PoA Film Discussion v3

Sean Kingston was seen in Harry's Care of Magical Creatures class, the DADA class and Divination.
How do you guys know the character's name? I can't find it on IMDb.

Based on this page (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1600606/board/nest/8913097) (and a few of the other threads) it seems like the "Grim" boy in POA was actually Ekow Quartey (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1600606/). He is credited for POA on his IMDB profile, while Kingston isn't British and isn't credited (which with several lines you'd think he would be).

Based on this page (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1600606/board/nest/8913097) (and a few of the other threads) it seems like the "Grim" boy in POA was actually Ekow Quartey (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1600606/). He is credited for POA on his IMDB profile, while Kingston isn't British and isn't credited (which with several lines you'd think he would be).
What's funny is he looks nothing like Sean Kingston.

Sorry, it is an inside joke with me and my mates. We were watching POA, and that guy appeared. This girlfriend of mine was like: "OMG! OMG! Sean Kingston!" And we called him "Sean Kingston guy" ever since.

Quote

Sorry, it is an inside joke with me and my mates. We were watching POA, and that guy appeared. This girlfriend of mine was like: "OMG! OMG! Sean Kingston!" And we called him "Sean Kingston guy" ever since.

In my family we refer to him as Fat Albert because that's the character we think he resembles.

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.

HBP will, hopefully and probably, build on PoA in this respect, given the additions of Romilda Vane, Cormac, and the Slug Club.

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.

No; nothing wrong with it.

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 really get this. In GoF the ages of the students are a big(-ish) deal, as only the elder ones can enter the TWT. We saw the twins trying and failing, and Cedric as the official Hogwarts champion. There were also the foreign students for non-fans to get used to.

In OotP we met Luna, who was shown as being in Ginny's year, and there was the kid whose name I can't remember but who was obviously a lot younger than the usual crowd, tormented by Umbridge and comforted by the Weasley twins.

As for the houses, the post-Columbus film-makers do well not to bother with that, other than establishing that the Slyths are the pure-blood fanatics.

Still - nothing wrong with showing more of the student body.

honestly i didnt like the movie at all, and the main reason is the directors changes!

honestly i didnt like the movie at all, and the main reason is the directors changes!

Change is good, no? Did you not like the end product or were you just upset that it had changed at all?

Change is good, no? Did you not like the end product or were you just upset that it had changed at all?

i agree that change can be good, however only where it is necessary... i felt that Afonso Cuaron made too many extreme changes that were un-necessary and wrong according to the books!...eg. the location of Gryffindor Common Room and Hagrids hut! also Gambons portrayal of Dumbledor is unrealistic and completely out of character!

i agree that change can be good, however only where it is necessary... i felt that Afonso Cuaron made too many extreme changes that were un-necessary and wrong according to the books!...eg. the location of Gryffindor Common Room and Hagrids hut! also Gambons portrayal of Dumbledor is unrealistic and completely out of character!
Why is the change in location of the Gryffindor common room an extreme change? I don't really recall the location of the common room being that important to the book's overall plot. If I am wrong, someone please correct me.

i agree that change can be good, however only where it is necessary... i felt that Afonso Cuaron made too many extreme changes that were un-necessary and wrong according to the books!...eg. the location of Gryffindor Common Room and Hagrids hut!

'Extreme' changes? :hmm: These are exceedingly mild compared to other film adaptations of books! :) And I actually prefer the locations in PoA ... they're more beautiful and more interesting visually. :cool:

also Gambons portrayal of Dumbledor is unrealistic and completely out of character!

How is it unrealistic and out of character? :) He's quirky, twinkling, witty ... that's Albus's persona, is it not? I thought it was generally accepted in the fandom that Gambon's first attempt at Dumbledore was in fact much better than his portrayal in GoF. Personally, I love it. :tu:

'Extreme' changes? :hmm: These are exceedingly mild compared to other film adaptations of books! :) And I actually prefer the locations in PoA ... they're more beautiful and more interesting visually. :cool:
even if they are as u say "more beautiful and more interesting visually" ...it is till wrong in my opinion as only Gryffindor students are supposed to know the location of their own Common Room! and i dont think it achieves anything by being on the main stairwell!

How is it unrealistic and out of character? :) He's quirky, twinkling, witty ... that's Albus's persona, is it not? I thought it was generally accepted in the fandom that Gambon's first attempt at Dumbledore was in fact much better than his portrayal in GoF. Personally, I love it. :tu:
i agree with you that his performance of Albus in PoA is much better than in GoF..however i disagree that he comes off as "twinkling & witty"...to me he comes off more as Abrupt ...i think im just a perfectionist:lol:

even if they are as u say "more beautiful and more interesting visually" ...it is till wrong in my opinion as only Gryffindor students are supposed to know the location of their own Common Room! and i dont think it achieves anything by being on the main stairwell!

I've been reading HP since 1999 and I can honestly say that this sort of very minor detail goes completely over my head. :cool: It's certainly not something I noticed when I was watching the film itself. :) I mean, really, who would notice that it's on the main stairwell?! :hmm: :)

i agree with you that his performance of Albus in PoA is much better than in GoF..however i disagree that he comes off as "twinkling & witty"...to me he comes off more as Abrupt ...i think im just a perfectionist:lol:

I have quite strong opinions on Dumbledore as a book character ;) and I really like Gambon's interpretation of him. :) The bit when he's cleverly distracting the executioner and Fudge as they have come for Buckbeak's execution is hilarious. :lol:

i agree that change can be good, however only where it is necessary... i felt that Afonso Cuaron made too many extreme changes that were un-necessary and wrong according to the books!...eg. the location of Gryffindor Common Room and Hagrids hut! also Gambons portrayal of Dumbledor is unrealistic and completely out of character!
I understand what you're saying, you have a point about movies straying from the books. Sometimes I'd prefer that they pay closer attention as well, for example it really annoys me when they assign dialogue in the movie to a character that was said by someone else in the books. There have been differences from the beginning of the conversion to movies.

That being said, I really love PoA and think that Cuaron did an awesome job. In PoA, the story starts to get darker for Harry as he begins to grasp the larger picture, and I think that Cuaron portrayed that well. I think it's well balanced, visually beautiful with artful shots that convey emotion/mood, and I love how they handled the time turner experience.

I understand what you're saying, you have a point about movies straying from the books. Sometimes I'd prefer that they pay closer attention as well, for example it really annoys me when they assign dialogue in the movie to a character that was said by someone else in the books. There have been differences from the beginning of the conversion to movies.

It can be annoying when characters say other characters' lines. :lol: It depends on why it's done. :cool:

I think people may see me as a bit of an anti-purist on these forums. :lol: I'm not, at all. :cool: I want film adaptations to be faithful to the original story and the author's vision and intent. :tu:

This does not mean, however, that I favour a chapter-by-chapter approach to adaptation. And I'm all for directors putting their own style and stamp on the adaptation because adaptation means just that ... adaptation! It can never be quite like the book, and it doesn't have to be. The book will always be the book ... I enjoy seeing someone else's interpretation of it.

I think it's well balanced, visually beautiful with artful shots that convey emotion/mood, and I love how they handled the time turner experience.

Yes, the time turner sequence is excellently done. :agree: I loved it in the book, and it worked beautifully in the film. :tu:

I think people may see me as a bit of an anti-purist on these forums. :lol: I'm not, at all. :cool: I want film adaptations to be faithful to the original story and the author's vision and intent.
i too want the films to be failthful to the books, thats why it annoys me when they change details un-necessarily...no matter how minor they are...because in most cases they dont help the director tell his story:)


Yes, the time turner sequence is excellently done. :agree: I loved it in the book, and it worked beautifully in the film. :tu:
i also enjoyed that in the book, and also liked the way it was shown on screen:D

i too want the films to be failthful to the books, thats why it annoys me when they change details un-necessarily...no matter how minor they are...because in most cases they dont help the director tell his story:)

How does the location of the Gryffindor Common Room have any impact at all on the story which the film audience are watching on the cinema screen? :hmm:

[B]i too want the films to be failthful to the books,

There is a difference between being faithful to the books and faithful to the story.

The positioning of Hagrid's hut in PoA was, in fact, more faithful to the books as Hagrid's hut in the books was on the edge of the forest, not next to the castle (if I recall, it's been ages since I've read the books).

to Wab....

well if you watch the 2nd movie Hagrids hut IS on the edge of the forrest, but also within the grounds and visible from the Common room... NOT down sum random rocky hillside...

so in fact the first and 2nd movies are more accurate to the books than the 3rd movie :)

to Wab....

well if you watch the 2nd movie Hagrids hut IS on the edge of the forrest, but also within the grounds and visible from the Common room... NOT down sum random rocky hillside...

so in fact the first and 2nd movies are more accurate to the books than the 3rd movie :)

Yes, but the question is: why does any of this actually matter?

How does it affect the story that is unfolding on screen?

The location of Hagrid's hut is not on my list of the most exciting things to watch in a Harry Potter film. :whistle:

:)

Yes, but the question is: why does any of this actually matter?
How does it affect the story that is unfolding on screen?
that is exactly why it annoys me that they moved it...it doesnt help the story in anyway, so i see no need to change it!:)



The location of Hagrid's hut is not on my list of the most exciting things to watch in a Harry Potter film. :whistle:
:)

agreed

^Then why get upset with it? If it doesn't affect the plot in any shape, why worry where the director places a trivial setting? Really it's their interpretation.

that is exactly why it annoys me that they moved it...it doesnt help the story in anyway, so i see no need to change it!:)

Perhaps moving it helps a director's vision, shots, and way of telling the story? :)

I was actually quite upset upon watching this movie as it was my favourite book of the series!! It's not even great as part of the movie series due to the fact that it destroyed ideas and rules already established in the first two movies!! It did not adequately portray the emotions and feelings that I sensed in Harry from reading the written word because he goes through a rollercoaster of emotions upon discovering the identity of Sirius Black!!

From the word go, it ruined the continuities!! I understand that movies are different from books but why go back on something that was confirmed in the previous movie!! The opening scene has Harry using his wand while at the Dursleys!! Ahem!! So the law against minors using magic outside school no longer applies now when the previous year he got warned about if it happened again he'd be in trouble and does get in trouble in the fifth movie!!

Dumbledore is supposed to be a soft, mysterious man and yet Gambon turns him into an irish screecher!!

I really don't get the point of changing the whole set, it's just too unbelievable!! That would be like...I don't know, changing the millenium falcon throughout the first three Star Wars movies, it just doesn't make sense!! If there is an established continuity it should have been carried forward!!

And don't get me started on the lack of Goyle an the blundering buffoon Malfoy was turned into, no, no, Malfoy was a proud pure blood!!

And the lack of Quidditch Cup?? Why?? I felt it was important over Oliver Wood also putting pressure on Harry, which was increasing his aggravation and stress...I felt none of this in the movie!!

And I felt the climatic scene in which the truth is finally discovered was too rushed for my liking!! And the werewolf looked...not like a werewolf but a piece of stretched puddy!!

Basically, the whole way through this movie, I was forcing myself to be patient with each error I noted, hoping I'd feel some excitement....but no, it didn't come for me at all sadly, which really made me feel sad...

From the 'Who would YOU want to direct HP' thread:

Honestly, I found POA to be more childish and farcial than any of the other HP films. It didn't appropriately capture the darker tone of the book because of all the slapstick humor, IMO - the dementor trying to suck Harry's face off just made me cringe. Ugh. It takes more to create a darker tone that using darker lighting and altering the appearance of the sets, IMO. I didn't find it dark or intense at all - and judging from the laughter in the theater at scenes that should have been intense and/or frightening, nobody else there did either.

I saw it twice in a British cinema and nobody laughed at any of the Dementor scenes. :huh:

Out of all the HP movies, I think POA is the one that truly makes the series appear to be for children rather than people of all ages.

Well, we will have to agree to disagree on that one. :) I thought PoA was funny, sophisticated and also 'dark and wintry', to quote one critic.

As for Cuaron's interest - I can only go by what he said himself. The comment that he didn't want the story to distract the audience from the film tells me that he has no interest in the story but instead just wants to do pretty pictures.

Obviously Cuaron wants to tell a story. There's no point in making a film otherwise. :lol: Since his film is actually very faithful to the source material, the 'distractions' are pretty minor. IMO. :cool:

His Little Princess actually takes far greater liberties with the original story (although the story itself follows exactly the same pattern).

I can make a slideshow of pretty pictures set to music for free on my computer.

That is hardly an accurate analogy of the professional skills of a competent, talented director like Cuaron. There's no comparison at all.

I haven't seen Children of Men so I can't comment on it. I might watch it someday, but I am very wary of watching another book adaption directed by Cuaron. I did see A Little Princess back in 1995 and found that to be very disappointing as well.

Actually, I disliked his Little Princess too -- but not because it's not a good film. It's a very good film. I just didn't like it as an adaptation, which is a somewhat different matter. I thought Children of Men was very arresting, very unusual and very different.

Jo, however, loved his adaptation of A Little Princess.

From the 'Who would YOU want to direct HP' thread:



I saw it twice in a British cinema and nobody laughed at any of the Dementor scenes. :huh:

Most of the people in the theater I saw it in were laughing. The ones who weren't laughing, were looking at each other in confusion and asking why that thing was trying to pull Harry's face off.

Well, we will have to agree to disagree on that one. :) I thought PoA was funny, sophisticated and also 'dark and wintry', to quote one critic.

I don't consider slapstick humor to be sophisticated so watching the trio act like The Three Stooges or scenes that looked like they were inspired by Loony Toons dropped it straight into the kiddie film category for me.

The lighting was certainly dark and wintry, but the tone of the story was childish and farcial.

Obviously Cuaron wants to tell a story. There's no point in making a film otherwise. :lol: Since his film is actually very faithful to the source material, the 'distractions' are pretty minor. IMO. :cool:

His Little Princess actually takes far greater liberties with the original story (although the story itself follows exactly the same pattern).

Since it was Cuaron who said that the story wasn't important, I'd have to say it's not that obvious. From his own comments, it would appear that all he cares about is how the film looks and the story doesn't matter to him at all.

That is hardly an accurate analogy of the professional skills of a competent, talented director like Cuaron. There's no comparison at all.

That's a matter of opinion. Honestly, I don't find him all that competent or talented in regards to the story. He made a film that looks pretty but has no substance - demonstrating little to no understanding of plot structure, character development, theme, or even the appropriate tone. There is a great deal more to making a good movie than how pretty it is.

Actually, I disliked his Little Princess too -- but not because it's not a good film. It's a very good film. I just didn't like it as an adaptation, which is a somewhat different matter. I thought Children of Men was very arresting, very unusual and very different.

I don't feel there should be any difference. Whatever medium used to convey the story - book, play, verbal, film - the story should be consistent throughout. Whether or not I consider it a good film depends on whether or not they did a good job with the story. And that is where Cuaron fails as a director for me. He makes a pretty film, but doesn't do a good job with the story.

I don't feel there should be any difference. Whatever medium used to convey the story - book, play, verbal, film - the story should be consistent throughout. Whether or not I consider it a good film depends on whether or not they did a good job with the story. And that is where Cuaron fails as a director for me. He makes a pretty film, but doesn't do a good job with the story.

But do you not think that Cuaron succeeded in telling the story? A story of Harry's choices in finding out the truth (uncovering ironies).

I don't believe Columbus told the story of PS/CoS half as well. I believe the strict reverence for the books made it impossible for a viewer to appreciate the story being told within his films.

This "pretty" film, being PoA, was actually hugely more popular with general audiences and critics - you cannot deny then that Cuaron got something right that Columbus didn't.

There is a great deal more to making a good movie than how pretty it is.

I'm sure Alfonso Cuaron is well aware of that. :) He is a professional film director with an excellent reputation in the industry.

He makes a pretty film, but doesn't do a good job with the story.

Hmm. :) Some people say exactly the same thing about Peter Jackson's LotR. :cool:

...and about Columbus's films :)

I don't believe Columbus told the story of PS/CoS half as well. I believe the strict reverence for the books made it impossible for a viewer to appreciate the story being told within his films.
i have to disagree with you on this! i believe that because Columbus stayed so close to the books, the films are more enjoyable for it! when i first watched PS, i had never read the books, and hated all the hype surrounding this film! however when i was forced to go watch it, i really didnt want it to end!...i never had this feeling with PoA :shrug:

This "pretty" film, being PoA, was actually hugely more popular with general audiences and critics - you cannot deny then that Cuaron got something right that Columbus didn't.
i don't think that it was hugely more popular with general audiences at all, PS/SS is 5th in the highest grossing films of all time, while PoA is 21st...the lowest of the Potter franchise:)

I'm sure Alfonso Cuaron is well aware of that. :) He is a professional film director with an excellent reputation in the industry.
Hmm. :) Some people say exactly the same thing about Peter Jackson's LotR. :cool:
i doubt that anyone would deny that Cuaron is anything less than a prefessional and adequet director, but i just don't feel he did the book any justice...although i have to say i loved the first time you see the Dementor! (until it sucks his face off :lol:) very creepy :tu:

Regarding Jacksons LoTRs, i really liked those films, even though i know he took major liberties with the script, but i can understand the reasons for doing them! the main reason i liked them was for bringing Middle Earth to life, the sets / locations were awesome! :)

Rewatching PoA a little bit here and there, it's been a long time. Still amazes me how good it is. It's interesting to see the cinematography feel more natural and flowing than a lot of the "camcorder" looking films we've been seeing like Jason Bourne and etc. One of the new things I picked up this time around is when Marge is at dinner and mentions that James Potter might have been a drunk, while earlier she was telling Vernon to pour more liquor into her glass. I love the hypocrisy.

Another thing that pops ups is the use of water throughout the film. We do see it used as a precursor to a Dementor showing up, but remembering seeing the water on the playground equipment (and the Knight Bus...very nice attention to detail) before Sirius in his dog form appears in the bushes, it makes me wonder why they would introduce that water aspect in that particular scene or that early into the film? Any thoughts?

Another thing that pops ups is the use of water throughout the film. We do see it used as a precursor to a Dementor showing up, but remembering seeing the water on the playground equipment (and the Knight Bus...very nice attention to detail) before Sirius in his dog form appears in the bushes, it makes me wonder why they would introduce that water aspect in that particular scene or that early into the film? Any thoughts?

Thats an interesting catch, I sure didn't pick up on that, and PoA is my favourite movie! (so far ;))

But I can't think of a good answer, my brain has left me, yet again. I blame my job :yuhup:

i don't think that it was hugely more popular with general audiences at all, PS/SS is 5th in the highest grossing films of all time, while PoA is 21st...the lowest of the Potter franchise:)

That's a poor argument, and let me explain why:

In a multi-film franchise like Harry Potter, it's easy to see the audience reaction to one film, based on how much money the next film makes.

Chamber of Secrets grossed about 18% less than Sorcerer's Stone, implying that many of the SS viewers were not impressed. Prisoner of Azkaban grossed about 4% less than COS, implying that the audience was stabilizing, but was still losing viewership.

Then Goblet of Fire came along, and it grossed 16% more than Prisoner of Azkaban. This clearly implies that perception to POA was the best in the series. Prisoner of Azkaban is also the most-rented movie of the series.

That's a poor argument, and let me explain why:

In a multi-film franchise like Harry Potter, it's easy to see the audience reaction to one film, based on how much money the next film makes.

Chamber of Secrets grossed about 18% less than Sorcerer's Stone, implying that many of the SS viewers were not impressed. Prisoner of Azkaban grossed about 4% less than COS, implying that the audience was stabilizing, but was still losing viewership.

Then Goblet of Fire came along, and it grossed 16% more than Prisoner of Azkaban. This clearly implies that perception to POA was the best in the series. Prisoner of Azkaban is also the most-rented movie of the series.
i know what your saying in that after PoA audiences increased! which is fair enough :tu: however i don't think that PoA movie can take full credit for that, because by the time GoF came out in the cinema, the Harry Potter franchise was infinitly more popular on a global basis, than it had been back when PS/SS was released! therefore more people would have gone and watched the movies, IMO of course! :)

also, id like to add that the level that each film grossed is also due to the number of times that fans went to see them on numerous occassions!...i myself have only seen PS/SS on more than 1 occassion in the cinema! ;)

As many of you have pointed out time and time again how PS/SS is still the highest grossing film of the franchise so far, I wish to point out that given the events to which it had been released and how far WB went to make sure nearly everyone knew about it before it was released was pretty much a giveth that the first film would be the most successful in terms of total gross and still to this day is.

The promotion for a first film of a franchise is inevitably insane and designed to make sure that it is an ' event ' film and one that makes you feel as if you have to go see it or otherwise you will be missing out on something really special, regardless if the movie itself is anything really exceptional to begin with, which is the most cases with first films in franchises starting to get a foothold in the cinema and in the general movie going audience's perception is tainted somewhat by their own love for the source material and the belief that everything has to play out on screen word for word and scene for scene how it is in the book. Anything less to them is blasphemy and not worthy of the source material regardless if indeed such cuts and shortenings make it a much better film than a direct book-to-screen cut and paste job that many regard PS and to a much larger extent COS.

As stated before, the promotion for PS was insane and in your face and unavoidable and as such had the desired effect in making PS such a profitable movie and in turn making it still the highest earner as no other movie in the HP series to this date has had as much full on and in your face aggressiveness in getting your butt in the theatre and paying for a ticket. After that, once the job was done and WB saw fit not the need to keep promoting HP as such they did little or no promos for COS other than what was basically needed, but the sticking point was that COS probably needed the PS hype and promotion to begin with as there was as a result many who did not like PS in the end and failed to return for the second movie in the series.

grossing talk aside :lol:

i watched PoA last night again to try and see what everyone loves so much about it, and once agai it failed to inspire me! its just not my favourite of the franchise :no: ...

although i did notice a very cool scene! - whenever Harry and Lupin are talking in the forrest, the scene ends with Hedwid taking flight over the forrest in Autumn time, and when she reaches the castle its Winter! i just thought that looked really cool :tu: ;)

I just finished a rereading of the PoA book, and I don't think I'd ever realized how much the final sequences were changed in making the movie.

Yes, I do remember the complete lack of explanation in the Shack, and how the story of the Marauders was so abbreviated it became confusing.

But I hadn't caught the differences in what happened between the group leaving the Whomping Willow Passage and being transported by Snape back to the Castle.

In the book, there was no Hermione howling to distract the werewolf, no Snape waking up to throw himself in front of the kids, and no Buckbeak showing up to drive Lupin off.

And in the time turner sequence, Hermione was a lot more active in the movie, throwing the stones into Hagrid's Hut to get the trio's attention and coming to the lakeshore with Harry when Harry conjured his strongest Patronus yet. Also, Snape was shown to be unconscious until after Patronus Prongs had driven the Dementors away.

Why did they do this? I know it made the sequence longer and maybe more visually interesting, but why would they give so much extra awesome to Hermione and to Snape? What is it about Pink Power Granger that was so important to the movie franchise? I think it was a good job to have Snape throw himself in front of the trio to protect them from the werewolf, but Hermione was just too out-of-character heroic in this movie. It was weird.

Yes, I do remember the complete lack of explanation in the Shack, and how the story of the Marauders was so abbreviated it became confusing.

I hadn't read the book and did not find it confusing.


Why did they do this? I know it made the sequence longer and maybe more visually interesting,

Cinema is visual storytelling.


What is it about Pink Power Granger ...

I don't know what this expression means.

Rowling tells us what Harry is thinking as a way of telling her story. Film must find another way. Cuaron shrewdly puts Hermione in certain scenes as a companion to whom Harry can express his thoughts: his hopes of going to live with Sirius, and, most importantly, his understanding that it was not his father, but himself (version 1 via time-turner), who saved Sirius and Harry version 2.

The film additions (Hermione howling; Buckbeak attacking Lupinwolf; Snape protecting the trio) were IMO excellent.

I don't see much difference between Book Hermione and Film Hermione, except that the latter is somewhat less irritating than the former.

I accept that other people disagree.

but why would they give so much extra awesome to Hermione and to Snape? What is it about Pink Power Granger that was so important to the movie franchise? I think it was a good job to have Snape throw himself in front of the trio to protect them from the werewolf, but Hermione was just too out-of-character heroic in this movie. It was weird.
Who has more experience with time travel for the entire course of the school year compared to a person who is under great stress of learning about the true betrayer of his parent's trust, the idea that his Godfather is about to die and just suffered a dementor attack; on top of that just learning about time travel. Hermione does, not Harry. It seems more believable that Hermione would have more experience and therefore know how to take a passive proactive way of progressing through the time turner sequence than Harry. It's not heroic, it's logic.

And in the time turner sequence, Hermione was a lot more active in the movie, throwing the stones into Hagrid's Hut to get the trio's attention and coming to the lakeshore with Harry when Harry conjured his strongest Patronus yet. Also, Snape was shown to be unconscious until after Patronus Prongs had driven the Dementors away.

Why did they do this? I know it made the sequence longer and maybe more visually interesting, but why would they give so much extra awesome to Hermione and to Snape? What is it about Pink Power Granger that was so important to the movie franchise? I think it was a good job to have Snape throw himself in front of the trio to protect them from the werewolf, but Hermione was just too out-of-character heroic in this movie. It was weird.



while the map backstory is great detail, the movie doesnt skip any points that are absolutely crucial to the story.

i also dont think it's out of character at all for Hermione to be heroic.

all in all i actually like the way the the movie ending pans out better than the book. leaving ron unconcious on the ground and on his own is not something real friends would do no matter the situation. also throwing the stones into the hut made more sense than the oh so convenient and overly present in the books 'they noticed just in time' plot device. it was great that the werewolf was actually fully driven off as well. it was a fantastic way to further incorporate buckbeak.

her being active actually made things a little more believeable. her giving the events a gentle push made more sense than everything just falling into place.

while the map backstory is great detail, the movie doesnt skip any points that are absolutely crucial to the story.

i also dont think it's out of character at all for Hermione to be heroic.

all in all i actually like the way the the movie ending pans out better than the book. leaving ron unconcious on the ground and on his own is not something real friends would do no matter the situation. also throwing the stones into the hut made more sense than the oh so convenient and overly present in the books 'they noticed just in time' plot device. it was great that the werewolf was actually fully driven off as well. it was a fantastic way to further incorporate buckbeak.

her being active actually made things a little more believeable. her giving the events a gentle push made more sense than everything just falling into place.

^You are so right(:

Okay, I can accept all of that. I guess I'm just too much of a book purist to appreciate such changes without having them justified in a way I can understand.

I still think that movie!Hermione is very different than book!Hermione, though.

mrfutterman
I don't know what this expression means.
It's a satirical expression to describe PoA film! Hermione. Many argue she was extremely out of character being in on all the action plus she was wearing pink (which many people think book! Hermione never would). Therefore pink power ranger :)

I hadn't read the book and did not find it confusing
But many people did. It's not an uncommon criticism of the PoA film.

PoA is my favourite book and movie, but there are somethings in the movie that make more sense than the book, like others have said, the stone throwing instead of just noticing the MoM, DD and the Executioner coming down to Hagrids, and I too, loved how Buckbeak drove away Lupin-Wolf. An excellent movie, and it is one I will watch over and over again :)

Therefore pink power ranger

:rotfl:

It's a satirical expression to describe PoA film! Hermione. Many argue she was extremely out of character being in on all the action plus she was wearing pink (which many people think book! Hermione never would). Therefore pink power ranger :)
The main reason for Harry wearing blue and Hermione wearing pink was for the benefit of the audience IMO, so they could tell the difference instantly between the 2 characters in the dim light! Before people start nit-picking my comment, I do realise that one is male and the other female. :lol: But you do get alot of visually impaired people attending the cinema, and this subtle addition would help them distinguish the different characters. :)

It's a satirical expression to describe PoA film! Hermione. Many argue she was extremely out of character being in on all the action plus she was wearing pink (which many people think book! Hermione never would). Therefore pink power ranger :)


Thanks! I still find it incomprehensible however. Does Rowling always describe Hermione's wardrobe's colour scheme? Or any character's (apart from Snape: black, black and more black). From memory, I would say not. Therefore how can anyone state that book Hermione would "never" wear pink?

I don't understand about the power ranger comment either, but I don't really want an explanation. :)

PoA was excellent. I think SS, CoS, and PoA are the films that are nearly like the books. I don't think they cut out any important scenes from the first three films that I was really looking forward to. And I would have to say that PoA is by far, my favorite movie.

Does anyone else think that Snape throwing himself in front of the trio was one of his best moments in the series?

Any medium that captures the imagination of the viewer, relates to the positive fuse of both character and emotion of which Prisoner of Azkaban surely has plenty of. The distinct comparison of wit and luck comes into play in a ferocious chess battle of good and evil, destiny and ability, and the overlooking dramatic affect of breathtaking visuals - makes this movie a far cry from it's previous ancestors.

Does anyone else think that Snape throwing himself in front of the trio was one of his best moments in the series?

Yes. :cool:

Any medium that captures the imagination of the viewer, relates to the positive fuse of both character and emotion of which Prisoner of Azkaban surely has plenty of. The distinct comparison of wit and luck comes into play in a ferocious chess battle of good and evil, destiny and ability, and the overlooking dramatic affect of breathtaking visuals - makes this movie a far cry from it's previous ancestors.

:tu::tu::tu::tu::tu:

I voted 5 stars for this movie, it is without question my favorite in the series. I love everything about it even all the differences between it and the book are good. The last 45 minutes or so are done really well with all the little changes they made. My only down point would be that they didn't explain as much as I would of liked.

although PoA was pretty off-canon, i really love this movie. five stars!

Does anyone else think that Snape throwing himself in front of the trio was one of his best moments in the series?

Both best and worst actually, at least for me :shrug: Best in the way that he shows his bravery and concern for his students.
Worst in the way that he doesn't show the brains he has in the books; he behaves more like I'd expect Harry to. Even if he hadn't found his wand after the Shrieking Shack incident, a man of his lightning-quick reflexes and intelligence would have asked one of the kids for theirs, or snatched it from them in an instant. Or were the kids wandless too? I can't recall now. :shrug:

There wasn't realy that much time for him to look for a wand though....and would you turn your back on a werewolf while you looked for a wand?

I like POA, my 3rd fave so far..i gave it 4 stars.

There wasn't realy that much time for him to look for a wand though....and would you turn your back on a werewolf while you looked for a wand?
Certainly not :) It would take like, what, three seconds to hiss "Your wand, Potter/Granger, NOW" with your eyes on the werewolf. There was certainly time enough for that, definitely enough for one who holds his ground against both McGonagall and Flitwick in a duel and becomes Voldemort's right hand man ;)

I liked that movie, but they really needed to explain more about the marauders. Maybe add a flashback or two.

One aspect of this film that I frequently hear fans criticise is the design of Lupin as a werewolf, and I have never fully understood their reasoning for doing such. I am unsure about you, but I always enjoyed as to how the werewolf does not resemble how one would usually picture such a creature as looking; its design is very original, and and makes it look more human-like than the usual representation of a werewolf, which makes sense, as a werewolf is, of course, a man or woman capable of transforming into a wolf. The animation of it is wonderful, as well. It certainly looks more realistic than that CGI blob of a werewolf in the New Moon trailer, though I am certain that that was simply an unfinished effect.

5 stars! Definitely my favorite so far. The only problem I had with it was the lack of Marauders/Marauders map explination. Other than that it was excellent! I totally wish Alfanso would have done all the rest of the movies. Yates isn't the best IMO...

Plus everyone looked as they should (minus green eyes for Harry). Harry's hair was actually messy. Ron and Hermione's hair looked good too. Malfoy had a new due that was so much better than his slicked back hair.

I hope DH beats this movie but sadly I doubt it will.

One aspect of this film that I frequently hear fans criticise is the design of Lupin as a werewolf, and I have never fully understood their reasoning for doing such.

I might be wrong as I'm not one who has issues with the movie werewolf, but perhaps while some people have their own mental image of a werewolf, others may feel he's not canon enough. In the HP books, werewolves don't appear to be much different from ordinary wolves in terms of appearance. If all looked like the movie one, perhaps it would be nonsensical to have a question in the DaDA exam (SWM) about distinguishing them from wolves ;)

I think I'm starting to put my finger on why I prefer the first two films to POA, and it's not only because they adhere more strictly to canon.

POA was filmed in a very Formalistic style, while PS/SS and COS were filmed with a Realism style.

Some may not be familiar with these two terms but in the film-world, realism means not drawing attention to the fact that it's a film, while formalistic films are more stylistically flamboyant, filled with crazy shots and obvious artistic framing that draws attention to the filmmaking itself. Realism allows the audience to just focus on the story and the reality of the characters and not the ooos and aaaahs of the filmmaking itself. HBP strikes the best balance between the two, PS/SS and COS are extreme to one end and POA to the other. I prefer the Realism style thus I prefer PS/SS and COS over POA.

I think I'm starting to put my finger on why I prefer the first two films to POA, and it's not only because they adhere more strictly to canon.

POA was filmed in a very Formalistic style, while PS/SS and COS were filmed with a Realism style.

Some may not be familiar with these two terms but in the film-world, realism means not drawing attention to the fact that it's a film, while formalistic films are more stylistically flamboyant, filled with crazy shots and obvious artistic framing that draws attention to the filmmaking itself. Realism allows the audience to just focus on the story and the reality of the characters and not the ooos and aaaahs of the filmmaking itself. HBP strikes the best balance between the two, PS/SS and COS are extreme to one end and POA to the other. I prefer the Realism style thus I prefer PS/SS and COS over POA.

I'm not too sure about that. I actually just finished rewatching PoA and there is nothing too experimental about the cinematography. Additionally, realism is a term that applies to the genre of a film, of which the Harry Potter series is not. There is, in film categorization, a term called "Magic Realism" which is applied to theater/literature having to do with magic in an otherwise realistic setting. Actually, after re-watching CoS the other day, I noted that it has many more aesthetic shots than PoA: shots which add nothing to the plot/progression of the story but serve as a sort of emotional booster.

No, Realism and Formalism have nothing to do with genre. They are fundamental styles that all films adhere to to some extent. Most mainstream films are a combination of the two styles which is called Classical.

It's got nothing to do with what's in the movie or the genre. Realism refers to the style. Star Wars is considered a Realist film for example. It's when the film doesn't draw attention to the fact that it's a film. They are filmed more like a documentary.

Most people who like POA praise it's ruch cinematic qualities: it's cinematography, it's lighting, it's pacing, etc etc while labeling PS/SS and COS as very bland and banal. It's a clash of styles.

I don't think the Columbus films are filmed in Realism style. I don't think they are filmed in any style.

Columbus plonked the camera down and the actors read their lines: the adults with relish, the kids as if reading the back of a cornflakes packet. The production values and music give the film some degree of atmosphere, but ... style? I don't think so.

Admittedly I haven't watched CoS in years, but I'm hard put to think of any shots which I would describe as "aesthetic".

No, Realism and Formalism have nothing to do with genre. They are fundamental styles that all films adhere to to some extent. Most mainstream films are a combination of the two styles which is called Classical.

It's got nothing to do with what's in the movie or the genre. Realism refers to the style. Star Wars is considered a Realist film for example. It's when the film doesn't draw attention to the fact that it's a film. They are filmed more like a documentary.

Most people who like POA praise it's cinematic qualities: it's cinematography, it's lighting, it's pacing, etc etc while labeling PS/SS and COS as very bland and banal. It's a clash of styles.

I understand quite well the point you are trying to make. However, I feel that PoA doesnt "draw attention to the fact that it's a film." At least not as much as CoS. Chamber of Secrets, as I mentioned, had many more shots done for pure aesthetic value. True realistic cinema shows a scene as one would see it, were they actually present.

I don't think the Columbus films are filmed in Realism style. I don't think they are filmed in any style.

Columbus plonked the camera down and the actors read their lines: the adults with relish, the kids as if reading the back of a cornflakes packet. The production values and music give the film some degree of atmosphere, but ... style? I don't think so.

Admittedly I haven't watched CoS in years, but I'm hard put to think of any shots which I would describe as "aesthetic".

I knew 'style' was the wrong term, I didn't know what other term to use. They are two methods of filmmakers fundamental to all films.

Realism films are exactly how you just described PS/SS and COS. They in-fact have a lack of style. Realist directors want the audience to focus on the story and what's going on in the film, rather than focus on the beauty of the film making.

Admittedly I haven't watched CoS in years, but I'm hard put to think of any shots which I would describe as "aesthetic".

I just re-watched SS and CoS yesterday, as I am re-watching and re-reading the whole series again. There are many scenes in both SS and CoS that showcase the beauty of the grounds, Hogwarts and the wizarding world in general. One in particular that comes to mind is the winter scene in which Harry takes Hedwig to a snowy courtyard on the Hogwarts grounds. The camera pans out to watch Hedwig take flight into the winter air. There is absolutely no dialogue and no plot progression. This is the essence of an aesthetic shot.

I just re-watched SS and CoS yesterday, as I am re-watching and re-reading the whole series again. There are many scenes in both SS and CoS that showcase the beauty of the grounds, Hogwarts and the wizarding world in general. One that comes to mind in particular is the winter scene in which Harry takes Hedwig to a snowy courtyard on the Hogwarts grounds. The camera pans out to watch Hedwig take flight into the winter air. There is absolutely no dialogue and no plot progression. This is the essence of an aesthetic shot.

POA is chock-full of useless artistic scenes. How many times did the bird fly into the whomping willow? No film religiously adheres to either form completely for every single scene, but the majority of the film does.

There is a difference between that courtyard scene in PS/SS and the scenes in POA. The scene in PS/SS is not even about the shot or the style persay. It's about character and emotion. Harry is 'letting go' of his desire, carrying on Dumbledore's lesson from the previous scene. It's rooted in character and emotion, not on pure film making.

I point to the scene in POA where the bird is flying throughout the entire Hogwarts grounds. This is being stylistically flamboyant. This does not comment on character, story or emotion. It's meant to look pretty and artistic.

POA is chock-full of useless artistic scenes. How many times did the bird fly into the whomping willow?

Twice.

There is a difference between that courtyard scene in PS/SS and the scenes in POA. The scene in PS/SS is not even about the shot or the style persay. It's about character and emotion. Harry is 'letting go' of his desire, carrying on Dumbledore's lesson from the previous scene. It's rooted in character and emotion, not on pure film making.

I point to the scene in POA where the birds is flying throughout the entire Hogwarts grounds. This is being stylistically flamboyant. This does not comment on character, story or emotion. It's meant to look pretty and artistic.

Exactly. A scene made purely to demonstrate the emotion a character feels is the exact opposite of pure realism. Realism, as you have described yourself, shows the story exactly as it is and leaves the interpretation to the audience. As such, emotional, stagnant moments are left out. While it's true that no one can adhere to a particular style all the time, I was merely pointing out the fact that SS/CoS have just as many irrelevant shots and scenes as PoA. The intention of an irrelevant shot, whether it be to "look pretty and artistic" or display human emotion, does not matter: it still isn't realism.

I knew 'style' was the wrong term, I didn't know what other term to use. They are two methods of filmmakers fundamental to all films.

Realism films are exactly how you just described PS/SS and COS. They in-fact have a lack of style. Realist directors want the audience to focus on the story and what's going on in the film, rather than focus on the beauty of the film making.

I disagree with where you are coming from. Let's take a director who films in what you call a realist, and I would call a classical style - the later Clint Eastwood. Yes, Eastwood in Mystic River focusses on story and character. One does not notice his technique (which doesn't mean that it isn't there - just that he doesn't want us to notice...). But there is a huge difference between that cool, considered approach and the Columbus films.

What story is Columbus using this "technique" to demonstrate? What deep characterization is he presenting?

IMO - nadda.

Twice.



Exactly. A scene made purely to demonstrate the emotion a character feels is the exact opposite of pure realism. Realism, as you have described yourself, shows the story exactly as it is and leaves the interpretation to the audience. As such, emotional, stagnant moments are left out. While it's true that no one can adhere to a particular style all the time, I was merely pointing out the fact that SS/CoS have just as many irrelevant shots and scenes as PoA. The intention of an irrelevant shot, whether it be to "look pretty and artistic" or display human emotion, does not matter: it still isn't realism.

I think you might be confusing the term Realism. It's not realism in the traditional sense of the word. It's a form of filmmaking.

Here's a better example: When an audience leaves a realism film, they are thinking about what happened to the characters and the story.

When they leave a Formalistic film, they comment on how beautiful the film looked and all the amazing shots.

Realistic films are actually more emotional since the audience is more focused on the characters.

I disagree with where you are coming from. Let's take a director who films in what you call a realist, and I would call a classical style - the later Clint Eastwood. Yes, Eastwood in Mystic River focusses on story and character. One does not notice his technique (which doesn't mean that it isn't there - just that he doesn't want us to notice...). But there is a huge difference between that cool, considered approach and the Columbus films.

What story is Columbus using this "technique" to demonstrate? What deep characterization is he presenting?

IMO - nadda.

He's adapting a novel to the screen. The story he has to tell and the characterization he has to get across (however basic you think they are) are or should be the ones from the books. I'm not saying Columbus was perfect but I prefer films that do not draw attention to the style so I prefer the Columbus films to the Caruon film.

I think you might be confusing the term Realism. It's not realism in the traditional sense of the word. It's a form of filmmaking.

Here's a better example: When an audience leaves a realism film, they are thinking about what happened to the characters and the story.

When they leave a Formalistic film, they comment on how beautiful the film looked and all the amazing shots.

Realistic films are actually more emotional since the audience is more focused on the characters.



So, are you saying that Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is "more emotional" than, say, City of God, because of the director's style, which must mean that the audience is "more focused on the characters"?

So, are you saying that Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is "more emotional" than, say, City of God, because of the director's style, which must mean that the audience is "more focussed on the characters"?

Huh? Now you're just debating quality. I never saw City of God though I heard it is probably the most emotional formalistic film of all. It's clearly the exception.

I personally find realism films more emotional. I really can't speak for anyone else. PS/SS is just not a very emotional story so it's not going to be a total tearjerker, though the emotional scenes in PS/SS worked for me and move me to tears every time (the mirror of erised sequence).

But isn't what you term 'formalism' employed to induce emotion? I find that this is often the case if a director knows what he/she is doing.....

The way shots are framed, the way the camera moves (or doesn't move) and so forth, has a very strong influence on the viewer, and their emotional involvement in the story. ANd it doesn't necessarily mean that films with very visible style elements don't involve the audience emotionally - on the contrary, I'd say. Try, for example, classics like Lawrence of Arabia or (even more obviously) The Third Man - both very controlled and carefully designed stylistically, with a great emphasis on formalist elements, but also highly emotionally involving (and I would say that's exactly ebcause of the way the films are designed).

For an extreme example, try any film by Kieslovski (sp?). I always have the feeling that the camera almost stares at the characters because it's often so deliberately still, and each frame is so carefully designed (e.g. in the Three Colour Trilogy) - but it gives the films a very intensive, introspective feel, which somehow makes them intensely emotional while also seemingly detached. I find it difficult to describe, but form and emotion go together in most of the really good films I can think of. Of course some films are deliberately emotionally detached, and that is also achieved by the way in which they are shot. However, I don't think that this is something that Cuaron was trying to do, or is in fact doing in POA.

In short, the formal aspects of a film are a means of creating the emotion in the audience. Some directors have styles where the formal aspects are more visible, but this doesn't always mean that the film is less emotional. Sometimes it means exactly the opposite, I'd say. I don't see how the two things could be described as opposing principles, when they really overlap in complicated ways......

I think you might be confusing the term Realism. It's not realism in the traditional sense of the word. It's a form of filmmaking.

Here's a better example: When an audience leaves a realism film, they are thinking about what happened to the characters and the story.

When they leave a Formalistic film, they comment on how beautiful the film looked and all the amazing shots.

Realistic films are actually more emotional since the audience is more focused on the characters.



He's adapting a novel to the screen. The story he has to tell and the characterization he has to get across (however basic you think they are) are or should be the ones from the books. I'm not saying Columbus was perfect but I prefer films that do not draw attention to the style so I prefer the Columbus films to the Caruon film.

I am not confusing the terms. Realism can be applied to many aspects of filmmaking. You are being vague as to which one you are using it for, but it seems as though you're discussing cinematography and direction. In your example of a "formalistic" approach, from which an audience would leave commenting on "how beautiful the film looked," you are talking about direction and cinematography. As such, a realistic approach to direction and cinematography has its roots in many ideologies, one of the most prominent being Italian Neorealism. This is a perfect example of realistic filmmaking: the scenes depicting metaphorical or allegorical representations of a character's emotion are limited. The only emotion one would expect to find in realistic cinema is that of the script. Realism does not apply to the emotion of the characters. The emotion of the characters is left to the script and, as you have said before, we are not discussing genres here.

Huh? Now you're just debating quality. I never saw City of God though I heard it is probably the most emotional formalistic film of all. It's clearly the exception.

I used it as a quite "extreme" example (much more so than PoA) of a film which displays the various techniques of film-making. Which boldly draws the attention of the audience to those techniques. I would use the expression "delights in" - the various techniques of film-making. You seem to find this wrong, or at least, unsatisfactory.

But no - I am not just debating quality. I am talking about the use of film-making tools. Hitchcock, in making Vertigo and Spellbound, used very overt film techniques - reverse tracking shots, vertiginous designs, surreal dream sequences. But these tools are used to tell a story and illuminate character.


I personally find realism films more emotional.

Your preferences are your own, of course. But I still do not understand your use of the word "realism" to describe anything at all about PS, neither its content, nor its style, such as it is.

Well, I finally know I LOVE Formalist movies then :lol:
I've been looking for a word like that for a long time, and now I have one. Thanks!

(To clear up, I thought it meant more like the following:
Realism is all about simplicity. Natural colors, lighting, and simple camera shots define Realism best.
Formalism is all about "the lighting, scoring, sound and set design, use of color, shot composition, and editing [of a film]."

I would say, IMO, that HBP follows PoA as being the most formalist:)

(see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalist_film_theory)

If you ask me, the film version of POA was definitely better at harnessing the plotline. Sure there were a few moments where excellent film shots were shown. But, isn't that all part of the process? POA does require special effects. Buckbeak flying, spells and the time turner are difficult to produce naturally.

For an extreme example, try any film by Kieslovski (sp?). I always have the feeling that the camera almost stares at the characters because it's often so deliberately still, and each frame is so carefully designed (e.g. in the Three Colour Trilogy) - but it gives the films a very intensive, introspective feel, which somehow makes them intensely emotional while also seemingly detached.

Klio, as I started reading this page, Kieslowski just sprang to my mind, and then going down I've seen you talking of him :)
The DoP of Film Blue is the same of OotP, and I was very glad to feel that 'Kieswloski vibe' in some scenes of OotP.
Here MoD, if you really want to know how a realism films have done, rent Film Blu, because you have it wrong here: comparing Columbus to realism is like comparing Luna Parks to Churches.

POA is chock-full of useless artistic scenes.

Really? :huh: :shrug: :sigh:

How many times did the bird fly into the whomping willow?

Twice? :D The whole thing took a matter of seconds, if that. It was a fun way to show the character of the Whomping Willow (who, after all, plays quite a significant part in the plot) and also to show the passing of the seasons on the Hogwarts grounds. Cuaron's beautiful and doomed bluebird is one of the most fun and memorable ways I've ever seen on film to show the passing of the seasons. :tu: Much preferable to a boring 'fadeout'.

The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe movie even paid tribute to it, which amused me greatly. :D :)

I point to the scene in POA where the bird is flying throughout the entire Hogwarts grounds. This is being stylistically flamboyant. This does not comment on character, story or emotion. It's meant to look pretty and artistic.

It's another seamless seque from one thematic sequence to another. :cool:

The DoP of Film Blue is the same of OotP, and I was very glad to feel that 'Kieswloski vibe' in some scenes of OotP.

Ah, Three Colours: Blue. :love: It's many years since I saw it, but it left quite an impression. :) So that's why I liked OotP so much! :agree:

Cuaron's beautiful and doomed bluebird is one of the most fun and memorable ways I've ever seen on film to show the passing of the seasons. :tu: Much preferable to a boring 'fadeout'.
Yes, I loved it too! I thought the bluebird was a very clever way to show the passing of time. Tempus fugit! :whistle:

^ Yes, I also loved that way of changing the seasons. The Whomping Willow was also part of the transition. It is really interesting to watch.

I think I'm starting to put my finger on why I prefer the first two films to POA, and it's not only because they adhere more strictly to canon.

POA was filmed in a very Formalistic style, while PS/SS and COS were filmed with a Realism style.

Some may not be familiar with these two terms but in the film-world, realism means not drawing attention to the fact that it's a film, while formalistic films are more stylistically flamboyant, filled with crazy shots and obvious artistic framing that draws attention to the filmmaking itself. Realism allows the audience to just focus on the story and the reality of the characters and not the ooos and aaaahs of the filmmaking itself. HBP strikes the best balance between the two, PS/SS and COS are extreme to one end and POA to the other. I prefer the Realism style thus I prefer PS/SS and COS over POA.

Most people who like POA praise it's rich cinematic qualities: it's cinematography, it's lighting, it's pacing, etc etc while labeling PS/SS and COS as very bland and banal. It's a clash of styles.


I tend to agree with MasterofDeath and I get what he is saying about SS/PS and CoS vs. PoA, but this is my brief thoughts on the matter-

The Columbus films had the best/most faithful scripts and captured the atmosphere and "magic" of the series perfectly but were lacking in other departments. PoA was visually pleasing but that sense of "magic" felt lost and the script changed the characters and events so much it hardly felt like a Potter film. :shrug: Finally, with HBP they pretty much got it all right and it was like a combo of PoA and Columbus' films. :tu:

I think you might be confusing the term Realism. It's not realism in the traditional sense of the word. It's a form of filmmaking.

Here's a better example: When an audience leaves a realism film, they are thinking about what happened to the characters and the story.

When they leave a Formalistic film, they comment on how beautiful the film looked and all the amazing shots.

Realistic films are actually more emotional since the audience is more focused on the characters.


Many people commented on the beautiful look/cinematography of HBP. With its brown/yellow colours and artistic camera movements I'll say HBP is a "formalistic" film, to use that term. Even more than POA. The empty shot of the Great Hall was just as "pointless" as the bird shots in POA. Neither of them were pointless as they had an emotional impact. The Great hall shot expressed sadness, loss at Hogwarts and hope. The bird scenes showed the atmosphere of the different seasons so we could feel a year has pased when the film is over. OOTP failed to do this.
I doubt a "realistic" film automatically is more emotional than a "formalistic" one. The cinematography and the colours is just a small, but important part of film making. If it's done properly it should add something to the film and affect the audience.

It was an awesome film. Propably the best HP one. :) I saw the cut scenes in YouTube, they were really great, even though I have to admit that if I was a director I would cut them too cuz they dont actually offer much in the general plot. :)

Master of Death wrote: "Some may not be familiar with these two terms but in the film-world, realism means not drawing attention to the fact that it's a film, while formalistic films are more stylistically flamboyant, filled with crazy shots and obvious artistic framing that draws attention to the filmmaking itself. Realism allows the audience to just focus on the story and the reality of the characters and not the ooos and aaaahs of the filmmaking itself. HBP strikes the best balance between the two, PS/SS and COS are extreme to one end and POA to the other. I prefer the Realism style thus I prefer PS/SS and COS over POA".

There are of course many different approaches to making and adapting a film, but still I think I understand what you're getting at, though I do not agree. Bear with me if this comment sounds preachy.

In my experience many directors prefer a style where you strip away visual details, artistic use of colurs and other material and tell the story mainly through the plot and what happens to the characters. This is very typical of many films, including Harry Potter and the Philosopher's stone". In my view you need a director who is able to bring out some very good acting/and or a very powerful subject matter if you are to succeed with this kind of film making.

Many of the same directors might also want to create a feeling of realism, in certain scenes making the audience feel the rush when you're in the thick of the action or the bare emotions of a very tough or heartbreaking scene. In "The Chamber of secrets", you have the scene where Harry and Ron escapes in their car, which is concentrated only on the rush of getting away. In the Order of the Phoenix, the interaction between Sirius and Harry Potter is very much focused on the acting and the connection created between these two characters, focusing on their faces and their body without any extra visual details to show the emotions.

In "The prisoner from Azkaban" I think Cuaron used visual details and artistic scenes to underline and heighten the emotions of the characters and the general storyline. Showing the passing of the seasons can underline feelings like hope, loneliness, Harry's attachment to Hogwarts as his real home or just be a different way of telling how time has passed instead of for instance having a scene showing the students going away for christmas. The small details can also show you "subplots" which are not crucial to the plot/action, but which gives you a hint of the richness of Harry Potter's world.

I'm afraid I felt that Columbus' films were too straightforward and lacking in imagination, although I felt "Chamber of Secrets" was mcuh better than the first, which really consists only of a series of episodes.

I like both the luminous quality of Cuaron's film and the more 'realistic' approach of OotP and HBP.

As a rule, I do tend to favour Realism over Formalism (as far as this non-expert can judge) ... but I think Formalism can work really, really brilliantly with a director of quality. And Cuaron has that quality.

And some 'Realism' films can be pedestrian in their approach.

In "The prisoner from Azkaban" I think Cuaron used visual details and artistic scenes to underline and heighten the emotions of the characters and the general storyline. Showing the passing of the seasons can underline feelings like hope, loneliness, Harry's attachment to Hogwarts as his real home or just be a different way of telling how time has passed instead of for instance having a scene showing the students going away for christmas. The small details can also show you "subplots" which are not crucial to the plot/action, but which gives you a hint of the richness of Harry Potter's world.

:tu:

I'm afraid I felt that Columbus' films were too straightforward and lacking in imagination, although I felt "Chamber of Secrets" was mcuh better than the first, which really consists only of a series of episodes.

I agree with you.

Although I must be one of the few people who actually prefers CoS to PS/SS. :yuhup: (Minus the excruciating ending, that is!) But just because I felt it had a much stronger story, and conveyed that story pretty well.

Welcome to the boards, btw. :wave:

Okay, let's move the Sirius/Chemistry-set quote over here. Here are a few quotes from the "Worst Lines in the Films" thread:


"Go play with your chemistry set!"

?? Black is a pure-blood wizard . . . how would he have any idea about chemistry? :no::no::no:

He's sort of telling him you still don't know what your doing. "your not in the big leagues yet" sort of thing and the reason SNAPE says is because chemistry is almost like potions.

I highly doubt a pure-blood wizard would even know the term "chemistry", though, let alone know enough about it to correctly relate it to potions. I think that's what snapes_witch was criticizing about the line. :)

You can view the thread here (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?p=5499907#post5499907).

The way I see it, it isn't unlikely that Sirius took it upon himself to learn a bit about muggles and their science -- if only to further enrage the rest of the Black clan. There are any number of ways that he could have learned of chemistry and chemistry sets - Lily, reading, etc.

The way I see it, it isn't unlikely that Sirius took it upon himself to learn a bit about muggles and their science -- if only to further enrage the rest of the Black clan. There are any number of ways that he could have learned of chemistry and chemistry sets - Lily, reading, etc.

Agreed. Particularly since Sirius & Lily were both in Gryffindor. It would be feasible that Lily might compare here first potions class to using a chemistry set -- which would likely require Lily to explain about chemistry sets. Seems reasonable to me, and something Sirius would say to annoy Snape (linking Snape back to the muggle world, knowing how he feels about that).

Agreed. Particularly since Sirius & Lily were both in Gryffindor. It would be feasible that Lily might compare here first potions class to using a chemistry set -- which would likely require Lily to explain about chemistry sets. Seems reasonable to me, and something Sirius would say to annoy Snape (linking Snape back to the muggle world, knowing how he feels about that).

Very reasonable assumptions, but if I may apply Occam's Razor . . . Steve Kloves merely thought it was a clever line. :relax:

Why does a line like that need an explanation? One of the silliest things about the books IMO was just how ignorant the older wizards were about Muggle culture, it was far too Amish-like for a community that survives by disguising and ingratiating itself into the Muggle world. POA and later films are far more sensible with this sort of thing, they straddle the line between befuddlement and total stupidity with regard to wizard knowledge of Muggle ways, whereas in the books JKR often veered into the latter. The films have the children comfortable with most Muggle customs, and the adults slightly more bemused about things like electronics, which works fine. Would we need an explanation if film-Sirius had known what a pen was? Or an aeroplane? Of course not.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Yoshi ... well said! :tu:

Why does a line like that need an explanation? One of the silliest things about the books IMO was just how ignorant the older wizards were about Muggle culture, it was far too Amish-like for a community that survives by disguising and ingratiating itself into the Muggle world. POA and later films are far more sensible with this sort of thing, they straddle the line between befuddlement and total stupidity with regard to wizard knowledge of Muggle ways, whereas in the books JKR often veered into the latter. The films have the children comfortable with most Muggle customs, and the adults slightly more bemused about things like electronics, which works fine. Would we need an explanation if film-Sirius had known what a pen was? Or an aeroplane? Of course not.

Why does a line like that need an explanation? Perhaps for the same reason the lines you bash in HBP need an explanation? :p

Silly? Really? You made a fantastic analogy with the Amish. They are an isolated society who live alongside our own but remain fairly ignorant and dismissive of our world. When I visit Pennsylvania, there are many Amish farms right across the river from a small amusement park proving you can live within the same vicinity and still remain ignorant of each other. Heck, I live in a neighborhood with rows and rows of houses right next to each other. I remain in utter ignorance of what my neighbors are doing right now in their homes when they are only inches away. This separation would be even greater with magic, magic that enables one to be completely undetected by muggles.

So no, it's not a 'silly' concept that wizards who for the most part see muggles as inferior would remain fairly ignorant of their day to day lives and equipment. The books never suggest wizards actively try to incorporate with muggles. They only tend to live among them in secret. It makes sense that this separation would begin to dwindle down with each successive generation as most lifestyles tend to do.

It seems you defend to the death anything in POA but criticize the other movies freely without the same rationalization you afford POA. Selective reasoning, IMO.

Mad_Druid and HedwigOwl have it right, IMO. It's not out of the question for Sirius to be more aware of muggle customs because of Lily and his rebellion against his family. He did have pictures of muggles in bikinis after all. ;)

They are an isolated society who live alongside our own but remain fairly ignorant and dismissive of our world.

But we all know about the Amish. Wizard society is based around camouflage, it is an underground culture that has disguised itself so that Muggles are not aware of it. It makes no sense for wizards to be so ignorant of Muggle culture when they've spent their entire lives presenting an appearance of 'Muggle-ness' to the world. Look at OOTP. The visitors entrance to the Ministry is a phone box. Clearly some wizards know what a telephone is, enough to mimic one perfectly. There is an inconsistency in the books between JKRs presentation of a near-immaculate Muggle facade to the wizard world (platform 9 and 3/4, the brick wall to Diagon Alley, the aforementioned phone box, Mrs Figg, etc) and the near total ignorance of various characters with regard to Muggle ways. There's no harm in acknowledging that Rowling fumbled something like that IMO.

But we all know about the Amish. Wizard society is based around camouflage, it is an underground culture that has disguised itself so that Muggles are not aware of it. It makes no sense for wizards to be so ignorant of Muggle culture when they've spent their entire lives presenting an appearance of 'Muggle-ness' to the world. Look at OOTP. The visitors entrance to the Ministry is a phone box. Clearly some wizards know what a telephone is, enough to mimic one perfectly. There is an inconsistency in the books between JKRs presentation of a near-immaculate Muggle facade to the wizard world (platform 9 and 3/4, the brick wall to Diagon Alley, the aforementioned phone box, Mrs Figg, etc) and the near total ignorance of various characters with regard to Muggle ways. There's no harm in acknowledging that Rowling fumbled something like that IMO.

The wizarding world being based around camouflage and being unknown to us makes the division even stronger. There'd be less muggles able to teach a wizard how muggle technology works.

Wearing muggle clothes and using a broken payphone that doesn't work in the proper muggle way or having a magical platform in a muggle train station would not educate wizards about muggle technology. They aren't using any muggle equipment or technology to access these magical places. They just exist alongside muggle fare. The books never suggest a near-immaculate wizarding world completely removed from muggles anyway. They are aware of basic things like dated muggle clothing styles (well some of them :p) and the like, but it just varies from person to person. Some wizards are more knowledgeable about muggles than others. I don't think this is a mistake.

Getting back on topic, there is no reason for a wizard to know about the subject of chemistry since they have potions. But since Hogwarts school welcomes muggle-born witches and wizards, it makes sense that each successive generation of wizards would become more and more aware of their muggle counterpart's world espcially if they were friends with muggle-born and purposely wanted to rebel against their family which is the case with Sirius.

What bothered me about that line, was not that Sirius knew what chemistry was, but the way he used it.
"Go play with your chemistry set."
Sirius is trying to put Snape down here and he uses a muggle word in a dismissive way. To me this almost looks like he is also getting a dig at muggles. Something which Sirius would not do, imo.

What bothered me about that line, was not that Sirius knew what chemistry was, but the way he used it.
"Go play with your chemistry set."
Sirius is trying to put Snape down here and he uses a muggle word in a dismissive way. To me this almost looks like he is also getting a dig at muggles. Something which Sirius would not do, imo.

I always read that line as Sirius poking fun at Snape's nerdy obsession with potions and not necessarily the fact that it was muggle equipment, but now that you bring that up, that's a good point. Definitely out of character for Sirius.

What bothered me about that line, was not that Sirius knew what chemistry was, but the way he used it.
"Go play with your chemistry set."
Sirius is trying to put Snape down here and he uses a muggle word in a dismissive way. To me this almost looks like he is also getting a dig at muggles. Something which Sirius would not do, imo.

I saw the line as Sirius belittling Potions in general. Not the sort of subject a wag like Sirius would be interested in. Oldman delivered it very well IMO, there was a real bite to the exchange between him and Rickman.

I did miss Sirius's shock that Dumbledore hired Snape as potions master considering he was a death eater.

Sirius and Snape's animosity for each other was played very well in the movie but there is no context or reason for it. It's never explained why Snape has such a hatred of Sirius and vice versa.

Sirius and Snape's animosity for each other was played very well in the movie but there is no context or reason for it. It's never explained why Snape has such a hatred of Sirius and vice versa.

I think the acting and dialogue in the Shrieking Shack combined with Snape's comments about James is enough to establish some kind of animosity from their school days. I don't think there was a good place in the movie to fit in exposition about Snape and Sirius.

Given that a motorbike is as much use to a wizard as a chocolate fireguard to ... anybody.... I think it is safe to say that Sirius was very interested in the muggle world.

I've always loved that line and especially the delivery of it. Snape's reply is even better :tu: The films must communicate with non-readers as well and make sure they get the point, hence some "muggle phrases". To be fair, Rowling was quite vague on the wizarding world's knowledge of muggles and therefore it may be interpreted in different ways. But personally I think these interpretations belong in a thread about the books.

Given that a motorbike is as much use to a wizard as a chocolate fireguard to ... anybody.... I think it is safe to say that Sirius was very interested in the muggle world.

:rotfl:

:agree:

I've always loved that line and especially the delivery of it. Snape's reply is even better :tu:

:lol: Yes. :D

Oooh, first time posting in this thread. :3

I see PoA as among the worst of the films when it comes to including important parts of the books, but among the best-made of the films, especially artistically.

Cuaron chose not to include a lot of different parts of the book, some of them kind of important (Who were MWPP again? :whistle:), but on the other hand, he sets the stage for each scene very well, transitions between them beautifully, and I like the different angles from which he chose to film.

It feels a bit less like he had a "list" of stuff to include and ticked them off one by one (something I think happened to a lot of the films), and more like he recognized the "flow" of the story and sought to recapture that. Unfortunately, I don't think that really works for an hour-long movie when you consider how much content is in each HP book. :sigh:

I've always loved that line and especially the delivery of it. Snape's reply is even better :tu:

I agree. And then it's funny when Sirius and Lupin are bickering and Snape says "Look at you two quirlling like an old married couple" haha

I personally love PoA and think it was the best HP movie so far. I wish Alfanso could have directed the 7th movie instead of Yates. :shrug:
PoA the book is also growing on me. Or maybe I'm just biased because it has two of my favorite characters in it (Sirius and Lupin). I think Gary Oldman did a good job playing Sirius. he didn't look like I imagined at all, but his acting was good.

I just had a look at the table of containts of Harry's copy of Advanced Potion Making from HBP. (I can actually read it thanks to blu-ray.) The first section of chapter 2 is entitled "Potions and Chemistry". Since this book is in print at least for 50 years, Sirius would have had the same textbook whe he was at Hogwarts and therefore would know the term "chemistry". So much on that topic. Not that I was bothered by that line before.

I just had a look at the table of containts of Harry's copy of Advanced Potion Making from HBP. (I can actually read it thanks to blu-ray.) The first section of chapter 2 is entitled "Potions and Chemistry". Since this book is in print at least for 50 years, Sirius would have had the same textbook whe he was at Hogwarts and therefore would know the term "chemistry". So much on that topic. Not that I was bothered by that line before.

If you check out this (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=123042&highlight=Movies+Canon%3F)thread on the forums, you'll find that the general consensus is that the HP films can not be considered reliable canon. Not saying you need to agree with that, or that your opinion is invalid, but I don't think most people would consider a sheet of writing visible in the films as conclusive evidence that "chemistry" was an known word in the Wizarding world. If such a table of contents was mentioned in the books, that would be another story; but considering that it's only in the films, and that the line referencing chemistry is also from the films, I'd say the likelihood of Sirius' knowledge or ignorance of chemistry is still subjective. :)

If such a table of contents was mentioned in the books, that would be another story; but considering that it's only in the films, and that the line referencing chemistry is also from the films, I'd say the likelihood of Sirius' knowledge or ignorance of chemistry is still subjective. :)

It's absolutely subjective :agree: As I see it, Rowling didn't make it clear in the text, which means that the movie-line doesn't contradict the canon whatsoever and furthermore makes any superficial critisism on it seem irrelevant to film discussion.

It's absolutely subjective :agree: As I see it, Rowling didn't make it clear in the text, which means that the movie-line doesn't contradict the canon whatsoever and furthermore makes any superficial critisism on it seem irrelevant to film discussion.

OTOH IMO she's quite clear about the opinion of the Muggle world by the WW in general and the pure-bloods in particular . . .:relax:

OTOH IMO she's quite clear about the opinion of the Muggle world by the WW in general and the pure-bloods in particular . . .:relax:

I am not talking about the WW's opinion on Muggles, but their knowledge of them :)

If you check out this (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=123042&highlight=Movies+Canon%3F)thread on the forums, you'll find that the general consensus is that the HP films can not be considered reliable canon. Not saying you need to agree with that, or that your opinion is invalid, but I don't think most people would consider a sheet of writing visible in the films as conclusive evidence that "chemistry" was an known word in the Wizarding world. If such a table of contents was mentioned in the books, that would be another story; but considering that it's only in the films, and that the line referencing chemistry is also from the films, I'd say the likelihood of Sirius' knowledge or ignorance of chemistry is still subjective. :)
I'm aware that the movies are not considered to be "canon". I wouldn't dare to explain something from the books by quoting the movies. But in the interest of fairness, we shouldn't do this the other way round either. Whether Book!Sirius knows about chemistry is irrelevant. Movie!Sirius does, and I just provided proof where he knows it from.

I am not talking about the WW's opinion on Muggles, but their knowledge of them :)

Apparently I wasn't specific enough as I meant their lack of knowledge was because of their low opinion, but Martok's right, movie Sirius apparently does know about muggle chemistry. I just don't think canon!Sirius would.

I'm aware that the movies are not considered to be "canon". I wouldn't dare to explain something from the books by quoting the movies. But in the interest of fairness, we shouldn't do this the other way round either. Whether Book!Sirius knows about chemistry is irrelevant. Movie!Sirius does, and I just provided proof where he knows it from.

I think that's a good point, the books and movies are clearly different entities, it's just that the movies are based on the books. The films are known to have made things up to make something easier to fit into the time frame, according to the films, Dumbledore can apparate and disapparate in Hogwarts and that's clearly wrong - it's just quicker than showing Harry and Dumbledore walk into Hogsmeade.

I've never had any trouble with the line, of course it wouldn't make much sense if Book!Sirius said it because he's never shown as having a particular knowledge of the muggle world (although it is possible that he heard of chemistry through Lily, as others have said). However, as it's in the movies, I think it's just a clever line thrown in by the writers and they didn't think people would make such a fuss about it.

I just watched PoA this weekend and had some thoughts to share. One of the first things that bothers me is Harry's line: "Uncle Vernon, I need you to sign this form." As an avid fan, I know that he means Hogsmeade, but for those who watch only the movies, it's just an open-ended statement. Form for what? (See what I mean?)

Also, when Harry is yelling at Aunt Marge to "Shut up! Shut up! SHUT UP!," the lights behind him flicker and a wind blows. I'm guessing it was done for effect, but it seemed too over the top and "unrealistic." hah ;)

Harry's "fight" with The Monster Book of Monsters. Seriously, he couldn't have just opened it and saw that it was about to rip his fingers off? I think it was precious time wasted especially considering they could have used it to talk about the Marauders!

I hate how Snape's explanation of werewolves and Animagi is rushed and then just background when Draco passes Harry the note. It just added to the incompleteness of the movie. It seemed like Alfonso Cuaron touched upon the important plot lines, but then never finished them. For example, he brings up werewolves and Animagi and the Marauder's Map, but never puts two and two together.

It's not all bad though! I do like the added humor, the choir, the footsteps on the Marauder's Map (as opposed to just a dot), and Lupin's transformation. And Emma Thompson as Trelawney, Gary Oldman as Sirius, and David Thewlis as Lupin. Perfect casting!!

Ok. When Prisoner of Azkaban first came out in 2004 I remember coming out of the cinema bitterly disappointed. I hated this new unfamiliar Hogwarts, the change in Flitwick's appearance, the way everyone wore "muggle clothing" and the absence of characters like Cedric and Cho. I couldn't understand why the had changed it. Needless to say: I was a book purist.

Now (since I am more mature I like to think :p) none of these things except the changing of Hogwart's appearance bother me. Unfortunately I still see POA as the worst Harry Potter film, Why? Alfonso Cuaron is a great director but I don't think his style suited the world of Harry Potter at all plus his disrespect for continuity just irritated me. The acting of the trio was awful in this film in my opinion. Daniel was very bland in speaking his lines and was cringe-worthy when he tried to do emotional scenes such as the infamous crying scene and shoutung at Sirius. Emma was also crine-worthy and over-the-top, an example for me being "if you want to kill Harry, you'll have to kill us too." and poor Rupert was just pushed in the background and was only used for comic-relief. Personally I thought the special effects looked poor and cheap, Lupin in werewolf form being an example, the only realistic ones were Buckbeak and the Dementors. Also I don't like the way the sound or colour or the lighting of this film, I mean why do we have to hear a high pitched sound everytime someone waves their wand? I find it very distracting.

However I thought the casting for this movie was perfect, Lupin and Trelawney were excellent and John William's score was fantastic compared to the first two where he just overused Hedwg's theme in nearly every track.

Please note that this rant is my own personal opinion :D


I just watched PoA this weekend and had some thoughts to share. One of the first things that bothers me is Harry's line: "Uncle Vernon, I need you to sign this form." As an avid fan, I know that he means Hogsmeade, but for those who watch only the movies, it's just an open-ended statement. Form for what? (See what I mean?)

Well the non-readers soon found out what the form was for didn't they? Remember the scene in the courtyard where Harry begged Mcgonagall to sign it after she explained to everyone that they were visiting the village of Hogsmeade and if you didn't have permission you couldn't go?

I finally got my brother to watch POA recently - he read the first few books back in the day and only saw the first movie, so clearly he approached it as a film and not simply a HP film. One of his favorite movies is Cuaron's Y tu mamá también, and seeing as this was literally his next film, I was definitely interested in his opinion.

He loved it. The one main qualm was the Knight Bus sequence, as he just loathed everything about it. He had a good deal of questions for me afterward, but he generally followed the plot and made some astute inferences that most first-time viewers wouldn't.

POA will always be the HP film that interests adults as much as young adults or kids; you don't need to know anything about HP to appreciate it and the concepts within (as Cuaron said, POA was layered with so many abstract themes).

Well the non-readers soon found out what the form was for didn't they? Remember the scene in the courtyard where Harry begged Mcgonagall to sign it after she explained to everyone that they were visiting the village of Hogsmeade and if you didn't have permission you couldn't go?

Oh, that's right. I think I left the room at that part for something and forgot all about it.

To add to above, the Knight Bus scene bothered me too. I really didn't see the point of stopping for the old lady or squeezing between the other two buses except for a burst of humor and special effects. It made no sense either because the rest of the ride they are zooming around, avoiding everything in their path. Not trying to be a killjoy here, just my thoughts :)

In my opinion, PoA is a bit over-rated. It wasn't badly done as a whole but there were just some choices in terms of screen time that I really didn't understand. Cuaron wasted so much time with the knight bus sequence, Harry and Hermione being attacked by the whomping willow and the monster book of monsters. If those were cut out then time could have been made for the marauders back story which is really more important than some comedy relief.
Also, there were some small continuity errors that bugged me. When Hagrid is skipping stones after the hearing Harry is sitting on a rock in the background then gets up and starts to walk to the shore. The film cuts to a rear shot of all of them and Harry is suddenly on the rock again. Also, when Harry and Sirius are being attacked by the dementors, Sirius at one point, cringes and rithes in pain, then we cut to a top view and he suddenly seems to be unconcious. These arent huge errors but they are noticeable and fairly distracting and sloppy.
The good thing about PoA was the excellent casting. All of the new characters were handled perfectly by the actors. Even so, I found the film as a whole to be way to much of a departure from the source material and even then, the film making in general wasn't that impressive. It remains with me one of the weakest potter films.

While I love PoA, and it's one of my favorite movies in the series, there were some things I had a problem with. Namely, the muggle clothing inside school. From this movie on, they begun wearing muggle clothing in the school, and that doesn't sit well with me. Weekends and when not in class makes sense, but wearing muggle clothing just to wear muggle clothing irks me. Another thing was the lack of inclusion of the Marauder's story. Had they cut down on some of the comic relief, they could have had enough space for it.

But other than that, I love PoA. : )

While I love PoA, and it's one of my favorite movies in the series, there were some things I had a problem with. Namely, the muggle clothing inside school. From this movie on, they begun wearing muggle clothing in the school, and that doesn't sit well with me. Weekends and when not in class makes sense, but wearing muggle clothing just to wear muggle clothing irks me. Another thing was the lack of inclusion of the Marauder's story. Had they cut down on some of the comic relief, they could have had enough space for it.

But other than that, I love PoA. : )

There was comic relief?

There was comic relief?

A lot of it from what I can remember….
The knight bus
"I'll come back later"
“Dead Heads”
Bird killed by womping willow
"Is that what my hair looks like from behind?"
Ron's perplex exclamation when they came back after time travelling

I don't think it was out of place, the film was darkly comic and I enjoyed that style. It fitted with JKR humour in the books. I think they did the Sirius/Lupin relationship so well, I didn't mind about the Marauder's story being cut.

While I love PoA, and it's one of my favorite movies in the series, there were some things I had a problem with. Namely, the muggle clothing inside school. From this movie on, they begun wearing muggle clothing in the school, and that doesn't sit well with me. Weekends and when not in class makes sense, but wearing muggle clothing just to wear muggle clothing irks me. Another thing was the lack of inclusion of the Marauder's story. Had they cut down on some of the comic relief, they could have had enough space for it.

But other than that, I love PoA. : )
Could you please further clarify your position here? Your statements seem to contradict one another.

A lot of it from what I can remember….
The knight bus
"I'll come back later"
“Dead Heads”
Bird killed by womping willow
"Is that what my hair looks like from behind?"
Ron's perplex exclamation when they came back after time travelling

I don't think it was out of place, the film was darkly comic and I enjoyed that style. It fitted with JKR humour in the books. I think they did the Sirius/Lupin relationship so well, I didn't mind about the Marauder's story being cut.

Another piece of attempted comedy that I absolutely hated was when Hermione is being flung around by the womping willow, then grabs Harry and throws him down the passage. The whole looney tunes comedy effect didn't sit well, especially considering we just watched Ron get dragged away by the Grim, which the movie has spent a lot of time explaining is one of the worst things a person could encounter. Plus, the effects of the whole gag are laughable.

Another piece of attempted comedy that I absolutely hated was when Hermione is being flung around by the womping willow, then grabs Harry and throws him down the passage. The whole looney tunes comedy effect didn't sit well, especially considering we just watched Ron get dragged away by the Grim, which the movie has spent a lot of time explaining is one of the worst things a person could encounter. Plus, the effects of the whole gag are laughable.
Yet, it wasn't the Grim, after all. It was Sirius (in his animagus form) and he was after Scabbers/Pettigrew, not Ron.

Yet, it wasn't the Grim, after all. It was Sirius (in his animagus form) and he was after Scabbers/Pettigrew, not Ron.

Yes, but we dont know that at the time. For all we know Ron is being ripped to pieces. All we know for sure is that the Grim basically means death. Think of it from the point of view of a person who hadn't read the book or seen the movie before. Following up the Grim's appearance with a looney toons bit doesn't really seem appropriate.

Yes, but we dont know that at the time. For all we know Ron is being ripped to pieces. All we know for sure is that the Grim basically means death. Think of it from the point of view of a person who hadn't read the book or seen the movie before. Following up the Grim's appearance with a looney toons bit doesn't really seem appropriate.

I would've preferred a more pragmatic approach, too, but they couldn't use Crookshanks because that hadn't been established. Wouldn't classify it as 'Looney Tunes' but I can sort of understand your point.

Cuaron cleverly threw in a few shots of characters looking directly at the camera, but with the intent of immersion. (Harry during Quidditch, being grabbed by Hermione on the Willow, and Hermione on Buckbeak after they broke Sirius out of the tower).

Additionally, the Whomping Willow doesn't know what the story is - it just knows that people are encroaching on its territory. It's going to swing branches around violently and boldly regardless of what else may be going on - the tree isn't a sentient being, lol.

I would've preferred a more pragmatic approach, too, but they couldn't use Crookshanks because that hadn't been established. Wouldn't classify it as 'Looney Tunes' but I can sort of understand your point.

Cuaron cleverly threw in a few shots of characters looking directly at the camera, but with the intent of immersion. (Harry during Quidditch, being grabbed by Hermione on the Willow, and Hermione on Buckbeak after they broke Sirius out of the tower).

Additionally, the Whomping Willow doesn't know what the story is - it just knows that people are encroaching on its territory. It's going to swing branches around violently and boldly regardless of what else may be going on - the tree isn't a sentient being, lol.

I dont have a problem with the idea of the Harry and Hermione simply slipping past the whomping willow rather than having crookshanks immobilizing it. That whole part was understandably cut out. I just have a problem with how it was handled. The whole comedic approach I felt didn't fit and the poor effects didn't help.

Could you please further clarify your position here? Your statements seem to contradict one another.

I'm referring to when they're not in class, like on weekends, when they go to Hogsemead or else are in their common room and in their nightwear. But there were many times where the trio wandered around inside the castle in just their muggle clothing when they should have at least had the robes over them. This started in POA and easily carried on through GOF, OOTP and HBP. In SS/PS and COS, they at least had the cloaks over them if they were out, or the robes, but as the films progressed, they stopped wearing them.

While I liked PoA, I think the director was kind of unsure whether he was doing a comedy, a serious story, or something else totally. He seemed to try to throw in as much physical comedy and as many "funny" lines as he could, and, IMO, comes close to losing the seriousness of the story: a killer is on the loose and Harry thinks he's the target.

I do think the part inflating Aunt Marge was funny in the book and well done in the movie. I liked the first part of the Knight Bus trip, but, it got to be a little much after a while.


The Igor-like guy with Fudge...Tom...I never quite got the need to put him in there. I did like the scene with the Monster Book of Monsters, though. It was cute and funny and did, I think, fit into the story.

I thought the "I'll come back later" line was unnecessary. Also, when Ron and Hermione first see Harry on the stairs Ron speaks to him right away and Hermione waits a few seconds before speaking to him...like she almost forgot her line.

The set up of the Dementors was good and they were scary, mostly because you couldn't see their faces. The "unknown" is always more frightening. I don't like the OotP Dementors and find them more gruesome than scary.

I've never been a fan of the change in Dumbledore's robes when Gambon took over the part, or the little chain around his beard (???). I would have thought they'd want to keep the costuming as much the same as possible since it was a change in actors not characters.

I liked the scene in the dorm because I think it gave a sense of camaraderie that we didn't see much. If five people share a room for 10 months out of the year, they have to have a bit more interaction than just running into each other in the Common Room, but we seldom see that. I thought it was a neat touch...and, the contrast between them laughing in the warm dormitory and the storm raging outside was good at setting the mood.

That stupid little bird flitting around Hagrid and getting bashed by the Whomping Willow was a waste of good film, IMO.

The animation of Buckbeak was great and probably one of the best they've done. Better, I think, than Grawp.

Trelawney was well played and about as "eccentric" as she was in the book. I loved her glasses. She probably needed and "inner eye" to see if her eyes were that bad. That comic relief part was not too bad.

Who was the kid who kept coming up with the "fill" lines: what the Grimm was, catchng Sirius black was like trying to catch smoke, etc?

The scene in the Three Broomsticks seemed disjointed and uncomfortable. Fudge, McGonagall, and Hagrid go in, give the information about Sirius Black to Madame Rosemerta, then leave. It was just a little too contrived.

I particularly liked the Hermione's "encounter" with Draco. Good shot!

"Is that what my hair looks like from behind?" - another useless line. I guess it was suppose to be funny.

I wasn't a fan of the Whomping Willow thrill ride, either. I think they could have found another way to get Harry and Hermione inside the tunnel since they decided not to use Crookshanks.

Lupin's transformation and the werewolf character, I thought, were good and well done. Being a Snape fan, I liked the scene with him throwing himself in front of the kids, even if he was unconscious in the book. I don't guess it did any harm and was a nice still shot.

Ron's perplexed exclamation when they came back after time travelling -- another "awkward" moment.

I think the cast they have assembled is so great for the series of movies. I sometimes get embarassed at some of the lines they're given, though.

I don't think there was much comedy in it at all - the first 45 minutes or so basically contained all of the comedic moments and they were interspersed with the scary and serious ones.

Cuaron embraced the idiosyncrasies of the characters and of the world itself, and while he may have gone a bit overboard in a couple instances, I would put POA's comedy factor below most of the other films. If we want to talk about comedic misfires, GOF and HBP are way ahead. OoTP has its fair share as well.


You listed a lot of things, but I'll only pick a couple to refute from my perspective:

- 'Ron's perplexed exclamation' was perfect and following Dumbledore's 'Did what?' line, suited that scene very well. I'd be concerned if he wasn't a little surprised that Harry and Hermione changed places so quickly.

- The scene in the Three Broomsticks didn't allude to when Fudge, McGonagall, and Hagrid actually left - Harry's the one who runs out of the room and then we follow him. They could've stayed there for a fair amount of time, but clearly Sirius was the major issue in the wizarding world at that moment so jumping into conversation about him seems very plausible.

I don't think there was much comedy in it at all - the first 45 minutes or so basically contained all of the comedic moments and they were interspersed with the scary and serious ones.

Cuaron embraced the idiosyncrasies of the characters and of the world itself, and while he may have gone a bit overboard in a couple instances, I would put POA's comedy factor below most of the other films. If we want to talk about comedic misfires, GOF and HBP are way ahead. OoTP has its fair share as well.


You listed a lot of things, but I'll only pick a couple to refute from my perspective:

- 'Ron's perplexed exclamation' was perfect and following Dumbledore's 'Did what?' line, suited that scene very well. I'd be concerned if he wasn't a little surprised that Harry and Hermione changed places so quickly.

- The scene in the Three Broomsticks didn't allude to when Fudge, McGonagall, and Hagrid actually left - Harry's the one who runs out of the room and then we follow him. They could've stayed there for a fair amount of time, but clearly Sirius was the major issue in the wizarding world at that moment so jumping into conversation about him seems very plausible.

I still found the dialogue during the meeting a bit stinted and forced. It was like "make sure someone asks all the right questions so we can fill in as much information as possible in this scene."

I'll back off the Ron scene. It wasn't a favorite, but, it works.

No, they didn't show Fudge and the group leaving, but, if memory serves, they were preparing to leave when Harry darted out of the tavern.

It must be very difficult to pick up a movie that is part of a series and "make it your own." That's when I think the ego of the artist -- the director -- has to take a backseat to the integrity of the story. But, as it seems the movies are being made to more or less stand on their own, I guess it doesn't matter.

Don't get me started on GoF, OotP, and, especially HBP.

Okay, allow me to say this: PoA is by far my favourite film of the series. Without a doubt. It's the only film that really stands on its own as a film. PoA and CoS were decent, but were lacking in anything visually interesting and they had too much plot and not enough character development. GoF was a nice action-packed film, but you'd have to see previous films to fully appreciate it. From OotP onwards you'd definitely have to have read the books to understand anything about the movies.

Anyways, I think that what this film really succeeded in was character development. For the first - and last - time in the series, Harry, Ron and Hermione actually felt like not only book-loyal characters, but realistic ones as well. In the little time Lupin is given on the screen, you really get a sense of how he is as a character; the same can be said for Sirius Black, and while his turnaround may be a bit out of order, it makes sense. Even characters who are almost cameo-like in terms of their time on screen, like the executioner and Madam Rosmerta, feel like characters, which I'm afraid can't be said for earlier or later films. Somewhere on the Ultimate Edition DVDs it mentions that Alfonso Cuaron wanted every scene to be character-defining in some way, and I have to say that is what gives the film a full feel to it.

Even with the omission of the Marauders' plotline, the film still makes far more sense than later films, without being riddled with the irrelevant plotlines of the first two films. The score is perfection. The only gaping hole I've found in the youths' acting is Dan's "ripped to pieces? What are you talking about?" line, as well as the unfortunately indecent "he was their friend" scene. The final hour of the film works wonders, achieving a far more creepy effect for the Dementors than David Yates could ever have - and will ever - do. The action here, combined with the music and Harry's hopeless attempt to fend off the Dementors, leaves you in the one of the only moment of the series in which you honestly fear for Harry's death, even having read the books and seen the movies countless times. The emotions that run through the film are skyrocketing all the way through, and I think it's the only film that gets pacing, emotion, character development, and action right.

I have way more to say, including how they got Hogwarts right for the first time, the cinematography is no longer bland, the grounds are gorgeous for the first time, and, of course, the famous courtyard is created, but I don't want to make this a tl;dr post, so I'll stop right here. :) One last word: after seeing this film four times in a week and not ever getting bored, this puts all the other Harry Potter films - and most non-Potter films, to shame.

Okay, allow me to say this: PoA is by far my favourite film of the series. Without a doubt. It's the only film that really stands on its own as a film. PoA and CoS were decent, but were lacking in anything visually interesting and they had too much plot and not enough character development. GoF was a nice action-packed film, but you'd have to see previous films to fully appreciate it. From OotP onwards you'd definitely have to have read the books to understand anything about the movies.

Anyways, I think that what this film really succeeded in was character development. For the first - and last - time in the series, Harry, Ron and Hermione actually felt like not only book-loyal characters, but realistic ones as well. In the little time Lupin is given on the screen, you really get a sense of how he is as a character; the same can be said for Sirius Black, and while his turnaround may be a bit out of order, it makes sense. Even characters who are almost cameo-like in terms of their time on screen, like the executioner and Madam Rosmerta, feel like characters, which I'm afraid can't be said for earlier or later films. Somewhere on the Ultimate Edition DVDs it mentions that Alfonso Cuaron wanted every scene to be character-defining in some way, and I have to say that is what gives the film a full feel to it.

Even with the omission of the Marauders' plotline, the film still makes far more sense than later films, without being riddled with the irrelevant plotlines of the first two films. The score is perfection. The only gaping hole I've found in the youths' acting is Dan's "ripped to pieces? What are you talking about?" line, as well as the unfortunately indecent "he was their friend" scene. The final hour of the film works wonders, achieving a far more creepy effect for the Dementors than David Yates could ever have - and will ever - do. The action here, combined with the music and Harry's hopeless attempt to fend off the Dementors, leaves you in the one of the only moment of the series in which you honestly fear for Harry's death, even having read the books and seen the movies countless times. The emotions that run through the film are skyrocketing all the way through, and I think it's the only film that gets pacing, emotion, character development, and action right.

I have way more to say, including how they got Hogwarts right for the first time, the cinematography is no longer bland, the grounds are gorgeous for the first time, and, of course, the famous courtyard is created, but I don't want to make this a tl;dr post, so I'll stop right here. :) One last word: after seeing this film four times in a week and not ever getting bored, this puts all the other Harry Potter films - and most non-Potter films, to shame.

Great post. My affinity and respect towards POA as a film is just as strong - my taste in film is pretty varied (and good, if I might say so, lol), and POA is easily one of my favorite movies ever. We could delve into all the nuances that Cuaron laced the film with, too.

The bolded part is absolutely true. As I posted earlier today, my brother recently viewed it for the first time and was blown away by the latter portion of the film. Everything comes together so perfectly; all the characters are battling against something and yet the audience doesn't feel detached from any of them.

"Yes" to both of the above posts. And, believe it or not, even with my list of "complaints" PoA is my favorite of the films...up to DH 1. If I had to pick one HP film out of the group, it would be the one.

The scenery, cinematography, sets, musical score are all great. And, as you said, jallen, it is the only one of the later films that can be understood as a "stand alone," not requiring having read the books to understand it. SS and CoS were OK, as far as they went. But, PoA was better. From there, IMO, it went downhill. I'm not a fan of any of the three after that...except for the actors in them, that would be why I'd watch them.

I liked the way that the clock was prominent in PoA, which echoed the time-turner theme. I thought the interaction with HHR was very good. There were just some things that were left out that might have been in had there not been the extended Knight Bus ride, some of the little sight jokes (like the bird), and such. I was sorry they couldn't work Crookshanks in more, as he was in the book, but I guess that would have required a lot of background that they didn't have time for.

Ultimately, where Prisoner really succeeded as a film is that it told a story exceptionally well. Where it succeeded as an adaptation is that it found good cinematic devices to re-tell accurately a story originally told in a very different medium.

It is pretty clear that Prisoner is going to be remembered as the standout achievement of the series. Had this not been a summer film burdened by the preconceptions of the first two HP films, then this might have gotten Oscar consideration, at least for best adapted screenplay.

Ultimately, where Prisoner really succeeded as a film is that it told a story exceptionally well. Where it succeeded as an adaptation is that it found good cinematic devices to re-tell accurately a story originally told in a very different medium.

It is pretty clear that Prisoner is going to be remembered as the standout achievement of the series. Had this not been a summer film burdened by the preconceptions of the first two HP films, then this might have gotten Oscar consideration, at least for best adapted screenplay.

Very well said. I've never been one to give much credence to how many awards a film receives, especially once you start looking down the list of films that actually win awards (just in the last decade alone, there have been a lot of poor selections). Fortunately enough, POA was received very well critically and by adult audiences; it's something, at least.

While this thread is active again, I wanted to include a fantastic quote from Cuarón (http://movies.ign.com/articles/520/520489p3.html), regarding his lack of experience with the material and then actually reading the book:

So I read the script without having read the book. Then I read the book and I thought I better do this. It's so awesome. It's so layered. I don't care if they're wizards, they have human emotions. And real human emotions. And the levels of reading... I mean, you can see this just as an adventure or you can see it as a metaphor about racism and classicism and power, and also about friendship and loneliness.

He really grasped - and embraced - the abstract and personal themes of POA and the final product demonstrates that.

While this thread is active again, I wanted to include a fantastic quote from Cuarón (http://movies.ign.com/articles/520/520489p3.html), regarding his lack of experience with the material and then actually reading the book:



He really grasped - and embraced - the abstract and personal themes of POA and the final product demonstrates that.

I think that is essentially what makes PoA such a great book and film. It surfaces the right elements from the book and brings them front-and-center, the buries them deep within the film again. Rather than completely copying the themes, it's taking them out and putting them back in again - which succeeds are far more original effect.

POA and HBP alternate as the best in the series. In both films, the direction, cinematography, score, visuals, SFX, editing, sound mixing, character development....it's all superb and well executed. In some areas, POA has the edge (in script, pacing and editing) but in other areas, HBP is better (in cinematography, symbolism and foreshadowing).

In regards to the Dementors, I think both designs suit their film's tone. And really, OOTP's Dementors are just the POA ones without the long cloak and hood. But I bet some people prefer POA's Dementors because they were the "original" design.

Wow, I just logged in here for the first time since May 21st 2005! From memory, I think I left because the old "shipper wars" were getting me all angry and frustrated, so I sought solace at a H/Hr forum that no longer exists unfortunately.

Anyway, I was looking through the special features on the PoA blu-ray this afternoon, specifically the interview/discussion thingy between JKR and AC. In it, and I remember this from the last time I watched the dvd version ages ago, JKR mentions getting goosebumps while watching PoA, as Alfonso and/or Steve had inadvertently foreshadowed things that were going to happen in the "last two books". She even said that when fans went back and re-watched PoA after finishing reading the series, they'd think these things were put in on purpose, even though they were actually just happy accidents.

My question is, has anyone here actually managed to pick out these things that she's referring to? Because I watched PoA a few weeks ago and don't recall anything in particular, however I didn't know to look out for it. Plus it doesn't help that, unlike the rest of the books, I've only read HBP two or three times and DH only once, so there's probably a lot of things that happen in them that I can't recall.

If there's some long-forgotten thread discussing this very topic, please feel free to point me in the right direction. Otherwise, I'd love to hear what you think. :)

Anyway, I was looking through the special features on the PoA blu-ray this afternoon, specifically the interview/discussion thingy between JKR and AC. In it, and I remember this from the last time I watched the dvd version ages ago, JKR mentions getting goosebumps while watching PoA, as Alfonso and/or Steve had inadvertently foreshadowed things that were going to happen in the "last two books". She even said that when fans went back and re-watched PoA after finishing reading the series, they'd think these things were put in on purpose, even though they were actually just happy accidents.

My question is, has anyone here actually managed to pick out these things that she's referring to? Because I watched PoA a few weeks ago and don't recall anything in particular, however I didn't know to look out for it. Plus it doesn't help that, unlike the rest of the books, I've only read HBP two or three times and DH only once, so there's probably a lot of things that happen in them that I can't recall.

I never understood that definitively either, but I think one such happy accident was the scene when they all come out of the Shrieking Shack and Lupin transforms. In the book, Snape is still knocked out when that happens. In the movie, for some reason, they made Snape come back to his senses and throw his arms out in front of the Trio in a gesture of protection. Perhaps this act of Snape protecting Harry was something JKR felt strayed too close to her future plans of revealing Snape's loyalty.

Anyway, I was looking through the special features on the PoA blu-ray this afternoon, specifically the interview/discussion thingy between JKR and AC. In it, and I remember this from the last time I watched the dvd version ages ago, JKR mentions getting goosebumps while watching PoA, as Alfonso and/or Steve had inadvertently foreshadowed things that were going to happen in the "last two books". She even said that when fans went back and re-watched PoA after finishing reading the series, they'd think these things were put in on purpose, even though they were actually just happy accidents.

My question is, has anyone here actually managed to pick out these things that she's referring to? Because I watched PoA a few weeks ago and don't recall anything in particular, however I didn't know to look out for it. Plus it doesn't help that, unlike the rest of the books, I've only read HBP two or three times and DH only once, so there's probably a lot of things that happen in them that I can't recall.

If there's some long-forgotten thread discussing this very topic, please feel free to point me in the right direction. Otherwise, I'd love to hear what you think. :)

Hmm... the only inadvertant foreshadowing I can think of is Ron and Hermione but I suppose that was intentional since GOF the book had been released before the movie - the only reason it was a surprise to me was because I didn't read the HP series until after I saw POA the film.

Perhaps I should rewatch POA... :)

My question is, has anyone here actually managed to pick out these things that she's referring to? Because I watched PoA a few weeks ago and don't recall anything in particular, however I didn't know to look out for it. Plus it doesn't help that, unlike the rest of the books, I've only read HBP two or three times and DH only once, so there's probably a lot of things that happen in them that I can't recall.

If there's some long-forgotten thread discussing this very topic, please feel free to point me in the right direction. Otherwise, I'd love to hear what you think. :)

I remember seeing this on the DVD as well, so the last time I watched PoA I looked for clues as to what these moments may be.

The one thing that really stood out to me was Lupin's line to Harry on the bridge, which goes something like: "(Lily) had the ability to see the good in someone, even when they could not see it in themselves." This is obviously meant to refer to Lupin and his furry little problem, but I think it's possible that JKR thought of Lily and Snape (in DH) when she heard it.

Snape using non-verbal magic when he entered the DADA classroom is foreshadowing, but I don't know whether that's what she meant. His more obvious protection of the trio from the werewolf seems very likely to me.

She was probably referring to Ron and Hermione, too.

The was a lot of discussion here that Lupin's remark referred to Lily being his friend, but that didn't materialize in the later books. I don't see it meaning Lily and Sev either because I don't feel he thought he didn't deserve her friendship.

I was looking through the special features on the PoA blu-ray this afternoon, specifically the interview/discussion thingy between JKR and AC. In it, and I remember this from the last time I watched the dvd version ages ago, JKR mentions getting goosebumps while watching PoA, as Alfonso and/or Steve had inadvertently foreshadowed things that were going to happen in the "last two books". She even said that when fans went back and re-watched PoA after finishing reading the series, they'd think these things were put in on purpose, even though they were actually just happy accidents.

My question is, has anyone here actually managed to pick out these things that she's referring to? Because I watched PoA a few weeks ago and don't recall anything in particular, however I didn't know to look out for it. Plus it doesn't help that, unlike the rest of the books, I've only read HBP two or three times and DH only once, so there's probably a lot of things that happen in them that I can't recall.

What about the memory Harry chooses to conjure his Patronus? I can't remember the situation exactly, but Lupin is talking to Harry after the lesson, and the conversation turns to James. Harry says something about "I was thinking of him. And Mum. They were talking to me, just talking. I don't even know if it's real... But it's the happiest I've ever felt."

That sounds a LOT like the scene in DH where Harry uses the Resurrection Stone, doesn't it?

Another one: when Harry's in the hospital wing after falling off his Nimbus, somebody (I believe Ron?) says Harry doesn't look very good (or something to that effect), to which either Fred or George replies, "Yeah, well, he fell over a hundred feet. Let's knock you off the Astronomy Tower and see how you look."

Could be foreshadowing of Dumbledore's death?

Snape protecting the kids, and Lupin saying that Lily had a knack for seeing the good in people, could fit too. I personally doubt it was the Ron/Hermione thing; that'd been foreshadowed in the books and the previous movies as well, so it wasn't something that was included specifically in PoA.

I think JKR was referring to one specific line from the film.

Harry stops Sirius and Lupin in the shrieking shack from killing Pettigrew because "I don't think my dad would want his two best friends to become killers."

I think JKR was reminded of the upcoming plot of James stopping his two best friends from becoming killers, when Sirius as a student at Hogwarts sent Snape to be killed by werewolf Lupin, and James intervened.

Wow, thanks for all your responses. I agree that the bit involving Snape is very likely one thing she was referring to (i.e. him protecting Harry), and also the dialogue concerning Lily seeing the good in people.

Hermione4788 - I also love what you said re: falling from the Astronomy tower... although I personally wouldn't class it as foreshadowing, I'll bet JK would have had a secret smile to herself over that line!

Any other bits that may have been foreshadowing HBP? She did say "the last two books", after all. ;)

I agree that it probably wouldn't include the R/Hr stuff because we already knew about that before the PoA movie came out (yes, even as a H/Hr shipper I still grudgingly admitted that, lol).

I agree that the bit involving Snape is very likely one thing she was referring to (i.e. him protecting Harry),
Snape was protecting Harry in the first book, when Quirrellmort tried to knock Harry off his broom in Quiddich and Snape performed the counter jinx.

and also the dialogue concerning Lily seeing the good in people.
This wasn't in the books - only the movies.


This is what i think JKR was referring to:

foreshadowing in Movie:

Sirius and Lupin - killing Pettigrew - in the Shrieking Shack - stopped by Harry because "I don't think my dad would want his two best friends to become killers."

Book scene:

Sirius and Lupin - killing Snape - in the Shrieking Shack - stopped by James because he didn't want his two best friends to become killers.

Snape was protecting Harry in the first book, when Quirrellmort tried to knock Harry off his broom in Quiddich and Snape performed the counter jinx.

Yeah, but an explanation for that was already given by Dumbledore to Harry (about Snape feeling indebted to James for saving his life). The audience has no reason to believe he would continue protecting Harry even afterwards as payment to James.

This is what i think JKR was referring to:

foreshadowing in Movie:

Sirius and Lupin - killing Pettigrew - in the Shrieking Shack - stopped by Harry because "I don't think my dad would want his two best friends to become killers."

Book scene:

Sirius and Lupin - killing Snape - in the Shrieking Shack - stopped by James because he didn't want his two best friends to become killers.

The werewolf prank was already covered fully in PoA (the book) which was already out before PoA (the movie) came out. So she couldn't have been referring to this. :)

The werewolf prank was already covered fully in PoA (the book) which was already out before PoA (the movie) came out. So she couldn't have been referring to this. :)

You're right - the werewolf prank was explained in book PoA. I stand corrected.

Then my wild guess goes for Snape protecting Harry :D

Then my wild guess goes for Snape protecting Harry :D

I like that one too :D But my favorite foreshadowing would be the Astronomy Tower thing :wow:

The only reason why i gave it only 1 star was because i certainly didn't think it was so good. I thought it was terrible. If there was a 0 stars choice i woulda chosen that instead.

Snape protecting Harry. Albus and his goat; allusions, however vague to Harry's parents.

The whole affair with Buckbeak is something I could have done without. I found it to be extremely dull. It seemed like that was the only thing the film was about. Maybe that's just me, though.

That having been said, I did enjoy the boggart class. Professor Snape in a dress was too hilarious.

I liked Buckbeak. And the trio researching ways to keep him alive. Otherwise, how would Harry and Hermione help Sirius to escape? Buckbeak did come back in the fifth book and in HBP and DH.

Buckbeak not only returns, he has a purpose. He is another example of the magical world and it's creatures. It just rounds out the story. We have pixie and pygmy puffs and thestrals. Buckbeak is just an example. Plus it's cool for a 13 year old boy to ride on! He is instrumental in helping them escape Lupin the Werewolf and to helping Sirius escape. Without Buckbeak, I don't think the kids had another plan of escape for Sirius.

Wow, I just logged in here for the first time since May 21st 2005! From memory, I think I left because the old "shipper wars" were getting me all angry and frustrated, so I sought solace at a H/Hr forum that no longer exists unfortunately.

Anyway, I was looking through the special features on the PoA blu-ray this afternoon, specifically the interview/discussion thingy between JKR and AC. In it, and I remember this from the last time I watched the dvd version ages ago, JKR mentions getting goosebumps while watching PoA, as Alfonso and/or Steve had inadvertently foreshadowed things that were going to happen in the "last two books". She even said that when fans went back and re-watched PoA after finishing reading the series, they'd think these things were put in on purpose, even though they were actually just happy accidents.

My question is, has anyone here actually managed to pick out these things that she's referring to? Because I watched PoA a few weeks ago and don't recall anything in particular, however I didn't know to look out for it. Plus it doesn't help that, unlike the rest of the books, I've only read HBP two or three times and DH only once, so there's probably a lot of things that happen in them that I can't recall.

If there's some long-forgotten thread discussing this very topic, please feel free to point me in the right direction. Otherwise, I'd love to hear what you think. :)

One moment that really sticks out in my mind is when Harry is down by the lake trying to fend off the dementors from him and Sirius. At one point, Harry is attacked by two dementors with one trying to suck out one soul and the other one trying to suck out another. Two souls.

In my opinion the hints would have to be something that Cuaron added in the movies that weren't in the book.

1. Harry using Lumos Maxima in dark areas, which he later did in HBP in the cave.
2. Hermione and Ron holding hands in the first buckbeak scene, which they later did in both HBP and DH.

What about the Marauder's map? Harry uses the map in POA to watch for teachers when he is getting ready to go to Honey Dukes. In DH, didn't Harry spend time looking at the map watching for Ginny's dot so he could imagine what she was doing at Hogwarts? Or was that just in the book? And the Marauder's map wasn't able to show Harry where Draco went whenever he was in the ROR. I thought in HBP Harry would check the map occassionally. Of course, that could have been just in the books.

In my opinion the hints would have to be something that Cuaron added in the movies that weren't in the book.

1. Harry using Lumos Maxima in dark areas, which he later did in HBP in the cave.
2. Hermione and Ron holding hands in the first buckbeak scene, which they later did in both HBP and DH.

But would something like that have given her goosebumps?

What about the Marauder's map? Harry uses the map in POA to watch for teachers when he is getting ready to go to Honey Dukes. In DH, didn't Harry spend time looking at the map watching for Ginny's dot so he could imagine what she was doing at Hogwarts? Or was that just in the book? And the Marauder's map wasn't able to show Harry where Draco went whenever he was in the ROR. I thought in HBP Harry would check the map occassionally. Of course, that could have been just in the books.

Why would JKR get goosebumps seeing Harry use the Marauders' map when watching PoA since it's in the book?

Maybe she sat under a fan? lol

I am currently watching the movie on ABC Family. What struck me as odd, there is no room for Harry at the dining room table when Aunt Marge is there. True, he is clearing the dishes, but there is a chair off to the side. Would he have to move his chair from the table and his dishes as soon as he was done eating? otherwise, it didn't look like there was room for him. Unless he ate at the breakfast bar.

My only complaint with PoA are the shrunken heads and the comical Knight Bus scene. Totally unnecessary, in my opinion. And not very funny.

Otherwise, I think it's one of the best book--->movie adaptions!

Prisoner does a lot of things right, but is spoilt for me by a few things that are not just wrong, but broken beyond reason.

1. Dumbledore. I know it can't have been easy stepping into Richard Harris' shoes, but Michael Gambon really didn't get Dumbledore right until Order of the Phoenix. (He got it even more badly wrong in Goblet, IMO.) The scene where he's mauling Ron's injured leg grates on my nerves every time.

2. The Marauders. I've said this elsewhere on other threads about the films, but there is a massive plot hole surrounding the origins of the map and the identity of it's creators, and to cut that out in a film that is already so short in comparison is a crying shame. How does Lupin know what the parchment is or how it works? How does Harry know that Pettigrew is also known as Wormtail when it's not explained in this film (yet he refers to him as Wormtail in Goblet?).

3. Dementors don't fly, they glide along the ground. Making them able to fly added nothing to the story, other than an excuse to pimp out the Quidditch game. What it did do was take away the stag patronus, after all, how does a stag charge down something flying fifty feet up in the air? So, we got the pulsing wave of light instead.

Fix these three, and maybe teach Dan how to cry properly, and this could have been the best of the lot, no questions asked. The time-turner sequence was very well made, Trelawney was epic, Buckbeak is a triumph of animatronics and effects combined and the showdown between Sirius, Remus, Snape and Pettigrew in the shack was pitch perfect.

It's still an eminently watchable film, but frustrating as hell when you know it could have been so much better.

P3. Dementors don't fly, they glide along the ground. Making them able to fly added nothing to the story, other than an excuse to pimp out the Quidditch game. What it did do was take away the stag patronus, after all, how does a stag charge down something flying fifty feet up in the air? So, we got the pulsing wave of light instead.
This doesn't have an effect on the overall story. Having them fly instead of glide doesn't really change the story. It makes it more exciting, though.

Prisoner does a lot of things right, but is spoilt for me by a few things that are not just wrong, but broken beyond reason.

1. Dumbledore. I know it can't have been easy stepping into Richard Harris' shoes, but Michael Gambon really didn't get Dumbledore right until Order of the Phoenix. (He got it even more badly wrong in Goblet, IMO.) The scene where he's mauling Ron's injured leg grates on my nerves every time.

2. The Marauders. I've said this elsewhere on other threads about the films, but there is a massive plot hole surrounding the origins of the map and the identity of it's creators, and to cut that out in a film that is already so short in comparison is a crying shame. How does Lupin know what the parchment is or how it works? How does Harry know that Pettigrew is also known as Wormtail when it's not explained in this film (yet he refers to him as Wormtail in Goblet?).

3. Dementors don't fly, they glide along the ground. Making them able to fly added nothing to the story, other than an excuse to pimp out the Quidditch game. What it did do was take away the stag patronus, after all, how does a stag charge down something flying fifty feet up in the air? So, we got the pulsing wave of light instead.

Fix these three, and maybe teach Dan how to cry properly, and this could have been the best of the lot, no questions asked. The time-turner sequence was very well made, Trelawney was epic, Buckbeak is a triumph of animatronics and effects combined and the showdown between Sirius, Remus, Snape and Pettigrew in the shack was pitch perfect.

It's still an eminently watchable film, but frustrating as hell when you know it could have been so much better.

I agree with most of what you wrote.
However I find PoA almost unwatchable EXCEPT for a few scenes that I enjoy such as Harry's flight on Buckbeak, his conversation with Remus on the bridge and the Boggart lesson.
The flying Dementors don't worry me, what does is the lack of logic in that Quiddich sequence. I mean, we see Harry and the Hufflepuff Seeker (We are not told in the movie it is Cedric) trying to catch the Snitch. We see the lightening bolt and the Hufflepuff Seeker fall, then it must be him in the Hospital Wing when the others visit Harry. Yet Ron tells Harry that Gryffindor lost.
I thought a Quiddich match only ended when the Snitch is caught. In this movie version both Seekers are out of the game so how did it end?

I hate that scene with Dumbledore and Ron's leg. It is so stupid! What I hate more is Ron in plaster. In CoS, after Harry's loss of bones, Madame Pomprey says:
"I can mend broken bones in a trice,"
Therefore Ron should not have been in plaster. It was done to make him look even dumber and to have a scene like the one with Dumbledore hitting him.

I detest the lack of Marauder information, especially as it relates to Harry's Patronus form. It is so emotional in the book when you realize that Harry's dad was a stag Animagus and thus his Patronus represents his dad who is still, in a way, protecting him.

There are many other things I hate about PoA but the main one is the emergence of "Cowardly, Clown Ron" and "Emione, the kick action super girl".:td:
From this point in the movies Ron ceases to be Harry's best friend and becomes a "Tag-along" to the other two. His character is dumbed down, his best lines are taken, he is arranged in the background of scenes, made to look and act scared and is just not canon Ron.:grumble:
On the other hand, Hermione Granger from the books, ceases to exist and becomes "Emione" where Emma Watson puts more of what she is than of what Jo Rowling wrote into the character we see on screen.:td:
Emione is Harry's best friend, she mocks poor cowardly Ron, she laughs at the snowballs while Ron cringes, she picks up Harry with one hand while swinging on the Whomping Willow, and throws him exactly where she wants him, She stands up to Sirius in the Shack, she makes Werewolf calls, she's in charge during the Time-turner sequence, she sets Sirius free, she's "the brightest witch of her age", all the time wondering what her hair looks like from the back.:grumble:
To me, these character changes are what, ultimately, ruined PoA (and parts of the later movies) for me.

In my opinion the hints would have to be something that Cuaron added in the movies that weren't in the book.

1. Harry using Lumos Maxima in dark areas, which he later did in HBP in the cave.
2. Hermione and Ron holding hands in the first buckbeak scene, which they later did in both HBP and DH.

But would something like that have given her goosebumps?Subjective question. How would you know her feelings, her reactions? She created a monstrosity of magic, her brain is an encyclopedia of phenomenal fiction. She's famous, rich, and from hours of interviews doesn't come across as a douche.

1. She was excited about 2 things in the movie that hinted what would happen in the last 2 books.
2. The two things I mentioned aren't in the POA novel, but they actually show up in the last 2 books.

Perhaps your response would make sense if you pointed out what you think was "goosebump worthy" in the POA movie.

Maybe she sat under a fan? lol

An excellent possibility. Very amusing if true.

I've had two different feelings for this movie over the years. My first feeling was that it was the best movie in the whole series, I loved it. But that was before I read the books, and got more critical. I still love this movie, but there are small things now that just annoy. What I've come to realise though is that a book to screen adaption is NEVER going to be perfect. We just have to accept that and hope for a semi-awesome or awesome movie.

Some things they did right:

The time-tuner scene. I really couldn't have asked for anything more from it. From the time Dumbledore came into the Hospital wing, to when he was walking out, and Harry and Hermione said that they did it..It was just great.

The new cast. Gary Oldman, Michael Gambon, Emma Thompson, David Thewlis they all did AMAZING. I know people have qualms about Michael as Dumbledore in the 4th film, but in the 3rd? He's good, and he had pretty big shoes to fill. Emma was the perfect Trelawney.

The Shrieking Shack scene. It was almost perfect, but we'll get to why it wasn't completely perfect.

Hermione punching Draco, classic scene. :lol:

Things that annoyed me:

Dan's rage scene. I love him, he's a great Harry, but his acting in that scene. *cringe*

I really just wanted them to reveal more about the Marauders, their backstory, etc. This never use to bother me. :(

I really wished they would have completed the scene where Sirius is holding a knife above Ron's bed. There is an incomplete scene of this where they're all huddled in the common room after it happens.


My rating on this film today:

It's not perfect, but there are far more things in that movie that I loved then hate. I may not be completely infatuated with this film like I use to be, but I think that it is one of the better adaptions, it's definitely not the worst.

PoA is my second favourite of the films, and I do get annoyed by the stuff they left out but the style it was done in was great and those addition moments concerning future books are too.

But I've always wondered about this (and sorry if has already been addressed): who made the decision to add in Snape protecting the trio in the werewolf scene? Did J.K. Rowling have a say in this? Or was it added just to show how dangerous Lupin was (that even Snape takes it so seriously for the kids he hates) and/or they simply didn't want Snape unconscious with them and that they needed him to do something?

PoA is my second favourite of the films, and I do get annoyed by the stuff they left out but the style it was done in was great and those addition moments concerning future books are too.

But I've always wondered about this (and sorry if has already been addressed): who made the decision to add in Snape protecting the trio in the werewolf scene? Did J.K. Rowling have a say in this? Or was it added just to show how dangerous Lupin was (that even Snape takes it so seriously for the kids he hates) and/or they simply didn't want Snape unconscious with them and that they needed him to do something?

Steve Kloves was the screen writer so I assume he created the scene.

Although Snape got everyone safely back to the castle in the book this is better visually besides being an easier way of getting him out of the Shack. I've always thought this was one of the foreshadowing scenes JKR was talking about because he was actively protecting the kids, foreshadowing that he'd been Harry's protector all along.

Steve Kloves was the screen writer so I assume he created the scene.

Although Snape got everyone safely back to the castle in the book this is better visually besides being an easier way of getting him out of the Shack. I've always thought this was one of the foreshadowing scenes JKR was talking about because he was actively protecting the kids, foreshadowing that he'd been Harry's protector all along.

Yeah for the film it's better than Snape just being unconscious, but I always thought there was more behind it seeing that he was protecting them and not doing something else; deeper reasons, so it makes sense if J.K.R. was involved.

Either way, I love that part. It makes me wonder if book-Snape was conscious, faced with werewolf-Lupin with the kids in danger and had no wand with him, would he do something like that?

Was anyone else as annoyed as I was that, in this movie especially, there seems to be a lack of school uniform? In the Care of Magical Creatures class, they are shown wearing their uniforms, but all of their ties are undone, shirts are untucked, and they look really sloppy. In most of the other scenes they are just wearing "Muggle" clothes. I dunno, that always bothered me, along with many other things.

Was anyone else as annoyed as I was that, in this movie especially, there seems to be a lack of school uniform? In the Care of Magical Creatures class, they are shown wearing their uniforms, but all of their ties are undone, shirts are untucked, and they look really sloppy. In most of the other scenes they are just wearing "Muggle" clothes. I dunno, that always bothered me, along with many other things.

Yes, the sloppiness bothered me too, though I've been told that it's the usual thing in some schools. Not in our Lutheran and RC parochial schools! After that movie they seemed to being wearing Muggle clothes most of the time.

My first post yaay! :D
So, I remember when I first saw the movie that I absolutely HATED it. I hated the ommiting of the school uniforms, the darkness of Hogwarts, Lupin and Black being completely different from the Lupin and Black in my head, the fact that they left so much out (Marauder's story, Ron/Hermione fight etc..) and just the complete change of atmosphere compared to the first two movies.

Now, I'm a bit more open-minded and two days ago I watced PoA again. I think Cuaron did an excellent job. I didn't really mind the Muggle clothes anymore, (since they were on the school grounds anyway) and I quite like Lupin. Black really should be more hot though :p
Where SS and COS begin to drag after a while, PoA really 'blends' well. It's one of the pottermovies that can stand perfectly well on its own. + I like the atmosphere now, guess I was too young then :p

The things I really liked: Trelawney! She's perfect. The trio (and I love Harry's hair in this, it was perfect!), Buckbeak, Lupin, the Time-Turner sequence and Dumbledore (mind, imho Gambon really did an awful job in portraying DD in Goblet of Fire, but in this movie he's really good.) Furthermore I loved the soundtrack and specially that song the students were singing in the beginning. Maybe it was unnecessary, but it was a nice add! + The smooth transitions between scenes. And some really good screenwriting.

Bugged me a lot: Like Snugglepot said: Hermione, though Watson did a good job, I don't like the way they portray her. Is she superwoman or what? And WHY would she care how her hair looks from the back? Ron being pushed aside and merely used for comic relief. Hermione getting some really awesome lines that were Ron's (if you want to kill Sirius you'll have to kill us first!) :sad: And the foreshadowing of Herm/Ron getting together which was waaaaay too early.
That talking head in the Knight Bus, it worked on my nerves! The Whomping Willow is shown maybe a little too much. Harry stealing Neville's candy (why on earth would he do that?) and Radcliffe's crying scene lol. It was so bad it got funny. :D

But despite the minuses PoA has become my second favourite HP movie after DH pt 1.