PoA Film Discussion v3

*resurrects thread*

I noticed in the PoA film that Lupin does not actually seem to want to spell out his condition at the end unlike in the book.

Film:
"Tomorrow, the owls will start arriving and parents will not want a...well, someone like me teaching their children..."

However, in the book he says it without hesitation or covering up.

Book:
"This time tomorrow, the owls will start arriving from parents-they will not want a werewolf teaching their children..."

The fact that he's so hesitant to say 'werewolf' in the film while he's willing to in the book kind of bothers me.

As was revealed by David Thewlis when we found out Dumbledore was gay, he admitted that Cauron saw Lupin as (in his words) a 'gay junkie' so I think Cauron was trying to subliminally suggest something else at least in terms of the theme of the film so a viewer may add the word that conforms to their own experience.

...hence the Lupin/Sirius scene in the Shrieking Shack and transformation... ;) :eyebrows:

Where did you find that out, MasterOfDeath?

I don't know where now but it was a video interview.

As I said, it's not meant to be literal but metaphorically at least in Cauron's film I think.

But it doesn't seem to fit for me: if DD was gay, and lets say WW was aware of that, then why has he been Headmaster all these years? Maybe because he doesn't actually 'teach' per se maybe, but Lupin does-or did-teach DADA.

But then again I did-and still do-crack up at Snape's "You two, quarrelling like an old married couple!" :rotfl:

You see, it's not meant to be literal in a story sense but I just feel Cauron left it vague so people can interpret Lupin's line in their own way. Of course in the context of the story Lupin is leaving because he's a werewolf but Cauron being an artistic film maker sometimes lets the audience interpret certain things that can have different meanings.

I think Cuaron's idea works well. The kind of social stigma and personal shame being a 'gay junkie' could invoke is very similar to Lupin's situation. The physical change in him after he's been 'using' (i.e. transforming), is similar too. Pale, clammy, dishevelled, the parallels are obvious. Now if Thewlis had played him as a gay junkie, I would question it, but as an analogy it's spot on IMO.

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.Maybe that is one of the things that makes it one of the better movies for me. It's more of an interpretation of the book instead of trying to be the book. It is much more of a complete story than some of the other movies - even if it changes things from the book. I'm ok with this, because you get to the same place, you just take a different route.

It seems approx. 75% liked the film and rated it good or excellent. It was my favorite movie I suppose because of the artistic license used. I also liked Lupin's 'Mischief managed!' line and the way it dawned on Harry that's who made the Marauders Map. I mean it was obvious that they had been animagus's when Peter changed from a rat to Peter etc and if Harry hadn't twigged that Prongs was his father by the stag patronus then he's have to be rather stupid IMO. They did get it and it didn't really need to be explained. I know a few people who saw the film but hadn't read the books at that stage and they guessed what was going on with the Marauders and the Map thing.

The Hogwarts layout was more how I'd imagined it. After all most boarding schools have rather huge grounds for boarders to roam around in weather permitting and I can't imgaine why they'd have a dangerous tree too close to the school buildings in a case unsuspecting 1st years strayed too close and got hurt so IMO it was in a much better location in POA.

Uniforms - we didn't wear them all the time when I went boarding school in OZ and it was modelled on a British one. We wore them for classes and special occasions only. And why wouldn't young wizards dress like muggle teenagers. A lot of the students were either muggleborns or half-bloods and in tune with the muggle world for most things. Some o the purebloods might not be too cluey eg Ron with the fellytone thing and Mrs Weasley with stamps but going into muggle shops to buy food etc they must have seen a few things here and there.

Sorry if someone has brought all this up before but I got rather tired of reading the posts from scratch with all the rather unsubstantiated criticisms and bickering going on in the fist few pages and gave up.

I've mentioned this before, but I think the reason people are making such a fuss about the kids being out of uniform in this movie is that, for the first time, the posters and publicity for the film had them wearing Muggle clothing. And since they do wear the clothes from the posters in the last forty-five minutes or so of the film, the impression left on our minds is that they spent the entire time dressing like Muggles- which isn't the case.

I like that they aren't always in uniform and that their uniform isn't perfect. It's a nice touch IMO.

This has got to be the funniest of the 5 movies. My favourite line is when Sirius points to Ron and says he's right there and Ron replies with what? me it's mental. Awesome

I like that they aren't always in uniform and that their uniform isn't perfect. It's a nice touch IMO.

This has got to be the funniest of the 5 movies. My favourite line is when Sirius points to Ron and says he's right there and Ron replies with what? me it's mental. Awesome

I didnt like the fact that they didnt were their uniforms more often because I think it takes an element of the magical world away. Wizards are notorious for the inabiity to wear acceptable muggle clothing, but anyway, just being nitpicky. I did think that Cuaron did a wonderful job with PoA, except for leaving out the Marauder's story. It was tricky film to film with all the time-turner business, but he did a great job leaving little clues and such.

I didnt like the fact that they didnt were their uniforms more often because I think it takes an element of the magical world away. Wizards are notorious for the inabiity to wear acceptable muggle clothing, but anyway, just being nitpicky.

I completely agree. It took some of the magicalness (that's not even a word :lol:) out of the wonderfully visual world that Cuaron had created. And it just really annoyed me. I guess it was a good way to instantly see whether the trio were in lesson time or were in their leisure time, but it really did bug me, because most of the time they wear their cloaks, at least, around Hogwarts.

I thought the depiction of the uniforms was spot on. Real boarding school kids wear uniform for lessons and school events only (and most students look a bit scruffy, I certainly did), their own clothes the rest of the time. The prim and proper kids from the first two movies looked absurd to me.

Given that school uniforms are not "magical", I don't understand how the kids not wearing their uniforms some of the time in POA could be said to take away from the magical feel.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????

Given that school uniforms are not "magical", I don't understand how the kids not wearing their uniforms some of the time in POA could be said to take away from the magical feel.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????

Because they are always described in the books as wearing robes and cloaks, etc. I dont think this is the typical boarding school attire?

Because they are always described in the books as wearing robes and cloaks, etc. I dont think this is the typical boarding school attire?

Academic robes are worn in academic institutions in the U.K. There is nothing "magical" about them: they are mundane. Cloaks... OK.

Cloaks - a bit like the (Cap and) Gown wore at university graduation ceremonies only without the mortar board part. Snape seemed to be wearing one but children in schools never seem to wear them - only a uniform - skirt/trouser, blouse/shirt, jumper (sweater to you in the US) and blazer. Not magical but typical of a school in the UK, Australia and NZ. On special occasions witches and wizards didn't wear your typical hat (eg the typical panama/boater/cap etc) but wore the point wizard hat without the brim. The pointy hat (r witches hat as they are known as) with a brim seemed reserved for the teachers only. So perhaps you have to graduate to wear one with a brim?

Now enough of that lecture and back to why the students wore civvies out of class. It's normal and NO student anywhere stays in uniform 100% of the time as that is not normal. POA portrayed Hogwarts just as it should be IMO of course

Now enough of that lecture and back to why the students wore civvies out of class. It's normal and NO student anywhere stays in uniform 100% of the time as that is not normal. POA portrayed Hogwarts just as it should be IMO of course
I thought the same thing. I love how the director allowed the students to wear their uniforms the way they thought their character would. It was so much more real and believable.

This is also the only movie that I think they got Harry's hair right. So, I know it isn't that big of a deal, but it is described time and time again in the books and PoA did a great job of making it untidy.

I also love the feel of the movie compared to the other ones. I think it is filmed beautifully and I love the differnet colors and tones to the scenes.

I thought the same thing. I love how the director allowed the students to wear their uniforms the way they thought their character would. It was so much more real and believable.

This is also the only movie that I think they got Harry's hair right. So, I know it isn't that big of a deal, but it is described time and time again in the books and PoA did a great job of making it untidy.

I also love the feel of the movie compared to the other ones. I think it is filmed beautifully and I love the differnet colors and tones to the scenes.I actually found the students never wearing their robes was one of the only things I didn't like about this film. If it was uncomfortable for them to wear them all the time, that's not that bad. Many people, such as the actors for Flitwick and the SS/PS goblins, had to wear tons of makeup and really tight robes all the time, because they were playing sych small characters. I always want consistency with the book, and that just didn't do it for me. :no:

I agree though, the feel of the movie was really great. I think Cauron captured the tone exactly right, much better than Yates did with OotP. PoA is still my favorite film, simply because of the Dark tone that lingered throughout, and the brief clues that were dropped about the Grim and Sirius. :)

I think what people are saying about uniforms is that students like to get out of them as soon as classes are over and are free to be individuals in their own clothes and not have to worry about getting the uniforms dirty. It's nothing to do with the actors finding them uncomfortable etc it's human children and teenage nature in all schools that wear uniforms. Even many workers who have to wear a uniform change out of them before heading home.

I went to a private school as a boarder and couldn't wait to get out of uniform every chance I got.

I think what people are saying about uniforms is that students like to get out of them as soon as classes are over and are free to be individuals in their own clothes and not have to worry about getting the uniforms dirty. It's nothing to do with the actors finding them uncomfortable etc it's human children and teenage nature in all schools that wear uniforms. Even many workers who have to wear a uniform change out of them before heading home.

I went to a private school as a boarder and couldn't wait to get out of uniform every chance I got.
But these aren't just normal boarding school uniforms that they're forced to wear, everyone in their Wizarding World wears them. It's not just the kids. They only wear Muggle clothing throughout the holidays so they fit in and don't get strange looks, but here at Hogwarts they're among only those of their kind. It's just a part of their wizarding culture, so I doubt that they would hate wearing the robes or anything. Now, whether or not the actors would want to wear them is a different story. :lol:

I actually found the students never wearing their robes was one of the only things I didn't like about this film. If it was uncomfortable for them to wear them all the time, that's not that bad. Many people, such as the actors for Flitwick and the SS/PS goblins, had to wear tons of makeup and really tight robes all the time, because they were playing sych small characters. I always want consistency with the book, and that just didn't do it for me. :no:

I agree though, the feel of the movie was really great. I think Cauron captured the tone exactly right, much better than Yates did with OotP. PoA is still my favorite film, simply because of the Dark tone that lingered throughout, and the brief clues that were dropped about the Grim and Sirius. :)

I agree, I just didnt like the feel the kids not wearing uniforms created.

But I think Curaon did a wonderful job artistically with this movie. He did a great job of inlcuding dark tones but not making the entire film too dark and pessimistic feeling. And I really enjoyed all the clues we got to the time-turner scene, I thought those were brilliant. PoA is definitely the most artistic film.

Hogwarts was modelled on a UK boarding school so I believe and that's exactly how the students were. They might have been witches and wizards but apart from that they were similar to other typical adolescents in the UK as far as what they wanted to wear. It's really nothing to do with magic and IMO the first two films were quite annoying the way they portrayed the students and as a result they were quite unbelievable in the way adolescents were portrayed. It was like watching an unbelievably silly movie like Home Alone or something. I saw about 20 minutes of that and turned it off in disbelief it was so awful and so totally unbelievable - IMO of course

Hogwarts was modelled on a UK boarding school so I believe and that's exactly how the students were. They might have been witches and wizards but apart from that they were similar to other typical adolescents in the UK as far as what they wanted to wear. It's really nothing to do with magic and IMO the first two films were quite annoying the way they portrayed the students and as a result they were quite unbelievable in the way adolescents were portrayed. It was like watching an unbelievably silly movie like Home Alone or something. I saw about 20 minutes of that and turned it off in disbelief it was so awful and so totally unbelievable - IMO of course
But this is different- normal, Muggle, adolescents are raised seeing these normal types of clothing and they want to wear nothing but it. Wizarding children were raised seeing that everyone wears cloaks and robes all the time- they weren't born with the sense of fashion, they gained it as time went on. So no, IMO they are not the same as normal adolescents because it is a completely different culture and the culture they are in routinely does wear robes everywhere. I actually thought that the first two films got it right- plus, they always wear their cloaks in the book, so why should they change it?

Cloaks can get in the way of adolescent activities but many of alternative style people have them. I even had one in my misspent youth. However the adults wore different colors and styles of wizarding clothes whereas the students were all dressed in the same styles except for house colors and even then they are wearing the same colors as the rest of their house or the hogwarts colors which means the same as the rest of the school. Even adolescents like to be individuals - as did all the adult wizards. It's funny how I think the first two films got it so wrong... At least Jo like that film better than the first two so they got it right in her eyes.

But this is different- normal, Muggle, adolescents are raised seeing these normal types of clothing and they want to wear nothing but it. Wizarding children were raised seeing that everyone wears cloaks and robes all the time- they weren't born with the sense of fashion, they gained it as time went on. So no, IMO they are not the same as normal adolescents because it is a completely different culture and the culture they are in routinely does wear robes everywhere. I actually thought that the first two films got it right- plus, they always wear their cloaks in the book, so why should they change it?


I agree. Its common knowledge that wizards have difficult time fitting into Muggle society clothes-wise. We are given examples of this on numerous occaisions. And why would wizarding children be any different? Also, as DeathlyH mentioned, they are descibed as wearing their cloaks and school robes constantly in the book, so I dont see why this couldnt be continued in the film.

I actually found the students never wearing their robes was one of the only things I didn't like about this film. If it was uncomfortable for them to wear them all the time, that's not that bad. Many people, such as the actors for Flitwick and the SS/PS goblins, had to wear tons of makeup and really tight robes all the time, because they were playing sych small characters. I always want consistency with the book, and that just didn't do it for me. :no:

I agree though, the feel of the movie was really great. I think Cauron captured the tone exactly right, much better than Yates did with OotP. PoA is still my favorite film, simply because of the Dark tone that lingered throughout, and the brief clues that were dropped about the Grim and Sirius. :)

Yeah I have to say it was my favorite also. I actually like not having the uniforms because I did feel as if this was one of the major inconsistencies in the book, with the hats and such. So I really don't mind them abandoning them as a whole. But if they are just going to go back to the robes later than that bugs me because your right it does add huge inconsistencies with the other movies. I just don't feel that taking away the robes is a big enough of thing to say "well now this is no longer my favorite". It was still the most well done IMO. So basically if they are going to wear the uniforms than I wish they would have done it in PoA.

This is also the only movie that I think they got Harry's hair right. So, I know it isn't that big of a deal, but it is described time and time again in the books and PoA did a great job of making it untidy.
I agree in PS and COS his hair was dead straight and in the GOF and OOTP he just looked plain weird

I agree in PS and COS his hair was dead straight and in the GOF and OOTP he just looked plain weird

Yeah, but do you know any kids who don't change their hairstyle as they grow older?

It's actually kind-of unrealistic to have the same hairstyle every year.

I know everyone at my highschool was constantly changing, such as a short crew cut to long hippie type to somewhere between, etc. :p

It seems to change every year too, based on the current trend and whats "in"

I think the short hair makes him look more mature.

I agree though, I hated the long hair of GoF, it did look strange!

So far, it looks like HBP will be somewhere between OotP and PoA length.

Yeah, but do you know any kids who don't change their hairstyle as they grow older?
Yeah, but in the books harry is always described as having untidy hair and in the first two movies it's dead straight

Untidy hair can be straight but stick up at angles and that's how I imagined Harry's hair - not wavy or curly. But you're right it was awful - too neat in the first two films, good for POA and not too bad for GOF but awful for OOTP- too neat and too short IMO of course.

Yeah his hair was the best in POA

I'll admit PoA worked well visually and the Sirius/Remus/Wormtail/Snape interactions in the Shack were really good. I don't mind changes to plot, things being changed around/cut/added etc, but I was so annoyed by its' straying from character. Ron, being turned into an utter fool, (apart from the "dung beetles" line, which I loved) and Hermione being turned into WonderWitch, giving her Rons' best moment in the Shack and when I saw that stunt with the branches of the Willow, my jaw dropped (and not in a good way), I mean, Hermione is not athletic, she is not about to wrestle a murderous tree.

when I saw that stunt with the branches of the Willow, my jaw dropped (and not in a good way), I mean, Hermione is not athletic, she is not about to wrestle a murderous tree.

i have to admit that part of the film left me cringing just a bit :lol: it really didn't grow on me either as i've watched POA over and over again, i love the film but that part is one of the small things about that film that irritates me....other than that ( and the kid who says about the smoke) i do like POA overall....
i agree...Harry's hair was best in POA i think in GOF it was a tad too long and in OOTP it was way too short :)

OO that "Trying to catch smoke" line really does my head in.

This film tought me, that chocolate can cure anything. Thanks Lupin. lol

OO that "Trying to catch smoke" line really does my head in.


Ok, can ANYONE answer as to WHO that Random Black Kid is supposed to be???

That has really annoyed me too, and I think, he was in OotP as well

Ok, can ANYONE answer as to WHO that Random Black Kid is supposed to be???

That has really annoyed me too, and I think, he was in OotP as well

Does it really matter? It's boring having the same old characters getting all the lines. A fresh face isn't a bad thing, it fleshes out the student body (it gets boring when Seamus, Dean and Neville are the only ones who speak) and makes the world seem more real. And I think that kid won a competition, that's why he's in the movie.

Ok, can ANYONE answer as to WHO that Random Black Kid is supposed to be???

That has really annoyed me too, and I think, he was in OotP as well

He probably won a competition. And I agree with yoshi, it's nice to see a fresh face. My only problem with him was that he always seemed to be saying really negative things, and they'd just make me laugh because his character just seemed so pessimistic. He wasn't really needed, but I don't have anything against him being in it.

I'm not sure where this belongs but I found this video on youtube and it was really good, so I wanted to share it with you.

It's a reenactment of the Shrieking Shack scene filmed by Harry Potter fans. This might give us a sense of how these films could have been had they not been bought out by Hollywood. ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCH0kzwhKQ4

OO that "Trying to catch smoke" line really does my head in.
Same but the fact that it is said by a completely random character that doesn't exist in the books is what bothers me most! :lol:

This might give us a sense of how these films could have been had they not been bought out by Hollywood. ;)



Any suggestions as to who might have the hundreds of millions required to buy the film rights and make seven effects-heavy films if not a Hollywood studio?

MasterofDeath. I saw the video you linked up. Some/many effects were good - acting passable but a little too much US accent came through for my liking. Then there was the ages of the cast. Harry et al seemed only a few years younger than Lupin, Sirius and Snape - Pettigrew wasn't too bad for his age. I did rather like the script though. Well I got a laugh out or it - we all did in my household I'm afraid. Still give me the people in the film who did the UK accent and looked their age - not someone in their early twenties trying to be someone who has had a hard life and was in their mid to late thirties. No - I think I*prefer the film version still even though the actors there were older. Sorry....

Does it really matter? It's boring having the same old characters getting all the lines. A fresh face isn't a bad thing, it fleshes out the student body (it gets boring when Seamus, Dean and Neville are the only ones who speak) and makes the world seem more real.
Yes, but this one new character dominated all of those side remarks, leaving no room for Dean or Seamus to speak. Instead of using him for one or two lines here and there he became the new Hermione, acting as the informant. While I did not mind another character taking on the occasional role of Hermione (in a way), this character was never "fleshed out" himself. The audience never even knew his name. How is he supposed to "flesh out the student body" if we do not even know him in any sense? He just appeared. He did well in the role, but he overshadowed the students who, I thought, should have gotten some representation.

One of the chief things that stuck out in my mind as I watched PoA the other day is the lack of an opening and ending. Although the book had no true cinematic opening, the Lumos Maxima sequence was a little too unbelievable and, frankly, pointless. Here we have Harry, trying to study at night (it was refreshing that they kept true to the book here, though), but his Lumos spell will not stay lit.

Meanwhile, the conclusion was, perhaps, weaker, since it ends with Harry not being able to control the Firebolt. While this is not a bad scene, it is a terrible scene to end a film on. However, this film cannot be singled out for its poor ending - the entire series (save perhaps SS/PS) has enjoyed weak conclusions. I would have preferred them all to end like the book: re-entering the Muggle world and meeting the Dursleys, but, alas...

I'm not sure where this belongs but I found this video on youtube and it was really good, so I wanted to share it with you.

It's a reenactment of the Shrieking Shack scene filmed by Harry Potter fans. This might give us a sense of how these films could have been had they not been bought out by Hollywood. ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCH0kzwhKQ4

Er ... like an amateur film project, you mean? :eyebrows: :)

Actually, I enjoyed watching that because it must have been incredibly fun to do. :) Good use of music too! :cool: But it's 26 minutes long, which I think is far too long for that particular sequence (you wouldn't need a flashback to Sirius confronting Peter in 1981 -- that to my mind would be superfluous). Nice exposition but it would have to be trimmed, IMO, for a professional production.

As mrfutterman says, I've no idea who else would have the money to make seven commercially successful HP films ... apart from Hollywood. :)

Personally, I would have liked some Marauders backstory exposition in the film. But that won't stop me giving PoA 'excellent' in the poll. :cool:

-edit-

Hey, I'm glad to see so many have voted 'excellent' or 'good'!

One of the chief things that stuck out in my mind as I watched PoA the other day is the lack of an opening and ending. Although the book had no true cinematic opening, the Lumos Maxima sequence was a little too unbelievable and, frankly, pointless. Here we have Harry, trying to study at night (it was refreshing that they kept true to the book here, though), but his Lumos spell will not stay lit.

The whole opening has a double meaning though. There are alot of metaphors in POA that show..without stating out right..that the kids are teenagers now. I think the opening is hilarious and brilliant and once I got the underlying meaning I can't get enough of it...but that's just me. The whole thing of Harry 'playing with his wand' just gets me everytime now :lol::lol:

There's no need to get testy. I thought those people did a really job for the limited technology and budget they had. I guess being an American, I have no problem with the accents..In-fact I barely noticed. So, the trio look older, what were they going to do? Not many younger kids can act that well.

I think they did a good job and it interests me how the HP series would have worked as a TV show.

Please, don't jump all over me. I know your going to say you can't market a tv show for Harry Potter or whatever, I'm just saying what I'd like.

I too saw that video and thought it passable too like someone several posts back. But it was 'good' like you'd say 'good' for a high school production (that's why I don't go to high school musical productions-I prefer professional, but that's digression now). Some of the acting was good, but yes, the age similarities made it harder for me to really get into the film. The Shrieking Shack scene must have been fun to do, granted, but there are some pretty darn heavy emotions in there. :whistle: It's all pretty emotional in those chapters, and I think you'd need a very strong acting style-perhaps more university level (if not Gary Oldman ;))-to truly pull of all the emotional rollercoasters needed in the Shrieking Shack scenes.

That said, I believe that PoA film's shrieking shack scene could still have been a bit better. Gary Oldman did wonderful, David Thewlis was spiffing and the trio was okay, but there could have been a bit more in the scene; it's like "Arrgh, Sirius!", then "Omg, Lupin's a werewolf! He's bad!" then "That rat's really a man?" to "you killed James and Lily didn't you?" to "...and then the dementors can have you." He needed a bit more time to really convince us that he truly believed Sirius was innocent. But I guess time constraints dictated that.

Just my opinion and two cents of course. :)

Please, don't jump all over me. I know your going to say you can't market a tv show for Harry Potter or whatever, I'm just saying what I'd like.
YOU CAN'T MARKET A TV SHOW FOR HARRY POTTER! (;) - only joking, of course).

I do not believe MasterOfDeath is suggesting that an entire film of that Youtube clip would be better than what Hollywood did. He was merely expressing that a fan's take on the scene would have been much more pleasing for us fans. Thus, if PoA had directed its special effects and acting towards that type of scene (instead of the one that is actually in the film), it would have been "better."
That said, I believe that PoA film's shrieking shack scene could still have been a bit better. Gary Oldman did wonderful, David Thewlis was spiffing and the trio was okay, but there could have been a bit more in the scene; it's like "Arrgh, Sirius!", then "Omg, Lupin's a werewolf! He's bad!" then "That rat's really a man?" to "you killed James and Lily didn't you?" to "...and then the dementors can have you." He needed a bit more time to really convince us that he truly believed Sirius was innocent. But I guess time constraints dictated that.
I agree. The Shrieking Shack scene was simply too rushed, hurrying from point to point ("He's an Animagus," Lupin enters, Snape enters, Snape is unconscious, Peter appears, they are out of the Whomping Willow). In the book, this is a period of great revelation for Harry, but the film glosses over it. Five minutes (not even) would have done wonders for this scene.

He was merely expressing that a fan's take on the scene would have been much more pleasing for us fans.



But s/he cannot speak for anybody except him/herself. Nor can you. I am a fan, though more objective than many who post here, because I do not think that Rowling is all that and a bag of chips, but I do not agree with you or the other poster. And then - most fans, whether of books or films or both, do not post on messageboards. You cannot take their agreement for granted.

PoA (film) actually turned the tide, and saved the franchise.

I actually preferred POA to PSS and COS......

I think the look of the film was beautiful. It was really artistic and I liked what Cuaron did with it.

I just have some problems with it. A lot of it is just disappointment since PoA was my favorite book at time (now it's right behind DH as my favorite), so I had unrealistically high expectations for the film. Normally I look at the films separately from the novels, but I couldn't when it came to this film; I was a bit of a purist.

There were some problems that I had with the film. Since I was a purist with this film, naturally I was irritated when the Marauder plot was cut, since that was what I was looking forward to the most. Other than that, I also had a problem with the characterization, especially with Ron and Hermione. They were portrayed out of character, IMO, and I still cringe every time I watch the movie. Another problem was some of the acting, in particular when it came to the line, "He was their friend!" Lastly, I didn't like the way the film ended. I start laughing hysterically whenever I see it, it was so bad!

I understand why other people liked the film a lot, but I had a lot of problems because I really love PoA, so I was disappointed with the film.

Loved the book, but was a bit disappointed with the film. Harry doing that whole lumos maxima was a bit off from what happened in the second book/movie where he got a letter from the Ministry.

And the ending annoyed me, though not a much as GoF.

I really wanted more on the Shrieking Shack. So much happened in the book that never made in to the screen. Though I'm not the biggest fan of the film it didn't stop me from buying it.

The main complaint I hear (and one I happen to share) is about the Marauder's. It really wouldn't have been too difficult to explain how the map came into existence. It's not as if Sirius, Lupin, and Wormtail weren't all in the movie as it was. It would have made the plot end make more sense as well as the scene where Harry wards off the dementors with his stag patronus.

I think the look of the film was beautiful. It was really artistic and I liked what Cuaron did with it.
In some aspects, yes, but he completely destroyed the castle and the entire feel of magic. He made the atmosphere too similar to the one we live in.
A lot of it is just disappointment since PoA was my favorite book at time (now it's right behind DH as my favorite), so I had unrealistically high expectations for the film. Normally I look at the films separately from the novels, but I couldn't when it came to this film; I was a bit of a purist.
I agree. PoA has always been my favorite (though DH now holds that spot), so when Cuaron took his liberties with the film I could not get past it.
I was irritated when the Marauder plot was cut, since that was what I was looking forward to the most.
The entire Marauder plot was so important in the book (not just because it pleased fans, but it gave some depth to Lupin and connected Harry to his father), and it was needlessly cast away in the film. That is one of the most irritating things: the Marauder plot was cut for not true reason, to be replaced by something much less meaningful.
I also had a problem with the characterization, especially with Ron and Hermione. They were portrayed out of character, IMO, and I still cringe every time I watch the movie.
Very true. I cannot blame Cuaron or the film for the poor portrayal of Ron - Columbus started that in CoS. Cuaron simply expanded on it. However, Hermione became a completely new girl. Her entire character was unbelievable - she no longer seemed as if she cared about her studies at all (thus making her possession of the Time Turner pointless), becoming more like a Lavender Brown. Once again, I think this is largely because Cuaron tried to make the Wizarding World coincide more with the modern Muggle world, and Hermione's character was lost in the transition. It does not help that she was portrayed spot-on in SS/PS and CoS.
I really wanted more on the Shrieking Shack.
This was the most unsettling aspect of the film. Of course the Shrieking Shack could not be done correctly since the Marauder plot was cut, but this scene was simply butchered. It was hurried with little of the important information, substituted with attempts to make the scene more cinematic.

I, too, can understand how this film was received so well by the fan base, but it fell short of my expectations. One of the most irritating aspects of this film is that all of its bad tendencies (the new set, the horrible character portrayals, the substitution of important scenes) were continued in the following films. It set a bad example, to be blunt.

I think that POA was a very well directed film and was very close to the book and reminded me of the book in many ways:)
Also as for the muggles close debate i di not think that this is really an issue as it is not exactly very important and is not a significant part of the movie.

In some aspects, yes, but he completely destroyed the castle and the entire feel of magic. He made the atmosphere too similar to the one we live in.


I don't think that he destroyed the castle. He made it grittier and more believable, but that didn't make it any less magical IMO. The film didn't have the same sense of childish wonder that PS and CoS did, but it was still magical.

In some aspects, yes, but he completely destroyed the castle and the entire feel of magic. He made the atmosphere too similar to the one we live in.

I can't agree with that. :) PoA has a lovely, magical, sparkly feel to it!

The entire Marauder plot was so important in the book (not just because it pleased fans, but it gave some depth to Lupin and connected Harry to his father), and it was needlessly cast away in the film. That is one of the most irritating things: the Marauder plot was cut for not true reason, to be replaced by something much less meaningful.

What was it replaced by? I agree that one of the reasons why the Marauders backstory is important is because it fleshes out Harry's connection to his father but the emotional interaction between Harry, Remus and Sirius was actually very good in the film. :)

I, too, can understand how this film was received so well by the fan base, but it fell short of my expectations. One of the most irritating aspects of this film is that all of its bad tendencies (the new set, the horrible character portrayals, the substitution of important scenes) were continued in the following films.

- I much prefer the 'new set', and the current location of Hagrid's hut, to the old, to be honest.

- I am flummoxed by the charge of 'horrible character portrayals': the only character to whom that might apply is Film Hermione, who admittedly is too pretty and polished. But Film Harry has only got better and better ... and I've always liked Rupert as Ron.

It set a bad example, to be blunt.

Again, I don't agree. :) Cuaron, Newell and Yates have all treated these books on film as the Young Adult novels which they are ... in other words, with respect. Cuaron's fun touches on film were to me in keeping with Rowling's fun side (she expresses plenty of that in the books).

I loved the change in the castle, like the way down to Hagrids hut, I thought it was more realistic in a way... more magical castle-eey.
I do think they should have been a bit more true to the Marauders, but overall this was a really good film.

I personally don't like movie!Ron. He is too out of character compared with book!Ron. Like MrSleepyHead said, we can't blame Cuaron entirely, because Chris Columbus started this whole trend, but I believe it started in PS/SS, not CoS. One scene that really irritated me in PS/SS was the Devil's Snare scene. In the book, both Ron and Harry are stuck in the Devil's Snare, while Hermione manages to free herself. Hermione remembers what the plant is, but panics, and forgets that she can easily use magic to repel it, and it is Ron who points out that she is a witch and can light a fire using her wand. He also has the very comical line: 'lucky Harry doesn't lose his head in a crisis - "there's no wood," honestly.'

The movie changed this so that only Ron is stuck in the Devil's Snare, and he is the one panicking, while Hermione calmly manages to free him using magic with no hesitation.

This whole trend of making movie!Ron seem as though he is only there for comic relief started in the first movie, and has unfortunately carried on throughout the rest. I hate the fact that so many of Ron's best lines in the books were given to Hermione in the movies.

For example, in the Shrieking Shack scene, Ron shouts, 'If you want to kill Harry, you'll have to kill us, too.' And the fact that he says it while standing on a broken leg makes it even better. It highlighted his bravery, and his loyalty to Harry, and shows perfectly why he belongs in Gryffindor. But in the movie, this line was given to Hermione, while Ron spends most of the scene just sitting on the bed. The only explanation I can come up with for this change is to carry on with the whole 'Hermione the SuperWitch', and Ron the Comic Relief guy' themes.

I also hated the fact that Hermione cares about her appearance in the movie. The line 'Is that really what my hair looks like from the back?' just makes me cringe every time I hear it. Book!Hermione would never say something that shallow.

I'm sure this has been brought up before on this thread but I just recently noticed something in the PoA. I remember that Jo once said that "The film, PoA, revealed a bit to much for her liking" or something to that extent. So I had been going through it to try and catch what she could possibly mean, and I found that when Lupin had been turned into a Werwolf and was battling Sirius in a way, Snape through his arms around the Trio, as if protecting them. I figured this is what she meant? Can anyone confirm this?

I'm sure this has been brought up before on this thread but I just recently noticed something in the PoA. I remember that Jo once said that "The film, PoA, revealed a bit to much for her liking" or something to that extent. So I had been going through it to try and catch what she could possibly mean, and I found that when Lupin had been turned into a Werwolf and was battling Sirius in a way, Snape through his arms around the Trio, as if protecting them. I figured this is what she meant? Can anyone confirm this?

There's a lot of little things, I think, like the whole tension between Ron and Hermione (which wasn't nearly as blunt in the books until HBP), and yes, Snape, as you mentioned. I also felt like the portrayal of Cornelius Fudge was very different from the PoA book but much more consistent with how he eventually acts in OotP.

In some aspects, yes, but he completely destroyed the castle and the entire feel of magic. He made the atmosphere too similar to the one we live in.

No way. The medieval motif worked wonders; Columbus's Hogwarts was literally just a muggle cathedral with some paintings taped on.

I also felt like the portrayal of Cornelius Fudge was very different from the PoA book but much more consistent with how he eventually acts in OotP.

This was a very good performance from Robert Hardy. He had just the right combination of simpering, deceptive politician, and rather fussy grandfather. He and Radcliffe had an excellent chemistry as well. The more I think about the performances, the more baffling the complaints about the movie's acting seem. I think every performance here was absolutely pitch perfect. The level of personality the characters had was, and is, unmatched by any of the other Potter movies. They all had good dialogue, and they all had little quirks and genuine well-roundedness. They felt like real people.

The more I think about the performances, the more baffling the complaints about the movie's acting seem. I think every performance here was absolutely pitch perfect.

"HE WAS THEIR FRIEND" tends to stick in people's heads.

"HE WAS THEIR FRIEND" tends to stick in people's heads.

I must bring up the question, how can it not?:lol:.

But really this was my favorite movie, I really liked how loose Dan played most of the movie I felt less on the edge of my chair, and found it to be more of a comedy/adventure. While this doesn't follow the books, I found many aspects magnificent. The scenery was possibly one of the best I have seen, let alone a Potter film, and like I said, it lightened the mood of the movies. And while I definitely do not think that it OK for movies 4-8(I guess you would say), it seemed to work for this one. At least for me...

I wonder why they do not discuss Voldemort in the third movie....Now i understand. Harry needed to learn those things for his duel against Voldemort. Though I still wish everything wasn't about Sirius Black.

No way. The medieval motif worked wonders; Columbus's Hogwarts was literally just a muggle cathedral with some paintings taped on.

But It did work. When u 1st read SS/PS, did u imagine Hogwarts on a CLIFF? No!

I wouldn't have cared if they "redid the castle" but the grounds!? Talk about not making it subtle!

They should have left a flat ground and changed the castle a bit to have the movies blend in a bit more. 2-3 feels way too diferent.

I agree. Pros and Cons. (Good and Bad things). The 2-5 seem better than the first 2 with the grounds that way, but Why did they make a DRASTIC change?

But It did work. When u 1st read SS/PS, did u imagine Hogwarts on a CLIFF? No!

I wouldn't have cared if they "redid the castle" but the grounds!? Talk about not making it subtle!

They should have left a flat ground and changed the castle a bit to have the movies blend in a bit more. 2-3 feels way too diferent.

I agree. Pros and Cons. (Good and Bad things). The 2-5 seem better than the first 2 with the grounds that way, but Why did they make a DRASTIC change?

Because audiences and critics were mocking the early HP films for how pathetic their landscape shots and architectural designs were compared to Lord of the Rings. It's a change for the better IMO. There is no atmosphere or eccentricity to the Hogwarts of the Columbus films (or the Yates films :p).

Last night while watching POA for the umpteenth time, I noticed when Harry arrives at the Leaky Cauldron after the Night-Bus ride, there is a Wizard remotely stirring his tea with his finger. The gentleman in question is reading the Stephen Hawking book A Brief History of Time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Brief_History_of_Time). As a physics and math professor in the USA, it caught my attention, but strangely hadn't done so before...

I understand that it may have been nothing more than a film prop, but I'd like to know if any of you have some conjecturing they'd like to do as to why a wizard would be reading a very deep physics book...

:smile:

Thanks,
CMills

Last night while watching POA for the umpteenth time, I noticed when Harry arrives at the Leaky Cauldron after the Night-Bus ride, there is a Wizard remotely stirring his tea with his finger. The gentleman in question is reading the Stephen Hawking book A Brief History of Time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Brief_History_of_Time). As a physics and math professor in the USA, it caught my attention, but strangely hadn't done so before...

I understand that it may have been nothing more than a film prop, but I'd like to know if any of you have some conjecturing they'd like to do as to why a wizard would be reading a very deep physics book...

:smile:

Thanks,
CMills

It was just a little nod to one of the major themes of the movie. Time. The movie is stuffed with little nods to it, the clocks everywhere, the ambient ticking sounds, the huge pendulum and clock at Hogwarts. Excellent film making. And I'm sure there are other wizards like Dumbledore who take an interest in Muggle literature.

It was just a little nod to one of the major themes of the movie. Time. The movie is stuffed with little nods to it, the clocks everywhere, the ambient ticking sounds, the huge pendulum and clock at Hogwarts. Excellent film making. And I'm sure there are other wizards like Dumbledore who take an interest in Muggle literature.I didn't notice the guy reading the book until the second viewing, but in the theater I did notice the faint ticking noise coming from the background during the whole Time-Turner scene.

The whole Time theme was one of the things I loved about PoA. If you weren't a book fan and you paid really close attention to the little details (it's hard to pick up all of them in just one viewing at the theater), then you get a faint idea of what's happening at the end. It was really excellent, and things like this are reasons why I was so disappointed to hear that Cuaron wasn't coming back for DH. Instead we get Yates, woo-hoo...

I don't pretend to know anything about filmmaking, but I think PoA was one of the best-made HP films. I liked Cuaron's style, the way the book was adapted, and the way the movie was put together. The whole aspect of time was indeed well captured throughout the film. I agree that the ticking in the background of the time-turner sequence emphasized the time theme even more, as did the frequent visuals of the large clock on one of the towers of Hogwarts.

Stylistically, Cuaron is the best of the four directors who've worked on Potter movies so far IMHO. He might not have been as concerned about sticking to the source material, but in my mind PoA was the first movie of the series that was actually worth watching as a movie in its own right and not just something I went to see because it was a Harry Potter movie. PoA set the tone for the films that followed, it's really quite an achievement.

Because audiences and critics were mocking the early HP films for how pathetic their landscape shots and architectural designs were compared to Lord of the Rings. It's a change for the better IMO. There is no atmosphere or eccentricity to the Hogwarts of the Columbus films (or the Yates films :p).

I don't pretend to know anything about filmmaking, but I think PoA was one of the best-made HP films. I liked Cuaron's style, the way the book was adapted, and the way the movie was put together. The whole aspect of time was indeed well captured throughout the film. I agree that the ticking in the background of the time-turner sequence emphasized the time theme even more, as did the frequent visuals of the large clock on one of the towers of Hogwarts.

I agree that visually and stylistically PoA was brilliant, a big improvement on the first two. On the other hand, it shredded the characters - Hermione became Superwitch rather than being stressed out from taking on too much- the stunt with the Willow made my jaw drop (and not in a good way) whereas Ron became incredibly dumb and cowardly (whimpering while Hermione stood up to Sirius) and didn't support his friends or criticise Snape or Malfoy as Ron does. A film can deviate from the source material while still being true to the characters. There are several boxes an adaptation needs to tick, imo:

1. Telling the story given in the source material
2. Giving a new perspective, adding something fresh
3. Staying true to the characters
4. Visually impressive (as with any movie)

PoA hits the others, but misses 3. and for me that is a big let-down, because other than that, PoA was very enjoyable (and I like the characters to be true to themselves). I loved some of the added parts, like the lines about "dung beetles", "sleepwalking" and Lupin talking to Harry about Lily.

He might not have been as concerned about sticking to the source material, but in my mind PoA was the first movie of the series that was actually worth watching as a movie in its own right and not just something I went to see because it was a Harry Potter movie.
I feel differently about Cuaron's choices. While Cuaron ensured the film was fairly stand-alone (which I thought was his main objective), it was costly, I think, to the rest of the franchise. He forgot that two films preceded his and that four films would succeed it. I felt that Cuaron was selfish with PoA, despite making a good film, so it truly ruined my enjoyment of the movie.
PoA set the tone for the films that followed, it's really quite an achievement.
I agree that Poa set the example for the next films, but I do not think it an incredible achievement. Any director who did PoA (and changed it from SS/PS and CoS) would have set the tone for the following films. Newell could have changed the tone with GoF, but it would have been suicidal. No viewer wanted to see Hogwarts or the concentration of the storyline change with each film, so Newell and Yates were compelled to follow Cuaron: it is not necessarily because Cuaron's version was exceptional, in my opinion.
On the other hand, it shredded the characters - Hermione became Superwitch rather than being stressed out from taking on too much- the stunt with the Willow made my jaw drop (and not in a good way) whereas Ron became incredibly dumb and cowardly (whimpering while Hermione stood up to Sirius) and didn't support his friends or criticise Snape or Malfoy as Ron does. A film can deviate from the source material while still being true to the characters.
I wholeheartedly agree. This was the aspect of the film that made me strongly dislike it, as well as all the films that have followed: the characterization. Cuaron took too many liberties, in my opinion betraying the characters (and thus the story), and the next directors were ultimately forced to follow with that characterization. While the first two films were fairly childish, they stuck to the storyline (which also means the correct characterization), which is why I go to see the Harry Potter films: to see the books translated into movie form. Cuaron spoiled that for me.

I felt that Cuaron was selfish with PoA, despite making a good film, so it truly ruined my enjoyment of the movie.

A director trying to make the best film possible, and mostly succeeding, means you can't enjoy the film?

He forgot that two films preceded his and that four films would succeed it.

I wish I could forget the first two films! WB rightly wanted a reboot, and they got a fantastic one. I don't see how Cuaron can be blamed for subsequent directors making a mess of it.


Cuaron took too many liberties, in my opinion betraying the characters (and thus the story), and the next directors were ultimately forced to follow with that characterization.

I never understood this at all. I see complaints about SuperHermione and cowardly Ron, but I don't see the problem. Hermione was always like that in the books IMO, and Ron was hardly cowardly in POA. As opposed to COS where he was a whimpering simpleton for the most part.

I wish I could forget the first two films! WB rightly wanted a reboot, and they got a fantastic one. I don't see how Cuaron can be blamed for subsequent directors making a mess of it. I've never thought the first two films were all that terrible. They had a very different tone to them, far more focused on being children's movies--high saturation, simplified 'kids save the day' plot. But compared to other similar movies, for example The Spiderwick Chronicles that was out recently, I thought they were really excellent. The second had (as many people agree) one of the weakest plot lines to work with, but it certainly didn't put me off to the series. Of the first three movies, POA is by far the most confusing.


I never understood this at all. I see complaints about SuperHermione and cowardly Ron, but I don't see the problem. Hermione was always like that in the books IMO, and Ron was hardly cowardly in POA. As opposed to COS where he was a whimpering simpleton for the most part.I do think it was necessary to change the tone of the movies from the first two, and he definitely did that. However, I know that it gave distinctly different impressions about certain things than canon presented. I believe POA was when the issues of the kids growing up too much to play their characters started, where certain shipping ideas came from, and generally where lots of confusion about the basic plot arose. When your focus seems to be more on being different and 'pretty' rather than telling a good story you miss the mark IMO.

Book!Hermione is very clever but is often wrong! Book!Ron is a bit dim sometimes but very sharp when it comes to certain issues. I do wish they could have given them a bit more balance, similar to Neville--who is clearly presented as shy and sometimes slow, but has blossomed throughout the movies and shown different sides of his character.

A director trying to make the best film possible, and mostly succeeding, means you can't enjoy the film?
In this case, yes. While the film was decent and enjoyable by itself, I cannot watch it without thinking of how he, in my opinion, ruined the Harry Potter films. Thus, I cannot enjoy it like I can SS/PS and CoS (or even GoF and OotP).
I wish I could forget the first two films! WB rightly wanted a reboot, and they got a fantastic one. I don't see how Cuaron can be blamed for subsequent directors making a mess of it.
I never claimed Cuaron was responsible for the mistakes made by Newell and Yates. However, he is responsible for the bad characterization, the disregard for significant aspects of the story (which is closely linked to characterization), and the overall tone of the following films (which I dislike).
I never understood this at all. I see complaints about SuperHermione and cowardly Ron, but I don't see the problem. Hermione was always like that in the books IMO, and Ron was hardly cowardly in POA. As opposed to COS where he was a whimpering simpleton for the most part.
In CoS, Ron was portrayed in that manner for comedy. In PoA, he was simply cowardly, I thought, in comparison (PoA marked the darkening of the films [Cuaron made it so], so Ron was either going to be exhibited as brave or cowardly: Cuaron chose mostly cowardly). Thus, Ron's character has been lacking ever since PoA, hardly fulfilling his role in the books.

I never thought of Hermione as a super witch in the books: PoA (the book) showed this with her barely being able to cope with her workload and firing up at minimal provocation. The film completely altered Hermione's character, I thought. I did not get the feeling she was very bookish, thirsty for knowledge, or talented in any form. She became more like Lavender Brown, caring more for socialization than education (her comment about her hair is the perfect example). Of all the characters in PoA and the following films, I dislike Hermione the most because she is the complete opposite of her book character (and the films need a Hermione-ish character, which they no longer have).
When your focus seems to be more on being different and 'pretty' rather than telling a good story you miss the mark IMO.
I agree. I believe Cuaron was too concerned with making an elegant film rather than continue a popular franchise: I simply do not think we was the correct director for the Harry Potter series at that time.

Everyone always has the impression that the castle changed to a whole new landscape between CoS and PoA, when in fact, IT DIDN'T. The landscape changed between SS/PS and COS. The same location has been used for Hogwarts's location ever since CoS. The only changes in PoA, is that the towers on the Durham Cathedral section were made pointier, Hagrid's hut and the Womping Willow's locations were changed (and for legitimate necessary reasons), and an extra courtyard was shaped out of an existing unexplored courtyard location of the castle that is evident in the CoS art stills in the dvd extras. Even the more aged, rustic look of the castle's brick exterior was established in CoS and can be clearly seen during many panoramic shots of that movie. Plus the caste has always been on the side of a cliff ever since Columbus's first movie. The open valley area is on the other side between Hogwarts and the mountains while the cliff is on the side where the lake is.

I never claimed Cuaron was responsible for the mistakes made by Newell and Yates.

What mistakes would those be?

I do think it was necessary to change the tone of the movies from the first two, and he definitely did that. However, I know that it gave distinctly different impressions about certain things than canon presented. I believe POA was when the issues of the kids growing up too much to play their characters started, where certain shipping ideas came from, and generally where lots of confusion about the basic plot arose. When your focus seems to be more on being different and 'pretty' rather than telling a good story you miss the mark IMO.
Would any legitimate director in the world would agree to a project where he or she had to emulate someone else for the sake of "tone"? Expecting the same (trite and feeble) tone as the first two movies would have been a terrible mistake for anyone who was actually aware there was a different director. I think outrageous expectations are the root of why people dislike the movie so much, and it has nothing to do with directors. Whoever they selected was always going to make the movie he/she wanted to make, and the people who commissioned the project were obviously fine with that. It's book fans who need to catch up to reality here, not Cuaron.

None of the people I know who saw PoA without reading the books were confused about the story in the slightest. Are they all just special?

Book!Hermione is very clever but is often wrong! Book!Ron is a bit dim sometimes but very sharp when it comes to certain issues. I do wish they could have given them a bit more balance, similar to Neville--who is clearly presented as shy and sometimes slow, but has blossomed throughout the movies and shown different sides of his character.
What do the books have to do with anything?

canismajoris - marry me! :D

Last night while watching POA for the umpteenth time, I noticed when Harry arrives at the Leaky Cauldron after the Night-Bus ride, there is a Wizard remotely stirring his tea with his finger. The gentleman in question is reading the Stephen Hawking book A Brief History of Time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Brief_History_of_Time). As a physics and math professor in the USA, it caught my attention, but strangely hadn't done so before...

I understand that it may have been nothing more than a film prop, but I'd like to know if any of you have some conjecturing they'd like to do as to why a wizard would be reading a very deep physics book...

:smile:

Thanks,
CMills

Ha funny you should notice the book because that man is infact a well known musician being the frontman of The Stones Roses and is also a solo artist (his name is Ian Brown)

A recent survey of 10000 UK cinema viewers (including a couple of people from this site!) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7633022.stm) gives the 500 most popular films among UKers. Prisoner is the one Harry Potter film to make the list, coming in the upper 400's.

For comparison, all three Lord of the Rings films came in the top 60. It might seem an aside, but one of the "complaints" that some HP fans had about Prisoner was that it was much more like Lord of the Rings, being heavily adapted to focus on story rather than concentrating on detailing the things described in the book. The Godfather (another film heavily adapted from a book) took the #1 slot. So, perhaps this is not such an unwise strategy!


So, kudos to Cuaron: he directed the one Harry Potter film that UKers consider to be noteworthy! :tu:

I understand that it may have been nothing more than a film prop, but I'd like to know if any of you have some conjecturing they'd like to do as to why a wizard would be reading a very deep physics book...
As others have noted, it works purely as a visual motif of time. However, it also works as a bit of foreshadowing. Now, I might be misremembering my Hawkings books, but I think that Hawkings also presents on of the "time" theories that explains how the plot works: the infinite number of parallel time streams. Theoretically, distort the universe enough, and you could meet a "parallel" self that is both you and not you: and that is basically what Harry does.

That actually is relevant to the biggest criticism of the film (and book): it never is explained how Harry can live to save himself if he has to live in order to save himself! People assume a 4D universe (correct me if I'm wrong, but the latest physics models that I remotely understand call for many more dimensions!): so, Harry initially is saved by himself coming back from his own future, and then he saves himself by stepping back into his own past.

However, in models such as the ones that Hawkings describes, there are three Harry's: Harry "Present" (the protagonist featured throughout the book), Harry "Future" (the one who saves Harry Present and Sirius Present from the Dementors, but who is a background character) and Harry "Past" (the one that Harry Present saves).

What is required, of course, is some "leading edge" of time in which someone else saves Harry, putting him in the position where he lives to go back in time to save Sirius: and one of his "past" selfs!


This is why I stuck to biology.... :p

That's good to see. I always maintained that POA was the most well received over here. When the series is over and done with, people are going to look back on that movie as the one that really worked as a film.

That's because arguably it really did work best as a film overall. The others had stilted and difficult moments, but for some reason, even though there have since been two films added to the saga, it moves together as a unit much better than any of the rest. In that respect, I would place it as a top notch film, not just because of it's oveall loyalty to the book but because of the innovation that added depth to it.

That's because arguably it really did work best as a film overall. The others had stilted and difficult moments, but for some reason, even though there have since been two films added to the saga, it moves together as a unit much better than any of the rest. In that respect, I would place it as a top notch film, not just because of it's oveall loyalty to the book but because of the innovation that added depth to it.

Totally agree. Its the only movie that has any kind of elegance to it's storytelling and presentation.

That actually is relevant to the biggest criticism of the film (and book): it never is explained how Harry can live to save himself if he has to live in order to save himself! People assume a 4D universe (correct me if I'm wrong, but the latest physics models that I remotely understand call for many more dimensions!): so, Harry initially is saved by himself coming back from his own future, and then he saves himself by stepping back into his own past.

However, in models such as the ones that Hawkings describes, there are three Harry's: Harry "Present" (the protagonist featured throughout the book), Harry "Future" (the one who saves Harry Present and Sirius Present from the Dementors, but who is a background character) and Harry "Past" (the one that Harry Present saves).

What is required, of course, is some "leading edge" of time in which someone else saves Harry, putting him in the position where he lives to go back in time to save Sirius: and one of his "past" selfs!


Wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey ... stuff. :)

To quote the good Doctor. :cool:

PoA is an elegant film. I could not agree more.

POA is perhaps the most elegent and is possibly the only film so far in the series to truly get Potter and Hogwarts and even the characters as a whole better than the first two, which I agree comes down to how CC directed the first two. The PS and COS books offered MANY great scenes and lines, and yes he put a lot of it in the film itself but as a poster said so rightly before me, it is how it was delivered and directed by Columbus that ultimately made it fall flat and not work. The first two films were faithful to the source material yes, but was not treated as the same in the books and as a result is came off as rather stuffy and not organic and free and I suppose 'faithful' to the source material as POA was.

As for the character portrayals in the films, I think the twins and the Weasleys as a whole are very misrepresented in the films so far and hope at least that the remaining family members are treated better in the last few films we have left, because as it stands I personally am not completely satisified with their treatment in the films. This is especially true with Percy, Charlie and Bill but they should be working now though on beefing up Fred and George and making them connect with the audience on a more personal and emotional level that previously handled, otherwise Fred's death in DH will come off as a 'meh' moment like Sirius' death did in the OOTP movie.

Seeing as the last thread was getting rather full, I thought it was time for a new thread.

Post your reviews here, but please try to keep things civil.

Personally, I thought the film was great -- by far the best of the three HP films released so far. A fair few of my thoughts are in the original PoA Film Discussion thread, so I won't bore you with them here.

Anyway, discuss away.

Best. Movie. Ever.:)

Discuss.

Wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey ... stuff. :)

To quote the good Doctor. :cool:
And who better to quote? But, yes, it's all pretty heady stuff: even for a Time Lord! :p


Best. Movie. Ever.:)

Discuss.

People in the UK put about 450 films in front of it! However, none were other Harry Potter films: which certainly is not the way that a lot of Harry Potter fans see it!

But, yes, it is as Rowling herself noted: this film did the best job (at least of the first three) of telling her story. I still enjoy Goblet a bit more: but Prisoner really is the better film. (I think that I'll watch them back-to-back when I get home in 2 weeks: if the F1 lets me! :p

I agree that Poa set the example for the next films, but I do not think it an incredible achievement. Any director who did PoA (and changed it from SS/PS and CoS) would have set the tone for the following films. Newell could have changed the tone with GoF, but it would have been suicidal. No viewer wanted to see Hogwarts or the concentration of the storyline change with each film, so Newell and Yates were compelled to follow Cuaron: it is not necessarily because Cuaron's version was exceptional, in my opinion.

I feel it was the achievement because Cuaron made a break with Columbus's style of filmmaking/storytelling. If Cuaron's change hadn't worked on some level when it came to viewers, Newell and Yates probably wouldn't have followed in his footsteps. IMO PoA was the first change from the line-by-line as-literal-as-possible-in-the-interests-of-being 'faithful' style used by Columbus- I personally don't want the books blindly retold, I'd like a little bit of spirit and imagination (which the books have, in spades) in the movies and PoA was the first one that left me feeling as if they'd managed to understand that.

I personally don't want the books blindly retold, I'd like a little bit of spirit and imagination (which the books have, in spades) in the movies and PoA was the first one that left me feeling as if they'd managed to understand that.In general I agree with that sentiment. I like some originality in the movies (as long as it doesn't directly contradict the books). I think this did play a part in my liking of PoA the best, as did Cauron's overall directing style.

I feel it was the achievement because Cuaron made a break with Columbus's style of filmmaking/storytelling. ..... IMO PoA was the first change from the line-by-line as-literal-as-possible-in-the-interests-of-being 'faithful' style used by Columbus.
I would phrase it differently. I would say that PoA was the first attempt to take the story told in the book (i.e., Harry's hard vs. easy choices concerning ironic truths) and try to figure out the best way to tell it as a movie.

The first two films paid no attention to the stories (Harry's hard vs. easy choices in desires and loyalties, respectively), and focused on re-enacting the narrative.

In general I agree with that sentiment. I like some originality in the movies (as long as it doesn't directly contradict the books). I think this did play a part in my liking of PoA the best, as did Cauron's overall directing style.
The irony here (appropriate when discussing PoA!) is that be re-enacting the narrative instead of deciphering the story, Columbus came much closer to contradicting Rowling's stories, especially in Stone!

I know that I harp upon this, but this is why Lord of the Rings did so much better, both in box offices, among critics, among major awards, and, yes, even on the very survey that we are discussing now! Jackson & Co. did not "throw away" the book (as some Tolkien fans would have it): they studied it and treated the movie like a dissertation on Tolkien's story rather than a re-enactment of his narrative. Cuaron did something similar: and I have to wonder if PoA would have scored more votes in this survey if Columbus' films had not turned so many people off of Harry Potter.

Whittier said it best..... :no:

I would phrase it differently. I would say that PoA was the first attempt to take the story told in the book (i.e., Harry's hard vs. easy choices concerning ironic truths) and try to figure out the best way to tell it as a movie.
Hmm, yes. That was more or less what I wanted to say, but didn't quite manage to, so thank you :).


The first two films paid no attention to the stories (Harry's hard vs. easy choices in desires and loyalties, respectively), and focused on re-enacting the narrative.

The irony here (appropriate when discussing PoA!) is that be re-enacting the narrative instead of deciphering the story, Columbus came much closer to contradicting Rowling's stories, especially in Stone!

I agree with you there...the first two films did feel a bit like Home Alone with spells. And I still remember my reaction to the news that Cuaron would be directing (I'd seen Great Expectations- another of his films that got pilloried for not being 'close enough' to the source- and Y Tu Mama Tambien earlier)- incredible relief, and hope that finally, a Potter book would be made into a movie that I wouldn't go to watch only because it was a Harry Potter movie.


I know that I harp upon this, but this is why Lord of the Rings did so much better, both in box offices, among critics, among major awards, and, yes, even on the very survey that we are discussing now! Jackson & Co. did not "throw away" the book (as some Tolkien fans would have it): they studied it and treated the movie like a dissertation on Tolkien's story rather than a re-enactment of his narrative. Cuaron did something similar: and I have to wonder if PoA would have scored more votes in this survey if Columbus' films had not turned so many people off of Harry Potter.

Whittier said it best..... :no:

Well, Jackson made the odd misstep (Arwen suddenly turning into an action heroine and nearly dying - the latter in RotK), but on the whole, he stayed true to the spirit of the books. And I do feel that Cuaron, whatever his other mistakes (chiefly with the characterisation of Ron and Hermione, the other characters seemed fine to me), did manage to communicate something important- I'm kind of losing the words here, but it felt like the wizarding world wasn't just a children's fantasy land, but a real place where adults lived- weirdly natural (for lack of a better word), but surreally beautiful at the same time.

I would phrase it differently. I would say that PoA was the first attempt to take the story told in the book (i.e., Harry's hard vs. easy choices concerning ironic truths) and try to figure out the best way to tell it as a movie.

The first two films paid no attention to the stories (Harry's hard vs. easy choices in desires and loyalties, respectively), and focused on re-enacting the narrative.


The irony here (appropriate when discussing PoA!) is that be re-enacting the narrative instead of deciphering the story, Columbus came much closer to contradicting Rowling's stories, especially in Stone!

I know that I harp upon this, but this is why Lord of the Rings did so much better, both in box offices, among critics, among major awards, and, yes, even on the very survey that we are discussing now! Jackson & Co. did not "throw away" the book (as some Tolkien fans would have it): they studied it and treated the movie like a dissertation on Tolkien's story rather than a re-enactment of his narrative. Cuaron did something similar: and I have to wonder if PoA would have scored more votes in this survey if Columbus' films had not turned so many people off of Harry Potter.
Whittier said it best..... :no:

I agree, a film narrative can't be just a re-enactment of the book - it lacks soul and imagination then. because different media need different methods of story-telling. A novel can't be retold word for word on screen - there are audio-books for that. (Ok, no images, but you know what I mean). Cuaron got this part right, he told the story of coming to terms with new knowledge and difficult emotions. Plus, the imagery was beautiful- a film adaptation needs to be watchable by all, not just fans of the source material.




I agree with you there...the first two films did feel a bit like Home Alone with spells.

:rotfl: That's such a great way of putting it - kids save the day, stop the bad guys, no major worries or consequences, the adults (fantastic actors though they are) are almost in the role of extras.


Well, Jackson made the odd misstep (Arwen suddenly turning into an action heroine and nearly dying - the latter in RotK), but on the whole, he stayed true to the spirit of the books. And I do feel that Cuaron, whatever his other mistakes (chiefly with the characterisation of Ron and Hermione, the other characters seemed fine to me), did manage to communicate something important- I'm kind of losing the words here, but it felt like the wizarding world wasn't just a children's fantasy land, but a real place where adults lived- weirdly natural (for lack of a better word), but surreally beautiful at the same time.

It was the Ron Hermione characterisation that bugged me about PoA and I think in many ways ruin an otherwise very enjoyable, well made film and well told story. I can't watch it without being annoyed by Super-Hermione and Wimpy Ron. I'll admit there are some good Ron/Hermione moments -"dung beetles" and the hug, but overall, annoying characterisation for those two.

Hmm, yes. That was more or less what I wanted to say, but didn't quite manage to, so thank you :).
No problem: in truth, I spyglassed it off of your computer, and then wiped it from your own memory.... :p

I agree with you there...the first two films did feel a bit like Home Alone with spells.
Single.
Best.
Summary.
Ever.
:tu:

I'm kind of losing the words here, but it felt like the wizarding world wasn't just a children's fantasy land, but a real place where adults lived- weirdly natural (for lack of a better word), but surreally beautiful at the same time.
I think that is an important aspect of the story, in both book and film. One key aspect of growing up is stopping and saying to yourself: hey, maybe reality isn't like parents, teachers, preachers, etc., tell me it is; maybe I need to figure things out for myself!

That entails coming up with your own explanation for the world around you. PoA is a story packed with Harry having to make up his own mind about Boggarts, Dementors, Sirius, and (ultimately) himself. The film emphasized this just as much as the book did: and I think that is what stuck with audiences. Yes, Rings had its misteps (but, so did the book[s]!), but it also left a strong "meaning" behind in the minds of the audience. If you look at the rest of the films on the top of the UK list, then you'll see much of the same: films that really told stories.

IIt was the Ron Hermione characterisation that bugged me about PoA and I think in many ways ruin an otherwise very enjoyable, well made film and well told story. I can't watch it without being annoyed by Super-Hermione and Wimpy Ron. I'll admit there are some good Ron/Hermione moments -"dung beetles" and the hug, but overall, annoying characterisation for those two.Well, "Wimpy Ron" is a viewpoint of hardcore HP fans only: most people did not really see that. What the film did do was eliminate Idiot-Ron: the Ron who so stubbornly refused to accept that Scabbers could not be a normal rat, who carried out a fairly petty grudge with Hermione, and who could not figure out just why there was this strange tension between himself and Hermione!

As for "Super-Hermione," the PoA film is nothing compared to what Rowling provides in Goblet, Order, Prince and (especially) Hallows! Hermione is, to a large extent, Rowling inserting herself into the story.

Well, "Wimpy Ron" is a viewpoint of hardcore HP fans only: most people did not really see that. What the film did do was eliminate Idiot-Ron: the Ron who so stubbornly refused to accept that Scabbers could not be a normal rat, who carried out a fairly petty grudge with Hermione, and who could not figure out just why there was this strange tension between himself and Hermione!

As for "Super-Hermione," the PoA film is nothing compared to what Rowling provides in Goblet, Order, Prince and (especially) Hallows! Hermione is, to a large extent, Rowling inserting herself into the story.

We get a Ron who has nightmares about spiders and whimpers in the Shrieking Shack. That comes across as pretty cowardly to me. Plus agreeing with Snape about Hermione rather than sticking up for her- Ron comes across as quite unpleasant there.

I'll admit that Hermione does a lot of action heroine stuff in Hallows - but what in Goblet, Order and Prince matches up to physically tackling the Whomping Willow? Plus, even with all her achievements in the books, she retains her flaws -bossiness, refusal to see others viewpoints, at times vindictiveness and in PoA, struggling with her excessive workload. This isn't the case in PoA the movie. If we don't see a characters' flaws as well as good points it is off-putting.

We get a Ron who has nightmares about spiders and whimpers in the Shrieking Shack. That comes across as pretty cowardly to me.

Not to me. :) I find Film Ron funny and endearing ... which is pretty much how I see Book Ron. :relax:

Plus agreeing with Snape about Hermione rather than sticking up for her- Ron comes across as quite unpleasant there.

The films do dilute Snape but I thought Ron agreeing with him about Hermione was actually quite funny. :whistle:

But, then, I am a heretic. :lol:

I'll admit that Hermione does a lot of action heroine stuff in Hallows - but what in Goblet, Order and Prince matches up to physically tackling the Whomping Willow? Plus, even with all her achievements in the books, she retains her flaws -bossiness, refusal to see others viewpoints, at times vindictiveness and in PoA, struggling with her excessive workload. This isn't the case in PoA the movie. If we don't see a characters' flaws as well as good points it is off-putting.

Film Hermione is my least favourite characterisation. I agree she is the least like her book counterpart.

But she does come over as awfully bossy. :p Which is like her book counterpart. :relax:

[QUOTE=Pearl_Took;5154361]Not to me. :) I find Film Ron funny and endearing ... which is pretty much how I see Book Ron. :relax:

Hmm, I think Rupert Grints' portrayal is endearing, but many of the lines he's given are, for lack of a better word, meh.

The films do dilute Snape but I thought Ron agreeing with him about Hermione was actually quite funny. :whistle:

But, then, I am a heretic. :lol:

Er, I'm a bit lost, a heretic? Why?

Film Hermione is my least favourite characterisation. I agree she is the least like her book counterpart.

But she does come over as awfully bossy. :p Which is like her book counterpart. :relax:

Film Hermione is bit too perfect, and that annoys the daylights out of me. Flaws make a character interesting and relatable.

Er, I'm a bit lost, a heretic? Why?

I'm not supposed to be supporting Ron and Snape against Hermione, surely. :lol:

:evil:

I feel it was the achievement because Cuaron made a break with Columbus's style of filmmaking/storytelling. If Cuaron's change hadn't worked on some level when it came to viewers, Newell and Yates probably wouldn't have followed in his footsteps. IMO PoA was the first change from the line-by-line as-literal-as-possible-in-the-interests-of-being 'faithful' style used by Columbus- I personally don't want the books blindly retold, I'd like a little bit of spirit and imagination (which the books have, in spades) in the movies and PoA was the first one that left me feeling as if they'd managed to understand that.
I agree that it was an achievement, but not an incredible one. By hiring Cuaron, WB demonstrated they wanted a change from Columbus. Thus, any director that WB hired for PoA would have dramatically altered the series, and I would also say any director would have changed Columbus' "line-by-line as literal-as-possible-in-the-interests-of-being 'faithful'" style, since that is what WB was looking for. Thus, Cuaron's film was an achievement, but I would not label it "incredible."
What the film did do was eliminate Idiot-Ron: the Ron who so stubbornly refused to accept that Scabbers could not be a normal rat, who carried out a fairly petty grudge with Hermione, and who could not figure out just why there was this strange tension between himself and Hermione!
I do not think this was the smartest adaptation, though. The characters are only thirteen, and, thus, they should experience those "idiot" emotions that define adolescence. I think Cuaron's PoA made the jump from child to adult much too quickly.
As for "Super-Hermione," the PoA film is nothing compared to what Rowling provides in Goblet, Order, Prince and (especially) Hallows! Hermione is, to a large extent, Rowling inserting herself into the story.
But this is PoA. In PoA, Hermione is not "Super Hermione." She is a lost, young girl who is overwhelmed but still wanting to maintain order in the only ways she knows. She is not able to wiggle her nose and everything is perfect, with time to worry about her hairstyle, and I think the film made her seem too much like that.

I would also not say that in GoF, OotP, and HBP (the books) that Hermione is portrayed as perfectly and heroine-like as she is in PoA. Throughout the books she is constantly flawed, something JKR understood was necessary with her characters. To me, Cuaron thought it more prudent to make Hermione almost flawless instead of retaining the faults that, I believe, truly create a character.

I can understand why non-book readers (and many book readers) would categorize PoA as the best film. However, for me it ruined the rest of the series. I cannot watch it as a stand-alone film, which, I think, was Cuaron's intent (it certainly seems that way), unlike those who chose it among the top five hundred films.

I absolutely loved this movie; i think it kept the feel of the first two movies and was also quite faithful to the book.

I also liked the added bits they but in, like the shrunken heads, which i thought helped keep the quirkiness of the wizarding world in the audience's minds.

I wish they had put more Hogsmeade in, but then then i dont know if it would flow very well with the movie.

They were big on the circle fade-ins and fade-outs in this movie, did anyone else notice that? It got a bit annoying after a while-- i kept expecting Porky Pib to jump out and say "Th-th-that's all folks!"

But other than that, awesome movie! One of my favourites!

Plus agreeing with Snape about Hermione rather than sticking up for her- Ron comes across as quite unpleasant there.
Having Ron stick up for Hermione was not important to the story or plot. Drawing attention to Hermione's "know-it-all" attitude and her mysterious appearances was important to the plot.
I'll admit that Hermione does a lot of action heroine stuff in Hallows - but what in Goblet, Order and Prince matches up to physically tackling the Whomping Willow?Nothing: nor did anything in the film! There was not "physical tackling" of the Whomping Willow by Hermione or anybody else. There was the Willow whomping Hermione & Harry, but that was about it.

Remember, Ron & Hermione are secondary characters, not protagonists. Their roles are to put Harry in the position to make his big "hard/right" vs. "easy/wrong" choices. The important part of the characterization is that Hermione is a know-it-all: the fact that she is open to alternative points of view (or that Ron is not) or that she's easily hurt & insecure (or that Ron is petty, vindictive & insecure) usually is not too important, unless it sets up the particular hard vs. wrong choices that Harry is facing.

Now, in Prisoner, Hermione's "know-it-all" aspect is important: the information that she provides Harry makes the wrong choices all the easier for him. Moreover, SuperHermione goes beyond being able to recite facts: she can synthesize them to infer that Lupin is a werewolf when others cannot. However, the truth in Prisoner always is ironic: it appears to mean one thing, but it always means something else! (Ron's contribution is similar: but there it is his stubborn refusal to consider what Scabbers really is, and thus it makes him look dumb whereas Hermione comes off looking bright.) So, Hermione's conclusion that Lupin is a werewolf is misleading: yes, it is true, but it is not necessarily a bad thing. But that is for Harry to decide, not Hermione!

Thus, Cuaron's film was an achievement, but I would not label it "incredible."It was voted among the top 500 films ever. The other films were not. So, that is a pretty impressive achievement given that people clearly do not consider Harry Potter films to be all that great overall.
I do not think this was the smartest adaptation, though. The characters are only thirteen, and, thus, they should experience those "idiot" emotions that define adolescence. I think Cuaron's PoA made the jump from child to adult much too quickly.The difference here is that Ron allows his emotions to blind his intellect for far too long in the book. Lupin and Black pile on overwhelming evidence that Scabbers cannot be just a rat: but Ron stubbornly clings to the view. Here, Ron is being a strong counterpoint to the story: the "right" choice when choosing what to consider to be true are things from which our emotions push us away. The story hinges on Harry overcoming emotions (fear, depression, desire) to consider and ultimately accept things to be true that he does not want to be true. Yes, that is pretty adult: the Sarah Palins of the world never can do this. However, Harry and Hermione can do it, and Ron cannot, which makes Ron look bad by comparison.
In PoA, Hermione is not "Super Hermione." She is a lost, young girl who is overwhelmed but still wanting to maintain order in the only ways she knows.Hermione is Super-Hermione starting in Stone, and concluding in Hallows. She probably was afterwards, too: doesn't she help free house-elfs and role back pro-aristocracy laws as an adult? Hermione has a preternatural ability to learn things and to execute based on that knowledge. Sure, Hermione also is a "lost-girl" who is socially highly insecure, especially where Ron is concerned. However, that in no way contradicts her being Super-Hermione: Peter Parker and Bruce Wayne have plenty of "real" flaws yet they still are "Super Peter" (a.k.a. SpiderMan) and "Super Bruce" (a.k.a. Batman).

rarely is too germane to the story or the plot: Rowling includes that as character development just to make the books more enjoyable to read. There are many movies that demonstrate that this tactic does not make movies more enjoyable! Ultimately, Harry Potter has only one protagonist - Harry - and developing Hermione for the sake of developing Hermione will turn off audiences as this development never has any payoff.
She is not able to wiggle her nose and everything is perfect, with time to worry about her hairstyle, and I think the film made her seem too much like that.I don't see how the film made Hermione remotely like that! Indeed, it did the opposite on the hair: it showed that she actually was unaware of what her hair looked like until she saw her alternate self! The girl with time to worry about her hairstyle would have known what her hair looked like from behind a long time before.

Moreover, Hermione never makes things perfect (in either films or books), even in Hallows: but she frequently is a key element in allowing Harry to salvage the situation. Hermione is one of Rowling's primary tools for providing Harry with the information that he needs. In a very real sense, Hermione is Rowling incarnate in her own universe, and Rowling has acknowledged that she uses Hermione to provide Harry with the facts (save on the rare occasion that she uses Dumbledore). One might like or dislike this approach: but if the films wish to retain true to the "spirit" of the books (and this aspect of "girl-power" that the author inserts into them), then cinematic equivalents of Rowling's literary devices are needed.


But getting back to the issue at hand, what PoA represented was the films beginning to tell stories. That is what a fictional movie/book/play/opera/handpuppet show/etc. should do. I would argue that Goblet and Order also told stories (and also told the same story told in the books): but Prisoner likely is a more compelling story than Goblet or Order, which is why PoA stuck out in audiences' minds more than did GoF or OotP.

Having Ron stick up for Hermione was not important to the story or plot. Drawing attention to Hermione's "know-it-all" attitude and her mysterious appearances was important to the plot.
I do not believe the film "drew attention to Hermione's 'know-it-all' attitude." That is one of the greatest flaws I see in the film, for she seems quite unconcerned with schoolwork.
Nothing: nor did anything in the film! There was not "physical tackling" of the Whomping Willow by Hermione or anybody else. There was the Willow whomping Hermione & Harry, but that was about it.
I agree. However, I still dislike the Whomping Willow scene, which made it very much cartoonish (Hermione's arm stretching back and forth to grab Harry). Hermione was also, I think, shown as slightly weak, screaming as if she were on a roller coaster. In the books, she gets scared, certainly, but she contains her emotions (until they all spill out at one moment, which is not the case in the Whomping Willow scene).
The important part of the characterization is that Hermione is a know-it-all.

Now, in Prisoner, Hermione's "know-it-all" aspect is important: the information that she provides Harry makes the wrong choices all the easier for him. Moreover, SuperHermione goes beyond being able to recite facts: she can synthesize them to infer that Lupin is a werewolf when others cannot.
As I have said, I believe this film missed the mark on Hermione's "know-it-all" character. She may have had elements, but I do not think Cuaron combined them to make her a "know-it-all," and all the facts she recited seemed just that: a recitation. I did not believe anything Hermione said about facts or information in PoA.
It was voted among the top 500 films ever. The other films were not. So, that is a pretty impressive achievement given that people clearly do not consider Harry Potter films to be all that great overall.
I see PoA as the only film that can truly stand alone, as that was one of Cuaron's goals while directing it. I am not suggesting others do not view PoA differently, but I wished to see the series of films be that: a series.
The difference here is that Ron allows his emotions to blind his intellect for far too long in the book. Lupin and Black pile on overwhelming evidence that Scabbers cannot be just a rat: but Ron stubbornly clings to the view. Here, Ron is being a strong counterpoint to the story: the "right" choice when choosing what to consider to be true are things from which our emotions push us away.
Ron's book character is based around that stubbornness and blindness. However, a large part of his character is his growth; in PoA he was in an early stage of growth, but by DH he is much more open (while still slightly stubborn). He is an adolescent with many fears and instabilities in PoA, so I thought his "emotions blinding his intellect" was justifiable.
Indeed, it did the opposite on the hair: it showed that she actually was unaware of what her hair looked like until she saw her alternate self! The girl with time to worry about her hairstyle would have known what her hair looked like from behind a long time before.
It showed that she was concerned about her hair, something book Hermione is quite the opposite of, especially in such a serious situation.
Prisoner likely is a more compelling story than Goblet or Order, which is why PoA stuck out in audiences' minds more than did GoF or OotP.
I agree. Even amongst Harry Potter fans PoA is usually the most popular and more of a stand alone story. Meanwhile, GoF and OotP are more dependent on the other books.

Yes, that is pretty adult: the Sarah Palins of the world never can do this.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Oh, yes. I agree entirely :tu:

I do not believe the film "drew attention to Hermione's 'know-it-all' attitude." That is one of the greatest flaws I see in the film, for she seems quite unconcerned with schoolwork.

This was my main gripe with the film. Hermione was rather changed in it. The Time Turner didn't seem to cause her so much bother as it did in the book, and, adding to that, her entire devotion to the cause that eventually led to her anger being let out in Divination was then not developed, so the consequent scene in the film is just not as polished or as well explained as it ought to have been. Having said that, I did like it as it was. :tu:

However, I still dislike the Whomping Willow scene, which made it very much cartoonish (Hermione's arm stretching back and forth to grab Harry). Hermione was also, I think, shown as slightly weak, screaming as if she were on a roller coaster. In the books, she gets scared, certainly, but she contains her emotions (until they all spill out at one moment, which is not the case in the Whomping Willow scene).

I rather thought that some of the danger was removed from that scene, which was why I wasn't such a big fan of it, to be honest- and I agree that again it did not reflect Hermione as well as it could have, or perhaps should have. The CGI wasn't as great as it could have been, and the entire scene was somewhat imperfect and rushed, as far as I'm concerned. It was, I think, my least favourite part of my otherwise favourite movie. I'm really just nitpicking here! :D

As I have said, I believe this film missed the mark on Hermione's "know-it-all" character. She may have had elements, but I do not think Cuaron combined them to make her a "know-it-all," and all the facts she recited seemed just that: a recitation. I did not believe anything Hermione said about facts or information in PoA.

Ditto. It just didn't fit her aptly, she seemed on the periphery as opposed to her story being explained, she lacked emphasis and the stress placed on her by her studies was never brought out as it could have been. Since I always felt that this stress was a good point of development in her character within the books (ie, she was harder to stress out in later books), I felt a bit robbed of this development in the film. But I sort of ignored it- I think it would have been asking too much.

However, a large part of his character is his growth; in PoA he was in an early stage of growth, but by DH he is much more open (while still slightly stubborn). He is an adolescent with many fears and instabilities in PoA, so I thought his "emotions blinding his intellect" was justifiable.

Absolutely! :agree: The development in character here can certainly go a long way to showing Ron in a wonderful way, and with Grint playing him, I think that development has great potential following the performance in PoA and GoF in particular.

It showed that she was concerned about her hair, something book Hermione is quite the opposite of, especially in such a serious situation.

That moment really did aggravate me. It was just so out of Character.. Hermione, caring about her hair when Buckbeak might die? I think not. :)

I loved this film, esp when it was first released. Obviously there are parts missing, bits of the plot confused (I dont know about that really, I'm just sorta making that up... Its probably true though.)But I think its the best of the films - story wise - As in the books, its where it starts to get just that little bit darker and that little bit scarerier. Plus that line of Hermione's ("Is that really what my hair looks like from the back?") is a corker - should have been in the book!

Ditto. It just didn't fit her aptly, she seemed on the periphery as opposed to her story being explained, she lacked emphasis and the stress placed on her by her studies was never brought out as it could have been

She should be on the periphery, she is a secondary character. One of the most common complaints among book fans was that Hermione received too much screentime. I think she was given pretty much an identical role to the book, and that Cuaron developed her as much as was reasonable in a film called HARRY POTTER and the Prisoner of Azkaban. We saw her be late to class several times, we saw her get picked on by Snape, we saw her mocking Trelawney and mentioning her many classes like ancient runes, we saw her dramatic exit from Divintation and we got her little moment with the time turner. Any more would have been too much. She received an extremely thorough characterisation for someone who is not the protagonist.


I do not believe the film "drew attention to Hermione's 'know-it-all' attitude."

I do not understand. In her very first scene she mentions that the Egyptians used to worship cats. She is condescending to Ron. On the train she points out Lupin's name from his briefcase. She clearly reacts with some rancour to Professor Trelawney, she is something of an intellectual snob about it, as seen later when she mocks her and also mentions the number of classes she is taking. She is the one who orders Hagrid to take Draco to the hospital wing. She is the one who comments that the location of Black's last sighting is 'not far from here'. Snape gives her a thorough dressing-down for being such a know-it-all. She figures out Lupin's secret, she figures out that Dumbledore was referring to Buckbeak in his instructions, she figures out to throw the stones at the 'past-trio' in Hagrid's hut. There are many more examples. She was clearly characterised as a an occasionally snotty know-it-all. I do not see how that can be refuted.

"But you know happiness can be found even in the darkest of times, when one only remembers to turn on the light"

I love this line. I wish Jo would have thought of it first. It fits so well.

"But you know happiness can be found even in the darkest of times, when one only remembers to turn on the light"

I love this line. I wish Jo would have thought of it first. It fits so well.

I also love this line!:D

However, we don't really know WHO wrote it truly. You are correct in thinking it was most probably not JKR. But on most of the screenplays, the byline also credits Jo, and we know she at least looks at the scripts.

So, it is a long shot, but she actually could have written part of the script, like that line.:)

I do not understand. In her very first scene she mentions that the Egyptians used to worship cats. She is condescending to Ron. On the train she points out Lupin's name from his briefcase. She clearly reacts with some rancour to Professor Trelawney, she is something of an intellectual snob about it, as seen later when she mocks her and also mentions the number of classes she is taking. She is the one who orders Hagrid to take Draco to the hospital wing. She is the one who comments that the location of Black's last sighting is 'not far from here'. Snape gives her a thorough dressing-down for being such a know-it-all. She figures out Lupin's secret, she figures out that Dumbledore was referring to Buckbeak in his instructions, she figures out to throw the stones at the 'past-trio' in Hagrid's hut. There are many more examples. She was clearly characterised as a an occasionally snotty know-it-all. I do not see how that can be refuted.
This is the problem: she mentions them. To be a know-it-all, at least to me, one does not merely mention a couple of facts and a few statements about one's own knowledge. A know-it-all is someone who mentions the Egyptian's worship of cats and then rants for five minutes. A know-it-all is someone who has to be interrupted to stop from divulging all of his/her incredible knowledge. I think the film missed the mark, and Emma Watson merely regurgitated lines (instead of acting like a true know-it-all). Even Hermione's few occasions of cleverness/"know-it-all" behavior were downplayed because she was more often seemingly blithe about her classes. My problem was that she was not continuously reinforced as a know-it-all; she was made to be someone much more concerned with socialization, and that, to me, is not Hermione.

My first reaction to PoA wasn't a good one. I was really upset that they cut a lot of the Marauder's stuff.

And then, as I saw more of the Potter films and as I came to terms with the fact that they could never make a movie that's completely true to the books, I began to like it a little more.

I found the transitions between the seasons with the Whomping Willow to be really well done. I also found that Daniel Radcliffe looks more like the Harry Potter in side my head in this movie than in any of the others!

And, I liked the introduction of the students wearing "muggle" clothing during their breaks.

This is the problem: she mentions them. To be a know-it-all, at least to me, one does not merely mention a couple of facts and a few statements about one's own knowledge. A know-it-all is someone who mentions the Egyptian's worship of cats and then rants for five minutes. A know-it-all is someone who has to be interrupted to stop from divulging all of his/her incredible knowledge. I think the film missed the mark, and Emma Watson merely regurgitated lines (instead of acting like a true know-it-all). Even Hermione's few occasions of cleverness/"know-it-all" behavior were downplayed because she was more often seemingly blithe about her classes. My problem was that she was not continuously reinforced as a know-it-all; she was made to be someone much more concerned with socialization, and that, to me, is not Hermione.

I don't really see where you're coming from. Hermione was shown plenty of times to be a very blatant know-it-all, her attitude in Snape's DADA lesson, where he sharply puts her in her place, her snobbish patronising of Trelawney (to her face no less), how she leads Harry along after they've gone back in time. Those combined with the other things I mentioned were more than enough to cement the 'know-it-all' characterisation IMO. I also cannot see how the movie portrayed her as concerned with socialisation. The only line even hinting at something like that was the line about her hair, but that line was meant to show just how little she cared about things like her appearance, that she had never thought about what her hair looked like from behind before, and thus was taken aback. She is a teenager. I do not see how that one line can override the truckloads of other scenes where she was portrayed as per the book.

I also love this line!:D

However, we don't really know WHO wrote it truly. You are correct in thinking it was most probably not JKR. But on most of the screenplays, the byline also credits Jo, and we know she at least looks at the scripts.

So, it is a long shot, but she actually could have written part of the script, like that line.:)
That would be nice. It just fits so well. I think I will go watch it right now:p

I didn't like the Werewolf sene, but what did you think? What do you dislike about the movie, or other movies? I liked the first three movies the best! What is your favorite? And why?

I didn't like the Werewolf sene, but what did you think? What do you dislike about the movie, or other movies? I liked the first three movies the best! What is your favorite? And why?

I thought the Werewofl scene was done well in all it's CGI glory haha!!


I must say POA is the best directed film for sure! But I also really enjoyed GOF, I saw it 3 times in the theater.:p I think the POA has the best Gary Oldman as Sirus performance though.

This is the problem: she mentions them. To be a know-it-all, at least to me, one does not merely mention a couple of facts and a few statements about one's own knowledge. A know-it-all is someone who mentions the Egyptian's worship of cats and then rants for five minutes. In addition to what yoshi wrote, the key here is "to me." Someone who leaps to fill in all the facts (like Hermione) is dubbed a know-it-all by most people. This is what she does in the books, after all: she never goes on rants about these sorts of things, but other people still call her a know-it-all. Rowling did not intend for you to fill in blanks with Hermione ranting "off-screen" with this: she just was informing us that everybody (not just Harry & Ron) thought this about Hermione. (

Hermione saves her rants for sociopolitical causes; and although Amnesty International types often are know-it-alls, not all are, and not all know-it-alls are AI types!)

I think the film missed the mark, and Emma Watson merely regurgitated lines (instead of acting like a true know-it-all). To further elaborate (again!) on what yoshi wrote, wow does a "know-it-all" act? I've known many; I've even been called one! (I do stress that while I know vastly more than most people, I know such a small fraction of the universe that [my knowledge / all possible knowledge] ~= 0!) They (we) come in all stripes and sizes. Some of us are merely pedantic by habit or even as expressions of our over-large egos. (:p) Others (like Hermione) do it out of some insecurity. Know-it-all can diagnose many different things with only one commonality: knowledge!

she was made to be someone much more concerned with socialization, and that, to me, is not Hermione.Never in the entire film does Hermione come across a being concerned about socializing. Indeed, it differs here from in the book: there she is very upset about her sundered friendship with Harry & (especially) Ron. Rowling was playing with theme related to the story here: but it would have bogged down the film, and possibly distracted people from the story.

Again, people get upset about Hermione caring about her hair. But what do we learn about her in Goblet? She was, in fact, very self-conscious about her teeth, and had been itching for ages to shrink them. She knew exactly how much sleek-easy it took to tame her savage tangles, and if it were not for the fact that it took so long, she clearly would have done it routinely.

Hermione should not be mistaken for a girl who does not care about her looks. Instead, she is a young lady who has given up on her looks: she's convinced that she's plain but she is equally convinced that there is very little that she can do about it. She's not indifferent: she's surrendered.

(I think that Rowling writes from some experience here, as she has let slip many times that she was "the plain girl" growing up; of course, she actually is moderately pretty, but self-image and actual-image are two different things for many people!)

I hated how they gave Ron's lines to Hermione and made Ron look like a wimp and how they added both h/hr and r/hr

I hated how they gave Ron's lines to Hermione and made Ron look like a wimp and how they added both h/hr and r/hr

What lines?

I didn't notice any that they transfered over specifically...:whistle: Although I DID miss the "I don't care if my tealeaves spell Die Ron Die, I'm chucking them in the bin" thing:lol:

Emma Thomspon as Trelawny was just AMAZING.:tu::tu::tu::cool:

What lines?

I didn't notice any that they transfered over specifically...:whistle: Although I DID miss the "I don't care if my tealeaves spell Die Ron Die, I'm chucking them in the bin" thing:lol:

Emma Thomspon as Trelawny was just AMAZING.:tu::tu::tu::cool:

I think one of those lines would be the one in the Shrieking Shack that goes "If you're going to kill Harry you're going to have to kill us too." I have to admit, I myself I have a problem with Hermione saying that--I mean, she already has so many good lines and good scenes. It really wouldn't have hurt to give that line to Ron as in the book--it would more poignant because the audience would see how Ron, even in his pain, would still think of Harry and be willing to stand in front him, enforcing how strong their friendship is. Ron whimpering in the background didn't really do much for him, showing that he was more focused on himself than on Harry in this tense moment, and beefed up Hermione unnecessarily.

I think one of those lines would be the one in the Shrieking Shack that goes "If you're going to kill Harry you're going to have to kill us too." I have to admit, I myself I have a problem with Hermione saying that--I mean, she already has so many good lines and good scenes. It really wouldn't have hurt to give that line to Ron as in the book--it would more poignant because the audience would see how Ron, even in his pain, would still think of Harry and be willing to stand in front him, enforcing how strong their friendship is. Ron whimpering in the background didn't really do much for him, showing that he was more focused on himself than on Harry in this tense moment, and beefed up Hermione unnecessarily.

:agree: I think this too would make audiences wonder why Harry and Ron are best friends, especially with his status regulated to that of the face-pulling sidekick. :no: It would be easy for audiences to get why Hermione and Harry would be good friends, but Ron and Harry? No. Well, at least those who only watch the movies, that is. Moreover, if the non-book-reading members of the audience then saw GoF next, having seen PoA before, they might wonder why Harry would save Ron rather than Hermione in the Second Task, when Ron has shown hardly anything that the audience would understand in why Harry and Ron are best friends.

:agree: I think this too would make audiences wonder why Harry and Ron are best friends, especially with his status regulated to that of the face-pulling sidekick. :no: It would be easy for audiences to get why Hermione and Harry would be good friends, but Ron and Harry? No. Well, at least those who only watch the movies, that is. Moreover, if the non-book-reading members of the audience then saw GoF next, having seen PoA before, they might wonder why Harry would save Ron rather than Hermione in the Second Task, when Ron has shown hardly anything that the audience would understand in why Harry and Ron are best friends.

Exactly. I know Harry and Hermione is the focal duo in this one, but Ron is a part of the trio, and he deserves to at least have the chance to show his loyalty to Harry as some little reminder of why he's there in the first place (I mean, it certainly wasn't because he entertained Harry with his fear of tap-dancing spiders). As Wimsey likes to say, in every film you introduce stuff from scratch so that moviegoers will be familiarized with the stuff that happened before. This kind of reintroduction should've happened with Ron, in my opinion.

Exactly. I know Harry and Hermione is the focal duo in this one, but Ron is a part of the trio, and he deserves to at least have the chance to show his loyalty to Harry as some little reminder of why he's there in the first place (I mean, it certainly wasn't because he entertained Harry with his fear of tap-dancing spiders). As Wimsey likes to say, in every film you introduce stuff from scratch so that moviegoers will be familiarized with the stuff that happened before. This kind of reintroduction should've happened with Ron, in my opinion.

:agree: And what's going to happen in DH when he rescues Harry from the pond (or was it a lake?) after Harry is nearly suffocated by the locket? By the way the movies are going, it would probably have to be Hermione. But this is PoA, not DH. ;)

:agree: And what's going to happen in DH when he rescues Harry from the pond (or was it a lake?) after Harry is nearly suffocated by the locket? By the way the movies are going, it would probably have to be Hermione. But this is PoA, not DH. ;)

Again, people are making mountains of a molehill here. Moreover, I would add that people are being a little inconsistent. Ron's PoA moment is supposed to be the exemplar moment summarizing his loyalty to Harry: and yet in the very next story, Ron's petty envy leads him to betray Harry in Harry's hour (well, weeks) of need.

Similarly, in the books, Hermione is the one who quivers and quakes with fear in Shrieking Shack: yet nobody (save those who badly misunderstand either Hermione or the concept of loyalty) think that this is a sign that she is less loyal to Harry than is Ron. (Obviously, Hermione's brand of loyalty is different than is Ron's: but that is another issue.)

So, there are a couple of issues to consider here. First of all,what is the point of this particular part of the scene? Second of all, what would the film communicate under alternative scenarios? The answer to the first is NOT to show the reader/viewer that Harry has loyal friends, or which friend is "loyal." Hermione & Ron are secondary characters, not protagonists, and thus there actions are important for how Harry responds. And how does Harry respond when someone tries to shield him yet again from harm?Harry pushes the protector out of the way to face his foe.[/indent][i]Who gets pushed is not relevant: the important part is the counterpoint to the Dementor-induced memory, where Harry is shielded from harm by his mother. Harry is not hiding anymore: he's confronting his fear head-on. This, in turn, sets up the important contribution of the scene to the story (i.e., making the hard-choice to accept undesirable truths): Harry wants Sirius to be the murderer so that he (Harry) can exact his revenge; accepting that it is someone else is not an easy choice, but it is both correct and right.

The answers to the second require a bit more thought. What we see is Ron shaking in pain and fear: remember, his reactions communicated both of these things. This was very important: the book could simply state the description of Ron's leg and the reader knows: he/she does not have to interpret the observations on his/her own. Moreover, the book emphasizes the sound of Ron's leg breaking: but most people do not know what that actually sounds like (and including that would probably increase the rating on the film). Showing Ron's injury would require time and actually be counterproductive: if he can walk on it, how bad can it be?

Moreover, consider what happens if Harry does push aside his injured friend. Ron would have to fall like someone badly favoring one leg: and such a fall would look comical. Harry would look like a jerk for so callously disregarding his friends physical health. And, of course, this would cater to the dreadful stereotype of "brave boys, cowardly girls" as Hermione stands back and cowers.


Again, one must never lose the forest for the trees: the story here is the forest, and deed is the tree that contributes to the forest; indeed, the details like which friend provides Harry with his counterpunctual-shield is thus less a tree than and more like the moss growing on it! :p

Again, people are making mountains of a molehill here. Moreover, I would add that people are being a little inconsistent. Ron's PoA moment is supposed to be the exemplar moment summarizing his loyalty to Harry: and yet in the very next story, Ron's petty envy leads him to betray Harry in Harry's hour (well, weeks) of need.

Similarly, in the books, Hermione is the one who quivers and quakes with fear in Shrieking Shack: yet nobody (save those who badly misunderstand either Hermione or the concept of loyalty) think that this is a sign that she is less loyal to Harry than is Ron. (Obviously, Hermione's brand of loyalty is different than is Ron's: but that is another issue.)

So, there are a couple of issues to consider here. First of all,what is the point of this particular part of the scene? Second of all, what would the film communicate under alternative scenarios? The answer to the first is NOT to show the reader/viewer that Harry has loyal friends, or which friend is "loyal." Hermione & Ron are secondary characters, not protagonists, and thus there actions are important for how Harry responds. And how does Harry respond when someone tries to shield him yet again from harm?Harry pushes the protector out of the way to face his foe.[/indent][I]Who gets pushed is not relevant: the important part is the counterpoint to the Dementor-induced memory, where Harry is shielded from harm by his mother. Harry is not hiding anymore: he's confronting his fear head-on. This, in turn, sets up the important contribution of the scene to the story (i.e., making the hard-choice to accept undesirable truths): Harry wants Sirius to be the murderer so that he (Harry) can exact his revenge; accepting that it is someone else is not an easy choice, but it is both correct and right.

The answers to the second require a bit more thought. What we see is Ron shaking in pain and fear: remember, his reactions communicated both of these things. This was very important: the book could simply state the description of Ron's leg and the reader knows: he/she does not have to interpret the observations on his/her own. Moreover, the book emphasizes the sound of Ron's leg breaking: but most people do not know what that actually sounds like (and including that would probably increase the rating on the film). Showing Ron's injury would require time and actually be counterproductive: if he can walk on it, how bad can it be?

Moreover, consider what happens if Harry does push aside his injured friend. Ron would have to fall like someone badly favoring one leg: and such a fall would look comical. Harry would look like a jerk for so callously disregarding his friends physical health. And, of course, this would cater to the dreadful stereotype of "brave boys, cowardly girls" as Hermione stands back and cowers.


Again, one must never lose the forest for the trees: the story here is the forest, and deed is the tree that contributes to the forest; indeed, the details like which friend provides Harry with his counterpunctual-shield is thus less a tree than and more like the moss growing on it! :p

You have rather convinced me with this post here. Very nicely said in a rational manner. :)

One thing that really bugs me about PoA is the opening sequence. They have Harry performing magic in his bedroom underneath his blanket. This really bugs me as the fans should know that underage magic is a serious matter. Futhermore, later on the film Harry asks Fudge if they're going to expel him for underage wizardry. That basically clears up confusion and makes it obvoius that the opening sequence makes absolutely no sense.

I think it would have been easy to make a different opening sequence which would actually make sense in the movie. I don't think they need him practicing magic at home (Hermione's spells in CoS also bug me so its not that I hate PoA)

Maybe I'm just pointing out little details just because I expect the movies to be true to the books. But, this is something that really bothers me with the film.

Besides that, I think PoA is one of the best Harry Potter films.

I thought PoA was an excellent movie! The actors/actresses, director, special effects were all wonderful!

The only thing that bugged me a tiny bit was Ron's character in a couple of instances. For example: I don't really see why Hermione was given Ron's line "If you're going to kill Harry you're going to have to kill us too" that was Ron's show of loyalty to his friends. It felt like the character was left to the side a couple of times.

Again, people are making mountains of a molehill here. Moreover, I would add that people are being a little inconsistent. Ron's PoA moment is supposed to be the exemplar moment summarizing his loyalty to Harry: and yet in the very next story, Ron's petty envy leads him to betray Harry in Harry's hour (well, weeks) of need.

Similarly, in the books, Hermione is the one who quivers and quakes with fear in Shrieking Shack: yet nobody (save those who badly misunderstand either Hermione or the concept of loyalty) think that this is a sign that she is less loyal to Harry than is Ron. (Obviously, Hermione's brand of loyalty is different than is Ron's: but that is another issue.)

So, there are a couple of issues to consider here. First of all,what is the point of this particular part of the scene? Second of all, what would the film communicate under alternative scenarios? The answer to the first is NOT to show the reader/viewer that Harry has loyal friends, or which friend is "loyal." Hermione & Ron are secondary characters, not protagonists, and thus there actions are important for how Harry responds. And how does Harry respond when someone tries to shield him yet again from harm?Harry pushes the protector out of the way to face his foe.[/indent][i]Who gets pushed is not relevant: the important part is the counterpoint to the Dementor-induced memory, where Harry is shielded from harm by his mother. Harry is not hiding anymore: he's confronting his fear head-on. This, in turn, sets up the important contribution of the scene to the story (i.e., making the hard-choice to accept undesirable truths): Harry wants Sirius to be the murderer so that he (Harry) can exact his revenge; accepting that it is someone else is not an easy choice, but it is both correct and right.

The answers to the second require a bit more thought. What we see is Ron shaking in pain and fear: remember, his reactions communicated both of these things. This was very important: the book could simply state the description of Ron's leg and the reader knows: he/she does not have to interpret the observations on his/her own. Moreover, the book emphasizes the sound of Ron's leg breaking: but most people do not know what that actually sounds like (and including that would probably increase the rating on the film). Showing Ron's injury would require time and actually be counterproductive: if he can walk on it, how bad can it be?

Moreover, consider what happens if Harry does push aside his injured friend. Ron would have to fall like someone badly favoring one leg: and such a fall would look comical. Harry would look like a jerk for so callously disregarding his friends physical health. And, of course, this would cater to the dreadful stereotype of "brave boys, cowardly girls" as Hermione stands back and cowers.


Again, one must never lose the forest for the trees: the story here is the forest, and deed is the tree that contributes to the forest; indeed, the details like which friend provides Harry with his counterpunctual-shield is thus less a tree than and more like the moss growing on it! :p

Wimsey it is relevant when the character who delivers the line is the one who consistently gets lines that belongs to others, even when they're in the scene. Harry could've easily gone up to Ron and pushed him back onto the bed without making it comical, Hermione could've done it as well. Even the posters show a weird looking kid holding a rat while Harry and Hermione get these dramatic poses. Ron is made into nothing more than a clown in this movie.

Hermione has been made into the definitive second character, yes canon Potter has the two of them as equals but the movies show her off more and more. She's given scenes that don't exist and are of no use to the plot. What was the point of, "I'm scared for you?", we really couldn't have Cedric tell him at the end of the dance like he did in the book? Harry wasn't portrayed as being angry at Ced so it could've be done. Were they using the argument between Ron and Hermione as an excuse to not have Ron there? It'd be different if these occurrences were spread out amongst people but it's almost always, if not always, her.

Again, people are making mountains of a molehill here. Moreover, I would add that people are being a little inconsistent. Ron's PoA moment is supposed to be the exemplar moment summarizing his loyalty to Harry: and yet in the very next story, Ron's petty envy leads him to betray Harry in Harry's hour (well, weeks) of need.

Similarly, in the books, Hermione is the one who quivers and quakes with fear in Shrieking Shack: yet nobody (save those who badly misunderstand either Hermione or the concept of loyalty) think that this is a sign that she is less loyal to Harry than is Ron. (Obviously, Hermione's brand of loyalty is different than is Ron's: but that is another issue.)

So, there are a couple of issues to consider here. First of all,what is the point of this particular part of the scene? Second of all, what would the film communicate under alternative scenarios? The answer to the first is NOT to show the reader/viewer that Harry has loyal friends, or which friend is "loyal." Hermione & Ron are secondary characters, not protagonists, and thus there actions are important for how Harry responds. And how does Harry respond when someone tries to shield him yet again from harm?Harry pushes the protector out of the way to face his foe.[/indent][i]Who gets pushed is not relevant: the important part is the counterpoint to the Dementor-induced memory, where Harry is shielded from harm by his mother. Harry is not hiding anymore: he's confronting his fear head-on. This, in turn, sets up the important contribution of the scene to the story (i.e., making the hard-choice to accept undesirable truths): Harry wants Sirius to be the murderer so that he (Harry) can exact his revenge; accepting that it is someone else is not an easy choice, but it is both correct and right.

The answers to the second require a bit more thought. What we see is Ron shaking in pain and fear: remember, his reactions communicated both of these things. This was very important: the book could simply state the description of Ron's leg and the reader knows: he/she does not have to interpret the observations on his/her own. Moreover, the book emphasizes the sound of Ron's leg breaking: but most people do not know what that actually sounds like (and including that would probably increase the rating on the film). Showing Ron's injury would require time and actually be counterproductive: if he can walk on it, how bad can it be?

Moreover, consider what happens if Harry does push aside his injured friend. Ron would have to fall like someone badly favoring one leg: and such a fall would look comical. Harry would look like a jerk for so callously disregarding his friends physical health. And, of course, this would cater to the dreadful stereotype of "brave boys, cowardly girls" as Hermione stands back and cowers.


Again, one must never lose the forest for the trees: the story here is the forest, and deed is the tree that contributes to the forest; indeed, the details like which friend provides Harry with his counterpunctual-shield is thus less a tree than and more like the moss growing on it! :p

On the contrary, it IS important who says that line. I do not see where the inconsistency lies when I feel people can understand the idea of jealousy causing a disagreement between friends. It's entirely realistic. After all, the beginning of GoF showed Harry and Ron as close--and that was what gave the fighting bit it's punch. Just because you declared your loyalty to someone, it doesn't mean you'll never fight with that person.

The problem is, Ron wasn't exactly shown as being someone important to Harry in the movie--there was no real scene of male bonding between them or anything that showed why Harry and Ron are such good friends. Thus, the lack of a defining moment demeans his character because he has nothing to show to the audience as the hero's nominal best friend. Hermione, on the other hand, is at least shown in many instances as looking after Harry's best interests in the book--this is why we never question her loyalty.

Both Hermione and Ron are supposed to be the secondary characters, as you say, but in this movie, Hermione has greatly and unnecessarily overshadowed Ron. She became THE secondary character, while Ron was relegated to...the guy who cracks jokes and whines. He was made to look dispensable--if I didn't know anything about the series and just watched this as a movie, I'd be wondering why he needed to be in all those scenes. And it would not have been difficult to show Ron attempting to stand and then stumbling back due to his injured leg as Harry charges past him. In such an instance, his whimpering would have looked better because he'd further hurt himself trying to defend Harry.

Considering the way the movie had already been portraying Hermione, I don't see how having her stand back for that one scene would have hurt her standing. We all know at this point that she is a strong, confident female who is loyal to Harry. And also considering how she is essentially the leader throughout the whole Time-Turner bit, would it have mattered that she gave up one line that tells us what we already know about her?

I think there's a huge difference between how book fans perceive all this and how the general audience perceives it.

In the books, I am interested in Ron and Hermione and their respective backstories. When I go to see the films, however, I am not as interested in Ron and Hermione as I am in Harry, because the films are all about Harry, and Harry's story. Of course I am glad R and H are there in the films, it would be a travesty if they were not! But I am always much more interested in, and focused on, Film Harry, the protagonist.

All the films need to show is that Ron and Hermione are Harry's good friends, who will stick by him through thick and thin. If PoA did not do Ron justice, as some of you feel (I have no strong feelings on the matter), then the subsequent films have more than made up for it. This is a film series, after all, and even if people haven't read the books, they realise that, so there's continuity.

The first film established the very strong friendship between Ron and Harry. The films have been consistent in showing this friendship, which is why I am not particularly bugged by the PoA portrayal of Ron.

I'm not denying that in the PoA film Hermione is seem to be a more charismatic and dominant sidekick than Ron. But in the light of the series overall, I think the films have shown Ron to be a good friend, and that really is the important thing.

On another subject, the PoA film has some nice little HeRon moments. ;)

On the contrary, it IS important who says that line.
Why?
The problem is, Ron wasn\'t exactly shown as being someone important to Harry in the movie--there was no real scene of male bonding between them or anything that showed why Harry and Ron are such good friends. Thus, the lack of a defining moment demeans his character because he has nothing to show to the audience as the hero\'s nominal best friend.
Untrue. Moment #1 where Ron tells Harry to ignore Draco\'s jeering. Moment #2 where they bond by eating the magicalcandy in the dormitories. Although moment #2 involved everyone it\'s still a male bonding moment among males. Moment #3 Harry throwing snowballs at Draco protecting his best friends Ron and Hermione. Moment #4 screen time dedicated to Ron waking up and Harry telling him to go back to sleep. Moment #5 he high fives Harry\'s and only Harry\'s hand in another male bonding moment during boggart class.

I\'d like to point out moment #4 because in movies time is precious. Anyone on screen must be considered important to the scene or else they are gone. Ron being with Harry so much on screen is already a telltale sign that he is a friend with Harry. Whatever relationship is casually introduced is only strengthened and emphasized by the secondary character\'s presence. Also if we sweat the book details that are not in the film, we end up missing the film details put into the film like the moments I listed above.
Both Hermione and Ron are supposed to be the secondary characters, as you say, but in this movie, Hermione has greatly and unnecessarily overshadowed Ron. She became THE secondary character, while Ron was relegated to...the guy who cracks jokes and whines. He was made to look dispensable--if I didn\'t know anything about the series and just watched this as a movie, I\'d be wondering why he needed to be in all those scenes. And it would not have been difficult to show Ron attempting to stand and then stumbling back due to his injured leg as Harry charges past him. In such an instance, his whimpering would have looked better because he\'d further hurt himself trying to defend Harry.
Okai. Let\'s say for instance that was done. Ron was shown to stand up and say the line and whimper and fall down again as Harry pushes him down like in the scene. As Wimsey already mentioned before it would make Harry look like a jerk for ignoring Ron\'s tumble but let\'s just say he wasn\'t so inconsiderate. The rage has for wanting to kill Black will just stop for a second and he\'ll go back and help Ron to the bed. Then after a moment of calm he goes back to raging against Sirius. The momentum of the scene is lost if we have a non-title-character related moment break up the title character\'s scene. This is Harry Potter and POA, not Harry potter, PoA and Ron\'s broken leg scene. An extreme yes, but as I said above about screen time the more time spent on one thing is a director trying to point out something to the audience. However it has to be considered if it could progress the story, scene and title character or put the brakes to the entire climax of the film.
Would it have mattered that she gave up one line that tells us what we already know about her?
In the world of movies, one line could make or break a scene. Or even create a classic film.

I'm not denying that in the PoA film Hermione is seem to be a more charismatic and dominant sidekick than Ron. But in the light of the series overall, I think the films have shown Ron to be a good friend, and that really is the important thing.

On another subject, the PoA film has some nice little HeRon moments. ;)

:agree: with all of that. The thing is that it's easier to show Hermione as being more of an extrovert. It involves tampering with her as the character we know so well- in terms of, we don't see her as a know it all very often- but we're still aware of it. And also, she's seen as the more open, outspoken one of the two of them anyway, giving her a larger role in the most general sense.

But I do think that Ron is firmly established as Harry's best friend. I don't see it any other way, that's just how it is, was and always will be, even within the confines of the film. I never saw it any other way.

And as for the HeRon moments in PoA- I love the bit where Buckbeak has been executed, and Hermione hugs him (ish)!

Wasn't the part when Hermione grabs Ron's hand cute? When she was afraid for Harry as he was about to touch Buckbeak. Then, she looks at Ron and instantly drops his hand. They were both like "Ugh..." I just love how Alfonso showed the love/hate relationship between Hermione and Ron during the film.

:agree:. Same. It worked out really well overall, and at least right from then, we knew what to expect, so I'm looking forward to seeing how they continue to develop those feelings in the next few films. It will definitely be worth watching, because I think they both did a great job of it in PoA. It seems that they suit one another perfectly. :)

heyya, Pearl! :wave:
All the films need to show is that Ron and Hermione are Harry's good friends, who will stick by him through thick and thin.
And, in this particular case, that Harry is not hiding behind his friends (male or female). His mother shielded Harry once, and the Dementors make him remember this: and thus they make the audience realize this. It is not quite story, but it is thematic that Harry push aside the next person who stands in his way. In the book, he pushes aside a cripple; in the film, he pushes aside a girl. In both cases, he pushes aside a friend.
If PoA did not do Ron justice, as some of you feelWhat gets left out is that the film giveth and the film taketh away. Let's say that this does "diminish" Ron. (I disagree, but let's take that.) The film counters this by deleting some of Ron's less glorious moments, including: Not understanding why there is so much tension between himself and Hermione;
Encouraging Harry to risk expulsion and possibly even his life just to go to Hogsmeade;
Stubbornly clinging to the idea that Scabbers is just a rat long after the evidence has overwhelmingly refuted it.

The films have continued this by deleting some other Ron flubs such as: Adhering to bigoted stereotypes about giants;
Blithely claiming that groups of people like to be enslaved;
Looking like a complete buffoon in Quidditch.
The first film established the very strong friendship between Ron and Harry.Really, this has been re-established in each film, too. Or, perhpas a better way to put it is that Ron is introduced immediately as Harry's friend, just as the protagonist's best friend is so introduced in most stand-alone films. People get who Ron is pretty quickly: it does not take much to establish a supporting character, after all.
I'm not denying that in the PoA film Hermione is seem to be a more charismatic and dominant sidekick than Ron.Nor should one deny that the books make Hermione the more charismatic and dominant sidekick! It is always Hermione with the solutions, after all.
On another subject, the PoA film has some nice little HeRon moments. ;)Indeed, I first discovered "Harmonians" because of this film. A friend's 11 year old daughter was upset by the HeRon moments, as it was clear to her that Hermione was in love with Harry. Her mother was: Startled to realize that her "little girl" was attuned to such things (realizing upon reflection that she had discovered boys at about that age); and,
scared to realize that her daughter clearly needed to learn a thing or two about how boys and girls interact given that she confused platonic friendship for budding romance and romantic tension for hostility!
Ah, parenthood..... Of course, then I started posting here, and eventually was made aware that my friends daughter was not alone! (At least until Prince came along about 12 months later.... :p)

Wasn't the part when Hermione grabs Ron's hand cute? When she was afraid for Harry as he was about to touch Buckbeak. Then, she looks at Ron and instantly drops his hand. They were both like "Ugh..." I just love how Alfonso showed the love/hate relationship between Hermione and Ron during the film.Kloves originally had something a bit different. In the original script, the Scabbers - Crookshanks problems come up in a coule of other scenes, and come to a head after Sirius seems to nearly attack Ron. Ron & Harry also have some tension, as Ron angrily states that being Harry's friend can get you killed.

In Hagrid's hut, Hagrid forces Harry & Ron to shake hands and put it behind them. He then orders Ron & Hermione to hug: Kloves requested the most awkward hug in the history of Hogwarts, or something like that. :lol: Hermione then gets a "revelation" look upon watching hear alternate self hug alternate Ron. (Although I guess "alternate Ron" became significant other Ron down the road!)

Some people here might recall that rumors that Cuarón was "cutting" this scene (a classic grapevine mistake: he transplanted it, instead) led to a petition for the scene to be restored! Instead, we got Hermione getting a bit of realization about her appearance, the hug transplanted a bit (with an interesting "foreshadowing" of Harry & HeRon's relationship), and the feud between Harry & Ron pushed back to Goblet.

Kloves originally had something a bit different. In the original script, the Scabbers - Crookshanks problems come up in a coule of other scenes, and come to a head after Sirius seems to nearly attack Ron. Ron & Harry also have some tension, as Ron angrily states that being Harry's friend can get you killed.



All this shows is the obvious need to show Ron off as the infinitely childish and unreliable. At his worst maybe but why exactly would he add such a scene when the issue his clearly with Hermione?

The films have continued this by deleting some other Ron flubs such as: Adhering to bigoted stereotypes about giants;
Blithely claiming that groups of people like to be enslaved;
Looking like a complete buffoon in Quidditch.


Those "bigoted stereotypes" were repeated by everyone including Hagrid, that was not just Ron.

The enslavement line is more out of anger at Hermione's arrogance when she refuses to actually listen to reason. He repeatedly tried to explain it to her, as many others, including the elves themselves, do, that it's what the elves want but in Hermione's mind since she read about it and saw two examples of elfish enslavement she had all the info she need to move on foward regardless of the actual facts.

Quidditch was cut for time, and considering all the other examples in which Ron is made to look anywhere from silly to down right foolish think this is not that major.


I always found it funny that Hermione never actually apologized unless she got something out of it. When the Firebolt is returned Ron agrees to make amends and only the apparent death of his rat keeps this from happening. He even says that if she would just admit that it was Crookshanks, as the evidence at the time clearly showed, it would've been alright. She only apologized when Hagrid's issues got in the way and Ron agreed to help with that.

Unlike Ron, who at least partially hid his resentment at being passed over so often or being wrong, Hermione never wanted to hear anything like it. She demanded that everyone play by the rules that she followed. Why did she start her crusade against the book in HBP, because she was following "official" rules and was being beat at potions thus Harry was cheating and so she had to find something wrong with it. Had the the Prince's instructions helped Harry come in second to Hermione she would've left it alone, instead she waged war even willing to twist memories to prove her point when she compared levicorpus to the DE's in GoF levitating the muggles despite the descriptions of the two events clearly showing they were two different spells.

All this shows is the obvious need to show Ron off as the infinitely childish and unreliable. At his worst maybe but why exactly would he add such a scene when the issue his clearly with Hermione?
Story, plain and simple. This is a story about correct vs. easy interpretations of the truth, and for Ron's actions to contribute to story
Those "bigoted stereotypes" were repeated by everyone including Hagrid, that was not just Ron.And that is contrary or even relevant to my statement.... how exactly?
The enslavement line is more out of anger at Hermione's arrogance when she refuses to actually listen to reason. He repeatedly tried to explain it to her, as many others, including the elves themselves, do, that it's what the elves want
You badly, badly misunderstand what Rowling is writing. (To understand her, check out the Amnesty International inks on her website.) House-elfs do not want to be enslaved: as part of their enslavement, they are taught that it is wrong to want anything. This is a common way that we culturally enslave people. What Rowling is doing here is (again) projecting herself into Hermione and waving the AI banner: we speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. Ron is the Burkeian archetype: the good man who does nothing because he just accepts what is. Remember, everything that the wizards say about house-elfs is what people haves said about women, oppressed minorities, the lower-classes - and even what they were taught to say about themselves - forever. House-elfs just have a stronger shock collar!

Here, the story of Prisoner becomes theme for the series: the hard-but-right choice in what we accept as true it so look beyond the superficial-and-convenient to see what is really happening.

Rowling's final comment on this was in Hallows: Ron gets Hermione when he finally gets SPEW. Had Rowling intended SPEW to show Hermione's arrogance, then Hermione would have gotten Ron when Hermione up and announced: "you know, some people do deserve to be slaves!" However, someone as devoted to AI as Rowling is is not going to include thematic elements that contradict the fundamental tenets of that group as egregiously as you suggest that Rowling is doing. After all, people tell stories to tell truths with fictions.
I always found it funny that Hermione never actually apologized unless she got something out of it.You badly misunderstand Hermione, again. She apologizes when she thinks that she is wrong. However, here we see the story dovetail as theme: Hermione is not quite admitting to herself yet why she cannot back down to Ron. It's obvious to others - e.g., the giggles in the common room, and even Harry figures it out eventually! - but when she does, she rights the ship.

Ron is actually the same way, which is part of what (I think) Rowling had in mind all along. Both want (more than anything else) for the other one to acknowledge that she/he has a point, and both want the other to see things from their point of view. However, it is Hermione who thinks things through and who questions, and Rowling clearly views the questioning mind as the brave mind: that is what makes Hermione a Gryffindor rather than a Ravenclaw.

I loved what they did with the wardrobe in this film, it was so relaxed and stylish. I enjoyed the time travel sequence as much as in the book, I think POA was one of the best books adpated to film of the series along with GOF. Alfonso Curan seems to have a very original style with the camera and getting John Williams to do a different type of score. Very midevial sounding but still very cinematic. Emma was most beautiful in this one too.

S

You badly, badly misunderstand what Rowling is writing. (To understand her, check out the Amnesty International inks on her website.) House-elfs do not want to be enslaved: as part of their enslavement, they are taught that it is wrong to want anything. This is a common way that we culturally enslave people. What Rowling is doing here is (again) projecting herself into Hermione and waving the AI banner: we speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. Ron is the Burkeian archetype: the good man who does nothing because he just accepts what is. Remember, everything that the wizards say about house-elfs is what people haves said about women, oppressed minorities, the lower-classes - and even what they were taught to say about themselves - forever. House-elfs just have a stronger shock collar!


You point out Ron as the type who simply stood there and did nothing, I ask what help is the person who refuses to listen to those who they are professing to help?. "Oh don't worry I know whats right for you, I don't need to listen to you, your opinion of the situation is unimportant because I've already look at everything and know whats going on." This kind of action can more hurtful than helpful because those who might listen would be turned off by that attitude.

This is not to say that she was wrong in feeling for the house elves and trying to help them, in no way shape or form but she was wrong in the manner she went about it which is whats ignored. Ron can be vilified for fitting one stereotype but Hermione is allowed to fly under the banner of "ends justifying the means" and in the end it did not. Just like Ron, she had to change the way she operated, yes she helped house elves but it took seeing, and understanding, a devoted elf like Kreacher to understand that her method of forcibly shoving her beliefs down people's throats was not the way to go.

I found POA to be the worst film in the series for many, many reasons. Here are but a few.

Cuaron is a "cinamatographer", not a director IMHO. He relies on the camera in POA to tell his story and set the tone, not his actors. He under-utlilizes or ignores the acting talent at his disposal (except for Lupin). I found his method of storytelling was unbalanced and tilted toward the cinematic and away from the dramatic (dramatic acting I mean). He just simply doesn't know how to handle dramatic acting or his take on drama is affected by his Latin American roots, I can't tell which.

He not only mishandled the powerful veteran actors at his disposal but badly mishandled the younger ones as well. Dan's infamous crying scene is only one example.

Kloves dropped the backstory about the Maruaders to just a few minor references (in order to save time I'm sure Wimsey would say). Yet Cuaron found time to put in a tree slapping birds and talking shrunken heads in order to leave his own mark on the film.

Hermione overpowers everyone, including Harry. This is the shared fault of Kloves, Cuaron, and Radcliffe's weak acting in some scenes. I know alot (maybe even the majority) love this about POA, but I found it an unbalancing and detrimental factor. As I have stated before, it should have been named "Hermione Granger and the Prisoner...".

And, (I hope I don't get alot of people mad with this) it was too PC. All, and I mean all, of the white males in the movie are portrayed by the script or the director as whiny or stupid at least once and often more. The exceptions are those white males that are not your average white males...Lupin (werewolf), Dumbledore (senior citizen prodigy), and Flitwick (little person). So I would guess that if you want to avoid being portrayed as an occasional twit (or total twit in the case of Ron and Malfoy) in POA you had best not be a typical white male.

Some of my minor complaints are:

The Whomping Willow attack. I think someone labeled it "cartoonish". I agree. So was the ride in the Knight Bus and the attack of the Killer School Book. ( I think the school book scene was another total waste of time and film.)

Radcliffe's crying scene.

Ron's whining. Malfoy's whining. All the guys are whining.

The entire scene where Harry follows the MOM into the pub to hear the story of Sirius and the death of his parents. I found it poorly written, staged, and acted. This is a major turning point in the story and the series and it just fails completely.

Repeating that Hermione is the "smartest witch of her age" at least twice I think and making it the parting line for Sirius. Jeez Louise. Just hit us over the head already. (And talk about wasting time stating and restating the obvious...)

Turned Harry and Ron into weaker characters, which I think was intended to strengthen Hermione's character by default. (see "PC" statement above)

Some of the acting in the Shrieking Shack by most of the adult actors and all of the young actors. Sirius and Lupin had a few good moments though. It was better once they left the Shack, however.

Some of things I did like was the cinematography, heavy-handed though it was. Lupin was wonderful. Emma did well with her acting. Hermione punching Malfoy was well done. Most of the Lupin-Harry and Sirius-Harry scenes were very good. But I think this is b\c of the talent of the veteran actors, not Cuaron's directing ability.

He relies on the camera in POA to tell his story and set the tone, not his actors.

I agree entirely, but feel that this only made the movie stronger. Why? Because the actors that got the most screen time (AKA the kids) were entirely incompetent.

I agree entirely, but feel that this only made the movie stronger. Why? Because the actors that got the most screen time (AKA the kids) were entirely incompetent.

I remember seeing the first two movies and thinking that the young actors were pretty good...and then there was POA. I just had to shake my head and wonder what the heck happened.

I thought Rupert and Emma's acting were very good in SS and COS. I especially liked Emma's acting when they were talking in Hagrid's cabin about being called a mudblood. I thought Daniel's acting was fair, but not bad.

In POA he was just weak in any scene that called for real drama. His scenes with Lupin and Sirius were pretty good, but if he had to show strong emotion...well, it wasn't so good.

No director in the world who is being paid millions of dollars should have allowed the "crying scene" into his final cut. Cauron should have kept working with Radcliffe until he had that scene right. It was the heart of the movie, at least to those of us who were interested in Harry's story and not Hermione. I blame Cuaron for that.

I remember seeing the first two movies and thinking that the young actors were pretty good...and then there was POA. I just had to shake my head and wonder what the heck happened.

I thought Rupert and Emma's acting were very good in SS and COS. I especially liked Emma's acting when they were talking in Hagrid's cabin about being called a mudblood. I thought Daniel's acting was fair, but not bad.

In POA he was just weak in any scene that called for real drama. His scenes with Lupin and Sirius were pretty good, but if he had to show strong emotion...well, it wasn't so good.

No director in the world who is being paid millions of dollars should have allowed the "crying scene" into his final cut. Cauron should have kept working with Radcliffe until he had that scene right. It was the heart of the movie, at least to those of us who were interested in Harry's story and not Hermione. I blame Cuaron for that.

Really? I thought the acting felt incredibly stilted in the first two films. Some scenes actually made me cringe because the dialog just felt so forced, however, I also knew they were only 11 to 12 in the first films, so I didn't judge too harshly. Really, I wasn't too impressed with any of them until GOF (at some points) but mostly OOTP. They really seemed to grow into the rolls by OOTP.

Cuaron is a "cinamatographer", not a director IMHO. He relies on the camera in POA to tell his story and set the tone, not his actors. He under-utlilizes or ignores the acting talent at his disposal (except for Lupin). I found his method of storytelling was unbalanced and tilted toward the cinematic and away from the dramatic (dramatic acting I mean). He just simply doesn't know how to handle dramatic acting or his take on drama is affected by his Latin American roots, I can't tell which.

Have you seen his Children of Men? Very powerful movie. :cool:

Kloves dropped the backstory about the Maruaders to just a few minor references (in order to save time I'm sure Wimsey would say). Yet Cuaron found time to put in a tree slapping birds and talking shrunken heads in order to leave his own mark on the film.

The time these sequences take up is absolutely minimal. :)

Hermione overpowers everyone, including Harry. This is the shared fault of Kloves, Cuaron, and Radcliffe's weak acting in some scenes. I know alot (maybe even the majority) love this about POA, but I found it an unbalancing and detrimental factor. As I have stated before, it should have been named "Hermione Granger and the Prisoner...".

Maybe because I prefer Movie Harry to Movie Hermione anyway, in terms of characterisation, and I'm always more focused on him than I am on her, but I honestly don't see all this upstaging by Movie Hermione that other people see. But that's just me. :) Movie Hermione is given a higher profile in this film but she doesn't upstage Harry, IMO. She is very bossy. But then, Hermione IS bossy!

And, (I hope I don't get alot of people mad with this) it was too PC. All, and I mean all, of the white males in the movie are portrayed by the script or the director as whiny or stupid at least once and often more. The exceptions are those white males that are not your average white males...Lupin (werewolf), Dumbledore (senior citizen prodigy), and Flitwick (little person). So I would guess that if you want to avoid being portrayed as an occasional twit (or total twit in the case of Ron and Malfoy) in POA you had best not be a typical white male.

I have to be honest and say that is the strangest criticism of a HP movie I've ever read. :hmm: You've lost me here completely. :) I mean, what major 'white male' characters ARE there besides the ones you've mentioned? :hmm: Harry certainly isn't portrayed as being whiny or stupid. And I wasn't aware that the HP films were all about bashing white men. ;)

The Whomping Willow attack. I think someone labeled it "cartoonish". I agree. So was the ride in the Knight Bus and the attack of the Killer School Book. ( I think the school book scene was another total waste of time and film.)

I have to wonder whether people read the same book as I did. :) All these things are absolutely in keeping with Rowling's mischevious sense of humour!

Ron's whining. Malfoy's whining. All the guys are whining.

Draco is supposed to whine. :lol: And I just find Ron endearing. :)

Repeating that Hermione is the "smartest witch of her age" at least twice I think and making it the parting line for Sirius. Jeez Louise. Just hit us over the head already. (And talk about wasting time stating and restating the obvious...)

Now, I was disappointed that Sirius's parting words were that and not how Harry was his father's son. :sigh:

Turned Harry and Ron into weaker characters, which I think was intended to strengthen Hermione's character by default. (see "PC" statement above)

Well, I really don't see Harry as a weaker character than Hermione in this film. But that's just me.

Really? I thought the acting felt incredibly stilted in the first two films.

Yes, it was.

The time these sequences take up is absolutely minimal. :)
Yes, absolutely and besides, I really liked most of them. However, I was aghast that the 'Marauders' cannot be explained when needless shots of trees and birds were shown. That is a very valid criticism of PoA and one of the few qualms I have about Cuaron's film.

Maybe because I prefer Movie Harry to Movie Hermione anyway, in terms of characterisation, and I'm always more focused on him than I am on her, but I honestly don't see all this upstaging by Movie Hermione that other people see. But that's just me. :) Movie Hermione is given a higher profile in this film but she doesn't upstage Harry, IMO. She is very bossy. But then, Hermione IS bossy!
I will agree that Movie Hermione did take quite a lot of screen space than Book Hermione, but to me, she did not upstage Harry.


I have to wonder whether people read the same book as I did. :) All these things are absolutely in keeping with Rowling's mischevious sense of humour!
Yes. I'd agree though the shrunken heads absolutely irritated me.


Draco is supposed to whine. :lol: And I just find Ron endearing. :)
I didnt really find them both 'whine'. It was just fine to me when I watched it. I dont find a problem.:)

Now, I was disappointed that Sirius's parting words were that and not how Harry was his father's son. :sigh:
Another of my qualms about the film.

Consider the situation: Sirius has reunited with his godson after 12 years. He has proved his innocence to the people he wanted to- Lupin and Harry. Harry rescues him from Dementors and hands him his ticket to freedom with Buckbeak. Sirius is leaving, not knowing when he'll meet Harry again.

What are his parting words?
According to Sleve Kloves, this is the moment for Sirius to blabber something about Hermione being the 'brightest witch of her age'. :rolleyes::grumble:

Not the brilliantly powerful and touching Harry was his father's son line.

Gary Oldman would have done a great job with that line. But no, they had to parade Hermione:grumble:.

Sirius hardly ignored Harry in his final scene though did he? He gave a great speech to him about the people you love always being with you. The material about Harry being like James was given to other characters, namely Snape and Lupin, as well as a bit from Aunt Marge. We did not need to hear this again from Sirius. The point was made endless times earlier in the movie. Sirius' final line being to Hermione was appropriate I think. Sirius tended to get a bit awkward with the mushy stuff concerning Harry,him having his final words be to him would have been too upsetting for him IMO, and it was Hermione who blasted his cell door open. They hardly paraded Hermione. She stayed in the backgound while Sirius spoke to Harry and then he gave a single line of thanks to her. She was hardly focussed on at all.

I agree entirely, but feel that this only made the movie stronger. Why? Because the actors that got the most screen time (AKA the kids) were entirely incompetent.

Ouch !! I wouldn't say that. Okay, the "They were his friend!" is a weak scene, but pretty much the only one, IMO. That's not entirely Radcliffe's fault either. They can use mineral water to simulate tears, for example, (or pepper to stimuIate them)I don't know why they didn't at least try it to help him out.

I think all of them did very admirable jobs in the Shrieking Shack, which was a key scene. Ron and Hermione's bickering over Crookshanks and Scabbers was good. Dan, and especially Emma, did well during the whole time turner sequence, I thought.
It's just really tough to shine when you're surrounded by the likes of Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane, Gary Oldman, and David Thewlis.

Have you seen his Children of Men? Very powerful movie. :cool:

I haven't seen any other of Cuaron's films, but I know I don't like POA.

The time these sequences take up is absolutely minimal. :)

I also think the attack of the Killer Book was a complete waste of time, unimaginative, and poorly done. Altogether Cuaron spent far too much time putting his own stamp on the movie rather than telling the story in a dramatic way IMHO.


Maybe because I prefer Movie Harry to Movie Hermione anyway, in terms of characterisation, and I'm always more focused on him than I am on her, but I honestly don't see all this upstaging by Movie Hermione that other people see. But that's just me. :) Movie Hermione is given a higher profile in this film but she doesn't upstage Harry, IMO. She is very bossy. But then, Hermione IS bossy!

I didn't mind Hermione being bossy. I did mind her taking over whenever she was on screen. (I'm not talking about Emma's acting, but the way the scenes are scripted and directed) That part where she grabs Harry with one hand during the Whomping Willow scene and saves him by throwing him single handedly down the hole was just plain too much.

Cuaron occasionally has Hermione between Harry and the camera for no reason as well. Way too much pro-Hermione bias IMHO.


I have to be honest and say that is the strangest criticism of a HP movie I've ever read. :hmm: You've lost me here completely. :) I mean, what major 'white male' characters ARE there besides the ones you've mentioned? :hmm: Harry certainly isn't portrayed as being whiny or stupid. And I wasn't aware that the HP films were all about bashing white men. ;)

No, the Potter movies aren't supposedto be about bashing white males, but I think Cuaron tried to in POA. If you read some of what he says about politics it seems to fall into his ideas that Anglo-American culture is too imperialistic, conservative, and patriarchial.

And yes, I think Harry is often portrayed as whiny or foolish in quite a few parts of POA. As I said, the "crying scene" was a travesty that shouldn't have made it in the film if Cuaron had any concern about Harry and his part in the story. I really don't think he did...much. I think he was more interested in showing how important Hermione was.

I have to wonder whether people read the same book as I did. :) All these things are absolutely in keeping with Rowling's mischevious sense of humour!

I don't mind "mischevious" if it's part of the story. The way the twins tell Harry about the Maruader's Map and how they got it was great. It was entertaining and moved the story along. The Killer Book was not useful. The Hippogriff ride was alright, if a little too long. The scene where Harry finds out about his parents and Sirius and his crying afterward is a complete failure.


Draco is supposed to whine. :lol: And I just find Ron endearing. :)

No, Draco is not supposed to whine (at least not all the time). He is arrogant and rude, but I seldom found him a whiner in the books. I think he would have been too proud to give the trio the satisfaction of whining in front of them. He scowls and snarls but seldom whines. Otherwise he isn't much of a threat or antagonist if all he did is is cry and run like he does in POA.

I find MovieRon to be irritating in POA. Almost all the people I know who go see the movies without reading the books wonder why Harry and Hermione even let Ron hang around. When I tell them about the lines Hermione takes from him in the movies alot of people I know don't understand why the scriptwriter does that.

They did do better with MovieRon in GOF and OoTP...a little.

Well, I really don't see Harry as a weaker character than Hermione in this film. But that's just me.

Well, I did find Hermione a stronger character in POA than Harry when Hermione is on screen, but that may just be me as well.

Really? I thought the acting felt incredibly stilted in the first two films. Some scenes actually made me cringe because the dialog just felt so forced, however, I also knew they were only 11 to 12 in the first films, so I didn't judge too harshly. Really, I wasn't too impressed with any of them until GOF (at some points) but mostly OOTP. They really seemed to grow into the rolls by OOTP.

I thought the acting was pretty good in SS and COS. I especially liked Rupert's version of Ron and that inspired me to read the books after my daughter begged me as well.

The script was a little stilted in SS and COS, but I thought the young actor's delivery of their lines and facial expressions were surprisingly good.

And I agree that all of them have really hit their stride since GOF and OoTP.

I found POA to be the worst film in the series for many, many reasons. Here are but a few.

Cuaron is a "cinamatographer", not a director IMHO. He relies on the camera in POA to tell his story and set the tone, not his actors. He under-utlilizes or ignores the acting talent at his disposal (except for Lupin). I found his method of storytelling was unbalanced and tilted toward the cinematic and away from the dramatic (dramatic acting I mean). He just simply doesn't know how to handle dramatic acting or his take on drama is affected by his Latin American roots, I can't tell which.
It is film of which how the medium is presented is through a camera. The underutilization of the acting talent is actually efficiency of showing instead of telling or in this case dramatizing. He knows how to hand dramatic acting it's just to the untrained eye it doesn't look like it.
He not only mishandled the powerful veteran actors at his disposal but badly mishandled the younger ones as well. Dan's infamous crying scene is only one example.
I fail to see how he could have mishandled his young actors/actress when he had them write an essay about each of their characters before filming which by extension should have made Radcliffe, Grint and Watson gain further dramatic insight to their characters. If anything he empowered them to be true actors of the craft rather than be mere mouth pieces for the pages.
The entire scene where Harry follows the MOM into the pub to hear the story of Sirius and the death of his parents. I found it poorly written, staged, and acted. This is a major turning point in the story and the series and it just fails completely.
Funny you should say that when the source material is even far more "staged" and could translate into a complete trainwreck. Better to have a minimalistic eavesdropping via invisibility cloak rather than have Hermione levitate a tree in front of their table, which could be comedic in interpretation amongst enjoyment of butterbeer, which was uneccesary to show. Such secondary character interference would take away Harry's discovery of the mistruth and take away from the audience's focus on what is going on. In an important point of adaptation, the film shows how much Harry wants to find out about Sirius Black on his own rather than happening upon it via Fudge et. al sitting beside them. This progresses Harry as a character dramatically as he engages the plot rather than have the storyline passively engage him.
Some of things I did like was the cinematography, heavy-handed though it was. Lupin was wonderful. Emma did well with her acting. Hermione punching Malfoy was well done. Most of the Lupin-Harry and Sirius-Harry scenes were very good. But I think this is b\c of the talent of the veteran actors, not Cuaron's directing ability.
And yet GoF and OoTP fails to recapture the high quality of acting talent present in PoA. Thus it isn't entirely the veteran actors but director working together.

Nevermind. I thought it through.

Edit: Personally this is my favorite Potter film. I love everything about this film except for Harry's crying bit and the time-traveling scene. I hate time travel.

I love how dark the film is. I love the colors used in the film, the black and blues, the cinematography, the visual effects, and I really love the score.

darklordspal
The entire scene where Harry follows the MOM into the pub to hear the story of Sirius and the death of his parents. I found it poorly written, staged, and acted. This is a major turning point in the story and the series and it just fails completely.

I agree. That scene was terrible IMO. The acting was cringe-worthy.

darklordspal
I also think the attack of the Killer Book was a complete waste of time, unimaginative, and poorly done. Altogether Cuaron spent far too much time putting his own stamp on the movie rather than telling the story in a dramatic way IMHO.

You're my new best friend. This is stuff I've been telling people for years and they brush it off as being artistic and fun. No it's childish, poorly done and boring (IMO)

darklordspal
I thought the acting was pretty good in SS and COS. I especially liked Rupert's version of Ron and that inspired me to read the books after my daughter begged me as well.

Agreed. I thought the acting in PS/CoS was very good and then for some reason it took a slide in PoA/GoF and then went back up (for the most part) in OotP.

FleurDeLaPointe
I fail to see how he could have mishandled his young actors/actress when he had them write an essay about each of their characters before filming which by extension should have made Radcliffe, Grint and Watson gain further dramatic insight to their characters. If anything he empowered them to be true actors of the craft rather than be mere mouth pieces for the pages.

Sorry but I think this is like saying 'if you do your homework you'll be smart'. Um no. Just because they wrote an essay about their characters doesn't mean anything.

Sorry but I think this is like saying 'if you do your homework you'll be smart'. Um no. Just because they wrote an essay about their characters doesn't mean anything.
How does it not mean anything?

By saying this statement you are discrediting filmmaker and actors who poured hundreds of hours into "homework" [your term not mine] in preparation for their roles or respective films. Did Scorcese's study or homework of Irish American History did not show in The Gangs of New York? Does Daniel Day Lewis' "homework" for his method acting did not result in some of the greatest roles in his filmography?Did James Cameron's "homework" with Titanic did not yield although a highly debated by still great film Titanic? Did Heath Ledger's months of"homework" preparation did not yield a great Joker portrayall?

Success rarely comes from a lack of hard work or in your words "homework." If anything hard work only reinforces the natural talent and hones the natural intelligence that people have. Saying that comment not only discredits filmmakers, but a lot of students who are studying hard to be smarter and better.

In the end I find this comment contradictory considering how many PoA discreditors complain how Michael Gambon did not read PoA in preparation for his role as Dumbledore and yet here we are showing an ounce [of many pounds] of sincere care on by Cauron having the trio write essays and studying their characters; only to have this sincere effort written off.

Sirius hardly ignored Harry in his final scene though did he? He gave a great speech to him about the people you love always being with you.

Indeed. It's a lovely scene. :)

I love how dark the film is. I love the colors used in the film, the black and blues, the cinematography, the visual effects, and I really love the score.

:tu:

The score is beautiful. Probably my favourite of all the HP film scores. :agree:

(Although I also really like Nicholas Hooper's for OotP.)

It is film of which how the medium is presented is through a camera. The underutilization of the acting talent is actually efficiency of showing instead of telling or in this case dramatizing. He knows how to hand dramatic acting it's just to the untrained eye it doesn't look like it.

If you need a "trained eye" to properly appreciate his films then he needs to just show his movies in college film classes, not to the general public (who generally don't have a "trained eye").

Film, like books, are just the medium; they are not the story. You tell stories in different ways for different mediums, such as if you are writing them down, filming them, or telling someone a story at the kitchen table. But the story is paramount, not the medium. I simply don't understand why people think the medium is more important then the story.

I think Cuaron was not as interested in telling Harry's story in POA as he was in telling Hermione's story and showing his command of cinematography.

I fail to see how he could have mishandled his young actors/actress when he had them write an essay about each of their characters before filming which by extension should have made Radcliffe, Grint and Watson gain further dramatic insight to their characters. If anything he empowered them to be true actors of the craft rather than be mere mouth pieces for the pages.

Having done a fair amount of acting myself on stage, I can tell you from experience that writing an essy is not a guarantee that the director knows what he is doing. I don't blame the young actors for the weakness of some of the scenes in POA. I blame Cuaron.

Funny you should say that when the source material is even far more "staged" and could translate into a complete trainwreck. Better to have a minimalistic eavesdropping via invisibility cloak rather than have Hermione levitate a tree in front of their table, which could be comedic in interpretation amongst enjoyment of butterbeer, which was uneccesary to show. Such secondary character interference would take away Harry's discovery of the mistruth and take away from the audience's focus on what is going on. In an important point of adaptation, the film shows how much Harry wants to find out about Sirius Black on his own rather than happening upon it via Fudge et. al sitting beside them. This progresses Harry as a character dramatically as he engages the plot rather than have the storyline passively engage him.

I don't think they needed to stage the film exactly as the book. I know that films are a different medium than books. I'm not saying they should be exactly like the book. But the films should be better films than what I saw in POA. It was just a bad film.

The example of the scene you are talking about is simply the most obvious failure IMO. Because Curaon wasn't interested in the main character (Harry), Cuaron's directing and editing failed to provide a good dramatic framework for Harry's anger. And then when Cuaron used that bad piece of film for Harry's emotional culmination (the "crying scene"), it completely collapsed.

POA was inventive without a purpose. It was a case of Cuaron throwing things he liked into the film (shrunken heads and Killer Books) and cherry-picking characters he liked (Hermione) and ignoring the rest and failing to make a complete and coherent whole out of a good story with great chances at dramatic and ensemble acting (the trio).

And yet GoF and OoTP fails to recapture the high quality of acting talent present in PoA. Thus it isn't entirely the veteran actors but director working together.

I simply don't see the "high quality" of acting you are talking about in POA except with Lupin and a small part of Sirius. (Lupin carried the film, IMHO.) The acting simply wasn't that good. And with the quality of actors Cuaron had, it should have been better.

I found the acting in GOF and OoTP better in general than the up and downs of POA. In OoTP the acting was good, solid and even. In POA it was good one second and terrible the next, even by the veteran actors like Oldman. And it helped that GOF and OoTP was better edited and told with a stronger script. I thought the ending "battle and possession" sequence of OoTP was especially well edited and acted (especially by Radcliffe).

If you need a "trained eye" to properly appreciate his films then he needs to just show his movies in college film classes, not to the general public (who generally don't have a "trained eye").
I never went to a college film class yet I have what I perceive to be a "trained eye." What people fail to realize that these film classes aren't so much the idea of learning, but finding out why something already works. A lot of us know what good films are but are unable to articulate or explain why. Film classes are there to show you why you like or dislike a film or interpret what you interpret. The general public know what they like and they liked the lack of "extrenuous" story explanations for treating them like adults rather than children.
Film, like books, are just the medium; they are not the story. You tell stories in different ways for different mediums, such as if you are writing them down, filming them, or telling someone a story at the kitchen table. But the story is paramount, not the medium. I simply don't understand why people think the medium is more important then the story.
We don't think that the medium is more important than the story but to compare film with books in such a simple connection doesn't work. It's through that connection that the appreciation of the film diminishes.

Marshall McLuhan said that "The medium is the message." By that quote, the cinematography of the film should take a significant precedent over story if not at least be on equal grounds of it. Otherwise, why even present the story in a film medium if you cannot express it in that way? You might as well present PoA in a stageplay or an audio book if the emphasis of story is paramount because it's in those mediums that the "message" of the story is presented differently.
I think Cuaron was not as interested in telling Harry's story in POA as he was in telling Hermione's story and showing his command of cinematography.
Did Hermione enlarge Aunt Marge? Did she ride the Hippogriff in class? Did she play Quidditch? Did she eavesdrop on Fudge and McGonagall? Did she have patronus lessons with Lupin? Did she get the Marauder's Map? Did she summon the Patronus?

It is Harry's story.
Having done a fair amount of acting myself on stage, I can tell you from experience that writing an essy is not a guarantee that the director knows what he is doing. I don't blame the young actors for the weakness of some of the scenes in POA. I blame Cuaron.
Nor is it a guarantee that the director does not know what he's doing. There isn't one way to learn how to act even if it isn't a guarantee that it is a indication of his very capable ability to direct, it at least shows that he has given more effort to the children's development of being actors than just telling them. He's empowering them.

As for your stage acting that does explain a lot. You might hold a higher standard of acting than most people but also it could your involvement in a more story reliant medium (as I mentioned above) that is colouring your opinion of the film. In that case I imagine that we have came to an impasse of opinions since it seems the influence of one medium cannot be ignored when reviewing the other.
I don't think they needed to stage the film exactly as the book. I know that films are a different medium than books. I'm not saying they should be exactly like the book. But the films should be better films than what I saw in POA. It was just a bad film.
Very well then.
The example of the scene you are talking about is simply the most obvious failure IMO. Because Curaon wasn't interested in the main character (Harry), Cuaron's directing and editing failed to provide a good dramatic framework for Harry's anger. And then when Cuaron used that bad piece of film for Harry's emotional culmination (the "crying scene"), it completely collapsed.
However I've proved how he was interested in the main character by having Harry actively pursue the truth rather than have it passively engage it. Even more so Harry was put in a empty field during the crying scene that is more akin to the stage than a film which should emphasize the focus on Harry. While the crying scene itself has been debatable as to how bad it was, I for one am on the side of it could have been better but it was not as terrible as people make it out to be. However to say that the director was not interestetd in the main character is an insult when the pattern of it is shown time and again.

If you should blame Cauron of anything, you should blame him for making Harry so prevalent in the film that he seems so natural in the film. That anything that is non-Harry (Hermione, Dementors, trees etc.) sticks out like a sore thumb which catches our attention. It's like feeling hot all day and then encountering a quick stiff breeze which catches out attention.
POA was inventive without a purpose. It was a case of Cuaron throwing things he liked into the film (shrunken heads and Killer Books) and cherry-picking characters he liked (Hermione) and ignoring the rest and failing to make a complete and coherent whole out of a good story with great chances at dramatic and ensemble acting (the trio).
Unfortunately such observations hold little weight when the cumuliation of screentime for the shrunken head was under a minute, I read somewhere it was like 40 seconds. The killer book at the leaky cauldron was a great foreshadowing moment for the naivity and ignorance to dangerous creatures that is Hagrid by having students pick up a book that could potential kill them. While these moments might have stole mindshare in the audience, in comparison to the rest of the film these moments should be insignificant in the critique of the film unless further examination can be shown beyond "just annoying." FYI there has been a tradition of film adaptations where the filmmaker or screenwriter has cherry picked elements out of a story to focus on others. Case in point Let The Right One In resulting in a film less about Eli's father than more about Eli and Oskar.

Cherry picking Hermione then by that extension you should give blame to JKR as well for making Hermione an explainer of things wizarding world and the general information giver of the Potterverse.
I simply don't see the "high quality" of acting you are talking about in POA except with Lupin and a small part of Sirius. (Lupin carried the film, IMHO.) The acting simply wasn't that good. And with the quality of actors Cuaron had, it should have been better.
Very well.
I found the acting in GOF and OoTP better in general than the up and downs of POA. In OoTP the acting was good, solid and even. In POA it was good one second and terrible the next, even by the veteran actors like Oldman. And it helped that GOF and OoTP was better edited and told with a stronger script. I thought the ending "battle and possession" sequence of OoTP was especially well edited and acted (especially by Radcliffe).
It is interesting that you found GoF and OoTP better in general since this is the first I've encountered a person who held this opinion. I agree that OoTP was more even but more solid acting is suspect. IMHO GoF was much more of a rollercoaster and poor attempt to juggle 3 storylines with 2 other subplots. However like I said before we've most likely met with an impasse and I shall leave this discussion as such. Very good discussing with you.

The score is beautiful. Probably my favourite of all the HP film scores. :agree:

agree :tu::tu::tu:


I REALLY hope we get John Williams for the seventh movies -- thank goodness, we might actually get something SPECIAL:relax:

I don't really want Williams back for the seventh film because he isn't too good at dark ambient music. You know, the low, barely audible, eerie music.

Marshall McLuhan said that "The medium is the message."

I simply reject that concept. You cannot have a good film with a bad story. But you can have a good film with a good story and acting with poor cinematography. "The Blair Witch" film proved that.


By that quote, the cinematography of the film should take a significant precedent over story if not at least be on equal grounds of it.

I suppose it would be repeating myself to say I completely disagree? That is like claiming the chrome on a car is more important than the engine. The chrome may look nice but it not going to get you anywhere. The main function of a car is to take you places, not sit still and look pretty. In the same vein, a film is supposed to tell a story, not just look good with nothing to say.


Otherwise, why even present the story in a film medium if you cannot express it in that way? You might as well present PoA in a stageplay or an audio book if the emphasis of story is paramount because it's in those mediums that the "message" of the story is presented differently.

I'm not saying I don't like films as compared to books or stage. I'm just saying that POA was a poor example of storytelling and dramatic development, IMHO. What's the point of telling a story if there is little or no drama? Or, in the case of POA, the drama is poorly developed or ignored?

Did Hermione enlarge Aunt Marge? Did she ride the Hippogriff in class? Did she play Quidditch? Did she eavesdrop on Fudge and McGonagall? Did she have patronus lessons with Lupin? Did she get the Marauder's Map? Did she summon the Patronus?

I'm not saying Harry didn't have his moments, but anytime Hermione appeared on the screen with Harry, he was pushed to second place by Hermione. If this were Harry's story that shouldn't have happened every time.

It is Harry's story.

It was hard to tell at times with the script and directing I saw in POA.

Nor is it a guarantee that the director does not know what he's doing.

I agree. The only way to tell if a director knows what he is doing is from the final product...the film. And IMHO, it proved to me that when it comes to dramatic acting and storyline and character development Cuaron didn't know what he was doing in POA.

As for your stage acting that does explain a lot. You might hold a higher standard of acting than most people but also it could your involvement in a more story reliant medium (as I mentioned above) that is colouring your opinion of the film. In that case I imagine that we have came to an impasse of opinions since it seems the influence of one medium cannot be ignored when reviewing the other.

That's possible. But being an old fogey, I often use the acting styles I saw in old films by actors such as Spencer Tracy in developing my stagecraft. So there is some acting, at least in the old cinema, that lends itself to good drama anywhere, IMHO. Cuaron should know this.

However I've proved how he was interested in the main character by having Harry actively pursue the truth rather than have it passively engage it. Even more so Harry was put in a empty field during the crying scene that is more akin to the stage than a film which should emphasize the focus on Harry. While the crying scene itself has been debatable as to how bad it was, I for one am on the side of it could have been better but it was not as terrible as people make it out to be. However to say that the director was not interestetd in the main character is an insult when the pattern of it is shown time and again.

That Cuaron wasn't as interested in telling Harry's stroy as compared to Hermione is my own opinion. But I believe it is supported by the final film I saw. We could argue over the interpetation of each edit and motion Cuaron had the actors do and changes he made in the script, but I don't think I could convince you of my sincerity.

I'm sorry if you are insulted. That was not my intention.

If you should blame Cauron of anything, you should blame him for making Harry so prevalent in the film that he seems so natural in the film. That anything that is non-Harry (Hermione, Dementors, trees etc.) sticks out like a sore thumb which catches our attention. It's like feeling hot all day and then encountering a quick stiff breeze which catches out attention.

Interesting analogy. I don't agree with it, but I like the picture you draw. Besides, a good director doesn't let the entrance of other characters draw attention from the plight of the main protagonist as you suggest, but add to it. That is not good directing if new elements draws attention away from the main story.

Unfortunately such observations hold little weight when the cumuliation of screentime for the shrunken head was under a minute, I read somewhere it was like 40 seconds. The killer book at the leaky cauldron was a great foreshadowing moment for the naivity and ignorance to dangerous creatures that is Hagrid by having students pick up a book that could potential kill them. While these moments might have stole mindshare in the audience, in comparison to the rest of the film these moments should be insignificant in the critique of the film unless further examination can be shown beyond "just annoying." FYI there has been a tradition of film adaptations where the filmmaker or screenwriter has cherry picked elements out of a story to focus on others. Case in point Let The Right One In resulting in a film less about Eli's father than more about Eli and Oskar.

If Cuaron wants to give more bias to Hermione's character than in the book, that's fine. But he should have changed the title to "Hermione Granger and etc..." That's just IMHO, since it would have been a little more honest.:lol:

Every second of a film is precious and using even 30 seconds in a multi-million dallar film to develop unneccessary and distracting elements for the director's own pleasure or without a good reason is wasteful and a little egotistical, IMHO.

Cherry picking Hermione then by that extension you should give blame to JKR as well for making Hermione an explainer of things wizarding world and the general information giver of the Potterverse.

The idea that Hermione is the fountain of all knowledge about the wizarding world in the books is simply not true. Actually, in the books it is Ron who lets Harry in on the culture and values of the magical world. In the books Ron explains what "mudblood" means or the position of house elves in society. Hermione is generally the source of "technical knowledge" such as how to brew potions or cast spells properly.

It is interesting that you found GoF and OoTP better in general since this is the first I've encountered a person who held this opinion.

The first? Really? I'm surprised. I would figure there would be alot more variation in opinion about what makes a good film than that.

I agree that OoTP was more even but more solid acting is suspect. IMHO GoF was much more of a rollercoaster and poor attempt to juggle 3 storylines with 2 other subplots. However like I said before we've most likely met with an impasse and I shall leave this discussion as such. Very good discussing with you.

I agree that GOF had its rough spots. Emma's acting was weaker in a few spots and they had trouble stuffing in even more new characters in at a couple of places, but the subplots ( I assume you mean the "Ron-Hermione-Krum" subplot for example) didn't really cause a problem for me. I like the Ron-Hermione storyline, but the Triwizard Tournament could have been handled better I think. But that's just me. But I found GOF a much more balanced film concerning acting, character development, and storyline than POA.

You're my new best friend.

:lol: :lol: Thanks.


This is stuff I've been telling people for years and they brush it off as being artistic and fun. No it's childish, poorly done and boring (IMO)

I agree.

I simply reject that concept. You cannot have a good film with a bad story. But you can have a good film with a good story and acting with poor cinematography. "The Blair Witch" film proved that.

'Blair Witch' doesn't prove anything. :) That film has its detractors as well as its admirers. :) I happen to be in the camp that regards 'Blair Witch' as a clever, and genuinely disturbing, horror movie. I'm not sure I would say it was a modern masterpiece, but I do think it's a good piece of film-making. But I know plenty of other people, perfectly intelligent people who love films, who think it hollow and empty.

Which doesn't make their opinion any less invalid than mine, it only proves how very subjective anyone's opinion is, including seasoned film critics. :lol:

Every second of a film is precious and using even 30 seconds in a multi-million dallar film to develop unneccessary and distracting elements for the director's own pleasure or without a good reason is wasteful and a little egotistical, IMHO.

Peter Jackson was far more guilty of this kind of thing in his LotR films than Alfonso Cuaron ever was in PoA. IMO. And yet, despite the HUMUNGOUS liberties that Jackson took with Tolkien's material, despite his tendency as a film-maker to be self-indulgent, I still think his LotR trilogy is awesome. :)

Interestingly, some Tolkien fans I know think very highly of the PoA movie, and regard it as something of a fantasy classic. So much so that they were rooting for Cuaron to direct The Hobbit movie! :)

Well, we're getting Del Toro for that :lol: which of course will be splendid. :agree:

Yes, absolutely and besides, I really liked most of them. However, I was aghast that the 'Marauders' cannot be explained when needless shots of trees and birds were shown. That is a very valid criticism of PoA and one of the few qualms I have about Cuaron's film.

The shots had purpose. They set up the Whomping Willow as a dangerous magical tree as opposed to all the other non-dangerous trees around Hogwarts. This gun was fired in the 3rd act. Aside from that - the shots elegantly and economically showed the passage of time in the film, something no other HP director has managed to do particularly well (time being a key them of PoA).

k
Consider the situation: Sirius has reunited with his godson after 12 years. He has proved his innocence to the people he wanted to- Lupin and Harry. Harry rescues him from Dementors and hands him his ticket to freedom with Buckbeak. Sirius is leaving, not knowing when he'll meet Harry again.

What are his parting words?
According to Sleve Kloves, this is the moment for Sirius to blabber something about Hermione being the 'brightest witch of her age'. :rolleyes::grumble:

Not the brilliantly powerful and touching Harry was his father's son line.


This was excellent scriptwriting! Audiences love nobility but hate pomposity; love heart but dislike schmaltz (well, British audiences do; Americans seem to lap it up). So the trick, after a character has made a high falutin' or sentimental speech, is to add humour or some appropriate touch of lightness: this the Hermione line, following the delightful exchange between Harry and Sirius, did perfectly.

A good recent example is in The Dark Knight. After Alfred has told Bruce to "Endure! ... be the outcast.", they have a bit of humorous riffing.

I agree with futterman, seen that Sirius already says to Harry that he's 'his father's son' everyday in place of 'good morning'.

The shots had purpose. They set up the Whomping Willow as a dangerous magical tree as opposed to all the other non-dangerous trees around Hogwarts. This gun was fired in the 3rd act. Aside from that - the shots elegantly and economically showed the passage of time in the film, something no other HP director has managed to do particularly well (time being a key them of PoA).I agree with you on this. There was very little in PoA that I felt was really unnecessary and the movie would have been better off without. I really like the trasition scenes with the Whomping Willow, personally. :D

I really like the trasition scenes with the Whomping Willow, personally. :D

So do I. :agree: Love 'em!

The shots had purpose. They set up the Whomping Willow as a dangerous magical tree as opposed to all the other non-dangerous trees around Hogwarts. This gun was fired in the 3rd act. Aside from that - the shots elegantly and economically showed the passage of time in the film, something no other HP director has managed to do particularly well (time being a key them of PoA)..
Well yes. My point was that finding about the Marauders' identity was entirely left out. I think that part is important, much more than setting up the Whomping Willow. It is just my opinion, anyway.

This was excellent scriptwriting! Audiences love nobility but hate pomposity; love heart but dislike schmaltz (well, British audiences do; Americans seem to lap it up). So the trick, after a character has made a high falutin' or sentimental speech, is to add humour or some appropriate touch of lightness: this the Hermione line, following the delightful exchange between Harry and Sirius, did perfectly.
While I understand your opinion, we'll perhaps agree to disagree.
It is perhaps a purely personal opinion and I'm by all probability the only one who thinks so, but I do not like Sirius saying how great a witch Hermione is when he leaves. IMO, Sirius would never do that. He'd have his last word for his godson, no matter what.

Well yes. My point was that finding about the Marauders' identity was entirely left out. I think that part is important, much more than setting up the Whomping Willow. It is just my opinion, anyway.

Although I love the PoA movie, I too wish the Marauders backstory had been included. :)

I still wouldn't be without the Whomping Willow though. ;) Cuaron gave that tree a personality. :agree: And mrfutterman is absolutely right about the passage of time theme.

It is perhaps a purely personal opinion and I'm by all probability the only one who thinks so, but I do not like Sirius saying how great a witch Hermione is when he leaves. IMO, Sirius would never do that. He'd have his last word for his godson, no matter what.

I doubt you are the only one who thinks so, Lilyrose. :D

Again, I agree. I love the scene between Sirius and Harry, that was beautifully played :love: but I missed that line too.

I still wouldn't be without the Whomping Willow though. ;) Cuaron gave that tree a personality. :agree: And mrfutterman is absolutely right about the passage of time theme. .
PoA is my most fav HP Film. I do love Cuaron's brilliant cinematography. And you're absolutely right- he gave the Whomping Willow a personality.:agree: I also love how the Dementors move by and the flowers wilt. That was brilliantly shown, IMO.


I doubt you are the only one who thinks so, Lilyrose. :D

Again, I agree. I love the scene between Sirius and Harry, that was beautifully played :love: but I missed that line too.
Yeah, Gary Oldman did a brilliant job in that scene:tu: Though, like you, I more than missed the final line:)

PoA is my fav film as OotP
I think this movie really made me a HP fan.
I mean it was fantastic¡ It felt more realistic, closer to people, I myself identified with the protagonists, but, at the same time, they managed to create a world full of splendid magic, IMO this has been the one that recreates the best magical world in all films. (Not even GoF could do that, maybe that's why i hate that movie)
Anyway, does anyone know why the hell Cuaron did not come back to direct GoF... I mean THAT movie would've been just AWESOME¡ instead of that very very poorly done movie.

Anyway, does anyone know why the hell Cuaron did not come back to direct GoF... I mean THAT movie would've been just AWESOME¡ instead of that very very poorly done movie.

Cuaron was asked to return for GOF, but he said it was too much work to start pre-production on GOF before he'd finished post on POA. I do find it amusing how David Yates had no qualms in taking on four successive productions, though if OOTP is anything to go by, he puts in a lot less effort than Cuaron did.

I do find it amusing how David Yates had no qualms in taking on four successive productions, though if OOTP is anything to go by, he puts in a lot less effort than Cuaron did.

Well...that's why we have HBP out in July 2009, don't we? :whistle:

I'm actually glad they choosed Yates to direct the final 4.
OotP is tied with PoA .
I really liked the job he did with the 5th film. And for what we've seen in trailers, HBP may be the one that surpases PoA as the most beautiful and well-made film so far (artistically and cinematically speaking)
Back on topic, I honestly wasn't sure about the decission WB made about Cuaron directing the 3rd film, but to my surprise the final result just blew me up. Whe the film finished I was sooo shocked about how good the film was that I had to go and re-read PoA immediatly

I still wouldn't be without the Whomping Willow though. ;) Cuaron gave that tree a personality. :agree: And mrfutterman is absolutely right about the passage of time theme.



I agree :agree:. He managed to show one of the main theme of the story. And Lilyrose, you're right about Dementors, I think it's exactly how JK Rowling described their way of moving.
I watched the movie yesterday, and it's true it's a very good one. Harry receiving the Firebolt at the very end annoyed me a lot at first, but now I try to see it differently. It would have been difficult to include the Firebolt backstory without adding unnecessary scenes IMO.
I finally really loved the general atmosphere, very dark.
And it is the first time we see Harry with messy hair :p.

Heh, I love Harry's messy hair. :p :love:

I agree :agree:. He managed to show one of the main theme of the story. And Lilyrose, you're right about Dementors, I think it's exactly how JK Rowling described their way of moving.
I watched the movie yesterday, and it's true it's a very good one. Harry receiving the Firebolt at the very end annoyed me a lot at first, but now I try to see it differently. It would have been difficult to include the Firebolt backstory without adding unnecessary scenes IMO.

Oh yes, the Dementors moving was so true to the book. I wasnt a fan of the Firebolt shot either. But later I understood that, it is perhaps the best way to attach that scene into the film:tu:
I finally really loved the general atmosphere, very dark.

Absolutely:agree: I love the general colour tones used in the film. Very pleasing to the eye:tu:

Heh, I love Harry's messy hair. :p :love:
Me too. So adorable:love:

Heh, I love Harry's messy hair. :p :love:

So do I :D. Pity they didn't keep it in the last movies :no:.

Originally Posted by Lilyrose
Absolutly:agree: I love the general colour tones used in the film. Very pleasing to the eye:tu:

:agree: The colour tunes used in the movie reflect so well the gloomy atmosphere at Hogwarts. When I look at the trailer, it seems that they used the same colour shades for HBP.

I do find it amusing how David Yates had no qualms in taking on four successive productions, though if OOTP is anything to go by, he puts in a lot less effort than Cuaron did.
I do not think any of us can accurately, nor appropriately, judge who puts forth more effort into his work.
Oh yes, the Dementors moving was so true to the book.
I must disagree. Although their movement is partly left to interpretation, I envision, from the books' descriptions, dementors hover/glide over the ground - not fly through the air:
The dementor stepped from the box and started to sweep silently toward Harry...
A towering, hooded figure was gliding smoothly towards him, hovering over the ground.
Then, at the Quidditch match in OotP, the dementors were on the ground - not flying around Harry, sucking out his happiness. Personally, I disliked the dementors' portrayal - especially their acrobatics during the Quidditch match and around the lake. I also thought them sucking out the happiness (or soul) of the victim was slightly confusing, showing a fuzzy, pale line from victim to dementor. Though I understand the reasoning behind this, I think it would have been clearer if that pale connection consisted of flitting happy memories instead of just a blurred part of the victim's skin.

Meh, I didn't much care how they portrayed the dementors. I did note the patronus was rather funky - but I let it slide. I was totally hyped because it was based on the book with the werewolf. I was highly disappointed at their version of "modern werewolf" costume. But I let it slide giving allowance for Hollyweird's normal and tragically flawed reformulations, especially in costuming. Ignoring the mis-relationship to the book, including the way too aged characters, overall, I thought it was great. I loved that the werewolf and Prisoner of Azkaban were both highlighted and focused upon.

I would have preferred many, many more werewolf scenes - but in that they remained pretty true to canon, so I couldn't really complain. Snape's role turned kind of senseless, but I didn't really care about that. What I really enjoyed was the cienmatography when they shot the outdoor scenes focused on the wolf and dog. They got the ambiance and screen tone perfect for the setting and the moonlight highlights were perfect throughout. It was very werewolf like artistry - even if the werewolf was odd. The transformation was odd too, but again, whatever - I got the point.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie. It did capture the anticipation I felt while reading the book (which is still my favorite of the series) and was creature - happy which is always a good thing. :tu:

It's just beautiful.
Even non-HP fans agree with that. Many people like it the most because as a stand-alone film it's really good. The story is simple but at the same time complex and they do understand everything that is happening on the contrary with gof

Might have been mentioned already, but something I caught watching the movie again yesterday.

I remember JK saying that there was some foreshadowing in the PoA film, and I always caught the Hermione/Ron attraction, and a few other things, but never caught the Divination scene. Ron's reading Harry's tea leaves and interprets them to "you're going to suffer, but be happy about it," which is perfect for the 7th book.

Yeah, that quote was in the book, too, Vadermort. I remember reading that and thinking "that's basically what every hero of every story does". XD

I think I'm going to have to agree with some about the dementors' movements. The flying thing just seemed so wrong, especially during the quidditch game. I think that scene could have been handled much better, dementor-wise.

I think I'm going to have to agree with some about the dementors' movements. The flying thing just seemed so wrong, especially during the quidditch game. I think that scene could have been handled much better, dementor-wise.

I thought the dementor's flight gave that game more edge, IMO

I thought the dementor's flight gave that game more edge, IMO

I agree, it's an excellent sequence. :tu:

Differently done from the Quidditch scenes in the previous two films, and that was good too. :agree:


What is the objection to the Dementors flying???? :hmm:

I liked that the Dementors could fly too :agree:

I remember in one interview that they were talking about how to make the Dementors different from the Ringwraiths in LotR. They came up with the idea that the Ringwraiths were solid and very physical, so they tried to make the Dementors the opposite. Having them be able to fly just adds to that IMO.

I actually didn't care too much that they could fly. It seemed to detract from them, in my opinion. Dementors that are bound to the ground seemed much more frightening to me in a subtle sort of way. Flying makes them seem less like terrifying-but-real creatures and more like phantoms. Other than the flying bit, they looked great, however! I just would have preferred them to have some limitations.

They made the Dementors markedly different from Ringwraiths without the addition of flight. I do, however, find Ringwraiths much more terrifying! Even in the book they scared me!

I actually didn't care too much that they could fly. It seemed to detract from them, in my opinion. Dementors that are bound to the ground seemed much more frightening to me in a subtle sort of way. Flying makes them seem less like terrifying-but-real creatures and more like phantoms.

Well, Ringwraiths are the living dead, literally: they are nine kings who sold their souls to Sauron thousands of years ago and it's basically his will that inhabits them. A really horrible concept. :cool:

I am not sure what Dementors are actually supposed to be. I don't think it's ever spelt out, is it? Not that that's a problem. They seem more like malevolent spirits (which the Ringwraiths are too).

Whatever, I was fine with them flying. :D :) I found them really creepy in the PoA film.

They made the Dementors markedly different from Ringwraiths without the addition of flight. I do, however, find Ringwraiths much more terrifying! Even in the book they scared me!

I found the Ringwraiths scarier in the book because they were often silent. :cool: Except when they hissed. :scared:

In the films, they shrieked too much. :D

It's amazing how well the animators portrayed the Dementors. The CG in those sequences is still better than anything in the subsequent movies IMO. That first sequence on the train, where the Dementors board, is just stunningly done. The movement of the creature, the movement of the cloak, the lighting, the sound of it's breathing and the door opening, the lights going out and the water bottle and window freezing. There are few other scenes in any of the Potter movies that combine so many different elements in such an effective way.

I remember in one interview that they were talking about how to make the Dementors different from the Ringwraiths in LotR. They came up with the idea that the Ringwraiths were solid and very physical, so they tried to make the Dementors the opposite. Having them be able to fly just adds to that IMO.
I can understand the filmmakers' decision to have dementors fly, but that choice still displeases me. In the book, I interpret their movement as hovering, which I think would have separated them from Ringwraiths just as effectively. The dementors already looked, acted, and sounded extremely different, so having them hover (while the Ringwraiths walked and rode horses) would have been just as effective as having them fly.
Dementors that are bound to the ground seemed much more frightening to me in a subtle sort of way.
I, too, enjoyed their subtlety in the books. They seemed patient (though fidgety at their lack of food, certainly), determined, and savored the misery surrounding them. Their hovering movement added to this, I thought. I felt the film, largely through having them fly, portrayed them conversely, to the point of recklessness.
I am not sure what Dementors are actually supposed to be. I don't think it's ever spelt out, is it? Not that that's a problem. They seem more like malevolent spirits (which the Ringwraiths are too).
Lupin described them as "creatures" who are "soul-less." I do not think they are spirits, phantoms, or ghosts, as they appear very solid under their cloaks.
That first sequence on the train, where the Dementors board, is just stunningly done.
I do agree with this. I thought the dementors are the first computer-generated creatures in the series that truly excelled in appearance (though I was pleased with Fluffy, and, also in PoA, Buckbeak). Their freezing effect is portrayed very well, as well as their rasping breath.

The flight ability of the Dementors is a natural evolution, logical interpretation and imho the full realization of JKR's idea of what a Dementor is. The inspiration of Dementors is from her own experience of depression. So by that extension one can deduce that a Dementor should be able to fly since depression is not determined or curable by height. Someone living on the 25th floor should be just as affected by depression than one living on the 2nd floor. I find the danger and the fright they are able to produce more emphasized by their ability to fly because it would seem comedic and lessening their presence if one imagines dementors using an elevator along with the workplace commute to get to a target.

The flight ability of the Dementors is a natural evolution, logical interpretation and imho the full realization of JKR's idea of what a Dementor is. The inspiration of Dementors is from her own experience of depression. So by that extension one can deduce that a Dementor should be able to fly since depression is not determined or curable by height. Someone living on the 25th floor should be just as affected by depression than one living on the 2nd floor. I find the danger and the fright they are able to produce more emphasized by their ability to fly because it would seem comedic and lessening their presence if one imagines dementors using an elevator along with the workplace commute to get to a target.

Nice one. People are entitled to not like them flying, although their only reason seems to be "it's not like that in the book". Anyway, what's the difference between hovering and flying?

Speaking of hovering what I find coincidental is that as many complaints I've heard about dementors flying instead of hovering, I've never read one complaint on the liberties used on possessed Quirrel during the dead unicorn scene in the Philsopher's Stone film. From what I read, possessed Quirrel crawled and came swiftly towards Harry, but there was never an instance of "hovering" mentioned in the books.

The flight ability of the Dementors is a natural evolution, logical interpretation and imho the full realization of JKR's idea of what a Dementor is. The inspiration of Dementors is from her own experience of depression. So by that extension one can deduce that a Dementor should be able to fly since depression is not determined or curable by height. Someone living on the 25th floor should be just as affected by depression than one living on the 2nd floor. I find the danger and the fright they are able to produce more emphasized by their ability to fly because it would seem comedic and lessening their presence if one imagines dementors using an elevator along with the workplace commute to get to a target.

What a brilliant and original observation! :tu:

Nice one. People are entitled to not like them flying, although their only reason seems to be "it's not like that in the book".
Many who dislike aspects of the films use this same reasoning. It is certainly valid, for the information in the book is oftentimes what an individual wishes to see in the films. Since that individual enjoys the books' version more should justify them to dislike a change, as they see it, for the worse.

Others, like me, use the book as a basis to draw further conclusions about the dementor's hovering movement.
Anyway, what's the difference between hovering and flying?
Hovering is a suspension in the air, floating over the ground usually only a few inches/feet. Meanwhile, flying allows the individual to move freely through the air, with no specific altitude.
Speaking of hovering what I find coincidental is that as many complaints I've heard about dementors flying instead of hovering, I've never read one complaint on the liberties used on possessed Quirrel during the dead unicorn scene in the Philsopher's Stone film. From what I read, possessed Quirrel crawled and came swiftly towards Harry, but there was never an instance of "hovering" mentioned in the books.
I have heard and read of fans complaining about Quirrel's ability to fly. I, too, disliked it, but I do not think it is as evident and concentrated as the dementors flying. In the Forbidden Forest, Quirrel is gone in an instant, while the dementors flying is the focus of multiple scenes (with the Quidditch match being the most noticeable).

I loved that the dementors could fly, I don't see what was wrong with it. They seem about a hundred times scarier when they can fly, don't you think? Anyways, in the books, it's never specifically pointed out that they can't fly, we just never see them do it. ;) But still, changing a characteristic of one of the creatures in the movies is something I have no problem with, because those details are hardly important to the story and the directors should do whatever they have to to make them look their best.

What do you think of the random Sean Kingston guy? I'm not really mad or anything, but he has more lines than Dean and Seamus (people who were actually in the novel) put together.

What do you think of the random Sean Kingston guy? I'm not really mad or anything, but he has more lines than Dean and Seamus (people who were actually in the novel) put together.
Is that the black boy who told everyone what The Grim is and read the newspaper?

Yup.

What do you think of the random Sean Kingston guy? I'm not really mad or anything, but he has more lines than Dean and Seamus (people who were actually in the novel) put together.
You've touched upon what I consider one of the very few failings of PoA and the films from CoS - GoF. What is often lost is the idea of older and younger students than Harry's year which makes the school seem smaller in population than what is seen on screen. However Sean Kingston I found to be a breath of relief between the usual cameos of Dean, Seamus and Neville because while it doesn't address the lack of representation of older and younger schoolmates of HP + co. it does entertain the idea that the classes are larger and more diverse than just Dean, + Co.

I don't think Sean Kingston guy is in Harry's year, I mean, he wasn't even in the dorm scene in when Harry and the rest were having the pillow fight and stuff. Perhaps he is a repeat student (highly doubt so, he could be the guy Hermione with his truckloads of info!) or he skipped a year?

You've touched upon what I consider one of the very few failings of PoA and the films from CoS - GoF. What is often lost is the idea of older and younger students than Harry's year which makes the school seem smaller in population than what is seen on screen. However Sean Kingston I found to be a breath of relief between the usual cameos of Dean, Seamus and Neville because while it doesn't address the lack of representation of older and younger schoolmates of HP + co. it does entertain the idea that the classes are larger and more diverse than just Dean, + Co.

I agree. There is nothing wrong with fleshing out the student body, in fact I'd say it is quite fun to see people given a few lines beyond Harry's immediate circle. I've certainly had quite enough of Dean and Seamus being the go-to characters when there's a line of exposition going. POA also tried to broaden the range of Slytherin characters too, we saw Pansy get a line and Draco had a few new cronies. Sometimes I think the film makers forget that this is a school with more than one house/year, OOTP in particular felt like 90% of Hogwarts students were 15 year-olds.

I don't think Sean Kingston guy is in Harry's year, I mean, he wasn't even in the dorm scene in when Harry and the rest were having the pillow fight and stuff. Perhaps he is a repeat student (highly doubt so, he could be the guy Hermione with his truckloads of info!) or he skipped a year?
Sean Kingston was seen in Harry's Care of Magical Creatures class, the DADA class and Divination.