and school uniform. POA just used it more as towards the end of the movie it was not placed during school hours but outside of them, and indeed JKR even stated that originally students wore whatever they liked under their school robes as they were emant to be a pull on/all over type affair that covered what you were wearing underneath. PS introduced the concept of the school uniform and so stuck with it so far, but if you note they are using it less and less in the films as the characters are spending less and less time in school and classes in the movie versions.

The whole pink thing I feel is for a visual cue to let us know that despite all that Hermoine is, she is still female and since female identified as a mainly 'girly' color this helps the audience identify her as still very much the female voice of the main three and the audience who are female can identify with her then. Indeed, the main reason I think people note the pink jumper in POA that she wears ( along with the rainbow colored belt and hipster jeans ) is that it is a very muggle attire and the pink just makes it stand out more in the dark and dreary colors that surround them.
And while we are on the subject of clothing and POA, they did in fact wear muggle clothing a lot in PS and COS, but it is only noted more in the newer movies as in POA and GOF promotion posters and teasers the main characters were always shown dressed in muggle attire, whereas in PS and COS the posters showed them in their robes and school uniform. POA just used it more as towards the end of the movie it was not placed during school hours but outside of them, and indeed JKR even stated that originally students wore whatever they liked under their school robes as they were emant to be a pull on/all over type affair that covered what you were wearing underneath. PS introduced the concept of the school uniform and so stuck with it so far, but if you note they are using it less and less in the films as the characters are spending less and less time in school and classes in the movie versions.

I agree Solaris23.

They DO wear muggle clothes in PS and COS, a lot in actually, but for some reason POA seams to get the bad rap for it. I agree it is most likely because the muggle clothes are shown in the movie posters, and that's what makes people automatically assume in POA (and GOF) that they wear muggle clothes too much.

If we look at the scenes every time they wear muggle clothes it is outside of class time and times where they are not expected to wear school uniforms / robes.....

* The beginning of the film all the way to the train muggle clothes are worn (outside of classes and school)
* Then they wear school uniforms (robes) for the great hall (during school and in classes)
* They wear school robes Care of Magical Creature class, DADA class with Lupin and Divination class (during school and in classes)
* They don't wear muggle clothes again until the scene showing Ron and Hermione leaving for Hogsmeade, Harry talking to Lupin on the Bridge, and the scene walking up the stairs finding the portrait slashed after coming back from Hogsmeade. (outside of classes and school hours)
* Then they wear school robes during Snape's DADA class
* Then Ron, Hermione and other characters wear muggle cloths during the Quidditch game and hospital scenes / Harry is wearing his Quidditch uniform. (outside of classes and school hours)
* Harry wears muggle clothes while walking through the woods with Lupin (outside of classes and school hours)
* Muggle clothes during 2nd trip to Hogsmeade (outside of classes and school hours)
* Harry wears his school uniform during his private Dementor lesson with Lupin
* Trio wears muggle clothes to go see Hargid (outside of classes and school hours)
* Harry wears pajamas and a sweat-shirt in bed and while following Peter on the map (outside of classes and school hours)
* They wear school robes in the second Divination class / and the Prophecy (during school and in classes)
* NOW the trio wear muggle clothes for the longest period of time from Buckbeaks execution, shrieking shack, time turner....and this is all outside of classes and school hours.
* For the rest of the film (lupin's good-bye, broom scene) they wear school uniforms / robes (during school hours)

I also find that there is this huge myth that not enough school time or classes were shown in POA, but I beg to differ...There are 5 classes shown in POA, not including Harry's private lesson with Lupin (Care of Magical Creature class, DADA with Lupin, DADA with Snape, and two Divination classes.) which, off the top of my head, is more then PS and GOF (I'm not 100% sure about COS though....I'd have to check.)

Well, the film is quite boring, but this is not my real problem with it. I could not recognize the "true" story of the -Prisoner of Azkaban- behind the movie. Dumbledore was filthy, especially his finger nails ugh!
Snape behaved like Dumbledore´s grandpa, ridiculous. Sirius was designed like a man who felt in love with an other man (James), hem hem. Remus a handicapped person, with walking stick? Oh dear! Peter was totally one-dimensional, such a shame! McGonagall was reduced to a chatterbox, that´s mean and inept. Harry was (and this made me angry) designed as someone who doesn´t care at all, behaved as so as it was normal to knock out others. In the books he had a bad conscience. Further on he gave meaningless barefaced comments which were totally misplaced and unnecessary. I simply think he isn´t that reckless!
Shall I go on?

You are entitled to your opinion, but I disagree, personally, with everything you said...

Harry was (and this made me angry) designed as someone who doesn´t care at all, behaved as so as it was normal to knock out others. In the books he had a bad conscience. Further on he gave meaningless barefaced comments which were totally misplaced and unnecessary. I simply think he isn´t that reckless!
Shall I go on?

You completely lost me with everything you said here.....
"behaved as so as it was normal to knock out others"......what? :huh:

Well, the film is quite boring, but this is not my real problem with it.

Did you find the other films boring as well?

well, i think poa is a great movie. it has what ss and cos don't have and vice versa because i love all the movies. what i don't like about poa is lack of explanations like that of the marauder's. it is a problem with the movies because it can't explain what was said in the book because it will take 10 hours to do that.

and for the characters, i hate it when some unknown kid had more dialogues than ginny. how can they do that?

but generally, it is good but can't be compared with the book although poa is not my favorite in the series, it is still harry potter.

and for the characters, i hate it when some unknown kid had more dialogues than ginny. how can they do that?

From what I understand that Kid won a contest to have some lines in the film, so that's why this unknown character had lines. Plus, in the classroom scene he has a line in Ginny wouldn't have been in anyway because she's a 3nd year.

At first the unknown kid annoyed me, and I kept thinking they should have given those lines to Dean, Seamus or Neville but when I found out that he had won a contest I understood....I'm happy for him, shoot I would love to have a line or two in one of the Potter films.

Unknown kid kind of annoyed me too, but he's sort of blacked out now in my mind when ever I watch POA anyway now, and to be honest he was not that bad of an 'actor' in the scenes he is in. He is the 'Nigel' in POA I think - a random character that pops up to explain something other than using an already established character. Much like the 'Nigel' kid in GOF where they could have easily used Colin Creevey or someone similar to that effect.
I actually prefer the new robes in POA that to any other in the movies so far as they have a certain Dead Poets Society look to them which I love, and for some reason I wish in HP they would do a scene where they are all running through the misty woods with their heads covered with the hoods, much like the scene in DPS where we see the boys running through the woods with their hoods up on their way to their first DP meeting in the cave. That scene sends goosebumps up my spine when ever I see it and hear the music.

Really? I loved the unkown kid. And the other kid in Goblet of Fire. Oh well.

Really? I loved the unkown kid. And the other kid in Goblet of Fire. Oh well.

I think most people disliked the unknown kid because they felt that lines were waisted on this unknown character when those lines could have been given to an actual, developed, secondary characters....(Dean, Seamus, Neville, Fred, George, Ginny...etc.)

Like I said, I felt this way at first, but after I found out he won the chance to have lines in the film then I understood why they had a unknown kid say those lines. I'm happy for him, he's very lucky.

Another thing that the unknown kid did for the film is make the characters feel more vast...meaning, there ARE other people in the school besides the Trio and the already known secondary characters, so it seams more natural to have random people saying things like they would do in real life.

Well, the film is quite boring, but this is not my real problem with it. I could not recognize the "true" story of the -Prisoner of Azkaban- behind the movie. Dumbledore was filthy, especially his finger nails ugh!
Snape behaved like Dumbledore´s grandpa, ridiculous. Sirius was designed like a man who felt in love with an other man (James), hem hem. Remus a handicapped person, with walking stick? Oh dear! Peter was totally one-dimensional, such a shame! McGonagall was reduced to a chatterbox, that´s mean and inept. Harry was (and this made me angry) designed as someone who doesn´t care at all, behaved as so as it was normal to knock out others. In the books he had a bad conscience. Further on he gave meaningless barefaced comments which were totally misplaced and unnecessary. I simply think he isn´t that reckless!
Shall I go on?

Certainly you can go on, but you will be asked to explain your comments. As things stand you are just ranting.

For example:

Snape behaved like Dumbledore´s grandpa, ridiculous

What, if anything, does this mean?

Oh, and how is Pettigrew not "totally one-dimensional" in the book?

I quite enjoyed it. When I first saw it when it had been released I wasn't a big fan of it. I certainly preferred COS over POA at the time. When I got it on dvd and watched it more and more, I grew to appreciate it so much more. It had the look and feel of a Potter movie, to me it had the perfect tone. It was a more streamlined plot that cut out anything that they deemed wasn't important (except the whole history Maruaders which I was annoyed about them not including). The unknown kid with the lines didn't annoy me, I actually liked it and as he won a competition to have the lines, even better. No one would be complaining if they were given those lines in the movie. Besides, they couldn't have enhanced any other character as they would have just been uttering those lines that wasn't exactly a character profile.

I loved GOF as it was my favourite book and thought the plot would be ideal for a movie. But POA is my favourite Potter because of how it looks and how it feels. I would love for OOTP to be very similar in look, design and tone with POA.

I would love for OOTP to be very similar in look, design and tone with POA.

I agree OtepApe. I was hoping to see Alfonso Cuarón back to direct OOTP, because I feel the stories share a similar tone and feel, and I thought the movie could benefit from the feeling Cuarón brought to POA. I still hope to see him come back for HBP or book 7, but I would really like to have seen him do OOTP.

I think most people disliked the unknown kid because they felt that lines were waisted on this unknown character when those lines could have been given to an actual, developed, secondary characters....(Dean, Seamus, Neville, Fred, George, Ginny...etc.)
None of those characters are developed in the films. Nor should they be.

I never understood the criticism for adding new characters/kids into the films who may or may not repeat lines of other characters. It's more what is said that is important, rather than who says it.

I think most people disliked the unknown kid because they felt that lines were waisted on this unknown character when those lines could have been given to an actual, developed, secondary characters....(Dean, Seamus, Neville, Fred, George, Ginny...etc.)


Just to be pedantic (it’s what I’m here for) and to develop what Magical_Me said, but Dean, Seamus et al are not secondary characters, nor are they developed. Here’s how I’d break it down:

Harry – sole protagonist and the only primary character
Voldemort – the antagonist
Ron and Hermione – secondary characters
Dumbledore, Hagrid, Snape – tertiary
Molly Weasley – quarternary
Bill and Charlie – quinternary

Now characters do move up and down the pecking order to some extent. Rowling can’t solve all her problems just by adding another 300 pages to every book! She “relegates” established characters to make room for new faces. So Hagrid was practically a secondary character in the first books; nowadays he has been shunted downwards.

Does this matter, except to academic pedants like me?

In a way. If one is adapting, the place to start cutting first is at the lower end of the scale. Lose the likes of Bill, Charlie and Winky. There are other factors to take into account though. Some quite minor characters are worth keeping, such as the Dursleys, as their role as Harry’s oppressors is clear and they provide humour.

As Voldemort is off stage most of the time, you need a second string villain, and Lucius fills this role. Also Jason Isaacs is yummy!

None of those characters are developed in the films. Nor should they be.

I never understood the criticism for adding new characters/kids into the films who may or may not repeat lines of other characters. It's more what is said that is important, rather than who says it.

I'm talking about actual, developed, secondary characters from the books.

You really should read my post again. I didn't say I personally felt that way, I said I think some people do.
Re-read my entire post...

Also Jason Isaacs is yummy!

I definitely agree!!

Well, the film is quite boring, but this is not my real problem with it. I could not recognize the "true" story of the -Prisoner of Azkaban....Shall I go on?

Well, for starters, you could discuss the story!

The constant theme unifying the narrative and plot elements of PoA is that the truth does not mean what it seems to mean (irony!), and that the "right" choice is to take work out what it really means, whereas the "easy" choice is to simply accept things at face value.

If that had been sugar and the PoA movie a cookie, then most people would have started twitching after one bite.


I'm talking about actual, developed, secondary characters from the books.

You really should read my post again. I didn't say I personally felt that way, I said I think some people do.
Re-read my entire post...

Regardless of the source, the problem with this view is that those "mystery" characters recited lines that need to be said to advance the plot or the mood. You could not use them to develop a tertiary character like Neville or a quaternary one like Seamus because the lines do not develop characters! (Reading what a Grim is from a book does not really offer too much development!)

So, it almost is a complaint that they should have deleted those lines and had Dean talk about this family or something. Dean's family and character were not important: what a Grim is supposed to be is. You cannot have irony without initial implication!

I voted Good, but IMO, it leans toward Good +++. I didn't think the movie was excellent, but I thought the mood was pretty accurate compared to the first two. The fourth was "dark" as well, but I thought POA really captured it better. It's my favorite out of the four that have been released mostly because it really was adapted into an actual movie. The first two, were a bit more literal than made into movie adaptation.

However, the main reason why I voted it Good is because I felt like they took out too many things out of the book and it just did not live up to what I pictured in my mind. Then again, the filmmakers can't please everyone.


Besides that, I really like the movie.

Regardless of the source, the problem with this view is that those "mystery" characters recited lines that need to be said to advance the plot or the mood. You could not use them to develop a tertiary character like Neville or a quaternary one like Seamus because the lines do not develop characters! (Reading what a Grim is from a book does not really offer too much development!)

So, it almost is a complaint that they should have deleted those lines and had Dean talk about this family or something. Dean's family and character were not important: what a Grim is supposed to be is. You cannot have irony without initial implication!

I'm not sure if this is being directed at me or not....

I said in my post before that I didn't have a problem with the lines or the random kid, but that it make sense to have random character say lines because it makes the school feel like there is more people then just the characters we know.... there ARE other people in the school besides the Trio and the already known secondary characters, so it seams more natural to have random people saying things like they would do in real life.

PoA got the good rating for me. GoF would merit the Excellent choice in the poll. I am comparing all the films so far when rating PoA. CoS is my second favorite I think.
One of my complaints with PoA was the depiction of the werewolf - I've never imagined one to look like that. But if that's a major qualm (not really) lol. I would say it was a pretty good/entertaining adaptation.

I'm not sure if this is being directed at me or not.....

No, it was not aimed at you, but at the general comment you were relaying: I know the difference between message and messenger! In fact, I think that I was agreeing with you, really.

Again, I think that the problem is that many HP fans look at the movies (and books) almost as documentaries rather than as stories. This sort of comment reflects that: they want lines that teach the audience about Potterverse minutia (e.g., Dean Thomas' character) when the tale needed to have a plot element developed. Who tells us what the Grim is is not important, nor can it serve any secondary purpose by developing a character: for example, having Dean know that it is a boggart in the closet tells us nothing.

No, it was not aimed at you, but at the general comment you were relaying: I know the difference between message and messenger! In fact, I think that I was agreeing with you, really.

:tu: OK Gotcha :D

Again, I think that the problem is that many HP fans look at the movies (and books) almost as documentaries rather than as stories. This sort of comment reflects that: they want lines that teach the audience about Potterverse minutia (e.g., Dean Thomas' character) when the tale needed to have a plot element developed. Who tells us what the Grim is is not important, nor can it serve any secondary purpose by developing a character: for example, having Dean know that it is a boggart in the closet tells us nothing.

I completely agree.

What's important is that the film explains to the audience what a grim is. It doesn't mater where the info is coming from, as long as we are being told, and the information coming from a more known / secondary character wouldn't even be character development.

I'm talking about actual, developed, secondary characters from the books.

You really should read my post again. I didn't say I personally felt that way, I said I think some people do.
Re-read my entire post...

I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I read what you said. :)

Those characters aren't fully developed in the films, so giving them lines based on that fact is a moot point.

When I first saw the movie, I hated it. However, after giving it a second (okay, 12th) chance, I really like it. Not as good as GoF, but still great. The rich camera angles, the dioluge was excellent, the themes are displayes subtley yet strongly, Gambon is great, (until he goes into a downward spiral GoF).

My only complaints are length (too short), the pacing, the lack of the threat of Sirius Black (Which they subsituted for Lupin' relationship with Harry, by no means a bad thing), pointless CGI, and poor characterization of Ron and Hermione.

I love the real-world look, (No more Colombus "OMG IT"S MAGIC!!") and emotion.

Also, the DADA class has a good subtle theme, Harry's world being flipped around, like the class through the mirror.

The one thing I did miss in POA (ok, apart from the Marauder's explanation) was the scene in which Sirius has managed to get into the dormitory, but slash the curtains of Ron's bed. When picturing it in my head, I thought that would have made for quite a chilling scene. I mean to wake up and see Black's face practically next to you with a knife in his head. I always thought of the camera facing Black from Ron's point of view. I always looked forward to seeing that scene in the movie's.

I don't know, I just thought it would have made for a pretty menacing scene, and added a bit more into the plot and mystery of Sirius.

I don't know, I just thought it would have made for a pretty menacing scene, and added a bit more into the plot and mystery of Sirius.

That was filmed but cut. Parts of it are extra scenes on the PoA DVD. Cuarón and Heymen must have decided that it was not working for some reason.

My only complaints are length (too short)..

It was over 2 hours long! Many reviews felt that PoA was 10-15 minutes too long: but they then noted that this was a distinct improvement over the first two which were an hour too long each!

In part, I think that the much better pacing made the 2+ hours feel like less time than it was: scenes made their points quickly and usually more than one point. Constantly waiting for a scene to do something makes a movie feel longer than it it. That is one of the reaosns why the first twho HP movies got so much criticism for being too long whereas the longer Lord of the Rings movies (which had the brisk pacing of PoA and GoF) did not despite running 20 minutes longer.

I mean to wake up and see Black's face practically next to you with a knife in his head.

Very scary. Don't recall him having a knife in his head in the book though. :p

It was over 2 hours long! Many reviews felt that PoA was 10-15 minutes too long: but they then noted that this was a distinct improvement over the first two which were an hour too long each!


Perhaps it was the pacing, not the legnth, but whenever I watch PoA, I feel the meat of the movie is lacking. The climax starts about halfway into the move, which always shakes me up. I also feel the actual story is unclear until the climax, bad mistake.

All in all, it is a good movie. :D

POA remains my favourite movie. It's story telling technique was just really very good. When I hadn't read the books before watching the movie, I thought it was great. After reading the books, I still think POA is the best but it could have been so much better if they had just decided to leave the character portrayals correct. It would have then been a truly outstanding movie I believe. Ron was at least 90% out of character and Hermione was completely one-dimensional with little depth. I disagree to some extent with those saying that Hermione wouldn't have done this and wouldn't have done that. Yes, she couldn't throw a 13 year old boy with one hand or learn how to howl like a werewolf or be capable of standing by the dementors unaffected or many of the other silly things Kloves wrote when he lost control of writing her character but I don't believe those are the main things that made her characterization in the movie seem a little insipid and rather poorly developed compared to the books. It was what they left out. They left out anything that would make her realistic or relatable as a human being. She just became another Pink Power ranger or some other cartoonish character. Her characterization had no depth nor did Ron's. Only Harry got any character development at all but as he's the star and they centred the story around him almost entirely, it didn't really spoil it much but if they had decided to give the other characters some inkling of depth, I think the movie would have been so much better.

However, I personally hope Cuaron only returns as an advisor in the story telling and not actually to direct the characters (I think he's partially to blame for the characters being out of character). I'm sure someone can do a better job now that they have come to some realization that the movies don't have to be little kiddie movies. I think for HP, someone who can give us proper character development should be picked over someone who is better at artistic story telling. GoF did much better with character development but not style yet it did better at the box office. People cared more about the characters at the end of the day. I think if PoA came out after GoF, it wouldn't have been as popular as GoF coming after PoA. In fact, I think it may have been a bit of a disappointment because of it's failure to develop the characters, especially the Marauders.

Cheers :tu:

POA remains my favourite movie. It's story telling technique was just really very good.

I feel that the story was told in a poor way until the climax. The Hogwarts scenes had no point other than to develop Lupins character, and failed to show an actual plot.

The indiviual scenes were great though!

Very scary. Don't recall him having a knife in his head in the book though. :p

In the wizarding world...anything is possible:grumble:

I feel that the story was told in a poor way until the climax. The Hogwarts scenes had no point other than to develop Lupins character, and failed to show an actual plot.

The indiviual scenes were great though!
I thought the story telling was great. It was artistic and they had themes going thoughout. They didn't tell the story in a chronological order but still managed to get most of the main points in there. If they kept the characters in character, I would have felt that any movie coming after this would have had a hard time living up to this. They showed the clock throughout the movie indicating that there was a theme of time running and also those moments with the Whomping Willow were a great and entertaining way to foreshadow the eventual part it would play. It's just little things done like this throughout the story that made it great to watch for me and gave the movie a lovely flow.

Another thing I found excellent was the way they included a lot of magic without it being in your face. For example, I loved the ghosts performing the headless hunt race in the study hall but no one commenting on it. It really made it feel like a wizarding world but not the way PS and COS did it where it was obvious because Harry was constantly staring in wonder at everything. It was done subtly and made if feel normal yet magical. For GoF, it wasn't very magical at all. Obviously with all the tournaments etc we saw the magic but if it wasn't for the tournaments, you could almost have forgotten that they were living in the wizarding world and not the muggle one.

Of course, I'm not trying to force my opinion on you because not everyone will like the same thing, I'm just telling you why I thought the story telling was great. It had artistry, it had themes and they made very good use of beautiful images and landscapes. I especially loved all those times with Lupin and Harry out on the bridge or the forest instead of in the classroom. I also liked Harry's King of the World ride on buckbeak. It showed Harry's sense of freedom that buckbeak represented and would represent later in the movie (Harry actually hated the ride in the book - out of character again). We also got to see beautiful landscapes and Hogwarts as a whole came alive instead of just seeing little pieces.

Cheers :tu:

cgold, I like your icon. ;)

I feel that the story was told in a poor way until the climax. The Hogwarts scenes had no point other than to develop Lupins character, and failed to show an actual plot.

The Hogwarts's scenes are just like the book! Everything leading up to the shrieking shack / time turner /climax was almost exactly how it was in the book. The biggest change was cutting down Quidditch or changing it's placing a bit, but it was all in the book. Everything important to the plot of the story was told during the Hogwarts scenes. Pick out any scene in POA and there is a point to the scene and it plays to the plot. (unless it's more of a character development scene like the boys eating candy...) One thing they did change was Harry seeing Peter on the map, but it still played to the plot and it ended up bring in scenes that where in the book (like Lupin being angry with Harry for having the map, and taking it from him.....or Snape talking smack about Harry's dad...)

Next time you go to read POA, watch the POA movie first and you will notice (or I did) how close the dialog and plot running through the film is to the book. Unnecessary things were cut, like random great hall scenes, but the important plot points where put in during the movie. Some things were rearranged and changed because it works better on film, but the plot and story is still there and shown very well.

I really loved PoA until the werewolf part... I thought he was so badly portrayed it kind of kills it everytime for me... If it weren't for him, It'd probably be my favorite movie as it is my favorite book already made into a movie...

I really loved PoA until the werewolf part... I thought he was so badly portrayed it kind of kills it everytime for me... If it weren't for him, It'd probably be my favorite movie as it is my favorite book already made into a movie...

The werewolf grew on me. I though it would be different too, but it really doesn't bother me now because it was original and different and the werewolves look doesn't make or break the movie for me. The CGI of the werewolf was good, the design took some getting use to. I could say the same for the mermaids in GOF. They were not how I imagined, but it doesn't make my feelings for GOF change.


Plus, strange werewolf design or not, Buckbeak was incredible, so he made up for the strange werewolf design.

The werewolf grew on me. I though it would be different too, but it really doesn't bother me now because it was original and different and the werewolves look doesn't make or break the movie for me. The CGI of the werewolf was good, the design took some getting use to. I could say the same for the mermaids in GOF. They were not how I imagined, but it doesn't make my feelings for GOF change.


Plus, strange werewolf design or not, Buckbeak was incredible, so he made up for the strange werewolf design.
Agreed on all counts! (Particularly the werewolf comment - it is very original which is mostly why I like it).

Agreed on all counts! (Particularly the werewolf comment - it is very original which is mostly why I like it).

Yes. I have defended the werewolf to everyone I know. It is different from every other movie werewolf and that's why people didn't like it. Many people don't like change, especially when it comes to HP movies. :)

I reckon I've posted at least three times in various threads about the werewolf defending it for those very reasons! It's all but futile, I'm afraid.

With the werewolf thing, I too was a bit thrown at how 'human' it looked when most times when you see such a creature in the folklore they are transformed into a completely animalistic beast that is devoid of any humanity. In POA it is actually a stroke of genius to try to go out on a limb by giving us something most have not seen before and that is a werewolf that has retained some of its human characteristics enough that we, as the audience could see why James and Co knew that deep down Lupin was still there underneath the werewolf guise. Also, I thought it added more to the horror of this being our professor lupin who was trapped under the skin of this werewolf, and that he may have been able to see what he was doing while transformed, but unable to do anything about it.
Buckbeak was of coarse a great use of CGI in order to bring a fictional character to life, and for some made up for the werewolf in the movie and the flying scene over the lake foreshadows the lake's own importance in GOF for those who are clued up on their HP trivia and books.
Another scene that I thought was a massive improvement, but many do not seem to notice, is the Quidditch scene. Yes, it was cut down and many of the players were not shown as prominently as before, but the way the broomsticks moved, the fast past the Quaffle was thrown and the passing of the Chasers in the rain, THIS to me was finally how Quidditch was meant to be seen on the big screen and not how it was shown in PS or COS. I also loved the new robes that had the players names on the back, which makes sense when you think of the poor person who has to keep track of the plays as they are happening.

The werewolf was very well done in my eyes. I thought it was great how they changed the look of the werewolf. I mean, why bother sticking something on screen that has been done so many more times before. I like how they changed it and made there own.

Plus, it reminded us that underneath the werewolf was a man, a man who was living a tortured life. I thought it was very well done really.

It frustrates me when people complain about the werewolf because It doesn't look like the typical one, like they were going for a normal design but failed horribly. It was obvious they were going for something different, and unique. I also thought it was effective.

A werewolf, being a creature of folklore, can pretty much look however the creative team wants it to look. The PoA wolf was far more effective than the laughable creatures in An American Werewolf in Paris (the worst sequel ever with only one redeeming feature).

Did anyone else love the actually werewolf transformation? I really love that part in the movie. I thought it was acted very well, the CGI was great and the camera angles, Lupins eyes changing, the music, the coloring, everything was done so well.

Did anyone else love the actually werewolf transformation? I really love that part in the movie. I thought it was acted very well, the CGI was great and the camera angles, Lupins eyes changing, the music, the coloring, everything was done so well.

Yes! I thought it was great when his eyes changed, and then his mouth was hanging open and he was just shaking. That was very well acted and directed.

Did anyone else love the actually werewolf transformation? I really love that part in the movie. I thought it was acted very well, the CGI was great and the camera angles, Lupins eyes changing, the music, the coloring, everything was done so well.

I watched the movie againlast night. I loved the movie, everything to do with Lupin and the Werewolf were done so well. Oldman grabbing Lupin and saying those things to him, the actual changing scene, all of it was done very well imo.

I watched the movie againlast night. I loved the movie, everything to do with Lupin and the Werewolf were done so well. Oldman grabbing Lupin and saying those things to him, the actual changing scene, all of it was done very well imo.

I agree. I love going from crazy "murder" Sirius, to old friend of Lupin's Sirius....if that make sense.

I really felt Lupin's pain when transforming, and I really felt Sirius's care for his friend and his concern.

PoA is my favourite HP movie, as it is my favourite book out of the series.
I love the storyline, effects and characters in that movie :]

Considering the griping about everyone has about the Quidditch in PS and COS, what did you guys think about how it was handled in POA? I thought that, although the scene was short, it was straight to the point, complemented the main storyline and we finally get the idea that Quidditch is a sport that is fast, dangerous and not for the faint hearted. I loved idea of putting the players names and numbers on their robes too, much like muggle sports players have on their own uniforms and adds to the realism of this being a proper game they play.

Considering the griping about everyone has about the Quidditch in PS and COS, what did you guys think about how it was handled in POA?

Brilliantly.

It was fast-paced, incredibly atmospheric and didn't impose any actual Quidditch on audiences.

More to the point - it had a purpose. It emphasized Harry's vulnerability where the Dementors were concerned and prompted him to ask for Lupin's help against them. This is what good film-making does: each scene pushes events forward.

Finally it developed the metaphor of flight which Cuaron handles so well. The Dementors remove Harry's pleasure in flying and keep him earth-bound (even the brief scene in the hospital with the broken broom contributes to that). With the gift of the Firebolt at the end, Harry regains one of the joys of his life.

There were so many things that were missing ! I was disappointed to see they didn't explain who were the Marauders, and they actually cut Sirius' explanation in something that last about 5 minutes maximum...

But the effects are still good!

As I loved the book, this book in particular, they put an emphasis about action (where the whole werewolf seeing almost-killing-Harry-and-Hermione came from?) but not on how the personality of the characters, their reactions...

Considering the griping about everyone has about the Quidditch in PS and COS, what did you guys think about how it was handled in POA?

Huh, I did not notice the change in uniforms. However, I thought that Quidditch was used very well: they included only the necessary part of the one game that really contributed to the plot.

In PSS, the Quidditch game should have picked up late in the game with about 30 seconds of Harry and the Slytherin seeker racing about looking for the Snitch. Then the broom should have gone haywire, Hermione "stops" Snape, and then show the game resume, but not bother showing the conclusion: instead focus on Ron & Hermione being both elated and worried: Snape really is trying to kill Harry!

In CoS, the game should have picked up with Harry jockeying with Draco, exchanging insults. Then the rogue bludger should appear: it should have chased Harry around for about 45 seconds (i.e., about 1/2 the time that the dragon chased him: dragons are much cooler than are bludgers); after appearing to elude it, Harry should have pulled up, heard Malfoy taunting him and seen the Snitch right behind Malfoy. The bludger then breaks Harry's arm; Harry then charges at Malfoy with the bludger right behind him and grabs the snitch while the rogue bludger smacks Malfoy right in the groin.

Harry passes out on the ground and comes to with Lockhart insisting that he'll take care of it.....


Both of these would have been much closer to PoA's model. Yes, purists would have complained: after all, the audience would not have learned the "rules" of Quidditch! But the audience never learned the rules, anyway, as it was in a collective daydream at this point (how many more days until Lord of the Rings? And will this movie be over yet?).


There were so many things that were missing ! I was disappointed to see they didn't explain who were the Marauders, and they actually cut Sirius' explanation in something that last about 5 minutes maximum...

Again, the Marauders are backstory that is nice in the book, but that potentially distracts the audience from the main story. The plot does not need it: as soon as Lupin tells Harry that he (Lupin) will know if Harry does not go straight back to his dormitory, the audience is shown that Lupin can read the map.

Sirius' explanation was far less than 5 minutes. 5 minutes is an eternity in a movie; now, the first two movies did waste over 5 minutes on individual segments, but those were poorly done movies. Good movies have pacing like PoA and GoF, and make their points quickly and succinctly.


Again, PoA is a story, not a documentary. It is trying to tell us about the right and difficult vs. easy and wrong choices when it comes to what to accept as truth and what to make of truths. The Marauders simply do not pertain to that.

Again, the Marauders are backstory that is nice in the book, but that potentially distracts the audience from the main story. The plot does not need it: as soon as Lupin tells Harry that he (Lupin) will know if Harry does not go straight back to his dormitory, the audience is shown that Lupin can read the map.

Sorry, but my best friend, who didn't read the book, didn't understand (until I explained her) why the Patronus first took the shape of the stag, and I had to explain her Lupin was Moony...



Sirius' explanation was far less than 5 minutes. 5 minutes is an eternity in a movie; now, the first two movies did waste over 5 minutes on individual segments, but those were poorly done movies. Good movies have pacing like PoA and GoF, and make their points quickly and succinctly.


Again, PoA is a story, not a documentary. It is trying to tell us about the right and difficult vs. easy and wrong choices when it comes to what to accept as truth and what to make of truths. The Marauders simply do not pertain to that.

I wouldn't mind that the Marauders weren't there IF the movie didn't waste time on "the werewolf purchasing Harry and Hermione" or "the fat lady singing". I know the movie has to draw attention, mustn't be boring... but as you said, these scenes aren't related to the plots, are they?

Sorry, but my best friend, who didn't read the book, didn't understand (until I explained her) why the Patronus first took the shape of the stag, and I had to explain her Lupin was Moony...

OK... but how is either of these two details important to plot or story? The important plot point was that Lupin knew what the map was. How he knew is no more important than how Fred & George knew. Who the Marauders were is not important: had they been four completely unknown people who's map had fallen into the hands of Lupin in his youth, then the plot and story would remain the same.

The Stag was symbolic, but it has no effect on the story or plot. Now, Harry figuring out that it was he, not his father, who cast that Patronus spell is - in fact, you could say that this is the story in a nutshell - but the shape of it does not alter the theme or the plot.

Remember, Lupins explanation of these things (in his exit scene) was cut after test audiences evidently deemed it unnecessary. It is possible that it might have worked in the Shrieking Shack: but then people would have complained about Lupin wasting time speaking when he was about to turn into a werewolf. The complaint would have become: "if he had not wasted all of that time, then they would have gotten back to the castle safely."


I wouldn't mind that the Marauders weren't there IF the movie didn't waste time on "the werewolf purchasing Harry and Hermione" or "the fat lady singing". I know the movie has to draw attention, mustn't be boring... but as you said, these scenes aren't related to the plots, are they?

The Fat Lady singing was a matter of 20 seconds. Moreover, it was necessary: the Fat Lady is used later to identify that Sirius Black has broken into the castle. Chekov's Rule works both ways: if you show the gun, then you should fire it later; but if you plan to shoot a gun (here, use the Fat Lady to identify Sirius Black), then you need to show it earlier (here, show the Fat Lady interacting with people).

As for the werewolf chasing Harry & Hermione, that was cinematic. They could NOT have a werewolf in the movie without it pursuing the main character at some point. That would have been as bad as, say, having a big giant dragon and not having it chase the main character! Remember, Harry Potter is action-adventure: so, it has to include scenes that are cinematically thrilling. Werewolves hunting the protagonist is cinematically thrilling and dramatic; the lifestories of tertiary and quaternary characters are neither.


One of the common complaints about PoA (not that there were many) is along these lines. Many people felt that Harry's rescuing of Sirius was too easy: there should have been another Dementor there or a wizard guard or someone who needed to be fought off. Of course, this would not have contributed to the plot: but it does contribute to the drama.

As for the werewolf chasing Harry & Hermione, that was cinematic. They could NOT have a werewolf in the movie without it pursuing the main character at some point. That would have been as bad as, say, having a big giant dragon and not having it chase the main character! Remember, Harry Potter is action-adventure: so, it has to include scenes that are cinematically thrilling. Werewolves hunting the protagonist is cinematically thrilling and dramatic; the lifestories of tertiary and quaternary characters are neither.


At the same time, extended chase scenes are tough to read through in a book, since they are almost required to be visible. It just an example of how things have to be handled differently in the different mediums.

At the same time, extended chase scenes are tough to read through in a book, since they are almost required to be visible. It just an example of how things have to be handled differently in the different mediums.
Exactly. Look at how short, but exciting, that extended dragon chase scene was in the Goblet of Fire movie. Now, considering how long it took JKR to describe the short flight in the book, how would you want to read through that long chase scene?

Considering the griping about everyone has about the Quidditch in PS and COS, what did you guys think about how it was handled in POA?

I thought it was handled very well. It served it's purpose at that point. There was no unnessecery part to it. They showed what needed to be showed and I thought that was great. It did look fast paced and even in the short amount of time showed how fast a game Quidditch is and also how dangerous it is.

Exactly. Look at how short, but exciting, that extended dragon chase scene was in the Goblet of Fire movie. Now, considering how long it took JKR to describe the short flight in the book, how would you want to read through that long chase scene?

This is definitely a case where books simply cannot convey what cinema can convey. It would be like a novelization of Star Wars describing the colors of the lasers or the textures of the expanding gas clouds after things expoded.


Having recently read Kloves original screenplay, I was struck by how much he was going to set up the Prophecy. It was cut from the movie, but in the bridge and closing scene, he emphasizes how Harry's parents lived.

There were some other interesting differences. Lavender was a character with some lines, but those were all transfered. I wonder if the actress that they originally booked became unavailable late.

Lupin explains the Stag and the map in one line at the end. It adds nothing to the script, really: but the "your parents lived" bit really would have.


Also, almost all the HeRon stuff was added by Cuarón, it seems. Kloves gave it a big bit in Hagrid's hut and afterwards (especially when Hermione is watching her alternate self hugging Ron in Hagrid's hut), but that was it.

Considering the griping about everyone has about the Quidditch in PS and COS, what did you guys think about how it was handled in POA?

It was actually a thrilling looking game. I really liked the way it was done, it was just the right length and it did exactly what it needed to do....show Harry's weakness to the dementors, gave Harry a reason to learn how to fend them off, and broke his broom.

IMO its the best HP movie
it has the best atmotsphere

i LOVE what they did with the dementors
i am madly in love with the scenery....the only bad thing about it is its completely inconsistant with the first two movies....but its much much better
buckbeak was SPECTACULAR
the flying sequence is my favorate

the thing i didnt like at all was what they did with the ending
they rushed it way to much and left out way to much
all they needed was another 5 minutes really

I really felt Lupin's pain when transforming, Yes, so did I, and I think that that is much more important than whether they got the werewolf 'right'. As somebody else has said, as a werewolf is a fictional being, as long as it's hairy a film maker can make it look almost like what ever he wants to.

*****yeah

Ok... sorry to revive an old thread, but I was watching PoA again this weekend.

One of the things that struck me as odd was the change they made to Trelawney's prediction. In the film she says "...innocent blood will be shed..." and that's not in the book. Not only that, but due to Harry and Hermoine going back in time, innocent blood **ISN'T** shed (since they save Buckbeak).

So in effect, the prediction doesn't come true (though the Pettigrew part obviously does). Seems odd they'd make a major change like that, and then get it wrong.

Anyone have any thoughts on that?

I'm not quite sure if the line was altered or not, but if it is true than maybe it has something to do with the innocent blood spilled in GOF or OOTP, either with Cedric dying in the tournamnet or Harry's scarred hand thanks to Umbridge. However, given that innocent blood was spilled in a way of Sirius Black being framed for a crime he did not commit by Pettigrew, then perhaps that is what the line in the prophecy meant.

I'm sorry, but I still don't think the PoA movie was fair to the book. There was a lot of material left out and replaced with pointless special effects (although it is true, they were good). Where was the Marauder thing that they left out? That should have been included.

And besides, don't you think that werewolf looked a little bit too um...starved?

I'm sorry, but I still don't think the PoA movie was fair to the book. There was a lot of material left out and replaced with pointless special effects (although it is true, they were good). Where was the Marauder thing that they left out? That should have been included.

And besides, don't you think that werewolf looked a little bit too um...starved?
Not really pointless special effects. It's not as pointless as some other scenes that were present in previous films. Such as the explanation of Quidditch to Harry, where in reality they could have easily bypassed it all with Lee Jordan doing an explanation of it during the match. With CoS the DADA class with the pixies really didn't serve any purpose other than pointless special effects. At least with PoA pretty much every pointless time did double time in foreshadowing or contributing to some element in the near future of the film.

As for the werewolf, it's Professor Lupin. He's basically the wizarding world's equilvalent of being unemployed. Do you think that a poverty stricken man would look like a fully fed werewolf?

I'm not quite sure if the line was altered or not, but if it is true than maybe it has something to do with the innocent blood spilled in GOF or OOTP, either with Cedric dying in the tournamnet or Harry's scarred hand thanks to Umbridge. However, given that innocent blood was spilled in a way of Sirius Black being framed for a crime he did not commit by Pettigrew, then perhaps that is what the line in the prophecy meant.

The prophecy in the book (UK hardback, page 238) reads:
"The Dark Lord lies alone and friendless, abandoned by his followers. His servent has been chained these twelve years. Tonight, before midnight, the servant will break free and set out to rejoin his master. The Dark Lord will rise again with his servant's aid, greater and more terrible than ever before. Tonight... before midnight... the servant will set out... to rejoin... his master..."

The prophecy in the film goes:
"He will return tonight. Tonight, he who betrayed his friends at Hogwarts with murder shall break free. Innocent blood shall be spilt and servant and master will be reunited once more."

Framing someone for murder is not the same as spilling their blood. To spill someone's blood directly implies killing them. Given that Dumbledore (in the film) says "more than one innocent life may be spared" (referring to both Sirius and Buckbeak) it would seem they altered the prophecy to include this reference to Buckbeak

I can understand altering the bit about "he who betrayed his friends at Hogwarts" since they really had to simplify the whole Marauders' relationships with one another (and they're trying to make the audience think Sirius is still the one who betrayed his friends), but given that innocent blood **was not spilled**, it makes Trelawney's prediction unfulfilled in the films, whereas it is fulfilled in the books.

The direct "tonight" reference would also seem to suggest it's not talking about future events in future books, but about Buckbeak's intended execution and Sirius' intended Dementor's Kiss.

And given this is only one of two true/fulfilled predictions Trelawney has ever given (that we know of), it seems like a major thing to change. Given how Jo has said she very carefully worded her predictions, I'm surprised she allowed them to make this alteration... especially when the prophecy is not fulfilled in the context of the movie's alterations.

The prophecy in the movie is accurate too. The 'innocent blood being spilled' is Ron's blood when scabbers bites him.

Harry/Hermioen was so strong i PoA..even I almost wanted it to happen. Sure, R/Hr lust..but the actual deepness of a realtionship?
NOT GOOD!!1! Great movie though! :D Just UP ron, LOWER hermione and, well..yeah

Ok... sorry to revive an old thread, but I was watching PoA again this weekend.

One of the things that struck me as odd was the change they made to Trelawney's prediction. In the film she says "...innocent blood will be shed..." and that's not in the book. Not only that, but due to Harry and Hermoine going back in time, innocent blood **ISN'T** shed (since they save Buckbeak).

So in effect, the prediction doesn't come true (though the Pettigrew part obviously does). Seems odd they'd make a major change like that, and then get it wrong.

Anyone have any thoughts on that?

Ron's leg got cut when DogSirius dragged him into the Shrieking Shack. That qualifies as spilt blood to me.

Ron's leg got cut when DogSirius dragged him into the Shrieking Shack. That qualifies as spilt blood to me.

No, no, it was even befoe that, remember? Scabbers bit Ron on the finger and he bled a few drops (at the same time they thought Buckbeak was beheaded).

No, no, it was even befoe that, remember? Scabbers bit Ron on the finger and he bled a few drops (at the same time they thought Buckbeak was beheaded).

wow! I wonder if non-book viewers even noticed that!

I heard somewhere that JK Rowling reportedly said after viewing Alfonso Cuarón's Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, that she was completely shocked at how the liberties the film took with the book actually revealed a lot about the books she hadn't already published.

I was wondering if there was already a thread solely discussing the aspects of the film that may reveal parts of books 6 & 7. If so, could someone direct me? If not, either I'll start a thread or discuss it here. I'll say, this is definitely subject for discussion!!

I gave it a fair because although it wasn't the best in the film series, it wasn't the worst. Cuaron added a lot of little things that made it interesting.

-Simon :)

One scene that stuck out for me was when Snape burst into the Shrieking Shack boasting of vengeance. A person who did not read the book would not know what the vengeance is for.

The POA movie came out after the first 5 books, so only HBP and Book 7 were left. When Harry was in the infirmary after his encounter with dementors at the Quidditch match, Ron remarked that Harry looked peaked, to which either Fred or George offered to dop Ron off the Astronomy tower and see how he looked. Now we see that as foreshadowing Dumbledore's death.

One scene that stuck out for me was when Snape burst into the Shrieking Shack boasting of vengeance. A person who did not read the book would not know what the vengeance is for.

In the book Snape was vengeful because of the prank the marauder's played on him when they were young. In the film Snape voices concern a with Dumbledore about hiring Lupin, we find out later that his reasoning is because Lupin is a werewolf and old friend of Sirius, and that it could be Lupin who is helping Sirius into the castle. All they needed to show was that Snape had a dislike for Lupin and a "murder". The prank isn't important to the story in POA. I think we will get a taste of Snape and the marauder's relationship in OOTP, were it should be established.

One of the things that struck me as odd was the change they made to Trelawney's prediction. In the film she says "...innocent blood will be shed..." and that's not in the book. Not only that, but due to Harry and Hermoine going back in time, innocent blood **ISN'T** shed (since they save Buckbeak).


Well, Ron did gash his leg.....

Well, Ron did gash his leg.....

Exactly. Ron was bit by Scabbers and Padfoot. Then, if you want to look at it, Buckbeak would have been killed if Harry and Hermione had not turned back time. Trelawney's perdiction could have been looking at the future before the time travel because even without the time travel Wormtail would have gone back to his master.

Exactly. Ron was bit by Scabbers and Padfoot. Then, if you want to look at it, Buckbeak would have been killed if Harry and Hermione had not turned back time. Trelawney's perdiction could have been looking at the future before the time travel because even without the time travel Wormtail would have gone back to his master.
Very implausible about the innocent blood thing. It's like when Firenze said about the small events not making a difference to stars as they're too insignificant. How useless would Seers be if they made prophecies like "the one with red hair and a rat shall receive a cut, when the sun wanes.."? I think that it was just changed to shorten the original prophecy but still add a dramatic-sounding element.

Very implausible about the innocent blood thing. It's like when Firenze said about the small events not making a difference to stars as they're too insignificant. How useless would Seers be if they made prophecies like "the one with red hair and a rat shall receive a cut, when the sun wanes.."? I think that it was just changed to shorten the original prophecy but still add a dramatic-sounding element.

Of Course it was changed so it was dramatic, short and to the point.

None readers when viewing the film before the time turner scene would interpret Buckbeak as being the innocent blood being spilled once they saw the axe swing. Once the time turner scene takes place then Buckbeak being the innocent blood doesn't work anymore, BUT the prediction was made before time was effected. From what I understand in POA, it is very rare for people to mess with time, so we don't know how a prediction will change if time is changed.

The way Trelawney's prediction was said in the film is more for effect then anything else. What people are questioning is why she would wrongly predicted that innocent blood will be spilled when in fact Buckbeak (assuming that is who she is speaking of) is not killed...BUT this prediction was made before time was altered and we have no idea if that makes a difference or not.

People were asking on this thread who the innocent blood would be if it wasn't Buckbeak, that's why it's up for interpretation.

This is one of my top movies ever, but since I love the book more than any other book, the movie is worse than the book by leaps and bounds.

Great movie though

This is one of my top movies ever, but since I love the book more than any other book, the movie is worse than the book by leaps and bounds.

Great movie though

OOTP and POA are tied as my favorite Potter book. I can't seem to pick between the two. Now, even though POA is one of my favorites and I do know there have been changes made in this movie, the POA film is by far my favorite Potter film so far. I would actually rank it with in my top favorite films. It's one of those rare films I can view over and over and never get bored of it and one of those rare films where you can see something new on almost every re-watch. POA is fantastic!!!

Of Course it was changed so it was dramatic, short and to the point.

None readers when viewing the film before the time turner scene would interpret Buckbeak as being the innocent blood being spilled once they saw the axe swing. Once the time turner scene takes place then Buckbeak being the innocent blood doesn't work anymore, BUT the prediction was made before time was effected. From what I understand in POA, it is very rare for people to mess with time, so we don't know how a prediction will change if time is changed.

The way Trelawney's prediction was said in the film is more for effect then anything else. What people are questioning is why she would wrongly predicted that innocent blood will be spilled when in fact Buckbeak (assuming that is who she is speaking of) is not killed...BUT this prediction was made before time was altered and we have no idea if that makes a difference or not.

People were asking on this thread who the innocent blood would be if it wasn't Buckbeak, that's why it's up for interpretation.
Yes, I'm just giving my view that there wasn't any - mainly because it was edited in and therefore had no meaning. That part of the prediction is non-canon. The movie prediction of the "innocent blood" is being looked into too much. It doesn't really refer to anything, it's just for the audience.

Also, I don't agree with the "before time was altered" statement. There wasn't any altering of time, there were always two Harrys and two Hermiones for that 3 hour period in time. There weren't two different time scales - just one. Sirius and Buckbeak never died.

I heard somewhere that JK Rowling reportedly said after viewing Alfonso Cuarón's Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, that she was completely shocked at how the liberties the film took with the book actually revealed a lot about the books she hadn't already published.

I was wondering if there was already a thread solely discussing the aspects of the film that may reveal parts of books 6 & 7. If so, could someone direct me? If not, either I'll start a thread or discuss it here. I'll say, this is definitely subject for discussion!!

I have a thread going were I state what event in the movie I think Jo is refering to, but you can post your ideas as well. Just search "Is the PoA's Conversation on the Bridge More Important Than It Seems?" and it should pop up.

Also, I don't agree with the "before time was altered" statement. There wasn't any altering of time, there were always two Harrys and two Hermiones for that 3 hour period in time. There weren't two different time scales - just one. Sirius and Buckbeak never died.

You said it yourself..... with in the 3 hour time. In the movie we have no idea when the prediction was made in compared to when the trio went down to Hagrid's. We do know that it was enough time between those happens for them to change chlothes. Those first 3 hours had not even happened yet. Once it stats, once Harry and Hermione change back time is when there is a time loop. Trelawney's prediction happened before time was altered. Before time was messed with.

POA was my fave, I just really really loved it!!!!!!!!!!!! i dont know why, i just do, maybwe its cuz Harry now has a kind of family in Siruis, kinda like a second dad. and no Voldie for once!!!:D

Now for the Pink.....I never had a problem with Hermione wearing pink. It's just not that unthinkable to me to think that Hermione may own a pink zipped-up sweatshirt out of her entire wardrobe of clothes. I think pink gets a bad rap actually. Yes it's a "girly" color, but Hermione is a girl, and nowhere in the books does it ever say that Hermione doesn't wear pink and only wears primary colors....lol. It actually never says in the book what she is wearing when wearing muggle clothes, so I can't understand why it is so crazy that Hermione would own and wear a pink sweatshirt.

Wasn't she wearing a pink dressing-gown along with her bad-tempered expression while telling off Harry and Ron for trying to sneak out the night they met Fluffy?

I really think the reason the pink gets such a rap is because PoA was the first film to feature the kids in Muggle clothes- with Hermione in that infamous hoodie- on all the posters and publicity material. And the sequence from Buckbeak's execution up until their return to the hospital wing was almost an hour long- close to a third of the film, give or take a bit. That's also the part in which the hoodie makes its first appearance. Also, might I add, its only appearance. It's actually just one day in the year, only the stuff that happens makes it seem like she spent all her time in pink.

I voted 'good'. I enjoyed the movie, and did not mind the changes like taking out the stuff about the Marauders. I know all thatm anyway. :lol:

I've voted "good". It's my favourite HP movie, it's very well filmed (screen shots - :drool: ), I love how they made the Dementors and the mood of the movie. What I don't like in this film is the scene with the timeturner. Every time I watch it I think it's too long.

It was good - but it was also the film that pushed harry and hermione's platonic relationship, for some reason, leaving out Ron. :no:
I mean...why? When Hermine's the distant one - it works, because she's still the girl and the smart one. WIth Ron, it jsut leaves him as something less, they cut out his obvious loyalty, caring and wisdom - leaving him as nothing but comic foil.
You might think peopel complain about it a lot - bt it is a problem, maybe one of the reasons why ther are so many harry/hermione shippers! I never saw that triangle in the books!

POA remains my favourite movie. It's story telling technique was just really very good. When I hadn't read the books before watching the movie, I thought it was great. After reading the books, I still think POA is the best but it could have been so much better if they had just decided to leave the character portrayals correct. It would have then been a truly outstanding movie I believe. Ron was at least 90% out of character and Hermione was completely one-dimensional with little depth. I disagree to some extent with those saying that Hermione wouldn't have done this and wouldn't have done that. Yes, she couldn't throw a 13 year old boy with one hand or learn how to howl like a werewolf or be capable of standing by the dementors unaffected or many of the other silly things Kloves wrote when he lost control of writing her character but I don't believe those are the main things that made her characterization in the movie seem a little insipid and rather poorly developed compared to the books. It was what they left out. They left out anything that would make her realistic or relatable as a human being. She just became another Pink Power ranger or some other cartoonish character. Her characterization had no depth nor did Ron's. Only Harry got any character development at all but as he's the star and they centred the story around him almost entirely, it didn't really spoil it much but if they had decided to give the other characters some inkling of depth, I think the movie would have been so much better.

However, I personally hope Cuaron only returns as an advisor in the story telling and not actually to direct the characters (I think he's partially to blame for the characters being out of character). I'm sure someone can do a better job now that they have come to some realization that the movies don't have to be little kiddie movies. I think for HP, someone who can give us proper character development should be picked over someone who is better at artistic story telling. GoF did much better with character development but not style yet it did better at the box office. People cared more about the characters at the end of the day. I think if PoA came out after GoF, it wouldn't have been as popular as GoF coming after PoA. In fact, I think it may have been a bit of a disappointment because of it's failure to develop the characters, especially the Marauders.

Cheers :tu:


I really agree - the characterisation was the little thing that ruined it for me, and has ruined the way people see ron and hermine from now on. I think I'm right in saying that since that film, Hermione became extrmemely popular and seen as the feisty heroine who had a vey strong relatinship with Harry, and Ron the comic relief who did nothing particulaly remarkable throughout the whole movie, and has kept his name as that kind of character since. Why do they try and make it like Harry and Hermioen have a stronger bond, ron the distant one? in the books, until late OOTP it's harry and hermione with the stronger bond, and because hermione's 'the' girl, and clever too...it works! I know i've already stated this, but, just, once again.... why?

P.S. NIce picture!

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.

Oh i loved this - one compliment about PoA i can surely make is how great (apart from the cheesy titanic line) was the lessons and feel of buckbeak in the forst etc. And what you said!


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.

Oh i loved this - one compliment about PoA i can surely make is how great (apart from the cheesy titanic line) was the lessons and feel of buckbeak in the forst etc. And what you said!

OOTP and POA are tied as my favorite Potter book. I can't seem to pick between the two. Now, even though POA is one of my favorites and I do know there have been changes made in this movie, the POA film is by far my favorite Potter film so far. I would actually rank it with in my top favorite films. It's one of those rare films I can view over and over and never get bored of it and one of those rare films where you can see something new on almost every re-watch. POA is fantastic!!!


Ditto!!!!!!!

I didn't really like PoA... i just really loved that book, and all the stuff they didn't put in was really something i wanted to see. They just randomly made several jumps in the movie that involved the information without giving it... Some of that information i feel would be good to have going into the OotP movie. I just don't see enough connection between Harry and Sirius to make Sirius' death really affect Harry in the movies, and there isn't enough time to develop this in Ootp, because they will have to cut out alot more.

The werewolf indeed was lousy. I loathed it as it was hairless and it did not have a nice shape and no scares. I mean if they only had like looked at the movie the Underworld they would've found perfect werewolves that were scary. I mean even the Van Helsing werewolf was better. I totally agree that the werewolf was really very bad. Very bad of the animation team.
I thought that the werewolf was dreadful. The same people that worked on this werewolf were alledgedy among those who made the Doctor Who werewolf, which was so much better (click here (http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41543000/jpg/_41543104_who203.jpg)for a picture). This one has hair, and moves so much better.
I also think that it could have been made alot more true to the book, but it was better at that than GoF.

I was reading a Cuaron interview and this part caught my eye

I despise movies that explain. I cannot stand exposition in movies. I start getting, like, a rash. It's like getting suffocated in the theater. Because I love cinema. And cinema is becoming something that is not cinema. Cinema is becoming a medium of illustrating stories. Cinema is becoming a medium in which you can close your eyes and you can watch the movie.(...)I think that cinema within the past few years has been a hostage to stories. And we have to make stories to dance with cinema, not to be just a hostage. Where story, and acting, and cinematography, and music are elements to create a cinematic narrative. I'm sorry; I'm going to rant because I don't understand the point of a movie that you can watch with your eyes closed.

So,is that why there was no Marauders explanation?Or in fact,almost no exposition at all in the movie.

The best exemple I can think of is the whomping willow,there's never an exposition scene where a character reminds us what it is,it's basicly shown to us throughout the film.

The one thing that I was really disapointed with in the movie was the way that they did the wearwolves. I expected so much more, for it to be better.

I was also disapointed with the actors they chose for Sirius and Remus

I think it's the best one...but it doesn't deserve an 'excellent'. There are still lots of things I would have liked to see...

As a movie, it was really pretty good, but confusing storytelling and horrible characterization greatly lowered my rating of it

Of all the movies, I liked this one the best, although I missed Richard harris's Dumbledore. I thought Cuaron did a very good job capturing the spirit of the book. No movie can ever capture the nuances of the book, of course, but this was a fun and in some cases surprising film. For the most part I liked the casting, and thought the actors had a good rapport with each other and grasp of the material. The sets were excellent, too. It was fun to visit Hogsmeade and see the Shrieking Shack.

As a movie, it was really pretty good, but confusing storytelling and horrible characterization greatly lowered my rating of it

Same with me. I rated it poor. If the movie had not been based on a book, it would have been good. But, if you're going to make a movie based on a book, the movie should at least resemble the book when you're done. POA failed at that miserably. Although that quote from Cuaron goes a long way in explaining why that was. If that's how he feels, then he should not be directing movies based on books.

Well, I rewatched PoA last night, which probably was my least favorite film, although still quite good. After rewatching, I think I can easily say it is right up there with GoF, which was far and away my favorite of the films. The chemistry between Harry and Sirius is beautiful, a testament to the great acting provided by Gary Oldman and Dan Radcliffe. The story, as we all know, is brilliant. I love it when movies are driven by dialogue and PoA is just that. For me, PoA is a combo of the Harry/Sirius chemistry and the story.

On to Cuaron. I was very critical of his direction the first time I saw PoA. That is probably a big reason why it was, for me, the least watched of the 4 films. However, after watching last night, I can say that I was quite pleased with his direction. I still think some subplot should have been left in, but other than that, I love the little touches he put in the movie and really have no problem with the pace of it, overall, I think it helped. I posted another thread about the possible director of HBP, basically stating that I would not want him, well, I have changed that opinion. I would have no problem with him directing either HBP or DH (but I would still want Yates first, barring the product of OOTP). Does anyone agree with my assesment or have you felt to change of heart I have? If you haven't, please rewacth PoA!

Well, I rewatched PoA last night, which probably was my least favorite film, although still quite good. After rewatching, I think I can easily say it is right up there with GoF, which was far and away my favorite of the films. The chemistry between Harry and Sirius is beautiful, a testament to the great acting provided by Gary Oldman and Dan Radcliffe. The story, as we all know, is brilliant. I love it when movies are driven by dialogue and PoA is just that. For me, PoA is a combo of the Harry/Sirius chemistry and the story.

On to Cuaron. I was very critical of his direction the first time I saw PoA. That is probably a big reason why it was, for me, the least watched of the 4 films. However, after watching last night, I can say that I was quite pleased with his direction. I still think some subplot should have been left in, but other than that, I love the little touches he put in the movie and really have no problem with the pace of it, overall, I think it helped. I posted another thread about the possible director of HBP, basically stating that I would not want him, well, I have changed that opinion. I would have no problem with him directing either HBP or DH (but I would still want Yates first, barring the product of OOTP). Does anyone agree with my assesment or have you felt to change of heart I have? If you haven't, please rewacth PoA!

:lol: It's funny, because I rewatched POA just a few hours earlier (as part of my annual trisemestral Potter review :D), and I can say it is a movie that gets better as you watch it. I still do not enjoy the characterization very much, but the story does get clearer.

I rated it Fair, btw. (Actually pretty high for me, since I am very harsh when it comes to rating stuff like this :D)

I rated it poor. Thet cut so much out that it becomes confusing and hard to follow. They could have at least explained the marauders and their relationship with Snape.

i rated it Excellent coz overall i enjoyed watching PoA

I also rated excellent, because it was the best cut, the right length and the best performancies of the series so far.

There were four things I liked about it,
1. Prof. Lupin
2. Sirius Black
3.Buckbeak
4. The drive home from the theatre.

I liked the personal touches he put into PoA; I didn't like, however, the 'darkness' of Hogwarts and the mufti-uniform that many people have commented on.

"Alfonso had good intuition about what would and wouldn't work. He's put things in the film that, without knowing it, foreshadow things that are going to happen in the final two books. So I really got goosebumps when I saw a couple of those things, and I thought people are going to look back on the film and think those were put in deliberately as clues."
~ J.K. Rowling, 'Creating the Vision,' PoA DVD

:clap: Awesome thread, I rated this movie ****.

POA was nice, though the one thing I absolutely hated, but knew was coming, was the loss of the innocent, younger feel that you could especially see in SS, and slightly see in COS. I almost cried at the end of the first two movies, but I did not come close in POA.

I did love Dan in POA, he was almost exactly the Harry that I imagined! Overall, great! I did miss the younger feel, but Harry is growing up, I suppose. :sigh:

If only Ron and Hermione had been made slightly more canon, and maybe worked on a few more scenes, then I think it could be perfect.
Cauron's an amazing director - i'd love him back.

:lol: It's funny, because I rewatched POA just a few hours earlier (as part of my annual trisemestral Potter review :D), and I can say it is a movie that gets better as you watch it. I still do not enjoy the characterization very much, but the story does get clearer.

I rated it Fair, btw. (Actually pretty high for me, since I am very harsh when it comes to rating stuff like this :D)

I agree with you guys so much! As a kid, when i first watched it (after the exciting PS and CoS) i wasn't at all keen on this completley cut.changed etc. PoA. But it slowly grew on me, and even now when the characterisation bugs me...i can't help but love it as a movie. Because it's so magical and beautiful - watching it on a big screen makes it even more so! (i have a new wide-screent TV - and beleive me, ith seom movies, you need the screenshots to help).
I seriously think he got some things just right. He was actually really goign the right way with Ron, even more so than Newell with his wittiness, except he started making him far too wimpy and then made him pointless as the film continued. ANd hermioen changed into miss powergirl. HOwever, most ofthe train scene, for example....it was jsut great. It was like a beautiful European film with magic and a medievil feel, and felt like 1993 as oppose to 2004 (anyone else feel that?) some parts annoyed me, but if you jsut watch it, it's not as bad as you think - and it's quite unique.
Even now I'm constantly wrestling between the ideas of whether GoF or POA is the best - because whenever I watch each, i think that one is the best. And they're great in such different ways.
I think GOF had character development and excitemnent.
POA had magic and depth.

WHich one to choose? I love the fact that OOTP sounds like a brilliant mix of the two!

POA is going to be on ABC Family tonight at 5:00... not sure if that is CST time or what... it might be the extended version... I am not sure.

POA was better than the first two but not as good as GOF mike newell did an excellant job of GOF

And why people hated the end?

Becuase, for me, I felt it was rushed. But at the VERY end. Harry get's this Firebolt, goes outside and rides it. We end up with a very ugly picture of Dan.

the ending was a bit rushed but so was the ending of GOF
movies are slightly different that way
people want a quick sentimental ending
in a book you can write 2 or 3 chapters

I liked the ending :] I felt so happy after seeing it, the feeling of freedom..

I thought the POA ending was good...until there was that really cheesy snapshot. I mean....why?!?

Extended version? What's it got in it compared to the movie one?

I'll start off with what I liked. I thought the time turner was done very well. It was a hard thing to do to show people going back in time, and I thought Alfonso did I good job with that. I also thought he did a wonderful job with Buckbeak. He was done very well, and he looked very realistic as well.

Now to what I didn't like. I will start by saying that I thought the movie was rushed. I think they didn't want the movie to be very long so they could add more to the time turner and revealing who Sirius and Wormtail really are. I thought the acting wasn't done as well as it has been in the past in this movie, and I don't blame the actors. The actors can only do as well as they can with the directions they are given by their director. Harry crying after he found out Sirius was his Godfather was laughable for me. It didn't sound realistic to me, and he didn't look at all sad. I didn't feel any amount of pathos for Harry.

Throughout the movie, I didn't get the magical feeling Hogwarts possessed during the 1st and 2nd and even the 4th film. It also didn't feel like the year was progressing. Showing the tree changing seasons was clever, but it didn't make the year feel like it was passing. Harry getting the broom at the end didn't seem very logical because they made it seem like it was the end of the year, and then they're still talking about the Quidditch cup being theirs.

One thing that I honestly can't stand is that they didn't mention who the Marauders were. That is a crucial part for Harry since he finds out more about his father, and who his father was. We hear so much about Lily that we wonder about James. This was one of those key character pieces. They could have easily added onto the end a few more minutes about Harry finding out from Lupin that him, James, Sirius, and Wormtail had created the map.

Just my opinion. :)

to the people saying they hated the lack of innocence and darkness of hogwarts consider this. There was Dementors flying around the castle!! and what do they do....?? come on....you know this....

Oh PoA still irks me to this day. Each time I watch it, the sting goes a little bit away, but still there is much to pick at for this film.....

1. What was with the Jamaican heads? Those were the most ridiculous things I have ever seen.

2. The whole Sirius Black screaming photo in the newspapers. For goodness sake, he was dangerous, not crazily hysterical!

3. The limited amount of Quidditch.

4. The missing plot lines about Cho and Cedric (relating to Quidditch)

5. Daniel's crying. Where were the tears? and the whole "I'm going to kill him!" thing was weak.

6. The crazy plot sequence that was totally messed up.

7. Why wasn't there any discussion on how Lupin knew how to use the map? Non-book readers were really puzzled on that.

8. The dementors sucking the spirit and life out of their victims: the whole blurring mist and the looks of agony; I'm pretty sure in the books the dementors caused depression and coldness, but not agony.

9. Harry on the Buckbeak - too Titanic-esque

10.The entire changed location of the castle, Hagrid's Hut, forest, etc from the first two films.... the Whomping Willow was miniscule!

11. Film ending with Harry's face (blurred, not even clear) --- the other films ended with broader focuses on scenery which gives the film a closing touch, and can lead to reflection on the entire film. The narrow focus on Harry's face felt like something else needed to be added.

J. K. Rowling said she "got goosebumps" from seeing this film because it contained things that inadvertently foreshadowed information to be revealed in coming books.

"I'm watching the film again to try and see what they are"

Anyone spotted anything regarding the quote?

Its the relationship between Ron and Hermione

And the fact Lily was able to see the beauty in people even if others didn't.

1. What was with the Jamaican heads? Those were the most ridiculous things I have ever seen.

those were shrunken heads... they were used in divination, and fortune telling
since movie 3 is Remus' and Sybill's teaching pivot, they were used to create an eerie and reality effect on the movie...

if you ever played the game Mystery Case Files: Prime Suspects, you can find 2 of them in the fortune telling room of Madam Ball...

"shrunken heads literally "vision" or "power," protects humans from a violent death and assures their survival." - wikipedia


2. The whole Sirius Black screaming photo in the newspapers. For goodness sake, he was dangerous, not crazily hysterical!

You can never tell the state of mind of an innocent person that was dragged to a cell... though I'm not telling that he is crazy, he must be in a bit of shock, anger (to Pettigrew) or wants his side to be heard.


3. The limited amount of Quidditch.
4. The missing plot lines about Cho and Cedric (relating to Quidditch)

I agree... Diggory and Chang must be emphasized... but since the movie is about Sirius, Cuaron might find these unnecessary...



5. Daniel's crying. Where were the tears? and the whole "I'm going to kill him!" thing was weak.

"'coz when he does, I'm gonna be ready... I'm gonna kill him."
He's not supposed to be drowned in anger... he is a human too.. showing some signs of fear...


7. Why wasn't there any discussion on how Lupin knew how to use the map? Non-book readers were really puzzled on that.

TOTALLY! AT LAST OUR MINDS MEET! I'm really upset about this Marauder's thingy... viewers would even be confused about the Prongs outline that just had surfaced; never discussed...


8. The dementors sucking the spirit and life out of their victims: the whole blurring mist and the looks of agony; I'm pretty sure in the books the dementors caused depression and coldness, but not agony.

Yeah... It's quite different to Harry's case... already mentioned in the movie by Lupin... I'm sure everyone experience the sucking... It's just that harry's got more that's why he's expressing agony... becuase of the lack of happiness and the pain reminisced and left by the sucking...


9. Harry on the Buckbeak - too Titanic-esque

nah... just showing some light scenes before the dark ones...


10.The entire changed location of the castle, Hagrid's Hut, forest, etc from the first two films.... the Whomping Willow was miniscule!

It was just corrected... Was it in the books that Willow must be near Hogwarts? WRONG! It's below... connected to the Shack! as well as HAgrid's hut...


11. Film ending with Harry's face (blurred, not even clear) --- the other films ended with broader focuses on scenery which gives the film a closing touch, and can lead to reflection on the entire film. The narrow focus on Harry's face felt like something else needed to be added.

it creates an illusion to someone to be suspended. I mean for the whole movie thoughts to be left hanging... and the viewers to say "oh my God, it's already over?" so that they crave for more after the exit...

Hi. I voted for good. I thought it was a good movie and included excellent scenes which I liked like Hippogriff scenes and the escape of Sirius Black.

I'm back for another bite, sorry....The Marauder's Map..Grrrrrr! I mean, 'it's a piece of parchment' not War and Peace! When Harry takes it from his pocket, it's like a Road Map of The UK, not as I expected!
How I envisaged it, was as a flat sheet, A4 size with a holographic image of 'the castle' within it. You see the castle floor by floor, without the castle structure covering it.
In the movie, all you see is the floor Harry is on, when he is there....but when Fred and George hand it to him, he watches Dumbledore in his study.
Has any of you ever read, "The City and the Stars" by Arthur C. Clarke...no, well within the story, there is a chamber within the city, where you can view the construction of the city from it's begining, all done as holographic images.
That's how I saw 'the map', and with the CGI work today, it could have been done!

A recent article about Netflix has an off-hand comment that Prisoner is one of the most rented movies, up there with Lord of the Rings. None of the other HP movies are listed, although Goblet probably has not had enough time. It should come as no surprise that the two Columbus films are not among the all-time high rentals, but it is cools to see that Cuarón's is.... This also explains the increased audience for Goblet: all of these people renting Prisoner has expanded the Harry Potter audience.

(The main point of the article was that big award winners were not always among the big rentals; Titanic, for example, trails some of the movies that it beat for Best Picture. The first two Lord of the Rings films have outrented the films that beat them. Prisoner is just tossed in the list as an example of a film that did well, but that has done especially well as a rental.)

I'm back for another bite, sorry....The Marauder's Map..Grrrrrr! I mean, 'it's a piece of parchment' not War and Peace! When Harry takes it from his pocket, it's like a Road Map of The UK, not as I expected!
How I envisaged it, was as a flat sheet, A4 size with a holographic image of 'the castle' within it. You see the castle floor by floor, without the castle structure covering it.
In the movie, all you see is the floor Harry is on, when he is there....but when Fred and George hand it to him, he watches Dumbledore in his study.
Has any of you ever read, "The City and the Stars" by Arthur C. Clarke...no, well within the story, there is a chamber within the city, where you can view the construction of the city from it's begining, all done as holographic images.
That's how I saw 'the map', and with the CGI work today, it could have been done!

I like how the map was portrayed. Given how large Hogwarts is, it wouldn't make sense for the entire floorplan to be shown on a single sheet. The way Harry folds the map to look at different floors was an ingenious idea.

I don't really agree with them that much, but the American Film Institute named POA as one of the 400 Greatest American films of all-time (They name the top 100 in the summer). They select these films based on quality, culteral impact, awards recognition, etc. I think this shows how respected POA is in by many industry people.

I think this shows how respected POA is in by many industry people.PoA generally is credited with saving the franchise. Another CoS level drop in audience, and many people think that WB would have pulled the plug on it. Yes, it was still making a lot of money, but it was making much less than expected; like all big businesses, success is judged relative to expectation, not how far above zero you score. Also, these films are NOT cheap!

If you want an idea of what movie fans think of PoA, then pop in on a movie group and see what people say at the suggestion of Cuarón directing the final movie. They wax lyrical!

If you want an idea of what movie fans think of PoA, then pop in on a movie group and see what people say at the suggestion of Cuarón directing the final movie. They wax lyrical!
But you have to consider that movie experts (may it be professionally or of hobby) are only a minority of people. An even smaller minority than the book fans. There is sometimes the danger of qualifying a movie from a more professional point of view, because people lose the perspective, are unable to analyse a movie from a neutral point of view.
So allthough a professional opinion is very appreciated, it hardly reflects what general audience thinks.

But you have to consider that movie experts (may it be professionally or of hobby) are only a minority of people. An even smaller minority than the book fans. There is sometimes the danger of qualifying a movie from a more professional point of view, because people lose the perspective, are unable to analyse a movie from a neutral point of view.
So allthough a professional opinion is very appreciated, it hardly reflects what general audience thinks.
The thing with that is being a movie expert doesn't necessarily equate to a bias towards viewing a movie. The thing about being a movie expert is that you are more capable to explain why you like a film and what their strengths and weaknesses are. Basically more often than not, movie experts (or the movie inclined) express the very same opinions as to why the general audience reacts to a film. To the point, our ability to appreciate art is hardwired in all of us and it's more similiar than most people would like to admit. Golden Mean, rules of threes, balance, composition, melody, whatever in any art medium is something that we either are aware or unaware of liking or disliking a certain product. We might not know why we like it, but often there are explanations as to why.

Take for instance human nature. We as the general public might not be able to understand why we act the way we do, but professionals who study human psychology and habits might. By this account, their professional opinion could reflect what the general audience likes.

But you have to consider that movie experts (may it be professionally or of hobby) are only a minority of people. An even smaller minority than the book fans. This is true. However, one striking trend in the history of literature, music, etc., is that whereas popularity is a poor predictor of longevity, critical acclaim tends to be a good one. Many of the most renowned authors and musicians were among many popular writers and composers in their day, but stood out in that the "experts" singled them out at that time.

So allthough a professional opinion is very appreciated, it hardly reflects what general audience thinks.No, but it tends to predict well what audiences will think over the years. The critics called Bach, Mozart, Austen, etc., while being a bit indifferent towards the various Salieri's at that time, despite the fact that that Salieri's were quite popular, too.

Now, this does not guarantee that PoA will be well-remembered. However, it is a first cut. We certainly can conclude at this point that the first two movies will not be remembered as great moments in cinema: those surfers went "splat" in the harbor! PoA still has some more buildings to dodge, but it's on the board.

The thing with that is being a movie expert doesn't necessarily equate to a bias towards viewing a movie. The thing about being a movie expert is that you are more capable to explain why you like a film and what their strengths and weaknesses are.This is very true. Basically, they can articulate clearly what irks people (e.g., slow pacing, unnecessary scenes, etc.) because they are much more used to concentrating on story and plot. However, normal people do that, too: they just do not do so as concisely.

Still, the people do have a voice. The fact that Prisoner is among NetFlix's big rentals whereas Stone and Chamber are not is telling. However, Prisoner is almost certainly there for the same reasons that critics and audiences prefered Prisoner to the first two movies. (The numbers shown here at wildly at odds with public reactions to the movies, just in case somebody cites these poll results!)


Take for instance human nature. We as the general public might not be able to understand why we act the way we do, but professionals who study human psychology and habits might. By this account, their professional opinion could reflect what the general audience likes.Heh. True: but remember, there are many people out there who refuse to accept that anybody might understand something beyond their comprehension!

I know this seems like its coming at a very weird time, but I must go bback to the screen version of PoA. Its been well known, and Uncle Vernon even mentions it later, that Harrys not allowed to use magic outside of school. So why then, is Harry seen casting the lumos maxima spell in the first scene???? It just doesnt make sense. Its really been bugging me. Any thoughts?

It is to establish that Harry can use magic, which explains what happens to Aunt Marge in a couple scenes.

Well we obviously know he can use magic. But he doesnt even seem worried at all about getting sactioned by the MOM as he does when he meets Fudge at the Leaky Cauldron. It still doesnt make sense to me. The point with Aunt marge is that he still cant control his magic like he should. The exploding wine class, blowing up of Marge. But to just throw in a scene of him using illegal magic for no known purpose makes no sense.

I know this seems like its coming at a very weird time, but I must go bback to the screen version of PoA. Its been well known, and Uncle Vernon even mentions it later, that Harrys not allowed to use magic outside of school. So why then, is Harry seen casting the lumos maxima spell in the first scene???? It just doesnt make sense. Its really been bugging me. Any thoughts?


Because kids who are obsessed with things read after their parents tell them lights out. For me it was with a flashlight, for a magic kid, he would use his wand. It establishes he's into the magic learning ... and it connects him to all us obsessed types reading after mommy said lights out!

Well we obviously know he can use magic.

We know he can use magic. But the audience doesn't necessarily know that.

This film was good, amazing compared to the tripe Chris Columbus gave us. Alfonso definitely saved the series. It took a dark and broader turn, and to me, it seems that this one, PoA, is the one that matured the characters. The acting was so much better, and Gambon was spot on as Dumbledore. I am so thankful that Christopher Columbus set sail and left this series.

Well we obviously know he can use magic. But he doesnt even seem worried at all about getting sactioned by the MOM as he does when he meets Fudge at the Leaky Cauldron. It still doesnt make sense to me. The point with Aunt marge is that he still cant control his magic like he should. The exploding wine class, blowing up of Marge. But to just throw in a scene of him using illegal magic for no known purpose makes no sense.
The idea of Lumos constitutes as an illegal spell is up in the air. I'll post an interesting little factoid from the HP DVD Chapter a Day Thread.

People wonder why Lumos wasn't registered as performing spells for underage wizards (which would be against the law). As noted by Nowhere_man:
[...]in OotP, when the dementors attack Harry and Dudley, Harry performs two spells: Lumos and the Patronus; but he just gets charged for performing the patronus, not for both of them. So, lumos is authorized by the Mom or Jo made a mistake; for me, either answer would justify Cuarón.
That might indicate that JKR either noted this in the PoA screenplay or the PoA screenplay noted this in the Ootp when it was released. Considering they were released so close together, it does bring up whether Kloves or JKR were fully aware of this point.

I was very happy with the way Cuaron directed PoA. I thought it was the first film to have the right atmosphere, despite the things that were left out.

I've begun (especially after GoF) to treat the movies separately and to try to view them from the perspective of someone who only sees the movies, like my parents. They've been happy with all of them thus far, and don't notice things as much as we (who, let's face it, are a little obsessed) do.

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

I know it sucks that they left out so much of the Marauder storyline, but does anybody else love the scene with Lupin at the end? When he says, "Mischief managed," and we see Harry sort of putting the pieces together in his head as Lupin walks away, it says a lot without actually stating it. It's definitely not the book, but I thought that was a nice little movie moment there.

Hey! I just need to know something, I think I read it somewhere before but can't remember it. Why did they change the castle for the 3rd movie? I really liked the way it looked in the first two, seemed more magical somehow.

I know it sucks that they left out so much of the Marauder storyline, but does anybody else love the scene with Lupin at the end? When he says, "Mischief managed," and we see Harry sort of putting the pieces together in his head as Lupin walks away, it says a lot without actually stating it. It's definitely not the book, but I thought that was a nice little movie moment there.




I'm gonna have to go back and re-watch that scene. I've never noticed that before. PoA is my favorite book and film. The only real gripe I have with the film is the reason you mentioned about the Marauder storyline not even really being in it. I mean, it would have taken another what, 2 or 3 minutes (if that) to do a little explination. If anything, just say who the Marauders were. I think that would have added a whole nother dimension to the emotional impact of the movie.