PoA Film Discussion v3 [Archive]

CajunFry

October 14th, 2004, 1:29 am

Good day (or evening) everyone. This is my first post here in the COS forums and I am starting with this thread because it is a very interesting subject matter and I am able to easily give my opinion on the matter with, what I hope is, a logical and thorough argument. I tend to be rather lengthy in my posts, so please, bear with me. Therefore, I'll get started.

First of all, I personally enjoyed the film very much on many levels and I believe that it was a fine effort put forth by Alfonso Cuaron and his crew on most counts. You will see later on that I become highly critical and opinionated, which I do not mean to come out sounding offensive or "elitist" as some say, but just trying to make sense of things in the universe. I love Harry Potter just as much as everyone else here and I wish to merely keep that love strong and infinite........ ;-)

-

The overall feel and vision of POA was dead-on from what I had imagined from the dozen or so readings of the book. The third year for Harry was decidedly darker and more dangerous (mentally and physically) than the previous two and POA reflects this very well. The change from the standard Hollywood movie look to the more grainy, almost homemade look gave it the edge it needed to make it interesting and more stimulating than its predecessors. It also seemed to walk the lines of a horror-movie style of filmmaking, though certainly not a horror movie by most standards. I felt that the blending of the blues, grays and blacks was done nicely and with good intent. It was a far departure from the rich and colorful world of Harry Potter as seen in SS and COS, which I had worried that anything other than what I had seen beforehand would just not look right or wouldn't work completely at all. However, Alfonso got the look right and he helped to make it feel just as magical with a more tempered color palette. Well done! :tu:
This next part of my critique will focus on the acting. On the whole, the cast did an outstanding job. The famous trio has obviously matured into their roles since we last saw them and the early signs of teenage rebellion began to surface. Dan Radcliffe gave a much more believable performance, minus the crying scene. I think we all could've used some fake tears there (at least) to help make the scene a little more poignant and realistic. That's just a minor qualm though, so in the end it didn't matter much. The stunningly beautiful Emma Watson once again performed brilliantly as Hermione Granger, always stealing scenes (and boys' hearts) at many places throughout the film. However, I wasn't too convinced about the Herm-Draco scene near Hagrid's hut. It's cool that she punched him rather than slapped in many ways, but I feel that it made her seem a bit out of character as a proper, highly intelligent schoolgirl. Rather, it gave me the impression that she was somewhat of a closet-brawler of sorts. I know that's going a bit far, but I seriously think that a nice, full slap in the face would have made more sense as far as staying closer to the fact that she's a girl and not a boxer. Again, that's more of a personal thing than anything else, so I'd rather not argue that point because it is basically moot from here on out. Then there is Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley, the hopelessly clueless yet still lovable 3rd member of the trio. Just watching him perform is a blast and I always laugh at his scenes. He wasn't involved as much this time around, but he was wonderful as usual. As for the supporting cast, I was very happy with the casting overall. Tom Felton struck me as more of a sissy in the movie than he did in the book, which was disappointing because I highly enjoy his character and I wished that he could've been a little more of a tough-guy bully than a wuss, but whatever, he's still cool. All of the staff and students were great except the weird little guy conducting the choir (Flitwick?), the skinny, greasy no-name Slytherin that accompanied Draco in the snowball scene, and the impression that Dumbledore was more of a grumpy old man as compared to the Dumbledore from the first two films. Granted, we all miss the late Richard Harris as the defining role as the Headmaster, but Michael Gambon could have used a bit more charm in his role. Nonetheless, he did a fine job. David Thewlis as Lupin was great and he brought the more humane side of people out in the open. Gary Oldman as Sirius Black was very under-done in my opinion. Oldman was perfect for the role, but as he is really the catalyst for the events that transpire throughout the book, he never got the screen time to really justify his purpose and I never felt the close bond that he forms with Harry. In the book, there is a lot of dialogue that firmly establishes their relationship and thus gives you a firm understanding of their bond. It was merely glossed over in the film version. True, they had a conversation, but it was more of a getting-to-know-you kind of talk than anything else. I only say this because if you didn’t read the book then you would be a bit lost. As for the wardrobes, I really didn’t mind the muggle clothing all that much. I wasn’t too keen, at first, on the numbers and names on the Quidditch uniforms, but I grew to accept it and now it’s kind of fitting with the rest of the film.

-

This is where it gets good people, so listen up. I saw Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban on opening night at the local IMAX theater and I was very excited, almost giddy. I was completely expecting something similar to one and two where the director followed the books as closely as possible so nothing would be too amiss or totally wrong. Well, the first scene with Harry practicing magic late at night was good. That was fine. However, 20 seconds later I'm already in the midst of Harry's Aunt Marge and another minute or so Harry gets highly upset and makes Marge become bloated and float off. By the time Harry is rolling his suitcase in the streets, only six, maybe seven minutes have gone by and we're already prepped for the Knight Bus scene. UMMMM, WHAT HAPPENED?? My God, that scene alone should have been at least 12 minutes long. We then would be able to get more emotionally attached to Harry and his feelings and would have a better understanding of what was going on. Granted, if you read the book than you could just fill in the gaps, so to speak, but that's cheating. If you hadn't read the book, then you'd have no idea of what I'm talking about and would then just consider me a rambling fool who doesn't appreciate a good movie. Whatever. I am ranting now, I know. But I really don't care because it ticked me off to no end and more so because it basically insulted every true fan of the book and even those who worked on the first two films. Anyway, from that point on when Harry leaves the Dursley's, the rest of the movie is little more than mere HIGHLIGHTS from the book and I felt as if I were watching a visual reproduction based on a VERY simplified outline of the story. We would get one scene that touched on a VERY IMPORTANT AND SPECIFIC event and nothing more. Just a brief look is all. It was scenes like this that needed to be elaborated upon and extended for everything to make sense as a whole to the story. Again, I'm saying this for those who are faithful to the book, not those who haven't read it. Aside from these numerous scenes throughout the movie, including those that were LEFT OUT COMPLETELY (I refuse to touch on this as it will lead me to write a novel length entry and that's not cool) there were dozens of HIGHLY questionable (and rightly so, because I can back it up) decisions and additions of the look and feel and general world as overseen by Alfonso. Yes, I know that you can’t have everything in a movie for time purposes, etc. but some of these were just inexcusable! As I won't put those down here, I will bring up two major and extremely outrageous changes that I know for a fact had thousands of HP fans worldwide sick to their stomachs over this.
First on the list and the most important one, The Whomping Willow. Okay, apparently Alfonso never read the books or even saw the second film. If he did, then he has no excuse for the ** that he pulled with this move. First of all, in The Chamber of Secrets (COS) and Prisoner of Azkaban (POA), JK Rowling CLEARLY states that the Willow is on school grounds (and when I say school grounds, I mean close to the school, not somewhere on the property far away) and within a reasonable vicinity from the large main doors of the school entrance. We also get the distinct impression that it wasn't located too far of a distance from the school because in POA, the doors are apparently within the same visual frame as the Willow:

"They moved around the edge of the Forest, darkness falling thickly around them, until they were hidden behind a clump of trees through which they could make out the Willow."

We are told that it was very dark and so to try and see anything in such little light, even sparse moonlight, unless it was no more than a hundred or so feet in front of you would have been futile, especially when your vision is further obscured by trees and such. They were able to make out the Willow, but not clearly see it, therefore telling us that Harry and Hermione HAD to have been pretty close to the tree. This is also true when you take into account the following passage from POA:

“'Here comes Lupin!' said Harry, as they saw another figure sprinting down the stone steps and haring towards the Willow. Harry looked up at the sky. Clouds were obscuring the moon completely."

Now, this right here gives us solid evidence that suggests that these particular stone steps are referring to none other than those of the main entrance to the castle, as we know that there are stone steps leading up to them. Plus, they could NOT have been very steep as Lupin was observed 'sprinting' down them. It's very difficult to sprint down normal stairs, even stairs on a hillside, as suggested in the POA movie version. However, this by itself could be debated and argued over. But, there is one more piece of evidence that makes its case all on its own:

"Barely two minutes later, THE CASTLE DOORS FLEW OPEN YET AGAIN, and Snape had come charging out of them, running towards the Willow."

It's really quite self-explanatory. The Willow was located close to the castle doors. In order for the two friends to have been able to see the tree AND the castle doors AND IMMEDIATELY recognize the new figure who had emerged from the doors in almost complete darkness, the doors and the tree and the forest would all HAVE to have been located within 200 yards (at the most) or so from each other. Even if you look at it from the POA movie angles, the castle appears as if it's nearly a mile away in the distance, thus negating ANY possibility of seeing someone running from the main gates of the castle. But then again, this wouldn't really matter because you COULDN'T EVEN SEE THE MAIN DOORS from where Harry and Hermione were. This is just another reason why Alfonso totally screwed up. I could go on about the tree in even greater detail, but I’ll leave the rest open for debate. But, I hope that those reading this will see where I am coming from and that I have ample evidence to back it up and make my point. I will point out one more thing on this before I move on. In the movie version of COS, the Whomping Willow was done with amazing accuracy to the book and was visualized EXACTLY as I have described above and to the specifications of the book, particularly in POA. The placement of the Willow in the COS movie would have made the problem of seeing (or being able to make out) the Willow, having a good line of sight of the main doors and being able to readily define those who left and entered, ALL while being in the same range of vision AND being able to be witnessed simultaneously from the shadows of the nearby forest, an easy and obvious solution. Would it have made sense? Yes. Was it visualized to J.K.'s standards? Yes. Does it harbor all the necessary attributes to have made POA make total sense and not raise any doubts at all? Yes. Was this perfect vision of The Whomping Willow carried over into POA, thus sustaining the precedent set by COS and allowing the movies to have a "one-ness" feel and consistency? HELL NO! The Willow has now magically relocated itself to the bottom of a rocky hillside void of any essence of still being on Hogwarts grounds (as seen from the COS point of view). I would love to say more on the location change. I would like even more to mention how Alfonso completely butchered the entire purpose of even having the tree there in first place. Ummmm......since WHEN was the Willow ever be able to be controlled with just a mere SPELL??? Seriously, how boring and stupid is that?? Walk up to it and say "Immobulus" and you're all set. That completely negates ANY of the mysteriousness and interest that the Willow possesses in the books. Horrible. Absolutely horrible. *sigh*

Alright. Now that we've looked into how poor of a job the Whomping Willow was made to be, let's look at the other problem that just really angers me: Hagrid's Hut. Once again, Alfonso has taken the liberty of magically relocating Hagid's Hut from the grounds of Hogwarts to the bottom of another rocky hillside. There is less here to argue, in comparison to the Willow. However, the location of Hagrid's Hut is inconsistent to COS. Also, it doesn't seem as if it's really on the edge of the forest, but more in the forest if anything. Just another liberty that Alfonso has taken that helps to ruin the movie for HP fans. Did any of the students EVER have to go down a rocky and uneven hillside to get to his house in SS or COS? NO. There are some things in the Harry Potter world that I believe you can take liberties with and others where you just need to leave it alone. The Willow and Hagrid’s Hut are two of them. It just goes to make POA a sort of dim-witted anomaly in the franchise, where you want to take it seriously like we could in the first two films, but we can't because the changes are so completely radical and wrong that it just eats at your conscience and never allows you to accept the movie for what it is. There is tons and tons and tons more that I would like to write about, but there just isn't the time and space and readers to hear my rants. I mean, if these two changes were used from the beginning of the series, then there wouldn’t be as much of an uproar. (True, I would still be mad, but only because it was done wrong initially and not changed to be wrong after the fact, if you get my meaning.) I am one for consistency between movies of a series because you have to keep certain aspects of a film constant in order for it to continue to make sense. I apologize, but I must bring up Lord of the Rings as an example because I know many of you here love LOTR just as much as me, so I have to ask you this question: In FOTR, we see a glimpse of the great city of Minas Tirith as described in Tolkien’s words. Would you have been happy with seeing Minas Tirith all of the sudden relocated to the other side of Osgiliath? It’s still in Gondor though, so that must make it okay, right? WRONG. There would be world chaos if that had happened. It’s the same thing with POA. Where as LOTR had consistency, POA did not. It’s one thing to change directors and give it a new look and feel, that’s completely cool, just DO NOT MESS WITH THINGS THAT WERE DONE RIGHT THE FIRST TIME. That’s all I’m trying to say.
Moving on, moving on…… There is one good thing amongst many that I would like to point out from POA. This isn't really good, but more like AMAZING. I am talking about the soundtrack. One of John Williams' finest works in the past several years in my opinion. I listened to the soundtrack at least two dozen times BEFORE the movie was even released and I was STUNNED! (I am a Juilliard trained musician, for the record) Just from the musical passages, I could see the movie just playing out before my eyes and I could feel the emotions running through me as well as on-screen. The soundtrack is INFINITELY better than the movie, as far as the suggested vision and the emotional content is concerned. It's at par with most everything else. As of today, I have listened to the entire soundtrack non-stop at least six dozen times and each time I am always saddened by it because the music suggests to you that the visual representation of its content has a very high potential to be absolutely stunning. POA could have been the best in the series by far, if the music is anything to judge by. Unfortunately, the music is severely diminished once you put Alfonso's ideas to the screen. I believe that the music was so good that it seriously helped to make the movie work and stay together (and I'm being nice when I say that). So many people take the music for granted in films that they are unable to appreciate or notice that certain cues and passages are what really made a scene memorable or exciting, rather than just acting or solid special effects. As a musician, silence is also paramount in movies. Silence is music because it leaves the listener with a sense of uncertainty of what is coming or is really going on, thus forcing you to try and figure out how things are about proceed. If you don't know what I'm talking about or if you think that I'm full of it when I say that silence is music, then you should listen to your favorite songs or soundtracks and pay more attention to what's not going on instead of what you can hear. You'll be surprised, trust me. Okay, so I got off on a little tangent there with the whole silence bit, so I'll get back to what I was saying earlier. The music made the difference with this movie more so than what is obvious. Many people think that this soundtrack wasn't as good as the previous ones, which is fine considering its their own opinions. However, the POA soundtrack was ideal because it had the correct feel and colors and textures that this film so desperately needed to stay afloat. Sure it had less memorable themes than others, but to say that its not good or even at par with its predecessors is just an indication to me that A) you have no taste for classical music or for music in general, B) you don't or are unable to appreciate the beauty that can be found in a soundtrack simply because its a "soundtrack" and is therefore not enough to stand on its own, C) you don't like Harry Potter for whatever reason and so therefore refuse to even acknowledge the fact that the soundtrack has anything good about it just because it’s Harry Potter (I doubt that, being in the COS Forums and such), D) aren't as sensitive to the wonderful subtleties that are existent in John Williams' film score(s) as a trained musician is, thus not allowing you feel certain things the way we do (but that's not your fault), E) you are a trained musician or have extensive musical knowledge but have ulterior motives for disagreeing with me, or F) you are only arguing against me just for the sake of arguing and have the need to feel superior at all times (which is fine by me, because people like you don't mean anything to the rest of us anyway). If you happen to not fall into any of these categories and still dislike the soundtrack in some way, shape, or form, then please let me know because I'd like to hear your opinion. Seriously, please do. I know a lot of you must have more brains than I give you credit for and I would love to talk with you.
In closing, I just want to reiterate the fact that I only say the things I do because I love Harry Potter and it is dear to me as it is to most of you and I only want to see the best come from the books. It’s a matter of pride I guess you could say. I mean, I tell people that I love Harry Potter and they look at me like I’m some kind of freak. Whatever. J. K. Rowling is a genius and there is a lot to be learned from her work. Harry Potter fans may think that I am being way too critical about some of the things that I talk about, but then again, I’m not writing this for you, but for everyone else out there who was as equally displeased by the things I mentioned as I was and were either too afraid to say it out loud or just wanted someone else to so they could silently agree. In that sense, this is for you.

Thanks. PLEASE RESPOND!!! ALL COMMENTS WELCOME!!! :cool:

Raethul

October 14th, 2004, 3:37 am

Goodness, that's one heckova post. Very well composed and you did a brilliant job of supporting everything you said. Unfortunately, I must admit I disagree with most everything you said. :p Well for now I'll just comment on what I find most important.

I felt that the blending of the blues, grays and blacks was done nicely and with good intent. It was a far departure from the rich and colorful world of Harry Potter as seen in SS and COS, which I had worried that anything other than what I had seen beforehand would just not look right or wouldn't work completely at all. However, Alfonso got the look right and he helped to make it feel just as magical with a more tempered color palette. Well done!
Agreed! I really liked the color scheme used in this movie as well. There is something attractive to the eye (or mine at least) in blues and dark grays as a color scheme, especially in movies that are darker in story as well. It does a lot to create atmosphere, worked well for the movie Underworld too.

This next part of my critique will focus on the acting. On the whole, the cast did an outstanding job. The famous trio has obviously matured into their roles since we last saw them and the early signs of teenage rebellion began to surface.
Agreed again! I think the acting was wonderful in this movie. The three leads, especially Dan, are so much better in PoA. It really made the movie breath for me. Great acting can boost a mediocre movie into enjoyable terrain at times; it plays such a large role in determining how much I like a movie.

I wasn’t too keen, at first, on the numbers and names on the Quidditch uniforms, but I grew to accept it and now it’s kind of fitting with the rest of the film.
This was one of the few things that I liked better in the first movies than in this one. Although it did nothing to detract from my enjoyment of the movie, I did like the original uniforms better. Personal preference on my part.

UMMMM, WHAT HAPPENED?? My God, that scene alone should have been at least 12 minutes long.
I can't see this working on any level. Many people feel that the Dursley's scenes are way too repetitive as it is. Heck I know some people, and have read a good many reviews, that think the Dursley's scenes should be cut out all together. I think this shortened version worked very well. I don't see how cutting anything in this first scene, excluding seeing Sirius, would even effect the outcome of the plot. The Dursley scene is good in the book for furthering Harry's development as a growing young man, but it does next to nothing to further the plot along. The story wouldn't have even been damaged if the movie had began at Hogwarts and Harry just saw Sirius while he was walking outside or something. I feel the shortened scene did a good job of cutting to the point and getting a scene many people don't want there out of the way. We were lucky to get what we got if you ask me.

First on the list and the most important one, The Whomping Willow. Okay, apparently Alfonso never read the books or even saw the second film. If he did, then he has no excuse for the ** that he pulled with this move. First of all, in The Chamber of Secrets (COS) and Prisoner of Azkaban (POA), JK Rowling CLEARLY states that the Willow is on school grounds (and when I say school grounds, I mean close to the school, not somewhere on the property far away) and within a reasonable vicinity from the large main doors of the school entrance.
Don't you think that's a bit miniscule? I though Cuaron did a wonderful job with the Whomping Willow this time around. He gave the Willow a personality for goodness sake; I thought it was great. Don't you think all the extra scenes and time he devoted to this tree, not even a character and I don't doubt for a second many directors would have shown the Willow maybe twice in the entire movie, far outweighs a change in LOCATION. The same can be said for Hagrid's Hut. Cuaron made that hut looked like Hagrid actually lived in it. There were strange, and most likely dangerous, animals in cages everywhere, and it was unkempt and unorganized. If anything I think Cuaron did an improvement, and a very nice one, on both of these and location make no different to me.

Would you have been happy with seeing Minas Tirith all of the sudden relocated to the other side of Osgiliath? It’s still in Gondor though, so that must make it okay, right? WRONG. There would be world chaos if that had happened. It’s the same thing with POA. Where as LOTR had consistency, POA did not.
I think that is a hugely unfair comparison. All three LotR movies were filmed at the SAME TIME by the SAME PERSON. The Harry Potter movies are now in the hands of a third new director who is filming a year after the previous one came out. Each director is going to have a new vision; he/she is going to want to put thier touch on it and leave their mark on it. It's not fair to ask them to conform to the vision of someone else, apart from the source material they are working with of course. Look what Peter Jackson did to LotR. I adore his films to death. I own all three theatrical releases, the extended editions of FotR and TTT, and I'm pulling my hair out in anticipation for RotK's, but I could ramble on all day about how WRONG WRONG WRONG it was for Frodo to send Sam away and for Sam to actually leave. Why was that in there? There was NO ground for it in the book. Why? because that is an imprint Jackson left on the movie and it works for the movie. The LotR movies are ONE person's interpretation. My opinion about how I believed something should have been or looked isn't any more vaild that his, they're just different.

There is one good thing amongst many that I would like to point out from POA. This isn't really good, but more like AMAZING. I am talking about the soundtrack.
Agree on all counts. I thought the soundtrack was perfect. I love how much the music enhances the experience. I try to listen to music in movies: in some instances its horrible and cliche, in other's it's mediocre but it gets the job done, in others I'm completely astounded by it's brilliance (Howard Shore for LotR), and in others I'm amazed at how wonderfully the music fits with the images going on screen and how catchy the songs are (28 Days later, I swear I know his name, but it's slipped my mind for the moment). The music was great; I really loved it.

Whew, that's enough for now. Hope I didn’t come across as too much of a jerk, but hey, I’m tired. :p Besides, if we all agreed on everything life would be boring. Bring on the chaos! :p

Taleeya

October 14th, 2004, 6:43 am

I didn't mind seeing the muggle clothes... But it certainly was a bit weird seeing Hermione in a hoodie! I took it as a symbol of them being allowed more freedom at the school (same as being allowed to visit Hogsmeade). And, I think Cuaron and the scriptwriter were terrible! (as I've posted before). After only a year, the director should keep as much as possible consistent with previous films (ie. location of Hagrids, Hogwarts the school, the whomping willow).

giddieon

October 14th, 2004, 9:20 pm

I am a bit of a ******* so I will not write a long essay on this but I will have to say I support what Cajun Fry said.... I think the director made to many changes in trying to make this film his vision.... I hate the Fact that many Lines that where Harry's or where suppposed to be for Harry was taken away from him and then given to Hermonie....

I also the thing what Canjun Fry said about Hermonie decking Draco this to me makes her feel more like a Tom Boy then a Lady.....

But the biggest disappointment for me was the changing of the Locations of Buildings and land marks..... This was Terriable and really let the movie feel lost nothing was firmiler and it was a BIG let Down I hope what ever Director is doing GoF is better....

Also this film should have been long it really seem like they touch quick on parts of the book ... Also where in the god **** book does harry sit and cry...... I mean hell is this diredtor just pulling new info on the books right out of his *** and changing them as he see fits....

I think this movie was a let down and it was a mistake to Alkrapo directing...Sorry......

Well please forgive me on my spelling I could not spell correctly to save my life....

Also Cajun Fry real makes some good points.....

remusjlupin1980

October 15th, 2004, 3:58 am

And, I think Cuaron and the scriptwriter were terrible! (as I've posted before). After only a year, the director should keep as much as possible consistent with previous films (ie. location of Hagrids, Hogwarts the school, the whomping willow).

They're terrible by the sole reason they made changes on the set? For ****'s sake, get over it already! Most of those changes are either inconsequential or even made the film better and more magical! You are way too hung up on the changes that you fail to see the beautiful impressions made by the director. That's what I think.

I don't mind that you don't like the movie but not liking it solely for the fact that it changed is, well, rather stupid.

I am a bit of a ******* so I will not write a long essay on this but I will have to say I support what Cajun Fry said.... I think the director made to many changes in trying to make this film his vision.... I hate the Fact that many Lines that where Harry's or where suppposed to be for Harry was taken away from him and then given to Hermonie....

Well...at least you admitted it. :rotfl:

All I can say is: Get over it already! This is not the book. This is the movie

ut the biggest disappointment for me was the changing of the Locations of Buildings and land marks..... This was Terriable and really let the movie feel lost nothing was firmiler and it was a BIG let Down I hope what ever Director is doing GoF is better....

That's it? That's your biggest disappointment?

It's a new film so there's a new director and a new crew. Who are you to say that they're not allowed to change stuff? Besides, this is Hogwarts. A magical place. Who says that they stay the same year after year? That's how I handled it.

Personally, I don't feel lost because nothing was familiar. It feels a lot more magical because of the changes because there's lots of surprises and it's not just the same old, same old two movies.

Also this film should have been long it really seem like they touch quick on parts of the book ... Also where in the god **** book does harry sit and cry...... I mean hell is this diredtor just pulling new info on the books right out of his *** and changing them as he see fits....

Do you have the book with you and cite every instance they add or change things and that will lessen your enjoyment of the movie?

For ****'s sake! It doesn't matter whether or not it's in the book or not. It stays true to the spirit of the book. Why can't there be a scene where Harry cries after hearing about the person who betrayed his parents? It'll make him more human on-screen. In the book, we only hear his thoughts and his feelings. The crying scene in the film VISUALIZES those feelings cinematically so movie audiences, particularly those who hasn't read the book, can understand how he's feeling even though they haven't read the book.

Besides, the director is not pulling things out of his posterior. Most of, if not, all the changes and cuts made in the film has been approved by J.K. Rowling herself (Cuaron wanted to add a graveyard, J.K. said no, not yet. He was thinking of cutting out Trelawney and J.K. also said no). If anything Cuaron understands the material so much that J.K. said he inadvertedly foreshadowed things that'll happen in the last two books. He's not pulling things out of his ***, he has the same talent and mindset as J.K. that he understands her material and serves it the way he can.

Raethul

October 15th, 2004, 5:40 am

It doesn't matter whether or not it's in the book or not. It stays true to the spirit of the book. Why can't there be a scene where Harry cries after hearing about the person who betrayed his parents? It'll make him more human on-screen. In the book, we only hear his thoughts and his feelings. The crying scene in the film VISUALIZES those feelings cinematically so movie audiences, particularly those who hasn't read the book, can understand how he's feeling even though they haven't read the book.
:tu: Thank You!!! :tu:

izanagi

October 16th, 2004, 10:09 am

I was going to rate at very poor, if it wasn't for Emma Watson to make up for the movie's horrible plot and story. The story was way off course from the book. :upset:

remusjlupin1980

October 16th, 2004, 1:01 pm

I was going to rate at very poor, if it wasn't for Emma Watson to make up for the movie's horrible plot and story. The story was way off course from the book. :upset:

How? The movie was pretty darn faithful, I must say.

Prior Incantato

October 16th, 2004, 1:46 pm

I think the acting was wonderful in this movie. The three leads, especially Dan, are so much better in PoA. It really made the movie breath for me. Great acting can boost a mediocre movie into enjoyable terrain at times; it plays such a large role in determining how much I like a movie.

I read some of the stories about the creation of the film, and I think Cuaron has to get a lot of credit for bringing those kids into respectability. I watched CoS again the other night and was stunned and how over-simplified and generally poor the acting was, both with the kids and the adults. The first two felt like movies made about the Harry Potter books; this one felt like it WAS Harry Potter.

I can't see this working on any level. Many people feel that the Dursley's scenes are way too repetitive as it is. Heck I know some people, and have read a good many reviews, that think the Dursley's scenes should be cut out all together. I think this shortened version worked very well. I don't see how cutting anything in this first scene, excluding seeing Sirius, would even effect the outcome of the plot. The Dursley scene is good in the book for furthering Harry's development as a growing young man, but it does next to nothing to further the plot along. The story wouldn't have even been damaged if the movie had began at Hogwarts and Harry just saw Sirius while he was walking outside or something. I feel the shortened scene did a good job of cutting to the point and getting a scene many people don't want there out of the way. We were lucky to get what we got if you ask me.

IMDB says that the Dursleys have been cut from GoF - there simply isn't time, much as I would have loved to see the Weasleys get stuck inside the boarded-up chimney. They were needed for the plot of PoA simply so that Harry could blow up Aunt Marge, get in trouble, and have a reason to take the Knight Bus - introducing us to the idea that everyone's worried about him. We don't need to see them again. I can't wait to see what the opening of the new movie will be now - perhaps a landscape at the Quidditch World Cup?

Kimmetje

October 16th, 2004, 1:48 pm

I am sorry to say, but I didn't like the movie, but that might also be because I didn't like book 3 either. I hated the part where Dan Radcliffe cried I mean even Michael Jackson can do better, but I loved the whole timeturner and I though the movie might have been a bit too dark, I mean I expected OotP to be that dark and it will be very difficult for the studios now to make the next 5 movies even darker as that is supposed to happen. The darkness took the movie over if you ask me.

nano

October 16th, 2004, 1:57 pm

I hevn't watched the movie from beginning to end yet, I've seen it all, but not in sequence.

About the muggle cloths -
Good comparison - saysing do your wear your uniform in your free time - but what gets me about that is this.

Think of the Quidditch World Cup - if wizards wear muggle clothes when not in class, how could a wizard not know, that he was wearing something a woman normally wears (the one who likes a fresh breeze around his privates!)

How could wizards NOT know how to dress up as muggles? And why would wizards in the beginning of PS wear robes and stick out, when walking under muggles, if robes were not the most commonest thing for wizards to wear???

I always beleived that Harry always wore his robes at Hogwarts - I mean why should they change to their robes on the train just before they get there??? The feast isn't class - so they should wear casual dress, and if they have to dress up,why not dress robes for the occasion??

And inthe book there are quite a few mentionings of Harry sticking his hand in his robes, Draco doing the same - why get rid of the robes??? I think that was what thrust a lot of the atmosphere and really gave you the feeling of looking into another universe. I liked the robes better!!

nano

cheeze1192

October 16th, 2004, 3:18 pm

How? The movie was pretty darn faithful, I must say.

I have to disagree. Did anyone else notice that some of the parts in the book were out of order? Harry didn't get the Firebolt at the end of the book, he got it a Christmas when he didn't know who Sirius was. Also, there was no Inter-House Quidditch Cup... I like watching the quidditch. There was also NO background on the Marauders, if you didn't read the book you would have no idea what was going on. My friend Daniel was so confused I had to basically tell what was SUPPOSED to be there. (He hasn't read the third book).
I also didn't like Hermione's "model" apperance. Since when does she have nice wavy brown hair? I thought it was bushy.
One more thing folks, bear with me. I really DID NOT like the werewolf. It was hairless for heaven's sake!

Sorry to be so negative... I was just pretty disapointed. I am the kind of person who likes the movies to be like the books. Thanks

Fury

October 16th, 2004, 4:41 pm

Okay... many things to comment from what I have been reading.

First off... Hermione decking Draco. Sure, it looks like she is a tom boy. But that is what she is. Course she is a little angel of a girl too... but she is a Tom Boy. She does get in trouble. She is not "Daddies little girl" anymore. In the book she slapped Draco. In the movie, she punched him. EXACTLY WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE TO HIM! When I saw it both times, the biggest "pop" was when that happened. It added comic relief to a dark movie. We needed comedy before they got to the dark stuff... which started to happen a few minutes later.

Same with the music in the movie. Added a little happy tone. It just got the crowd into the movie. I love the song... thought it was cool!

The locations... sure, I also noticed Hagrid's hut was misplaced. I was mad about that. But new directors give new things. It was ok for me.

The hands-holding thing.... Alfonso and the writers do know a lot more then they are supposed to know. They get the privelges of that. It is to give it tension about what we know will happen: Ron and Hermione getting together :D. As you see my signature... I am a big fan of these two getting together.

The thing with the crying... okay, so it was added... not in the book. But it was okay. It shows Harry is human. Everyone cries!

This movie was spectacualar... and I loved it. Can't wait to see GOF!

CajunFry

October 16th, 2004, 10:08 pm

Just to point out, I have a nice, lengthy post above that explains my thoughts and such on POA. It seems that a few of you who have posted recently haven't read my post, maybe cuz it's too long for you. Either way, please read it. There are elements in my post that others have failed to realize before posting their thoughts. It'll just help to clear some issues up, I believe. Thanks!

Raethul

October 17th, 2004, 3:43 am

Hey CajunFry,
If you look at the last post on the first page (the one right after yours) I wrote quite a little bit in reply to your post.

CajunFry

October 17th, 2004, 3:56 am

Hey Raethul, what's up? When I posted that previous statement, I wasn't referring to you. I know that you read my post because you obviously had quoted my post several times and that's great. So, you were never the target of that post. And I appreciate your comments that you made. They were honest and to the point. Of course, we disagree on a few counts but I had made it clear in my post that that was just how I felt on certain issues so as not to impose anything on the readers. However, just a few of these other posters seem to have been oblivious to the fact that I even made a post that could've answered some or all of their questions. I mean, I think that it was written well enough to harbor a good and solid debate for a while, you think? Yeah....anyway.....please follow-up!

Cajun

remusjlupin1980

October 17th, 2004, 9:30 am

Sorry to be so negative... I was just pretty disapointed. I am the kind of person who likes the movies to be like the books. Thanks

Then DON'T SEE THE MOVIES.

Most great movie adaptations do not painstakingly stick closely to the book. Especially a longer, more complex book like Prisoner of Azkaban. The changes that you mentioned in your post are very superficial that has been explained and defended away several times in past posts.

Movies should not be exactly like the books. They should stick to the spirit of the books and that's what I think Alfonso did and, guess what? J.K. Rowling encouraged him.

As I said before, if you want the movies to be EXACTLY like the books, don't see the movies because they are going cut and alter things so that the story can be told CINEMATICALLY to please not only HP fans but to casual moviegoers as well. The first two movies tried very hard to be exactly like the books and it came out clunky and predictable. No surprises and such. But the third one took what makes HP great and turn it into actual cinema. Not just a filmed version of the book.

This is the way the HP movies are going to go, I'm afraid. They can't possibly cram all the numerous subplots along the way since they want the movies to be under 3 hours. If you're looking for a movie that's EXACTLY like the books, might as well stick to the imagination inside your head because it doesn't matter how great a job a future HP director is going to do, you'll still be disappointed no matter what because you feel betrayed by all the cuts and changes to your beloved book.

Kimmetje

October 17th, 2004, 9:34 am

Posted by cheeze1992
I really DID NOT like the werewolf. It was hairless for heaven's sake!
Now here is something that makes sense. The werewolf indeed was lousy. I loathed it as it was hairless and it did not have a nice shape and no scares. I mean if they only had like looked at the movie the Underworld they would've found perfect werewolves that were scary. I mean even the Van Helsing werewolf was better. I totally agree that the werewolf was really very bad. Very bad of the animation team.

Doggy

October 17th, 2004, 12:15 pm

Now here is something that makes sense. The werewolf indeed was lousy. I loathed it as it was hairless and it did not have a nice shape and no scares. I mean if they only had like looked at the movie the Underworld they would've found perfect werewolves that were scary. I mean even the Van Helsing werewolf was better. I totally agree that the werewolf was really very bad. Very bad of the animation team.
I agree as well. After all, in PoA (the book), Hermione starts explaining the differences between wolves and werewolves, when it comes to looks. She went into such painstaking detail (like the snout etc.) that it seemed plain that wolves and werewolves are very similar.

Of course I realise that movies and books don't have to be the same - I agree that the movie-makers had to cut some things and change others to keep the movie within an ok time-limit - but making a werewolf more werewolf-looking shouldn't have been difficult. (It bugged me just as much as it bugged when I watched another movie, adapted from a book where they had for some unknown reason changed the name of the boat in it. A petty complaint, but annoying, since there's no real reason to it.)

Other than the werewolf, and the fact that I think they should have explained who made the map etc., I think the movie was good. The Dementors freaked me out, especially when one of them got it's mouth/face uncovered. *shivers* And the general plot was well structured; nothing crucial was left out, as far as I can remember (even though it was a long time ago that I saw it, so I may have forgotten something).

Magical_Me

October 17th, 2004, 12:35 pm

For the life of me I don't see what's wrong with directors not following books exactly, especially when the author requests them not to. I completely understand people not liking the interpretation but when they believe that a director went against the author's wishes it's a bit rich. I have said it before, and I'll say it again, I disliked the first two movies. But Columbus followed Rowlings orders to be faithful. With a new director perhaps Jo decided it would be worth seeing someone else's interpretation so she told Cuaron to make the movie his own, to have artistic license.

Raethul

October 17th, 2004, 6:42 pm

However, just a few of these other posters seem to have been oblivious to the fact that I even made a post that could've answered some or all of their questions. I mean, I think that it was written well enough to harbor a good and solid debate for a while, you think? Yeah....anyway.....please follow-up!
Ah, I see. Well I can't tell you the number of times I wrote something I thought was wonderful only to have it ignored by half the people in a thread who often state the EXACT SAME THING! Oh well, 'tis the life on a messageboard!

Fury

October 18th, 2004, 3:59 pm

Guys... JK said that her favorite Movie out of all so far was the third movie. She probably thought there was nothing wrong with it... and the little additions were perfect. Movies can be different from the books... otherwise it would be too much detail. They wanted to add a few extra things because we already knew what happened. Things like:

1. The fight with the Whomping Willow (oh I love that part)
2. The Punch (It is was better then a slap)
3. Holding hands breifly and getting all blushed... JK wanted that to happen! I LOVED IT!

See.. additions make it better.

cheeze1192

October 18th, 2004, 8:52 pm

Then DON'T SEE THE MOVIES.

Well, you could have been nicer about it. There was no need to be so rude. I thought this was the place for voicing your opinion, and I did just that. Don't get me wrong, I liked the movie, just not as much as the first 2.
As I said before, if you want the movies to be EXACTLY like the books, don't see the movies because they are going cut and alter things so that the story can be told CINEMATICALLY to please not only HP fans but to casual moviegoers as well.
When did I say I liked the movies to be EXACTLY like the books? I don't recall saying that. I do realize they won't be perfect, but I just thought PoA was branching off a bit too much.
Excuse me if I am being rude, but your comments are a bit harsh. There was no reason to jump all over me like that.

rela00

October 18th, 2004, 9:06 pm

Loved it. Thought it was far far better than the first two. The changes in the scenery and the way the castle was laid out were for the better. The overall feel of it was just... beautiful. I wasn't expecting much after the first two disappointed me so much but PoA was excellent. In fact I ended up seeing it 4 times in the week before it was officially released! Tra la la la laaaa...
I just thought the look of the film was better and the acting was better. I went in with low expectations and came out totally happy. :)

Sir Cadogan

October 18th, 2004, 9:29 pm

I liked the movie. Sure, it was off from the book in few regards, but overall I must say it was a good movie. Few points:

Hagrid's Hut-He's a professor who has to be closer to his classroom (that bit of clearing in the FF). Plus the whole place is magical. Point at the hut and move it. It isn't that hard to do with a wand.

Bridge and the Hospital Wing-I liked that area. Of the areas shown in the movies, they put them all in one central area. It gave a sence of a 3rd year gathering place. In the first 2, it felt like Hogwarts was just a dark old castle. The courtyard gave the area a sence of life because it was so open.

Maurader's Map-I like how this was done. The portraits making the walls and the little footprints were perfect. About the Mauraders, I think just having Sirius saying Moony to Lupin would have been better. Maybe even having S/L say Wormtail in the SS would have been a clue. Let the audience figure it out for a change.

The punch-I liked the punch. Hermione seemed to be portayed as a stuck-up know it all in the first 2. PoA is all about self-discovery for Harry. Let Hermione grow up too. She's becoming and adult now. Live a little.

The flirting-They're 13 now, hormones are raging. How many of you flirted when you were 13 years old? It might not become anything (in 6 and 7) but it was good element that really shows the characters age. That's what AC is good at. Capturing the essence of growing up.

Changing the order-Because this is a book, you can't expect a movie version to be 100% accurate. You can try, but it will never happen. Take LotR. Jackson moved the giant spider to King rather than at the end of Towers. fans complained, but when King came out, most fans were happy with the way it was portrayed.

Overall it was a great movie.

hawk1245

October 19th, 2004, 1:47 am

One of the things I loved about POA was how much Hogwarts felt like a real school. It felt like a piravate school in the first two (which was cool and all, since it WAS one really), but in POA the way the students groan when they hear about the extra homework from Snape, and also the sort of echoy footsteps that almost all school have (which I LOVE the sound of) like when Harry runs down the steps after thelast divination, or when the students are rushing trough the pendulum to go to hogsmeade. It just feels like a realy school. The hoodies help that too, which is one of the reasons I like them.

CajunFry

October 19th, 2004, 2:23 am

Well, you could have been nicer about it. There was no need to be so rude. I thought this was the place for voicing your opinion, and I did just that. Don't get me wrong, I liked the movie, just not as much as the first 2.

When did I say I liked the movies to be EXACTLY like the books? I don't recall saying that. I do realize they won't be perfect, but I just thought PoA was branching off a bit too much.

Well said cheeze :agree: :tu: . This is what I have been trying to get across since I posted. And remus was being a little rude to not only you, but everyone else who felt the same way, as well. Do us all a favor remus and please be more polite and considerate when voicing your opinions. This is an open forum, not a place throw mud. :cool:

Hagrid's Hut-He's a professor who has to be closer to his classroom (that bit of clearing in the FF). Plus the whole place is magical. Point at the hut and move it. It isn't that hard to do with a wand.

First of all, have you ever tried to point at anything and just move it???? :rotfl:hahaha I'm just kidding. Seriously, Hagrid's Hut was right where it needed to be in SS (or PS, for you Brits) and COS. It wasn't necessary to for it to be moved. Example, remember in SS when Harry and the gang recieved detention in the forest and they met at Hagrid's Hut? Remember how FAR they had to walk to get into the forest? Yeah, like 20 paces and you're in the forest already. I would also like show and example from COS as well. Do you remember the flying car scene? If you recall where the car went after it's little run-in with the Whomping Willow *Shudders* (if you must know, scroll up to find my opinion on the willow), then you will also see that Hagrid's Hut was right where it has always been. I realize that this is highly debatable, so I encourage any other opinions regarding this matter.

In the first 2, it felt like Hogwarts was just a dark old castle.

:sigh: :huh: Do I really need to respond to this??? Ummm, Hogwarts IS a dark old castle. Sure, it has it's lighter points, but it's a medieval castle. It's dark, it's old, and it has a lot of history. POA was fine in that regard. So just leave the castle be.

Changing the order-Because this is a book, you can't expect a movie version to be 100% accurate. You can try, but it will never happen. Take LotR. Jackson moved the giant spider to King rather than at the end of Towers. fans complained, but when King came out, most fans were happy with the way it was portrayed.

:no:That's a serious statement there Cadogan. First of all, I don't mind the book being changed around a LITTLE BIT. Just not as excessively done as in POA, which cheeze pointed out :tu: . Second, Peter Jackson had a REALLY GOOD EXCUSE as to why he moved the Shelob's Lair scene to ROTK. If he had left it in TTT, the movie would have given way too much away too early as well as make it a little anti-climactic following the Helm's Deep scene. I mean, Shelob's Lair would have only made less for Sam and Frodo to do in the final film because, assuming you read the book, they don't do a whole lot after that scene. Prior to that, they would HAVE TO HAVE THROWN in the Endless Stair to even get to Shelob, not to mention Minas Morgul and the release of the army. Oh and then there was Cirith Ungol (you can't break any of this up or split it because it's all so closely related to each other). So right there, you're already looking at over 30 min of film, which would've killed TTT. And did I mention that it would have been anti-climactic to see that after the adrenaline-pumped Helm's Deep sequence???? Peter made the right call on that one. PLUS, and this where you are off the mark, Shelob's Lair WAS NOT RANDOMLY MOVED to another part of the film as was the case in several moments of POA. You were referring to the complaints of POA being switched around in your post, and that told the rest of us that that was what you meant in your post. However, it was left exactly in the same place as it happened in the books. Therefore, nothing was perversely changed or moved, we just saw it later in the film. OH AND BY THE WAY, this brings me to another point. LOTR is actually not 3 films, or 3 books, but ONE FILM and ONE BOOK. It was meant to be viewed as such and Tolkien himself even said as much that LOTR was one continuous story, not 3 separate parts, so to speak. So, on that note, this whole Shelob's Lair argument that you brought up is a moot point. I don't mean to offend, but you have to back up your arguments with sound reasoning so that people will better understand where you are coming from. That's all I'm going to say about that. :grumble:

The changes in the scenery and the way the castle was laid out were for the better.

Please elaborate.

See.. additions make it better.

:wow: WOW, you are so right. Guess you told us all, huh? :tu:

With a new director perhaps Jo decided it would be worth seeing someone else's interpretation so she told Cuaron to make the movie his own, to have artistic license.

:shrug: Perhaps. But it's also possible that she completely detested :grumble: his "artistic license" as you put it, only she was being really really nice about it in public. If she had said that she hated his interpretation in public, it would've killed all publicity for the film and it would have probably bombed in the theaters. That's just a theory though. Don't take me seriously.

remusjlupin1980

October 19th, 2004, 2:59 am

:shrug: Perhaps. But it's also possible that she completely detested :grumble: his "artistic license" as you put it, only she was being really really nice about it in public. If she had said that she hated his interpretation in public, it would've killed all publicity for the film and it would have probably bombed in the theaters. That's just a theory though. Don't take me seriously.

*sighs*

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

J.K. said this was her favorite of the movies so far. She could've said "it was alright", "Cuaron did a good job", "I loved the Dementors", etc. But she said it was her favorite. Even if she is contractually obliged not to say anything negative publicly about the film, she needn't have said it was her favorite. J.K. strikes me as a blunt, honest woman. I don't think she would've said the third is her favorite just to kiss up to the studios (Besides, she's already worth billions. She don't really need the money from the movies).

CajunFry

October 19th, 2004, 3:37 am

That's just a theory though. Don't take me seriously.

JUST A THEORY!!!!! DON'T TAKE ME SERIOUSLY!!!! I put that in there so people like you wouldn't flip out over it. Then again, why am I not surprised that you responded in such a manner? It was just a thought in passing. Thank you.

metr0man

October 19th, 2004, 7:58 am

I felt this was easily the strongest Harry Potter movie to date. I loved the dark sense of foreboding around all the scenes. I loved the color pallette, it was the perfect atmosphere for this book. Also it was really good how introspective this movie was. The first two felt like they were just copying the pages blindingly (especially the first), but this one felt like someone LOOKED at Azkaban, and wrestled out the emotional core and characterization of the storyline, like someone read through *** book and SEARCHED for the EMOTIONAL HEART! And they got it!
One of the best scenes was Harry's "I'm gonna kill him!" pronouncement. And the tender dialogue scenes, like Lupin remembering James/Lilly, or Sirius' good-bye. And I loved how the conflict wasn't YET ANOTHER battle with a form of Voldemort or another villian, but it was freeing an innocent man. It was all about character, and about how it affected Harry's character. From the rage at his parent's betrayer, to the realization that there was a Father figure out there who loved him... Just great.

This movie had way more emotional depth imo. Great job by Kloves and Cuaron. I had fallen out of the HP fandom, but seeing this movie made me run to the library and grab Order of the Phoenix and read it and I'm a hardcore fan.
I give this movie an A.

rela00

October 19th, 2004, 8:18 am

in SS (or PS, for you Brits)
Hate to say it but you’re the ones who changed it, not us! ;)

Please elaborate.
Basically I watched the first two going NO NO that's not in the right place!! PoA "felt" right. Argue the point all you want but for me PoA got the forest, Hargrids hut and the Whomping Willow in the right places. I also felt that the castle felt like a character in it's own right rather than a flat, uninteresting 2D thing that was there because it had to be rather than as the heart of the story.
Besides what's all the arguing about? It's obvious that you have your opinion, are other's not allowed theirs? I just put my opinion down thinking it was a nice friendly chat about the film and then find that people are being attacked for it! Chill!
I felt this was easily the strongest Harry Potter movie to date. I loved the dark sense of foreboding around all the scenes. I loved the color pallette, it was the perfect atmosphere for this book. Also it was really good how introspective this movie was. The first two felt like they were just copying the pages blindingly (especially the first), but this one felt like someone LOOKED at Azkaban, and wrestled out the emotional core and characterization of the storyline, like someone read through the book and SEARCHED for the EMOTIONAL HEART! And they got it!
Exactly. Spot on. :tu:

Magical_Me

October 19th, 2004, 8:27 am

Perhaps. But it's also possible that she completely detested his "artistic license" as you put it, only she was being really really nice about it in public. If she had said that she hated his interpretation in public, it would've killed all publicity for the film and it would have probably bombed in the theaters. That's just a theory though. Don't take me seriously.

That could well be true, but it doesn't change the fact that she gave him permission. There's nothing to say she did like the movie a part from her word, and JK sounds like a lovely person so wouldn't deliberately hurt people's feelings. I can imagine the look on poor Alfonzo's face if she did think that and made it public. Probably like Columbus' when Jo practically told Alfonzo to make the movie the opposite of Chris'...

CajunFry

October 19th, 2004, 9:50 am

Hate to say it but you’re the ones who changed it, not us! ;)

Basically I watched the first two going NO NO that's not in the right place!! PoA "felt" right. Argue the point all you want but for me PoA got the forest, Hargrids hut and the Whomping Willow in the right places. I also felt that the castle felt like a character in it's own right rather than a flat, uninteresting 2D thing that was there because it had to be rather than as the heart of the story.
Besides what's all the arguing about? It's obvious that you have your opinion, are other's not allowed theirs? I just put my opinion down thinking it was a nice friendly chat about the film and then find that people are being attacked for it! Chill!

Exactly. Spot on. :tu:

Well, that's odd. :huh: I intended to only quote what you wrote about the SS, PS thing and yet a whole 'nother post comes up in my box with some interesting things. So, I shall reply to the entire post that doesn't appear in the main thread.

Yeah, I know we changed it. :tu: hehehe I was only saying PS just to be respectful of the Brits :cool: . Us arrogant Americans usually don't do that. We are too busy playing world police to show such decency these days. Only joking.......don't hurt me. :angel:

Who are you referring to when you make these claims of "attack" and "not allowing others opinions"? I hope it's not me, because I haven't attacked anyone in years.....muahaha :evil: I hope you're referring to those rude people who posted before me, and not me. I just want to know where I stand on this issue, then I can get along and be merry once again. :p

In addition, this thread kind of warrants arguments ( :D friendly though!!!! :D ) based on what it would like us to talk about.

Also, and I am sorry to disagree with you, :sigh: but you said that the Forbidden Forest, Hagrid's Hut, and the Whomping Willow were all "in the right places." The FF is debatable, but not of any real concern to me. Hagrid's Hut is more unlike the books, but for the real scoop on that, please read my post above (the really really long one). As for the Whomping Willow, I have to say that you are incorrect when you literally said that it was in the right place. :no: I made a VERY sound argument that pretty much negates any chance of the willow being in the place in which you condoned. Once again, please refer to my very long (and please read it, not skim) and very thorough look at these exact points. I can back up my arguments if need be, but could you please do the same when posting so people aren't "attacking" you for saying generalized opinions. They like to do such things because they can and because you probably meant to be more elaborate but weren't. I can't tell you how much it irks me that good folks like you get flamed for nothing. :sigh: I hope I'm not being a jerk, I'm just trying to help, if anything. Thanks. :elaugh:

PS I'm SO chill right now...... :drool:

Magical_Me

October 19th, 2004, 10:59 am

As for the Whomping Willow, I have to say that you are incorrect when you literally said that it was in the right place. I made a VERY sound argument that pretty much negates any chance of the willow being in the place in which you condoned.

I don't believe any solid evidence can point anyone in the "right" direction in terms of geography in Hogwarts. Everyone has a different vision of the castle, the grounds, the lake and the forest. Even if in the book something is explicitly stated in the east or something it's not going to change people's already existing visions. I know the WHomping Willow seemed much more in place for me in PoA; I didn't imagine it to be in the middle of flat ground just metres away from the Castle walls. I imagined bumpy terrain around the forest, something PoA much more accurately cpatured for me.

rela00

October 19th, 2004, 12:56 pm

I don't believe any solid evidence can point anyone in the "right" direction in terms of geography in Hogwarts. Everyone has a different vision of the castle, the grounds, the lake and the forest. Even if in the book something is explicitly stated in the east or something it's not going to change people's already existing visions. I know the WHomping Willow seemed much more in place for me in PoA; I didn't imagine it to be in the middle of flat ground just metres away from the Castle walls. I imagined bumpy terrain around the forest, something PoA much more accurately cpatured for me.
Exactly. I may be wrong (and probably am) but PoA was more in line with my idea of what Hogwarts looked like. I'm not saying anyone else is wrong I'm just saying in my minds eye it was closer to my view of Hogwarts than the first two.
I don't think your ever going to make everyone happy because that is the wonder of books. You create your own view of what the world looks like. For example Platform 9 3/4 is not what I imagined it as but I'm not going to quibble over it because that's how the filmmakers saw it (and probably JK herself).
The books are always going to be better than the films because you can create your version of the world and not have that of the directors forced upon you. Having said that, PoA is almost exactly as I imagined the grounds to look (and I may be wrong but it's my imagination so lay off!!!). Anyway... Argue away. It's obvious that different people see the castle in different ways. Forcing your view (either way and no I wasn't aiming the first "attack" at you CajunFry) on other people is only going to wind them up more. Discuss... yes, argue... yes but tell people they are wrong because their view doesn't correspond to yours... No. That's just rude! ;)

SnowyOwl

October 19th, 2004, 11:02 pm

There were aspects of PoA that I liked very much. I fully appreciated many of the artistic additions. The problems I have stem from Kloves' interpretation of the books. Yes, I realize that JKR is satisfied with his work, and yes, I disagree with her.

The characters have been manipulated in a way that I think undermines a good bit of the story.
1) Snape. Though, IMO, Rickman looks and speaks the part, the movie character is nowhere near as nasty as the book character. This negates one of Harry's big problems.
2) Ron's character has also had a huge amount of damage done to it. He has lost nearly all dignity in the movies. I do not see this as an actor problem at all, as Rupert Grint could easily play the real Ron. I was highly disappointed in the Whomping Willow and Shrieking Shack scenes. The freezing charm I'm not even going to discuss other than to say it is absurd to have a basic spell render a tree (that is put on the grounds to protect a student body of 11-18 year old kids) useless. I do not like how Ron is simply dragged into the hole whining for Harry the whole way--the Ron I know fought hard without screaming for Harry. Kloves then turns Ron into a Gryffindor version of Draco as he exaggerates his injury (a bite?) to Hermione after they leave (Yes, I can appreciate the humor).
It seems that anytime Kloves wants to try for a bit of humor, or highlight Hermione's "fierce intellect" he sacrifices Ron's character.
PS: the whole troll scene. He changes the scene so that it is only through Hermione's coaching that Ron can save the day.
CoS: the whole Aragog scene--enough said.
PoA: Kloves changes the "Hermione vs. Ron pet problems" to Ron being careless about Scabbers when the exact opposite is the case in the book. Kloves ruins the dynamics of the trio as he has Hermione and Harry keep Ron out of the loop after the whole time turner scene.
3) I disliked a few of the minor character changes as well. Leaky Cauldron Tom as "Igor"? Rosmerta changed from the curvy barmaid appreciated by schoolboys and Ministers alike.

Whew! Sorry for the rant. The only other point I'd like to make is that it surprises me how little the idea of magic as a way of life is portrayed in the films. In JK's world, I can't imagine Harry hunkering protectively over Hermione's back with a werewolf threatening them. They'd be firing as many spells as they could at the threat while getting out of there. Really, where is the practical application?

CajunFry

October 20th, 2004, 12:15 am

I don't believe any solid evidence can point anyone in the "right" direction in terms of geography in Hogwarts.

For starters, it pointed Chris Columbus in the "right" direction because his so-called "vision" of the Whomping Willow was so exact to the books that anything else was just plain wrong. I'm sorry but (as I stated in my first post, I hope you actually read it) there has to be a certain degree of consistency between these films. I don't care if the director makes changes that are minor or if he has things appear a little different because that is to be expected, but you DO NOT make such extreme changes from something that has already been established. :no: Yes, I know I know, it's a new director and he's going to do things differently. FINE!!! I'm all for that. Just leave certain key points where they were. Chris Columbus got it right the first time. I'm sorry that a lot you didn't care much for his work, but if Hogwarts had at least stayed the same (in terms of where things were, and not how they looked) then the movie would have made much more sense and the events that unfolded in POA would have been much more logical. Go back and read POA and keep this "new" POA Hogwarts layout in mind when reading. You tell me whether or not the events that happenen in the book could have possibly worked with this configuration. Again, I will repeat myself by saying that I didn't have a problem with a new director making changes to the overall atmosphere and the look in general. I thought were fabulous when applied to the story and worked out perfectly to give us the needed feel and essence of the film. But by changing things to such a large degree it just didn't make any logical sense. As some have stated earlier, I'm not looking for carbon copies of the book as a film. Stay true to the original source material. Moving the willow is not staying true to source material and in my opinion, is kind of an insult to Chris Columbus. If the willow had remained where it was from the COS, then everything that happened in POA would have worked out wonderfully. That's a whole separate debate, so I'll stop here.

Everyone has a different vision of the castle, the grounds, the lake and the forest.

So you are saying that even JK Rowling herself has a different vision of the castle grounds, the lake and the forest other than what she has already written in the books? How do you figure that? Yeah, I had a different vision of everything before I read the books and then saw the movies and went on to compare them and see what worked and what didn't. Columbus' take wasn't perfect either, just to get that straight. However, as much as people didn't care for the "Disney-ish" style of his films, his interpretation was right there with JKR's description as far as geography is concerned. Let's make sure that we are all talking about the same thing and not two closely related articles.

Even if in the book something is explicitly stated in the east or something it's not going to change people's already existing visions.

Well, guess what? It did. Up until POA, everyone had a vision of what things looked like from watching SS and COS. Love it or hate it, it was now the set standard for future films, books, etc. The vast majority of it (especially the willow, forest, Hagrid's Hut) was the new standard and everyone had those images in their minds when further reading the later books and, ultimately, upon entering the theater for POA. Lo and behold, POA once again changes most of those standards (correct as they originally were) and attempts to re-establish them elsewhere at the expense of the audience. So, the books said one thing (in detail), the first two movies applied that nicely, and people had up until POA that vision. POA comes out, their visions have changed AGAIN, and yet you say that this scenario was not possible. Please clarify this for me because I am responding to the logic of your statement, so I may not be in the same ballpark as you had originally intended.

I know the WHomping Willow seemed much more in place for me in PoA; I didn't imagine it to be in the middle of flat ground just metres away from the Castle walls. I imagined bumpy terrain around the forest, something PoA much more accurately cpatured for me.

:rotfl: WOW! How can you not imagine something that was SPECIFICALLY described as being just metres away from the Castle Doors (not walls) in the first place??? When was the last time you read POA? I mean, if you want proof, see my FIRST post above, the long one, with book quotes, and stuff.... Now the terrain I can agree with you there. SS and COS could have used a more earthy, Rohan look (Hey, it was a good example....don't hurt me), but it wasn't a big deal cuz you didn't see it for that much of an extended period, SS and COS I mean. I can't really say much more on this one. *sigh*

The books are always going to be better than the films because you can create your version of the world and not have that of the directors forced upon you. Having said that, PoA is almost exactly as I imagined the grounds to look (and I may be wrong but it's my imagination so lay off!!!). Anyway... Argue away.

True, the books will always be better because everything is there and nothing is left out. I think we all agree on that aspect. Good point. Now, the whole "forced" part. I don't know if you really meant to use that term because that's a strong way of putting it. I never felt as if I was being force-fed anything. It was more of appreciating what they offered me or not. For the most part, I appreciate what Alfonso has done. He did a lot of amazing things that helped to keep me from really not liking the film (the Dementor scenes, for example). With that in mind, your imagination is yours alone and it is something that none of us (hopefully) will ever try and manipulate to our benefit. I do not try impose, just to see things how they were meant to be originally. Everyone goes home and conjures up their own visions of Hogwarts to some degree when they read the books again. That's the truth. It's the movies that we are talking about, not our imaginations. If that were so, this forum would be in complete, and total chaos. You'd have trolls running around throwing garden gnomes at you whenever you tried to speak up. That's just not very wizard-like.

It's obvious that different people see the castle in different ways. Forcing your view (either way and no I wasn't aiming the first "attack" at you CajunFry) on other people is only going to wind them up more.

True, we all see things differently. I'm pretty sure that I'm not forcing anything upon anybody, if you were referring to me (I'm confused). These aren't really views I'm arguing but facts that everyone has read at least once.

Discuss... yes, argue... yes but tell people they are wrong because their view doesn't correspond to yours... No. That's just rude!

Discuss? Yes we do! Argue? That we shall! But, telling people they are wrong because their views don't match, NOT MINE, but JK Rowling's? Are you serious?

A NOT SO SERIOUS EXAMPLE OF WHAT KEEPS GETTING REPEATED ON HERE:

A Fan's vision: The willow was right where I thought it should be.

JK's vision: The willow was where I said it was when I wrote about it and that obviously contradicts your vision of it.

Who is right in the end? JK Rowling, of course! It's her books with her vision in her own words and what place is it for any of us to say so otherwise. You don't like what she says, well then tough! She has the last say in anything, not us. I'm defending her vision, not mine, so please do not accuse me of imposing or "forcing" "my vision" upon anyone else. It's rather JKR that you are disagreeing with, not me. If you weren't accusing me of anything, then please disregard that former statement. *whew* Got a bit of drama there....Anyway, please follow-up. Thank you. :cool:

PS It seems that I'm quite alone on this subject in the forums. :scared: lol Seriously though, if anyone actually agrees with me, even in part, let me know. It helps to know that my time and words are at least appreciated.

CajunFry

October 20th, 2004, 1:37 am

There were aspects of PoA that I liked very much. I fully appreciated many of the artistic additions. The problems I have stem from Kloves' interpretation of the books. Yes, I realize that JKR is satisfied with his work, and yes, I disagree with her.

You disagree? You mean I'm not the only one? That's pretty cool! hehe

2) Ron's character has also had a huge amount of damage done to it. He has lost nearly all dignity in the movies. I do not see this as an actor problem at all, as Rupert Grint could easily play the real Ron. I was highly disappointed in the Whomping Willow and Shrieking Shack scenes. The freezing charm I'm not even going to discuss other than to say it is absurd to have a basic spell render a tree (that is put on the grounds to protect a student body of 11-18 year old kids) useless. I do not like how Ron is simply dragged into the hole whining for Harry the whole way--the Ron I know fought hard without screaming for Harry. Kloves then turns Ron into a Gryffindor version of Draco as he exaggerates his injury (a bite?) to Hermione after they leave (Yes, I can appreciate the humor).
It seems that anytime Kloves wants to try for a bit of humor, or highlight Hermione's "fierce intellect" he sacrifices Ron's character.
PS: the whole troll scene. He changes the scene so that it is only through Hermione's coaching that Ron can save the day.
CoS: the whole Aragog scene--enough said.
PoA: Kloves changes the "Hermione vs. Ron pet problems" to Ron being careless about Scabbers when the exact opposite is the case in the book. Kloves ruins the dynamics of the trio as he has Hermione and Harry keep Ron out of the loop after the whole time turner scene.

You pose some very interesting points concerning Ron SnowyOwl. I never really thought of those things. But, they all make pretty logical sense from the book Ron. Yeah, I'd have to say that I agree with you on all counts, though none of it really bothered me that much, now that I think about it. ;-)

shraker

October 20th, 2004, 4:20 am

Well this is quite a heated discussion!

I really enjoyed the film, the darker look gave it a more mature feel, and (I think) represented the atmosphere in the book.

The whomping willow was used cleverly, changing with the seasons it visually told you what time of year it was throughout the movie.
I'm not really bothered about the changes in positioning, i think you really need to class the movies and the books as two different things that can never entirely be the same otherwise you'll never entirely enjoy them.The changes will only bother you if you imagine the movies image when reading the books other than one which you created when you first read them.(just my opinion :huh: )

Didnt anyone think the werewolf was good? I thought the fact that it didnt look just like a wolf was refreshing ,the one in the movie actually looked half-man half-wolf which i felt made him more realistic and frightening.

like alot of people have said, this was the first film in the series that really kept my attention :tu:

Crazy_For_Lupin

October 20th, 2004, 4:29 am

Gettin' pretty intense in here...

But here's my 2 cents, for what it's worth.

PoA remains my favorite book of the series, and surprisingly to some, thus far it is my favorite movie.

Did I agree with all the changes Cuaron made? No. One specific thing that I know has been brought up here repeatedly was the students being in Muggle clothes almost constantly--I had grown attached to the robes. Were there things I would have left in? Yes, of course. Specifically Gryffindor winning the Quidditch Cup--mainly because I simply loved the scene.

However, I really liked the overall 'feel' of this movie--it was very well suited to the darker nature of the book. Yes, Sorcerer's Stone and Chamber of Secrets had elements of darkness to them, but PoA is where we really start seeing things going dark. Cuaron achieved that atmosphere.

I loved the Dementors. I was 20 years old surrounded by mostly kids and I was completely freaked out by them, and I knew exactly what was coming. I loved Oldman as Sirius, and Thewlis as Lupin (and as you can tell, I'm a major Lupin fan.) The dynamic between them was amazing to watch, particularly the scene in the Shrieking Shack that's been brought up repeatedly.

I know this post doesn't address a lot of the problems people had with the movie but for me, I like to focus on what I did like. Battle on, all!

hawk1245

October 20th, 2004, 5:24 am

[QUOTE=shraker] Didnt anyone think the werewolf was good? QUOTE]

I did :)

Crazy_For_Lupin

October 20th, 2004, 5:56 am

[QUOTE=shraker] Didnt anyone think the werewolf was good? QUOTE]

I did :)

Me too! You could see the humanity behind it. Made it even more chilling.

rela00

October 20th, 2004, 8:35 am

Anyway, please follow-up. Thank you. :cool:
Really can't be bothered cos all your doing is twisting everything I say and not actually taking any notice. Getting quite bored now in fact. All I will leave you with is I liked the film... So sue me!
I'm not really bothered about the changes in positioning, i think you really need to class the movies and the books as two different things that can never entirely be the same otherwise you'll never entirely enjoy them.The changes will only bother you if you imagine the movies image when reading the books other than one which you created when you first read them.(just my opinion )
Yep yep. I agree. The first two films didn't effect my view when re-reading them so... ;)

CajunFry

October 20th, 2004, 9:13 am

Really can't be bothered cos all your doing is twisting everything I say and not actually taking any notice. Getting quite bored now in fact. All I will leave you with is I liked the film... So sue me!

Oh my GOD. You actually think I'm twisting your words?? It seems that they only appear to get twisted because you only make generalized comments that lack substance or elaboration. It's not my fault if I take your words at face value and respond appropriately to them. In addition, by ending your post with "So sue me!" that shows that you are just giving up on the issue. Why? Come out and play! This is fun. Don't get upset over this, its only a forum! :p

The first two films didn't effect my view when re-reading them so...

:drool:

Did I agree with all the changes Cuaron made? No. One specific thing that I know has been brought up here repeatedly was the students being in Muggle clothes almost constantly--I had grown attached to the robes. Were there things I would have left in? Yes, of course. Specifically Gryffindor winning the Quidditch Cup--mainly because I simply loved the scene.

:clap: Amen!

However, I really liked the overall 'feel' of this movie--it was very well suited to the darker nature of the book. Yes, Sorcerer's Stone and Chamber of Secrets had elements of darkness to them, but PoA is where we really start seeing things going dark. Cuaron achieved that atmosphere.

:clap: Amen!

I loved the Dementors. I was 20 years old surrounded by mostly kids and I was completely freaked out by them, and I knew exactly what was coming. I loved Oldman as Sirius, and Thewlis as Lupin (and as you can tell, I'm a major Lupin fan.) The dynamic between them was amazing to watch, particularly the scene in the Shrieking Shack that's been brought up repeatedly.

:clap: Praise Merlin! They gave me chills and I'm the same age as you!

I know this post doesn't address a lot of the problems people had with the movie but for me, I like to focus on what I did like. Battle on, all!

We appreciate your comments Crazy. For the record, you can see the list of things that I loved about POA above. I may seem really negative, but that's only due to the fact that I'm responding to a post directly and not so much my own account of the films. :cool:

I'm not really bothered about the changes in positioning, i think you really need to class the movies and the books as two different things that can never entirely be the same otherwise you'll never entirely enjoy them.The changes will only bother you if you imagine the movies image when reading the books other than one which you created when you first read them.(just my opinion )

I completely understand where you are coming from. You make a good point when one thinks about the movies and the books. However, your post wasn't accurate when discerning my recent posts and what you had in mind. I am basically classifying the movies amongst each other (again, consistency is key, see really long post for clarification). So, it's the transition from movie to movie that I am focusing on, while using the books as my source material to back up my arguments. I probably wasn't quite clear on that and I apologize. Therefore, while you are very right in saying what you did, it wasn't really pertaining to my original intentions. Thanks.

Didnt anyone think the werewolf was good? I thought the fact that it didnt look just like a wolf was refreshing ,the one in the movie actually looked half-man half-wolf which i felt made him more realistic and frightening.

Ya know, I'm kind of ambiguous on the werewolf. I liked the animal part of him, that was done quite nicely, but it was the look that put me off a little. I mean, it seemed to me that I was looking at a mutated chihuahua with anorexia than an actual werewolf (as opposed to say a Van Helsing werewolf or Underworld). Don't get me wrong, once I got over the initial shock value he was kinda cool. Freaky once he started running around snarling at the kids. :tu:

Magical_Me

October 20th, 2004, 12:32 pm

For starters, it pointed Chris Columbus in the "right" direction because his so-called "vision" of the Whomping Willow was so exact to the books that anything else was just plain wrong.
I couldn't care less if that is what JK Rowling imagined when she wrote the books. I think she knows that the beauty in books is that everyone has a different interpretation, so it would seem pointless to try and make everything described in great detail. It would bore people and render them unable to form their own imagination.

I'm sorry but (as I stated in my first post, I hope you actually read it) there has to be a certain degree of consistency between these films.
I can see your point, and it is valid, but I disagree. I think Cuaron should be able to make the world his own vision. He wouldn't have touched the project if he was constricted to keeping everything canon to previous films. I would imagine not many directors would.

Chris Columbus got it right the first time.
In your opinion. For me, Cuaron got it right, and I'm glad he did what he did. Third time's a charm.

I'm sorry that a lot you didn't care much for his work, but if Hogwarts had at least stayed the same (in terms of where things were, and not how they looked) then the movie would have made much more sense and the events that unfolded in POA would have been much more logical.
Movies about wizards and magic don't need logic. They aren't deeply psychological and serious films, they are theere to be enjoyed. I'm sorry if you can't enjoy them on at least that level.

Go back and read POA and keep this "new" POA Hogwarts layout in mind when reading. You tell me whether or not the events that happenen in the book could have possibly worked with this configuration.
Of course they could, but that's just it. Configuration is just someone else's view of it. It would clash with someone else's, guaranteed, and the whole vicious cycle would start again. It's impossible to make people agree on such things. Even if JK Rowling did every single thing in the movie it would still clash with other people's views. Just becasue it's what she saw doesn't make it right. As the author she sets the scene for us to play it out.

Again, I will repeat myself by saying that I didn't have a problem with a new director making changes to the overall atmosphere and the look in general. I thought were fabulous when applied to the story and worked out perfectly to give us the needed feel and essence of the film. But by changing things to such a large degree it just didn't make any logical sense.
And again I will repeat myself by saying that movies aimed at children (and believe me, as much as anyone may argue, the potter movies are) don't need logic. They're visual and aural feasts. The books are when logic is important becasue they hold deeper meaning and symbol, when analysed in detail.

As some have stated earlier, I'm not looking for carbon copies of the book as a film. Stay true to the original source material. Moving the willow is not staying true to source material and in my opinion, is kind of an insult to Chris Columbus. If the willow had remained where it was from the COS, then everything that happened in POA would have worked out wonderfully.
In that case, having the Willow where Columbus had it is an insult to me. The fact that the Willow's location isn't explicitly stated apart from a general direction is enough to discard the reliability of "source material".

That's a whole separate debate, so I'll stop here.
As will I.

So you are saying that even JK Rowling herself has a different vision of the castle grounds, the lake and the forest other than what she has already written in the books?
Of course not. What is written is not how everything is, what she sees in what is written is what everything is for her. If that makes sense... The reason she doesn't give specific detail such as "the lake is exactly fifty-eight paces from the back door of the castle which is at a right angle from Hagrid's Hut, etc..." is because the image is supposed to come from the reader.

Yeah, I had a different vision of everything before I read the books and then saw the movies and went on to compare them and see what worked and what didn't. Columbus' take wasn't perfect either, just to get that straight. However, as much as people didn't care for the "Disney-ish" style of his films, his interpretation was right there with JKR's description as far as geography is concerned. Let's make sure that we are all talking about the same thing and not two closely related articles.
I hate the idea of someone else's interpretation being forced upon me. The movies, of course, don't do that as they are simply someone else's vision, but saying that Columbus had it right is a wrong statement in itself because nobody can have it right, becasue everyone is different. He may have stayed closer to the books geographically because he studied the text in detail, but a person reading the book for its original purpose doesn't take notice of such things. That's where they develop their own ideas. My imagination is ambiguous; whatever I'm reading takes form in my head and it may not agree with something in a previous scene in my head. My idea of Hogwarts isn't a solid, geographical plot. Anything can be anywhere, and I prefer it that way because then my imagination isn't constricted. Besides, who's going to remember every single location detail and have it 100% canon in every part of the book? Not many, I should think.

Well, guess what? It did. Up until POA, everyone had a vision of what things looked like from watching SS and COS. Love it or hate it, it was now the set standard for future films, books, etc.
No they certainly did not. I would consider it an insult to have my imagination changed by someone else's intepretation. It may have happened with you, but please don't assume it did for everyone. None of the movies will ever changed my view of the books. Some aspects may be the same, but it wouldn't change anything. Sure, you can say that for people who saw the movies before reading the books, becasue it happens. It happened for me when I read Pride and Prejudice after the (brilliant) mini-series. But most of the time it's not going to happen with people who have read the books already.

The vast majority of it (especially the willow, forest, Hagrid's Hut) was the new standard and everyone had those images in their minds when further reading the later books and, ultimately, upon entering the theater for POA.
In the context of the films that is true, but it certainly does not extend to the books.

Lo and behold, POA once again changes most of those standards (correct as they originally were) and attempts to re-establish them elsewhere at the expense of the audience.
Who says they're correct? They may have been established, but they weren't correct for everyone. Cuaron had a vision closer to mine, but it wasn't correct. And I think it was at the expense of you. You agreed with Columbus' view and was unhappy with Cuaron's changes. I was very unhappy with Columbus and was relieved with Cuaron. The difference is that I wasn't expecting the same thing, and I won't expect the same thing for GoF. That is the beauty of different directors; you don't know what to expect. Seen one movie and don't like it, you may very well like the next one. It's hard to dismiss the whole series.

So, the books said one thing (in detail), the first two movies applied that nicely, and people had up until POA that vision. POA comes out, their visions have changed AGAIN, and yet you say that this scenario was not possible.
I say that people's visions don't change from movie to movie if they've read the books. They have their own interpretations. That may be the case for people who haven't read the books, I don't know. I don't know anyone who has seen all the movies and haven't read the books, so I can't ask.

Please clarify this for me because I am responding to the logic of your statement, so I may not be in the same ballpark as you had originally intended.
I hope I have, if not I guess you'll need to clarify what I have to clarify! :p

:rotfl: WOW! How can you not imagine something that was SPECIFICALLY described as being just metres away from the Castle Doors (not walls) in the first place???
I don't recall that particular detail so obviously it didn't affect my vision of the grounds becasue I may have overlooked it. I don't read the books to analyse these things, I read them to have fun. It doesn't ruin anything for me, missing out on things like that. If anything, it's fun to notice new things on each reading.

When was the last time you read POA?
I finished reading it the day I saw the movie, which was about a week after it opened in Australia (June 10).

I mean, if you want proof, see my FIRST post above, the long one, with book quotes, and stuff....
I don't need or want proof. My vision is established, nothing can change that. Nothing except a dramtic and obvious physical change in the actual books; i.e. the castle is flattened by Voldemort. Obviously my new vision of Hogwarts is that it's simply not there. Besides, the lake was explicitly stated behind the castle, but it looks brilliant where it is in the movies, and I tip my hat at Columus for that particular detail. It still didn't change my view, though. And the books can't be used as proof as those sorts of things aren't taken as fact.

Now the terrain I can agree with you there. SS and COS could have used a more earthy, Rohan look (Hey, it was a good example....don't hurt me)...
I agree, great example becasue it's what I had in mind.

...but it wasn't a big deal cuz you didn't see it for that much of an extended period, SS and COS I mean. I can't really say much more on this one.
Either can I, simply because I can't think of a counter argument apart from the fact I disagree with continuity in the movies when it comes to that kind of thing between directors!

JK's vision: The willow was where I said it was when I wrote about it and that obviously contradicts your vision of it.

Who is right in the end? JK Rowling, of course! It's her books with her vision in her own words and what place is it for any of us to say so otherwise.
I couldn't disagree more. Just becasue Rowling wrote it doesn't make it right, especially if other people think differently. Again, the beauty of books is in that everyone's interpretation is different. How boring it would be if everyone thought exactly the same as Rowling and she attempted to force her view upon us.

You don't like what she says, well then tough!
She would never say someone's view is wrong, becasue it's their view. Of course, as long as it's rational; i.e. not if someone imagined Hogwarts to be in the Antarctic or on an active volcano.

She has the last say in anything, not us. I'm defending her vision, not mine, so please do not accuse me of imposing or "forcing" "my vision" upon anyone else.
How do you know her vision? No-one does. No matter how much she describes it, it will be different for everyone. I'm not accusing you of forcing your opinions on others, but instead of assuming everyone should have the same vision and that only one is correct.

It's rather JKR that you are disagreeing with, not me.
Not really as no-one knows what JK Rowling's interpretation is so nobody can attack it, therefore you can't defend it.

That's all for now! :p

remusjlupin1980

October 20th, 2004, 1:01 pm

Thank you for making my work easier, Magical Me. :D

rela00

October 20th, 2004, 1:22 pm

Magical Me I'm loving you right now! ;) My point exactly but I "only make generalized comments that lack substance or elaboration" so therefore I didn't get my point across too well. Thanks for doing it for me. :)
Sorry if I don't express myself well but I don't have that long to do it in. I get short sharp breaks in which to write these so I don't have the time to gather my thought's and say everything I wish too. If it makes me sound stupid then so be it...

MoodyHarry

October 20th, 2004, 6:44 pm

MagicalMe - couldn't have said it better myself.
With all due respect to CajunFry, of course.

I think that everyone will have a different vision of how the characters and the movie should be and what scenes it should contain. I would love to see all scenes, but that is not possible, so I just want to enjoy the movies at face worth.
However, Cuaron's vision was brilliant, IMO. I really enjoyed PoA. I enjoyed the previous two, but once I saw Cuaron's vision of PoA, it highlighted what was missing in the previous movies.

Fury

October 20th, 2004, 6:59 pm

I loved the Dementors. I was 20 years old surrounded by mostly kids and I was completely freaked out by them, and I knew exactly what was coming. I loved Oldman as Sirius, and Thewlis as Lupin (and as you can tell, I'm a major Lupin fan.) The dynamic between them was amazing to watch, particularly the scene in the Shrieking Shack that's been brought up repeatedly.

I am 21 and that part freaked me out... I was like... AACK! Hurry Hurry! I knew what was coming too!

MagalY BlacK

October 20th, 2004, 9:21 pm

POA is a great movie!!!! I had my doubts regarding to Cuarón, but he did an excelent job with this film. Is the best movie so far!! The work with the photography is awesome, all that darkness sets the right mood. The changes in the Castle are perfect, specially the tower with the giant clock. The score is so emotional... it's perfect! Now, more than ever, I am a BIG fan of Alfonso Cuarón :blush:

Crazy_For_Lupin

October 20th, 2004, 9:22 pm

We appreciate your comments Crazy. For the record, you can see the list of things that I loved about POA above. I may seem really negative, but that's only due to the fact that I'm responding to a post directly and not so much my own account of the films. :cool:

Nope, no offense meant. Everyone's absolutely got the right to their opinion and I'm glad that there's a forum where everyone can express it.

And I'm also REALLY glad to hear that I wasn't the only 'adult' of sorts freaked out by those dementors! :whistle:

rela00

October 20th, 2004, 10:02 pm

I am 21 and that part freaked me out... I was like... AACK! Hurry Hurry! I knew what was coming too!
21? 24 and a half (the half is very important apparently... Or so the kids at work tell me anyway! ;)) and I was still wetting myself! Very very scary. :agree: :scared: That hand at the beginning was terrifying even though we'd seen it a billion time's on the advert (or maybe it was just me who sat and watched it on a continual loop until the film was out... :huh: )

CajunFry

October 21st, 2004, 2:17 am

Sorry if I don't express myself well but I don't have that long to do it in. I get short sharp breaks in which to write these so I don't have the time to gather my thought's and say everything I wish too. If it makes me sound stupid then so be it...

Hey rela, I meant no offense or insult by what I said. Sorry to have given you that opinion. I honestly appreciate your comments, even more so because of the little time you have to write them. Keep posting! :cool:

Now, in regards to Magical_Me's post, I would like to say that I was quite shocked at the effort and thought that was put into that post! I mean, I wasn't expecting anything quite that extensive! You're follow-up is very admirable because, as others have put it, you spoke their very thoughts and opinions for them and in such wonderful fashion, no doubt. I started reading your post, then I was still reading, then more reading, then I thought "Is this going to end sometime?", then I got to the end (finally) and I started thinking to myself how I was ever going to respond to a post of such extent that I had to go take a break (shower, eat, novels) to get my thoughts organized before I even attempted to write anything on your post. You have made many wonderful points (and allies.... :evil: ) and I will try to not redirect them to my advantage, as others think I do. BAH! Whatever, here we go.

I couldn't care less if that is what JK Rowling imagined when she wrote the books. I think she knows that the beauty in books is that everyone has a different interpretation, so it would seem pointless to try and make everything described in great detail. It would bore people and render them unable to form their own imagination.

That's a very good point. That's how everyone naturally views books of any nature, in general, already. Yeah, it would bore me to death if EVERYTHING was described in such detail. I'm not arguing that point. It's the fact that it's (the willow) such a major change from COS to POA that it's not really a detail, but a major detour in the plot. Yes, it still works in the movie, just not nearly as well as it could have.

I can see your point, and it is valid, but I disagree. I think Cuaron should be able to make the world his own vision. He wouldn't have touched the project if he was constricted to keeping everything canon to previous films. I would imagine not many directors would.

You know, this is an aspect that we will never agree upon and I am realizing that as I type. I agree about the director making things to his liking and vision. We all expect that. It was just extremely disheartening having seen him take such liberties that it just made the whole movie feel a bit off. That's my feelings on it. Keeping everything canon is rather absurd as you have mentioned, but keeping just a few things canon would have made much more sense than just reinventing the entire grounds. Cuaron already took great liberties with the film, even if he had decided to leave certain things untouched. Naturally, some of those are questionable, others are not. No director wants to pick up a series with a leash around his neck, as it should be. I guess I'm saying that there needs to be certain lengths one can go to make a movie as unique and rich as possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CajunFry
Chris Columbus got it right the first time.

In your opinion. For me, Cuaron got it right, and I'm glad he did what he did. Third time's a charm.

Not really my opinion, but more of the opinion of the author. And I was actually referring to the books in which CC had the more accurate interpretation of the grounds then AC did in terms of what was described in the books. In addition, if the third time was a charm, are we to assume that it was by pure fortune that POA "worked" and that the rest of the series would be complete let-downs? j/k I'm not being serious, more sarcastic......

Movies about wizards and magic don't need logic. They aren't deeply psychological and serious films, they are theere to be enjoyed. I'm sorry if you can't enjoy them on at least that level.

For older readers, yes there does need to be logic because we see and understand the movies a bit differently than the younger crowd. Maybe the films aren't as serious and psychological, but the books sure are. There many many themes that are contained within them that younger readers won't easily pick up on or fully understand. I'm not putting anyone down, it's just a fact of life. There are a lot of moments that happen in book 5 that only adults will be able to FULLY comprehend. It's not above any reader, just not quite as developed as adult readers. (God I know I'm gonna get it for saying that......fire away....) You also make it sound as if I didn't really enjoy the films on any level. Man, you're cuttin' deep.... I loved the films. They are Harry Potter films and I love them all. Take Star Wars for example, the original trilogy was great. Episode I I thought was really bad, but I still love it nonetheless. Same for Episode II. I'm not saying that POA was bad, because it wasn't. It was very well done. There are just things that really stuck out and didn't fit in quite well with the other two films, but we've already covered that, so I'll move on.

Of course they could, but that's just it. Configuration is just someone else's view of it. It would clash with someone else's, guaranteed, and the whole vicious cycle would start again. It's impossible to make people agree on such things. Even if JK Rowling did every single thing in the movie it would still clash with other people's views. Just becasue it's what she saw doesn't make it right. As the author she sets the scene for us to play it out.

Well said. I couldn't agree with you more. I just want to say one thing, although JKR wants us to have our own imagination, etc. there are also things that she obviously wanted to be specifically accurate. The Whomping Willow is the one thing that she had obviously wanted us to envision accurately. Picture the tree as you wish in your minds, just make sure that it sits in the right place. Even I had a different view of what the tree would look like, and of course it wasn't exactly close to the screen version, but I enjoyed it. I just really hope that I don't have to re-post the message that I have been referring to in every one of my posts, but it seems that I might have to. Not to spite you Magical. I wouldn't do that. Just so everyone knows where I am coming from.

And again I will repeat myself by saying that movies aimed at children (and believe me, as much as anyone may argue, the potter movies are) don't need logic. They're visual and aural feasts. The books are when logic is important becasue they hold deeper meaning and symbol, when analysed in detail.

We also hold opposing views on film adaptations it seems. Interesting, indeed. Well, you are half right when you say that the Potter movies are aimed at children. True, due to the thematic content and visceral imagery that we are provided with, it would seem that way, obviously. However, the films are also made to cater to everyone else because adults love them just as equally. That's the other half of your argument Magical. On a side note, I would like to point out that if the films were aimed primarily at children, what kind of movie could we expect when OOTP arrives in theathers? Or HBP? Or book 7 film adaptation where, apparently, many people are going to die? I don't see these films honestly being able to cater to children and still be PG rated. It's not possible, in my opinion. The books are more of a coming-of-age story filled with magic and wizards. When you hit those latter teenage years, you have to be honest with yourself and show things the way they really are. You can only sugarcoat so much to the point that you have to have a little dose of reality thrown in. I mean, it's kind of far-fetched, but I've read the same kind of opinions from other people on other boards.

In that case, having the Willow where Columbus had it is an insult to me. The fact that the Willow's location isn't explicitly stated apart from a general direction is enough to discard the reliability of "source material".

:rotfl: :rotfl: Well now, I guess we all got insulted at one point during the films, huh?!!!!! :rotfl: :rotfl: As for the willow's location being explicitly stated, if you read my VERY FIRST POST to this thread, you will see that it actually WAS explicitly stated to be where it HAD to be (for certain plot lines to work, of course). Therefore, it is very much source material.

Of course not. What is written is not how everything is, what she sees in what is written is what everything is for her. If that makes sense... The reason she doesn't give specific detail such as "the lake is exactly fifty-eight paces from the back door of the castle which is at a right angle from Hagrid's Hut, etc..." is because the image is supposed to come from the reader.

I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time following you on that first part. It really doesn't make a whole lot of sense the way you put it. Maybe if you could rephrase for me then I can understand what you're trying to say. I'm sorry!

HAHA HUMOR! Woohoo! But didn't JK say that the Shrieking Shack was facing west, plus or minus 11 degrees north, away from Hogsmeade, overlooking the lake, which is exactly fifty-eight paces from the back door of the castle, which is at a right angle from Hagrid's Hut, which somehow liked to change positions at random intervals during filming???? :rotfl:

I hate the idea of someone else's interpretation being forced upon me. The movies, of course, don't do that as they are simply someone else's vision, but saying that Columbus had it right is a wrong statement in itself because nobody can have it right, becasue everyone is different. He may have stayed closer to the books geographically because he studied the text in detail, but a person reading the book for its original purpose doesn't take notice of such things. That's where they develop their own ideas. My imagination is ambiguous; whatever I'm reading takes form in my head and it may not agree with something in a previous scene in my head. My idea of Hogwarts isn't a solid, geographical plot. Anything can be anywhere, and I prefer it that way because then my imagination isn't constricted. Besides, who's going to remember every single location detail and have it 100% canon in every part of the book? Not many, I should think.

Well, you're mind works completely differently than I guess it does for a lot of us. You said that you're imagination is ambiguous. Fair enough, beacause everyone's is to a certain degree. However, how do you not adjust from scene to scene in order to make everything that you are envisioning line up? That would just confuse me to no end. I always make adjustments from past chapters if my original idea wasn't locking into place with the current scene or atmosphere. Once I get it figured out, the world becomes more clear and I begin to enjoy the stories even more so than I had previously. Imagine that.....

No they certainly did not. I would consider it an insult to have my imagination changed by someone else's intepretation. It may have happened with you, but please don't assume it did for everyone. None of the movies will ever changed my view of the books. Some aspects may be the same, but it wouldn't change anything. Sure, you can say that for people who saw the movies before reading the books, becasue it happens. It happened for me when I read Pride and Prejudice after the (brilliant) mini-series. But most of the time it's not going to happen with people who have read the books already.

Hmm, I hadn't thought of it that way. Thank you for the input. I stand corrected. Kudos! :tu:

In the context of the films that is true, but it certainly does not extend to the books.

Well, to some degree, yes it does. People may a little or lot in mind from the films when reading the books for the first time or the umpteenth time. Think about it, I know that there are thousands of people who associate the film characters with that of the books when reading them. You know, Alan Rickman as Snape or Dan Radcliffe as Harry. It happens more often than you think.

Who says they're correct? They may have been established, but they weren't correct for everyone. Cuaron had a vision closer to mine, but it wasn't correct. And I think it was at the expense of you. You agreed with Columbus' view and was unhappy with Cuaron's changes. I was very unhappy with Columbus and was relieved with Cuaron. The difference is that I wasn't expecting the same thing, and I won't expect the same thing for GoF. That is the beauty of different directors; you don't know what to expect. Seen one movie and don't like it, you may very well like the next one. It's hard to dismiss the whole series.

At the expense of me? Ouch. Dismiss the whole series? NO. I'll refrain from going back to previous ground that's already been covered, so I'll comment elsewhere from this post.

I say that people's visions don't change from movie to movie if they've read the books. They have their own interpretations. That may be the case for people who haven't read the books, I don't know. I don't know anyone who has seen all the movies and haven't read the books, so I can't ask.

I agree. At least you were honest. Thank you.

I don't recall that particular detail so obviously it didn't affect my vision of the grounds becasue I may have overlooked it. I don't read the books to analyse these things, I read them to have fun. It doesn't ruin anything for me, missing out on things like that. If anything, it's fun to notice new things on each reading.

AH-HA! So I take it you didn't read my VERY FIRST POST on this thread. It basically answers the question that you pose on the "details". And I don't read the books to analyse as well. I read them because they are fun, dangerously addictive (I have stories about that), very well thought out and a perfect escape from the drudges of everyday life.

I don't need or want proof. My vision is established, nothing can change that. Nothing except a dramtic and obvious physical change in the actual books; i.e. the castle is flattened by Voldemort. Obviously my new vision of Hogwarts is that it's simply not there. Besides, the lake was explicitly stated behind the castle, but it looks brilliant where it is in the movies, and I tip my hat at Columus for that particular detail. It still didn't change my view, though. And the books can't be used as proof as those sorts of things aren't taken as fact.

How do you know that the lake WASN'T behind the castle in CC films? Maybe the kids just went in the back way, seeing as it was a great panaoramic shot and very pretty. I'll have to watch SS again to confirm. Again, it's interesting how your mind works when going in to watch a new chapter of the Potter universe. It's very different from mine, that's all I'm saying. :cool:

Either can I, simply because I can't think of a counter argument apart from the fact I disagree with continuity in the movies when it comes to that kind of thing between directors!

ACK!!! YOU LIBERAL POND SCUM!!! DIE DIE DIE (my darling....)!!!! ummmmm......not really. J/K!!!

I couldn't disagree more. Just becasue Rowling wrote it doesn't make it right, especially if other people think differently. Again, the beauty of books is in that everyone's interpretation is different. How boring it would be if everyone thought exactly the same as Rowling and she attempted to force her view upon us.

True, but I've covered this already.

She would never say someone's view is wrong, becasue it's their view. Of course, as long as it's rational; i.e. not if someone imagined Hogwarts to be in the Antarctic or on an active volcano.

I know she wouldn't. Never said she would. Hogwarts sitting atop an active volcano....very interesting thought.......

How do you know her vision? No-one does. No matter how much she describes it, it will be different for everyone. I'm not accusing you of forcing your opinions on others, but instead of assuming everyone should have the same vision and that only one is correct.

I based that comment on her books and her descriptions. And I'm not trying to say that everyone should think like me, cuz that would be boring. I only ask that people be a little more prudent when posting. Sorry.

Not really as no-one knows what JK Rowling's interpretation is so nobody can attack it, therefore you can't defend it.

From a book perspective, that's what I meant. So with that said, I can defend it and I have been all along.

-

Well, now wasn't that just a blast? I highly respect Magical_Me's counter-arguments, as they are intelligent and yet concise. If only my colleagues were more like you....impossible. My hat's off to you Magical_Me!

Sirius Seeker

October 21st, 2004, 3:09 am

*clears throat*
Not to derail this great back-and-forthing, but I just have a quick question....
Somewhere on these forums was a discussion about the tattoos that were on Sirius's chest in the movie but were not mentioned in the books, and that JKR said they had some future significance. Does anyone know any more about this or can they point me in the right direction?
*apologizes for interruption, steps back and lets posting continue*

shraker

October 21st, 2004, 3:10 am

Magical_Me

October 21st, 2004, 6:58 am

Hey, thanks for the respect Cajun Fry, that's a real rarity when it comes to internet debates. I respect you highly too. I was a bit bored and was supposed to be doing homework when I wrote the counter argument, hence the length. Anyways, I haven't got time to read and reply to your post Cajun (except the first few lines), but I will later!

CajunFry

October 21st, 2004, 10:43 am

WOW! I started reading your post CajunFry and i was reading, then still reading, then more reading and then i thought "Is this going to end sometime?", then i got to the end (finally) and then i started thinking to myself "just get over it mate!"
:sigh: :nc: :sigh:

Hey, thanks for the respect Cajun Fry, that's a real rarity when it comes to internet debates. I respect you highly too. I was a bit bored and was supposed to be doing homework when I wrote the counter argument, hence the length. Anyways, I haven't got time to read and reply to your post Cajun (except the first few lines), but I will later!

No problem mate! Take all the time you need. A lot of people seem to enjoy this back and forth volley a lot. hehe I guess you have to find some form of entertainment when Quidditch season hasn't started yet... :rotfl: Now I gotta go get some sleep. Class tomorrow morning. Music is such a drag sometimes.... :td:

*clears throat*
Not to derail this great back-and-forthing, but I just have a quick question....
Somewhere on these forums was a discussion about the tattoos that were on Sirius's chest in the movie but were not mentioned in the books, and that JKR said they had some future significance. Does anyone know any more about this or can they point me in the right direction?
*apologizes for interruption, steps back and lets posting continue*

That's a very good question Seeker. I haven't really thought much of it until you mentioned that it wasn't stated anywhere in the books. Hmmmm interesting indeed. I'd have to go back and read to later books to find any clues (if they exist). Unless someone else has an immediate response to this, I'll find out more and keep you updated. As for interrupting.....:grumble: :grumble: :grumble: hehe j/k You don't have to apologize for anything. It's an open forum my friend! Take care.

rela00

October 21st, 2004, 6:03 pm

Before I post this I would just like to point out I have spent the entire day grabbing 5 minute intervals in which to write it so if it’s rather disjointed I apologise profusely. Anyway… On with the show.
I finally got round to rooting out the books and DVD’s so I could put what I was trying to get at in a sensible way. I might be wrong but this is the way I saw it…
Hey rela, I meant no offense or insult by what I said. Sorry to have given you that opinion. I honestly appreciate your comments, even more so because of the little time you have to write them. Keep posting! :cool:
None taken. Well not much anyway... ;) Seriously I love a good argument! Hehe.
Yeah, it would bore me to death if EVERYTHING was described in such detail.
Oooo sounds like the Lord of the Rings! ;) But that’s a different argument so… Onwards and upwards.
I'm not arguing that point. It's the fact that it's (the willow) such a major change from COS to POA that it's not really a detail, but a major detour in the plot. Yes, it still works in the movie, just not nearly as well as it could have.
I went back and watched the Willow scene last night to try and remind myself why it annoyed me so much and it came to me... The car has to go through the school to get to Hagrid’s hut and the Forbidden Forest... I maybe wrong but isn’t the tree supposed to be across the lawn from the hut and see able from forest?

(PoA English hard back version P295 (at this point Harry and Hermione are near Hagrid’s hut watching the non-execution))
“We’re going to have to move” said Harry thinking hard “We’ve got to be able to see the Whomping Willow”…..
(bit of chat from Hermione)
They moved round the edge of the forest, darkness falling thickly around them, until they were hidden behind a clump of trees through which they could make out the Willow.
If you watch the scene there is a wall on all 4 sides of the tree and no sign of the hut or forest. Like I say I might be wrong but to me that just didn’t feel right. I’m not saying PoA got it dead on how I imagined it but it was a lot closer than PS and CoS. I just don’t think the time turner scene would have worked as well in the place it was in the first two. It would have involved an awful lot of moving around the grounds which I don’t believe (but again I might be wrong) is in the book.
One of the things that didn’t feel right in PoA was the hill down to Hagrids because I’m sure it’s described as a “sweeping lawn” but... I suppose it could be described as sweeping... ;)
There many many themes that are contained within them that younger readers won't easily pick up on or fully understand. I'm not putting anyone down, it's just a fact of life. There are a lot of moments that happen in book 5 that only adults will be able to FULLY comprehend. It's not above any reader, just not quite as developed as adult readers. (God I know I'm gonna get it for saying that......fire away....)
Hay you know what... We’ve found something we agree on! Hehe. Who’d of thought it.
I work in a school and there are definitely things that I pick up, as an adult, which they don’t. It’s not belittling anyone or putting them down it’s just a fact. As an adult you have had more life experiences and know more about the way the world works. In fact we’ve just been doing a lesson on the differences between children and adults in Citizenship. How ironic! The kids all agreed that there are certain things that they don’t understand about life that adults do and that’s why they’re looked after by adults and not the other way round. ;)
You also make it sound as if I didn't really enjoy the films on any level. Man, you're cuttin' deep.... I loved the films. They are Harry Potter films and I love them all.
Another thing we agree on! This is getting scary! ;) If it’s any help I didn’t doupt you loved the films. You wouldn’t be so passionate about something you didn’t care about!
I just really hope that I don't have to re-post the message that I have been referring to in every one of my posts, but it seems that I might have to. Not to spite you Magical. I wouldn't do that. Just so everyone knows where I am coming from.
It might be an idea. The old versions of this thread have vanished into the mist. ;) It’s to much like hard work for people to go searching. Sad I know but true…
As for the willow's location being explicitly stated, if you read my VERY FIRST POST to this thread, you will see that it actually WAS explicitly stated to be where it HAD to be (for certain plot lines to work, of course). Therefore, it is very much source material.
OK found CoS and here’s what gave me the opinion that the tree was further away from the castle than it is in the 2nd film (where it’s actually inside the castle walls if you look closely)

P59 English hard-back copy:
They missed the dark stone wall by inches as the car turned in a great arc, soaring over the dark greenhouses, then the vegetable patch and then out over the black lawns, losing height all the time.
After that they hit the tree. It might be just me but that bit gave me the impression it was quite a way from the castle…
From a book perspective, that's what I meant. So with that said, I can defend it and I have been all along.
We noticed! ;) Hay I’m sure that JK will be very happy to find out someone is defending her honour so passionately
Keep it up… I’ll await the counter argument with bated breath. I’ll look forward to it in fact! :p :tu:
Keep happy people.
Em x

CajunFry

October 21st, 2004, 11:43 pm

I went back and watched the Willow scene last night to try and remind myself why it annoyed me so much and it came to me... The car has to go through the school to get to Hagrid’s hut and the Forbidden Forest... I maybe wrong but isn’t the tree supposed to be across the lawn from the hut and see able from forest?

(PoA English hard back version P295 (at this point Harry and Hermione are near Hagrid’s hut watching the non-execution))
Quote:
“We’re going to have to move” said Harry thinking hard “We’ve got to be able to see the Whomping Willow”…..
(bit of chat from Hermione)
They moved round the edge of the forest, darkness falling thickly around them, until they were hidden behind a clump of trees through which they could make out the Willow.

If you watch the scene there is a wall on all 4 sides of the tree and no sign of the hut or forest. Like I say I might be wrong but to me that just didn’t feel right. I’m not saying PoA got it dead on how I imagined it but it was a lot closer than PS and CoS. I just don’t think the time turner scene would have worked as well in the place it was in the first two. It would have involved an awful lot of moving around the grounds which I don’t believe (but again I might be wrong) is in the book.
One of the things that didn’t feel right in PoA was the hill down to Hagrids because I’m sure it’s described as a “sweeping lawn” but... I suppose it could be described as sweeping...

You make very good points rela. Since I am at school, I don't have a TV yet to watch the movies. I mean I have both of them, just no TV. :sad: I'll try to get one and finally watch the willow scene a little more closely. There is a very good chance that the willow isn't as perfectly placed as I thought it was, if your comments are anything to judge by. You've got me really curious now. I agree with you on the time-turner issue. Hermione and Harry would have had to have gone around the entire castle to get to the points as seen in the film (with relation to book locations). That's a lot of running! I never knew they were champion cross-country runners!! :rotfl: Yeah, the Hagrid's Hut thing really bothered me as well, because it was perfectly fine where it was in the other films. I mean, if they had put it there originally in the first place, it wouldn't so bad. (Yet, it had to be pretty close to the castle, which in POA it wasn't.) But that's not a big issue with me, so I'll let it go.

It might be an idea. The old versions of this thread have vanished into the mist. It’s to much like hard work for people to go searching. Sad I know but true…

If things keep going the way they do (like, people not knowing why I am arguing so vehemently on certain issues) then I just might have to re-post my original message. If I do, I'm not going to change it around to better fit with the current state of affairs, rather, I'll just let people tear me apart all over again and then chastise them for just jumping into the middle of things and not reading the whole thread. muahahahaha :evil: Not really.

On another note, you quoted some text in your post that I ALSO quoted in my original post. Did you know that? If not, then you'll see that we interpret our quotations a little differently. Not to say you're wrong, just it's different. So, in that case, I'll re-post my original message soon and go from there. If you want me to post it now, I will. Just let me know!

In closing, I was very happy to see that you (rela) and I DID agree on some other things of importance. I realize that we've been butting heads for the past few days, but to actually level with you on things we both know about is very refreshing. Granted, we may be at each other's throats again here before long. HAHAHA :p (I hope not.) Anyway, keep em coming rela!

michelle3654

October 22nd, 2004, 12:13 am

I thought it was great and gave it 5 stars.

satnitesadnesss

October 23rd, 2004, 4:54 pm

marauderlupin

October 23rd, 2004, 5:05 pm

WOW! I started reading your post CajunFry and i was reading, then still reading, then more reading and then i thought "Is this going to end sometime?", then i got to the end (finally) and then i started thinking to myself "just get over it mate!"

Dude! It's like you totally read my mind. Far out :rotfl:

*clears throat*
Not to derail this great back-and-forthing, but I just have a quick question....
Somewhere on these forums was a discussion about the tattoos that were on Sirius's chest in the movie but were not mentioned in the books, and that JKR said they had some future significance. Does anyone know any more about this or can they point me in the right direction?
*apologizes for interruption, steps back and lets posting continue*

I don't know but my best guess would be Ancient Runes. They looked like symbols so I can't think of anything else.

Spew Member

October 23rd, 2004, 5:09 pm

i didnt like it; probably because i watched it as a pirate movie on a computer screen. it made me **** bored. i liked the second movie better. i think they are a disgrace to the books; but then again so are SO many films. arg.

You really thought it was boring? I thought it was the most entertaining out of the three. (Sometimes at the expense of the book.) I really felt like it moved along at a good pace. The first time I saw it I was shocked at how much they cut out, so I went back for a second time. ;) I didn't like how they cut the marauders out, but I really liked all of the detail that Alfonso added. The color scheme for the movie was brilliant and it really added to the tone of the film. I enjoyed how he used the womping willow for his transitions (and to show that the year was moving along) the womping willow was such a large part of the book and it foreshadowed that it was going to be important later on. I thought that Hermione throwing Harry into the entrance of the whomping willow was the only time in the film that I sat up and thought "there's no way that could have happened" but everything else was carried out in such a way that it was real and believable. I'm glad he took Quidditch out and made it a small part of the film, but the portion he use it for was awesome. I liked that he used the cloud to outline the grim, but it made me wonder if the grim really was happening or if Harry's imagination was getting a little carried away with himself. In the book when he saw the grim it wasn't really a superstitious thing in the end. It was Sirius. I loved the ambiance of the Leaky Cauldren and all of the props that were in Trewlanys room. Overall I really liked it, they did have to sacrifice portions of the book, but the book was long and we all know how that goes.

ATexasMuggle

October 24th, 2004, 6:27 am

Many threads have popped up which address certain aspects of the PoA film. However, as best as I can discern, not a one has yet to pop up that is intended specifically to allow Chamber of Secrets members the ability to rant about the film. (Do correct me if I was wrong) I was, as many of you were, extremely disappointed with the film version of PoA. This thread is your opportunity to voice your disappointment with Alfonzo Cuarón’s Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Pleas list your comments pertaining to whether or not you did or did not like the film, what your specific concerns were with it, why you think Alfonzo Cuarón should be placed in a mental institution, etc. Please remember the rules, this Chamber of Secrets member does not wish to get any points against him, so remember to keep a civil tongue, and as always, enjoy.

My feelings about the film are thus:
I’ll start positive. I did like that the film had a different mood/tone/feeling to it. I thought the use of the fisheye (don’t know it’s real name even though I’m a film major) lens during a lot of the movie gave the film an out of this world feel. Way to go on not making it another kiddy film Alfonzo.

Now for the negative. I am a continuity freak. If something doesn’t sink up later on, then I become very upset. Let us think now of a hut, and a tree. Hagrid’s hut moved from just outside a castle gate to being on the side of a slopping hill. Wha? Is Hagrid’s hut a mobile home? Did it sprout legs and move itself to another location? What the heck happened here? Mr. Cuarón as director made the choice to move it and I disagree with that choice. Hagrid’s hut was pre-established as being outside the castle gate. Why did this change. WHY!? Now, the tree in question is of course the womping willow. JK placed it within the school grounds to make it accessible to Moony, Prongs, Padfoot, and Wormtail when they needed to get to the shrieking shack. Chris Columbus stuck to this. But Alfonzo Cuarón decided to move it. (Closes eyes and exhales to keep from loosing temper) I realize Chris Columbus found it physically and mentally exhausting to continue directing all the other films, but he did stay on as a producer and I feel he should have pressed more to keep at least the plainly obvious visuals a constant. Changing things like this has given me a physical pain in my chest when I see them or think about them. I don’t want to say it, but it almost ruins the film for me. I guess I’ll just have to hold my breath and cross my fingers that the following features will be more…accurate on their continuity.

-A Texas Muggle.

-10/25/04 Please be sure that if you post a comment on this thread that you are in fact ranting. This is a thread specificly for ranting, complaining, whining, etc. If you have a different opinion than that of the people who rant on this thread, please keep that one to yourself. We respect everyone's opinoin, but this thread is for ranting. If for any reason the posts on this thread begin a pattern of arguement, I will see to it that this thread is closed. Please don't make me do that, I would personally love to hear from others who were disappointed with that PoA film. Please respect these rules, and as always, enjoy.

-A Texas Muggle

remusjlupin1980

October 24th, 2004, 11:52 am

Now for the negative. I am a continuity freak. If something doesn’t sink up later on, then I become very upset. Let us think now of a hut, and a tree. Hagrid’s hut moved from just outside a castle gate to being on the side of a slopping hill. Wha? Is Hagrid’s hut a mobile home? Did it sprout legs and move itself to another location? What the heck happened here? Mr. Cuarón as director made the choice to move it and I disagree with that choice. Hagrid’s hut was pre-established as being outside the castle gate. Why did this change. WHY!?

Why not?

Books and films are separate mediums. Though one can be inspired from the other it should be independent from each other. The same goes for each of the films in the series.

Clearly, the producers made a conscious choice that from PoA onwards, they'd have a different director to tackle one entire volume of Harry's stay at Hogwarts. If the director wants to change a few things from the books or from the previous films to suit his (or her) vision of what he (or she) thinks would best capture the spirit of the books then so be it. Besides, J.K. Rowling constantly gives them advice and vetoes any changes that she feels would be contrary to the plot or gives away too much, etc.

Whining and complaing about continuity in the PoA movie, in my opinion, is whole load of B.S. If you can't accept that sometimes films are different from books and that each film will be different from each other then you'll be disappointed no matter how great a job the director does in the film.

I, for one, welcome change. As long as it captures the spirit of what I love about the books cinematically.

P.S. I think this thread will be closed soon since people are already ranting it in the PoA Film Discussion Thread.

Picko

October 24th, 2004, 2:52 pm

Your opinions are quite welcome here (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=27297). Please make sure you are respectful of other's opinions.

In the future though please make sure you do a quick search to ensure that the topic you wish to discuss isn't already being discussed elsewhere :)

MoodyHarry

October 24th, 2004, 4:34 pm

This whole Hagrid's hut moved, robes were different, bridge never existed thing is starting to drive me batty. :grumble:

Only because it's a bit too much nitpicking, and I love nitpicking.
Each film's director is granted some artistic license. Columbus just happened to be the first one to establish the movie visuals, but that does not mean that it is set in stone. It's a movie, made to entertain, and I was entertained when I saw it. That's all it needs to do.

Let's all pretend this happened:

Hagrid was bored with his hut's location and decided to move it further away. The teachers helped levitate it to its new location.

Hogwarts signed a contract with a new company to design and supply all student's robes.

The bridge always existed, but was never shown in the previous movies.

Dumbledore decided to go on the Swan and get a makeover (with respect to Richard Harris - who was excellent, but so was Michael Gambon).

The trio went on a shopping spree at Walmart and bought other clothes besides their uniforms. Hoodies were on sale.

Malfoy decided he was tired of all the gel in his hair igniting whenever he did a spell, so he stopped putting stuff in it.

:p

Change is good.

Just wait until Mike Newell's GoF is released. There will be loads and loads of change. And once again, that will be good!

Emma

October 24th, 2004, 5:21 pm

I will leave this thread for now...Just make sure that it stays a complaining thread...

Taleeya

October 24th, 2004, 10:31 pm

They're terrible by the sole reason they made changes on the set? For ****'s sake, get over it already! Most of those changes are either inconsequential or even made the film better and more magical! You are way too hung up on the changes that you fail to see the beautiful impressions made by the director. That's what I think.

I don't mind that you don't like the movie but not liking it solely for the fact that it changed is, well, rather stupid.

I did not say that the changing of locations was why the director and screenwriter were terrible.... I was making the statement that things should be consistent from movie to movie. The movie wasn't as good for alot of reasons, for example the silly plot changes and missing marauder map, etc info.

Magical_Me

October 25th, 2004, 6:52 am

R.E. Hagrid's Hut - Cuaron made a statement that he moved Hagrid's Hut because he thought that since Hagrid is now a teacher, Dumbledore would give him somewhere with more room to teach the students, somewhere where the creatures would feel more comfortable. He thought everyone would pick up on this, I guess not...

CajunFry

October 25th, 2004, 9:26 am

I did not say that the changing of locations was why the director and screenwriter were terrible.... I was making the statement that things should be consistent from movie to movie. The movie wasn't as good for alot of reasons, for example the silly plot changes and missing marauder map, etc info.

:clap: I feel the same way Taleeya. In my posts I stress that consistency is key to maintaining the one-ness feel of the series. Good post.

R.E. Hagrid's Hut - Cuaron made a statement that he moved Hagrid's Hut because he thought that since Hagrid is now a teacher, Dumbledore would give him somewhere with more room to teach the students, somewhere where the creatures would feel more comfortable. He thought everyone would pick up on this, I guess not...

That's very interesting to hear Magical. It makes sense in a way. I obviously didn't pick up on it and as you said, neither did the rest of us. However, I still do not agree with the sudden move. But I'm not bashing you or your post. Just a common statement.

Tomnoddy

October 25th, 2004, 11:24 am

I liked the changes Cuaron made to Hogwarts, it seemed a more consistent single site in PoA. One of my problems with Hogwarts in the first two movies was that it was so obviously made up of different locations. External shot of Alnwick Caste for the Quidditch, matt painting for Hogwarts view from the lake, internal shot of Christchurch College for the Great Hall.

Anyhow anyone heard the rumour that Jean-Pierre Jeunet is being talked to about taking on OotP instead of Mira Nair. I suspect that people who didn't like PoA because of Cuaron's stylistic changes will have to be sedated if Jeunet is allowed full reign over OotP. St Mungo's should be fun.

rela00

October 25th, 2004, 1:43 pm

Sorry I haven't replied yet but it's been a very busy weekend! First off I went to see Bryan Adams at the MEN in Manchester on Friday (soooooo good!) with my sister and stayed at hers overnight. Saturday was then spent driving back home (Cheshire), back to Manchester to pick up something that I forgot and then back home again. I spent yesterday at my spiritual home, Old Trafford, where I got to watch Manchester United trounce Arsenal (so happy!). Anyway... Back on topic...

You make very good points rela. Since I am at school, I don't have a TV yet to watch the movies. I mean I have both of them, just no TV. :sad: I'll try to get one and finally watch the willow scene a little more closely. There is a very good chance that the willow isn't as perfectly placed as I thought it was, if your comments are anything to judge by. You've got me really curious now. I agree with you on the time-turner issue. Hermione and Harry would have had to have gone around the entire castle to get to the points as seen in the film (with relation to book locations). That's a lot of running! I never knew they were champion cross-country runners!! :rotfl:
Ahhh so you could yet be persuaded... ;) Do give it a look though if you get the chance as I'd be interested to know if it's just me that thought that...

Yeah, the Hagrid's Hut thing really bothered me as well, because it was perfectly fine where it was in the other films. I mean, if they had put it there originally in the first place, it wouldn't so bad. (Yet, it had to be pretty close to the castle, which in POA it wasn't.) But that's not a big issue with me, so I'll let it go.
Let it go?! REALLY?! Hehe.

If things keep going the way they do (like, people not knowing why I am arguing so vehemently on certain issues) then I just might have to re-post my original message. If I do, I'm not going to change it around to better fit with the current state of affairs, rather, I'll just let people tear me apart all over again and then chastise them for just jumping into the middle of things and not reading the whole thread. muahahahaha :evil: Not really..
Now you see I thought it was the first ever post on v1 but I found your original the other day and it's on page one of this version…

On another note, you quoted some text in your post that I ALSO quoted in my original post. Did you know that? If not, then you'll see that we interpret our quotations a little differently. Not to say you're wrong, just it's different.
I did notice when I finally got round to reading it!!! Hehe. How bizarre! Funny the way different people see things in different ways…

In closing, I was very happy to see that you (rela) and I DID agree on some other things of importance. I realize that we've been butting heads for the past few days, but to actually level with you on things we both know about is very refreshing. Granted, we may be at each other's throats again here before long. HAHAHA :p (I hope not.) Anyway, keep em coming rela!
Butting heads? Me? Never. I spent the entire evening last night arguing with a friend about yesterday’s football game so to be honest I’m all argued out! Who’d of thought THAT would happen?!?!?! ;)

TheDarkLordSam

October 25th, 2004, 8:32 pm

I didn't like the actor that was Sirius. :sad: When reading his parts in the books I pictured him looking like that actor Steve Valentine (picture below)

http://www.guardiancampaign.com/awards/celebs/13.jpg

froglick00

October 25th, 2004, 8:38 pm

Hello All,

I am new to the board, and have been reading the messages on the thread with some interest. I have some fairly strong opinions regarding the third movie myself, so I thought I would enter the debate.

For some background, I personally try to separate books from movies in my mind. I think that they are 2 completely different types of media and something where I can enjoy them both, even if there are discrepancies. However, I had some difficulty with PoA on several levels; many have been previously discussed on this board. I will try to present my thoughts in my own words, not so much to rehash anything or beat a dead horse any more, but to rather give a different perspective.

I guess that as much as I can see the movies and books being completely separate entities, it was refreshing to have the first 2 movies follow the book storylines to the extent they did. For me it was unexpected, but pleasant change from other movies because the books are well written and filled with interesting and intriguing characters and events. The later books all seemed to build off of the others developing a world where you could become lost and escape reality for a time. There were differences in the first 2 movies from what my imagination had pictured from reading (certain things deleted, certain things added, etc.), but that was fine because movies and books are different.

In PoA, however, the director/screenwriter seemed to not only want to have a darker or different personal feel than the other movies or books (which would have been perfectly fine by me), but in my impression seemed to think that they knew how to do everything better. The addition of several new ‘movie moments’ or ‘sight gags’ that added nothing to the plot or further development of the characters, story line, or feel of the movie for me but consumed a great deal of time is an example. These needless scenes in conjunction with taking out or abbreviating several scenes from the book that were interesting, exciting, and developed the story better seemed to me presumptuous. Additionally, the director/screenwriter seemed to feel that they could arrange the story better than JKR like having the final scene where Harry receives the Firebolt broom replacement (most likely done in the interest of time so as not to include the wonderful conflicts between Ron, Hermione, and Harry when this happened in the middle of the book before Sirius Black was discovered, but again, when so much needless material was added it was hard to justify in my mind). In other words, there was a lot of needless material that was added entirely by the director/screenwriter in lieu of authentic JKR story/plot developing material. I know that after saying that I would like to believe that movies and books are separate forms of media that this may sound hypocritical. The difference in my mind is that I felt like the director/screenwriter weren’t simply trying to have there own vision or make a ‘movie’ not a book, but rather were trying to make a statement of their own self-worth (which I will get into more detail later).

I did personally find that the environmental changes that occurred between the first two movies and PoA distracting at best. There have been comments made that one or the other directors may have been more accurate in interpreting the books, but to me that doesn’t matter. What matters is consistency. It is again the escape element for me. I want to be taken to another place at another time and forget for a short while the realities of life. And when there are blatant discrepancies in a story line (whether it be a series of books or series of movies) that escape has not been complete for me because then I just think to myself ‘well that’s not right!’ For example, if I am reading the books, and Hagrid’s Hut is sitting at the edge of the dark forest (which is really dark and eerie and the hut is really at the edge), and then during book 3 the author moves the hut to an area of rolling hills where the forest is scant just so she could go a different direction with the character without giving any kind of explanation… then I would feel a little gipped. (thus I don’t buy the whole ‘Hagrid is now a teacher and so he moved’ idea because he was first and foremost the groundskeeper and maintained the animals in the Dark Forest). If I were watching the first Star Wars movies and then by the time of the 3rd movie, the Death Star was now a giant doughnut of doom rather that a dark and mysterious orb, I would feel a little put out. If I were watching the Godfather movies and in the 3rd movie the Godfather was a Puerto Rican woman, it would pull me out from the story and acting no matter how well written. What I am saying is that right or wrong, the first 2 movies created a world for me that was magical and mysterious and consistent, then the 3rd movie took that away because the director/screenwriter wanted to prove they could do it better. The continuity of the landscape of the movies stripped some of the escape away for me. I do not believe a single person can go back and watch the first 3 movies back to back and feel like they have truly escaped into a different world. This is unlike other great movie series such as Star Wars, Godfather, etc. Now, you can only go and watch different director’s movies (that may be good or bad depending on your point of view) and only enjoy them as individual movies. Now we have debates and forums like this that will debate which style is better and which interpretation is better rather than just have the movies being evaluated like a whole story and which chapter was better or worse.

I believe that the director/screenwriter did the Harry Potter book and movie fans a disservice by not just taking their creativity and individual style and applying it to PoA, but rather feeling they had to change it so significantly that it is no longer a continuous story in order to prove their own theatrical prowess.

That having been said, I am sure that PoA was a good movie and very well done as an individual movie, but has done nothing for the series.

Again, I enter my thoughts as another voice in the debate. I do not mean to offend anyone by my comments so I hope you all just take what I have written as it was meant to be... an opinion.

SoObvious

October 26th, 2004, 12:02 am

Eh, I didn't like it all that much. But i'm waiting excitedly for it to come out, because it's supposed to be better the second time you see it. I did NOT like the fact that Cuaron (sp?) skipped out so many parts :( And I also really didn't like the way Hermione was wearing pink. I mean honestly ?PINK? and she was like "Is that what my hair looks like from the back?" like, I know it was important so we would understand the time turner part, but Hermione wouldn't say that. Also the fact that they give Ron's lines to Hermione argggh. Well I think i've complained enough :blush:

CajunFry

October 26th, 2004, 12:16 am

:welcome: :welcome: :welcome: Hello froglick00! Welcome to the forums and to the Muggle Studies section! I am assuming that a few of the passing comments you mentioned in your post were referring to the debates between me and several other persons, correct? If true, I presume that you understand by now that I am a lengthy and drawn-out poster, who replies to certain passages or comments in one's post? I don't try to pick you apart word by word, but I do try my best to make sure that I get my point across and that I have all of my bases covered. Also, I never quote others out of context, like a lot of politicians tend to do. When I quote someone, I do it with phrases that are related to one another or with lines that obviously stand alone themselves. With that said, I would just like compliment you on how wonderful your English and grammar usage are. It made reading your post very easy because it didn't seem to get lost in erronious grammatical mistakes that could end up being misleading and/or confusing. Anyway, you make some very good points and I would just like to reiterate a few of them, as you and I share the same opinions, it seems. I don't know if you have read my very first post on this thread (page 1 for some of you), but if you haven't, you will see that we are in the same boat (gliding across the lake to Hogwarts??? :rotfl: ). So, again, welcome to the boards and I hope you enjoy your time here. Now, on the comments.

For some background, I personally try to separate books from movies in my mind. I think that they are 2 completely different types of media and something where I can enjoy them both, even if there are discrepancies. However, I had some difficulty with PoA on several levels; many have been previously discussed on this board. I will try to present my thoughts in my own words, not so much to rehash anything or beat a dead horse any more, but to rather give a different perspective.

I feel much the same way. I do realize that movies and books are completely different in their own right, but when you start something of a continous nature, be it Star Wars, LOTR, Batman (ugh) and Harry Potter, you have to have a certain amount of consistency between them all. That isn't to say that they should all be the same exact carbon copies of each other, but rather a different picture but from the same mold, base, foundation, etc., if you get my drift. Also, your perspective is closely related to mine, judging only from what you have stated above, so you aren't bringing much that is new, so to speak, yet what you do bring is stated differently and in a better explanation than others (including me), in my opinion.

I guess that as much as I can see the movies and books being completely separate entities, it was refreshing to have the first 2 movies follow the book storylines to the extent they did. For me it was unexpected, but pleasant change from other movies because the books are well written and filled with interesting and intriguing characters and events. The later books all seemed to build off of the others developing a world where you could become lost and escape reality for a time. There were differences in the first 2 movies from what my imagination had pictured from reading (certain things deleted, certain things added, etc.), but that was fine because movies and books are different.

I agree with you whole-heartedly on that. I didn't actually realize how closely they followed the book in films 1 and 2 until I witnessed the butchery that had happened in POA, then I became grateful. I mean, POA wasn't a bad movie, I loved pretty much everything (minus my rants), but it was just dissapointing on many levels.

In PoA, however, the director/screenwriter seemed to not only want to have a darker or different personal feel than the other movies or books (which would have been perfectly fine by me), but in my impression seemed to think that they knew how to do everything better.

;) I like the approach you took with that. It does seem to feel as if they are being a little arrogant in terms of what they thought was correct. While I am not completely convinced of that notion, it is very interesting to find that there is the possibility of truth in your statement.

The addition of several new ‘movie moments’ or ‘sight gags’ that added nothing to the plot or further development of the characters, story line, or feel of the movie for me but consumed a great deal of time is an example. These needless scenes in conjunction with taking out or abbreviating several scenes from the book that were interesting, exciting, and developed the story better seemed to me presumptuous.

A talking shrunken head, for example? Yeah, these things were just not necessary. Some were great, and I thought worked well, but others didn't. I can't elaborate on that because I don't remember many specific scenes of that nature, but I do know that there were enough to take notice.

Additionally, the director/screenwriter seemed to feel that they could arrange the story better than JKR like having the final scene where Harry receives the Firebolt broom replacement (most likely done in the interest of time so as not to include the wonderful conflicts between Ron, Hermione, and Harry when this happened in the middle of the book before Sirius Black was discovered, but again, when so much needless material was added it was hard to justify in my mind). In other words, there was a lot of needless material that was added entirely by the director/screenwriter in lieu of authentic JKR story/plot developing material. I know that after saying that I would like to believe that movies and books are separate forms of media that this may sound hypocritical. The difference in my mind is that I felt like the director/screenwriter weren’t simply trying to have there own vision or make a ‘movie’ not a book, but rather were trying to make a statement of their own self-worth (which I will get into more detail later).

Good example. I noticed this too when watching POA. The broomstick scene kind of just came out of the blue almost. Felt out of place, in a way.

I did personally find that the environmental changes that occurred between the first two movies and PoA distracting at best. There have been comments made that one or the other directors may have been more accurate in interpreting the books, but to me that doesn’t matter. What matters is consistency. It is again the escape element for me. I want to be taken to another place at another time and forget for a short while the realities of life. And when there are blatant discrepancies in a story line (whether it be a series of books or series of movies) that escape has not been complete for me because then I just think to myself ‘well that’s not right!’

What matters is consistency. Very correct. Whenever I watch a movie such as Harry Potter, I want to be taken to another world. A world that is unlike ours in which we all have to deal with issues and the sometimes harsh reality of our world. That is the escape you are talking about. When we are taken into this other world, we want to be transported there again and again because it so FAMILIAR to us. With POA, we were immediately taken back to that world by the opening theme and the main title, but were quickly ushered into this alternate universe of sorts where things weren't as they used to be, and it was a little frightening and decidedly confusing at times. I know that that's a little deep, but that's basically how it is for most of us, in more or less words.

For example, if I am reading the books, and Hagrid’s Hut is sitting at the edge of the dark forest (which is really dark and eerie and the hut is really at the edge), and then during book 3 the author moves the hut to an area of rolling hills where the forest is scant just so she could go a different direction with the character without giving any kind of explanation… then I would feel a little gipped. (thus I don’t buy the whole ‘Hagrid is now a teacher and so he moved’ idea because he was first and foremost the groundskeeper and maintained the animals in the Dark Forest).

:agree:

If I were watching the first Star Wars movies and then by the time of the 3rd movie, the Death Star was now a giant doughnut of doom rather that a dark and mysterious orb, I would feel a little put out. If I were watching the Godfather movies and in the 3rd movie the Godfather was a Puerto Rican woman, it would pull me out from the story and acting no matter how well written.

Funny that you bring up Star Wars, as I am huge fan (nerdy even, hehe) and if I was confronted with the idea that the Death Star was, in fact, a Dunkin Donut of doom, then I would be thoroughly mortified! :grumble:

What I am saying is that right or wrong, the first 2 movies created a world for me that was magical and mysterious and consistent, then the 3rd movie took that away because the director/screenwriter wanted to prove they could do it better. The continuity of the landscape of the movies stripped some of the escape away for me.

Rightly so. With more emphasis on consistent. :tu:

I do not believe a single person can go back and watch the first 3 movies back to back and feel like they have truly escaped into a different world.

Well, you'd be surprised at how many people on here claim they can actually pull off such a feat. :cool: Curious indeed.

This is unlike other great movie series such as Star Wars, Godfather, etc. Now, you can only go and watch different director’s movies (that may be good or bad depending on your point of view) and only enjoy them as individual movies. Now we have debates and forums like this that will debate which style is better and which interpretation is better rather than just have the movies being evaluated like a whole story and which chapter was better or worse.

Good point. I have always argued that the films need to feel as if they are one, not separate. Thus, my post concerning consistency argues that being as one is what I was talking about, if those reading it had common sense. I'm not referring to you, because I know you know what I am talking about. It should be seen as a whole, like LOTR. Maybe not to that extent, but close.

I believe that the director/screenwriter did the Harry Potter book and movie fans a disservice by not just taking their creativity and individual style and applying it to PoA, but rather feeling they had to change it so significantly that it is no longer a continuous story in order to prove their own theatrical prowess.

Be mindful, my friend. There are those here who wish to smite you with such generalized opinions. MUAHAHAHAHA Seriously, whether or not I agree with you is irrelevant, but I would advise you to stop short of openly stating such things in the future, as it tends to draw a lot of fire. (Trust me, I know).

That having been said, I am sure that PoA was a good movie and very well done as an individual movie, but has done nothing for the series.

You said "was a good movie". 'Was' as in you never saw POA? Hmm, I would think that one would at least see the movie first before making such an in-depth post. I don't know. You may have meant something else other than what was on the page. Maybe you'll have to clarify that one for me.

Again, I enter my thoughts as another voice in the debate. I do not mean to offend anyone by my comments so I hope you all just take what I have written as it was meant to be... an opinion.

And a good opinion(s) that was. Great to hear from you. I look forward to your next post! Thanks.

Taleeya

October 26th, 2004, 2:24 am

natemac

October 26th, 2004, 2:58 am

I think the punch was one of the highlights of the movie! It made Hermione an awesome character in the movie, and she looked better than ever.

I think out of all three movies, PoA represented the book the best. However, I did not like some of the things they did or how they did it.

I was happy with the movie, but I sure hope GoF is done better.

Raethul

October 26th, 2004, 3:42 am

Too bad there isn't a headbanging icon. I'd be using it tenfold if there was. :p

Additionally, the director/screenwriter seemed to feel that they could arrange the story better than JKR like having the final scene where Harry receives the Firebolt broom replacement (most likely done in the interest of time so as not to include the wonderful conflicts between Ron, Hermione, and Harry when this happened in the middle of the book before Sirius Black was discovered, but again, when so much needless material was added it was hard to justify in my mind).
Arrange it better than JKR. Goodness gracious where'd that come from!? I hardly believe for a second that they believed they were doing it better than JKR. Most likely they believed they were arranging the events in an order that worked better on screen given the time constraints. They needed something that would nicely tie everything together and wrap everything up nice and neatly, and that little scene proved to be one that did that and accomplished it quickly. How did you get the impression that they felt they were doing it better than JKR did?

The later books all seemed to build off of the others developing a world where you could become lost and escape reality for a time. I want to be taken to another place at another time and forget for a short while the realities of life.
I suppose this is just a differing of definitions because I'm completely the opposite. For my part, anything I consider an "escapist" work is something radically different from my life with characters that are likeable but ones that I cannot identify with. In that sense Harry Potter isn't that type of work, for me, because although there is the whole magic thing going on, the characters go through so many problems that I have to deal with as well: school, relationships, horrible teachers, friend problems. I like to go into Harry Potter's world, but I find that it resembles mine so closely that it's more like an exaggerated tale of something that really can happen.

I believe that the director/screenwriter did the Harry Potter book and movie fans a disservice by not just taking their creativity and individual style and applying it to PoA, but rather feeling they had to change it so significantly that it is no longer a continuous story in order to prove their own theatrical prowess.
I don't think he did fans a disservice at all. I'm a huge HP fan and I prefer PoA to Cos and PS hundreds of times over. I wish HP fans would stop thinking these movies are made exclusively for them; they're for everyone and as such changes HAVE to be made. I can understand the consistency complaint, it's just something I didn't have a problem with. But whenever I hear HP fans complaining about the smallest changes (not you personally of course, I actually find many of your arguments well-founded), then I have to think that either a)they don't know squat about the difficulties involved in adaption a book to film or b)they haven't seen many book to film adaptions. I tend to think if they had, they would realize that we're actually pretty lucky so far. I don't want to dive into LotR again, but it has so many good examples and they're just beggin to get out!

remusjlupin1980

October 26th, 2004, 7:11 am

Sorry, I don't buy the whole 'movie and books are different media' argument. If that was the case, then the movies would only be based on characters in the books, and not on the books themselves. Why not even change the title? Meet Sirius Black...... or Harry Potter Visits Hogsmeade..... after all, different media and everything. (btw, I did like the movie and everything, I just didn't like it as much as the first two)

CajunFry: You mention the broom scene coming out of the blue, I'd like to second that, but also add that the whole ending seemed to come out of nowhere, it ended suddenyl, and seemed very awkward.

This is a totally b.s. statement made by someone who's, well, extremely ignorant at best.

Movies and books are different media. That's a fact. Movies can DERIVE their inspiration from books and vice versa but really good movies can stand on it's own two feet as a good movie. Whether or not it's faithful to the book on which it's based on is irrelevant.

Harry Potter, though, is a franchise film. A very expensive at that and based on a very popular series of books. So it has to please BOTH the fans of the book and other movie audiences who hasn't read the books. The ONLY way to do that is to be faithful but at the same time be palatable for the cinema.

I don't know how many books you read whose film version you also saw (based on your statements, I think HP is the only one) but most of the films based on books that are highly regarded by critics all have cuts and alterations in them. Sense and Sensibility for instance (adapted by Emma Thompson who won an Oscar for it no less), has several changes in it but it remained true to the spirit of the book while making it more cinematic.

I've tried writing the screenplay for PoA. I included the Quidditch Cup and the Firebolt subplot. My God. I was having real problems with it. I went thirty pages (that's 30 whole minutes) of pure dialogue all talking about the Firebolt and the Quidditch House Cup. Yakkety-yakkety-yak-yak-yak. It's going to be deadly boring on-screen especially for those who hasn't read the books!!!

So what Kloves and Cuaron did: Cutting out the Quidditch Cup and the entire Firebolt subplot and just let Harry have the Firebolt in the end so that PoA will have a happy ending (since the next two books will have sad endings) is a brilliant idea. I wished I thought of it myself.

MoodyHarry

October 26th, 2004, 2:39 pm

I agree remisjlupin1980.

Books are a media that is very detailed, filled with imagery that only the reader can depict in his or her own brain. What Harry, Hermione, Hogwarts or whatever looks like depends on the imagination of the reader. The prose itself is designed to detail and describe almost every aspect of the world in which the author is presenting.

Movies and TV, on the other hand, are a visual medium. What you see is what you get. Harry looks like Harry. Daniel Radcliffe doesn't have long hair in one viewers mind, and short hair in another. He looks one way. As does Hogwarts and Hagrids Hut. Movies can only present visuals of the story, but they can never go into the detail required to cover the printed media entirely. If they did, it would literally take as much time as the books themselves cover.
The movie is there to present a visual snapshot of the ideas and story contained in the book, but in a compressed format.

renae_annette

October 26th, 2004, 2:51 pm

I didn't like the actor that was Sirius. When reading his parts in the books I pictured him looking like that actor Steve Valentine (picture below)

I agree, with this statement, but then again I think the actor that was Sirius did a good job of acting, but I didn't picture him like that ether :sad:

froglick00

October 26th, 2004, 4:29 pm

Hello Again All,

After reading a lot of the comments on this forum (including your original statement Cajun :eyebrows: ) I thought there might be feedback from people for and against some of the things I said, but that is exactly why we have these forums is to share opinions. I also knew that I would not be able to say everything perfectly to convey exactly what I meant. So I will try to make a couple more comments and respond to a few things.

CajunFry: Be mindful, my friend. There are those here who wish to smite you with such generalized opinions. MUAHAHAHAHA Seriously, whether or not I agree with you is irrelevant, but I would advise you to stop short of openly stating such things in the future, as it tends to draw a lot of fire. (Trust me, I know).

I do know that my opinions are my own. Sometimes I do make some generalizations and I hope that everyone does understand that I know they are my opinions only. Past that, feel free to differ in opinion (even rabidly if you like). I have pretty tough skin. :p

CajunFry: You said "was a good movie". 'Was' as in you never saw POA? Hmm, I would think that one would at least see the movie first before making such an in-depth post. I don't know. You may have meant something else other than what was on the page. Maybe you'll have to clarify that one for me.

To clarify what I meant... I was disappointed when I saw PoA (yes I did see the movie) because of all of the things that I mentioned. Primarily it was because I was expecting to go back to the world created in the first 2 movies. If I had never seen either of the first 2 movies (numerous times even) and had expectations to return to that version of the Harry Potter world, then I believe that I would have enjoyed PoA more.

You mentioned the Batman movies, which I see as a prime example. Those movies had a rotating collection of directors, cast, personal director/screenwriter visions, and quality. Some were, in my opinion, much better than others. They were, however, relatively consistent with the created world and existed quite well beyond the comic books. You did not have one director believe that the Bat Cave should exist in the attic because then it would be easier for Batman to fly his plane out of his estate. But I digress...

Having different expectations is again my opinion so therefore I cannot say that PoA was really as disappointing as I felt so therefore I stated that I was sure that PoA was a good movie. I meant just not for me when I saw it. PS: Thanks for the welcome and the compliments.

Raethul: Arrange it better than JKR. Goodness gracious where'd that come from!? I hardly believe for a second that they believed they were doing it better than JKR. Most likely they believed they were arranging the events in an order that worked better on screen given the time constraints.

I would agree and disagree. As I stated before, I do believe they modified the Firebolt scene for time constraints. However, I believe that some of the time constraints existed because there was so much additional 'stuff' that was added. Cajun mentioned the talking shrunken head. A good portion of the Knight Bus, the Leaky Cauldron, the choir at Hogsmeade, Whomping Willow cut scenes (beating up the bird) etc. were other things where some were interesting/some were not (all up for debate), but in my impression none moved the plot, helped the story line, or enhanced the already dark mood significantly. Perhaps they were comic relief...

One of the elements that I found interesting in the first movie was the conflict of personalities of Hermione and Ron before the Troll scene. There are some screenwriters out there that I am sure could have added conflict associated with the Firebolt taking little time, further developing the characters, story, and mood. I feel they added a lot and changed story line to accommodate some of their additional 'tongue in cheek' sight gags, which were not needed by JKR to make a bestselling book. Others liked the changes that were made. In conclusion, I feel personally happy to agree to disagree on this point.

Raethul: I suppose this is just a differing of definitions because I'm completely the opposite. For my part, anything I consider an "escapist" work is something radically different from my life with characters that are likeable but ones that I cannot identify with.

Perhaps it is a different definition. I escape into a world that is fantasy. Characters within that world may have similar problems to mine or react in similar ways to me, but they are neither me nor my problems. LoTR has been mentioned several times in this forum. Complete fantasy, complete escape, but I would have a hard time not empathizing with Frodo and the continual challenges his character faced.

Raethul: I wish HP fans would stop thinking these movies are made exclusively for them; they're for everyone and as such changes HAVE to be made. I can understand the consistency complaint, it's just something I didn't have a problem with. But whenever I hear HP fans complaining about the smallest changes (not you personally of course, I actually find many of your arguments well-founded), then I have to think that either a)they don't know squat about the difficulties involved in adaption a book to film or b)they haven't seen many book to film adaptions. I tend to think if they had, they would realize that we're actually pretty lucky so far.

If I have remotely conveyed that the HP movies were made exclusively for me, then I am sorry. I would have to be a complete idiot to believe such a thing, and I don’t think that I am an idiot... at least not a complete one. Changes do not have to be made on my account, nor would they ever so it would be pointless for me to expect them. My personal expectations of PoA were however not met.

You have mentioned about the difficulties in making film adaptations and how lucky we have been thus far with the HP movies. I couldn't agree with you more and that is part of my problems with PoA. The director/screenwriter in the first 2 movies did an admirable job in transcribing the plot from books onto the screen and made highly acclaimed and well received movies. Again, some of us may not have liked the vision that was created, but the adaptation was phenomenal and consistent. For those interested in a snapshot view of what went into the screenplay for these movies, I highly recommend the bonus features on the DVD Chamber of Secrets, where JKR and the screenwriter were interviewed side by side.

PoA was different, and thus the debate. More scenes added, more scenes deleted, and environmental changes were made. Some liked it, I did not. Would I have liked it better if the screenplays for the first 2 movies were less like the books... who knows? By the way, thanks for the small compliment. It means a lot from someone who disagrees with you. :p

Remusjlupin: most of the films based on books that are highly regarded by critics all have cuts and alterations in them. Sense and Sensibility for instance (adapted by Emma Thompson who won an Oscar for it no less), has several changes in it but it remained true to the spirit of the book while making it more cinematic.

I apologize for cutting your quote and leaving out your digs on someone’s knowledge or experience... just didn’t think it was necessary. However, I do agree with you that many good films do deviate from the book. I remember many critics panning Jurassic Park because of its discrepancies from the book, however, I found JP very enjoyable. I think for me, the first 2 HP movies set a precedence for a more accurate portrayal of the books than typically movies do. As the books are not a difficult read and there are a large number of 'book fans' seeing these movies, the chances of moviegoers having read the books ahead of time is high. That is why that although I strongly believe that books and movies are separate, I still found PoA plot changes a distracting, and debatable on necessity.

I've tried writing the screenplay for PoA. I included the Quidditch Cup and the Firebolt subplot. My God. I was having real problems with it. I went thirty pages (that's 30 whole minutes) of pure dialogue all talking about the Firebolt and the Quidditch House Cup. Yakkety-yakkety-yak-yak-yak. It's going to be deadly boring on-screen especially for those who hasn't read the books!!! So what Kloves and Cuaron did: Cutting out the Quidditch Cup and the entire Firebolt subplot and just let Harry have the Firebolt in the end so that PoA will have a happy ending (since the next two books will have sad endings) is a brilliant idea. I wished I thought of it myself.

I do not know your screenwriting talents (as I am sure you do not know someone else’s book reading experiences), so this is difficult for me to comment on... However, I do think that the screenplays for the first 2 movies were able to incorporate subtle conflicts of character as I mentioned previously with relatively little boring dialogue, and in my mind PoA could have too. As you have sited Sense and Sensibility, you would know that well written dialogue in the hands of a professional screenwriter is not boring at all and can make for a great movie.

Regarding the happy ending, wasn’t it enough that Harry and Hermione saved Buckbeak and Sirius from death? Was the introduction of the Firebolt at the last few seconds more uplifting or more confusing? Who knows... to each their own.

Sorry for being long winded... at least CajunFry should be used to it. :p

MoodyHarry

October 26th, 2004, 6:25 pm

I was just thinking about GoF, and scenes that are to be cut. Now of course, one of the rants about PoA is that certain scenes were cut or moved or changed.

But let's take GoF for an example. We already know that certain scenes are already cut. The Dursleys, for example. This is confirmed.

Now if they open the movie with the Riddle House scene and end it with Harry waking up in bed from that nightmare, they cannot have him wake up at the Dursley's. The book has him at Privet Drive. But if all of Privet Drive is cut out, then they would have him wake up either at the Weasley's, or in the tents at the QWC.
My point to illustrate is that changes have to occur to keep the movie flow going, and to have proper connect. If the above example were written as in the book, there would be a hugh disconnect. One second, Harry is at Privet Drive, the next second at the Weasley's. That is why changes need to be made. That's why things like the Firebolt appeared at the end of the film. That's all.

remusjlupin1980

October 26th, 2004, 8:09 pm

I do believe they modified the Firebolt scene for time constraints. However, I believe that some of the time constraints existed because there was so much additional 'stuff' that was added. Cajun mentioned the talking shrunken head. A good portion of the Knight Bus, the Leaky Cauldron, the choir at Hogsmeade, Whomping Willow cut scenes (beating up the bird) etc. were other things where some were interesting/some were not (all up for debate), but in my impression none moved the plot, helped the story line, or enhanced the already dark mood significantly. Perhaps they were comic relief...

Those scenes add to the magic, IMO. Besides I think all of those scenes you mentioned put together will only total less than 5 minutes. Plus they're mostly VISUAL things. Hello? Film is a VISUAL medium. I will gladly trade in 5 minutes of dialogue about the Firebolt (which will be boring on-screen especially for a non-HP reader) with 5 minutes of Cuaron's artistic visual flourishes.

I remember many critics panning Jurassic Park because of its discrepancies from the book, however, I found JP very enjoyable. I think for me, the first 2 HP movies set a precedence for a more accurate portrayal of the books than typically movies do. As the books are not a difficult read and there are a large number of 'book fans' seeing these movies, the chances of moviegoers having read the books ahead of time is high. That is why that although I strongly believe that books and movies are separate, I still found PoA plot changes a distracting, and debatable on necessity.

If a critic pans a film for the sole reason that it deviated from the book, that critic is stupid. A film is a film. A book is a book. THey're two separate mediums. That's why when I watch a film based on a book which I've read, I try my best to forget about the book and try to assess the film as a film.

Regarding the happy ending, wasn’t it enough that Harry and Hermione saved Buckbeak and Sirius from death? Was the introduction of the Firebolt at the last few seconds more uplifting or more confusing? Who knows... to each their own.

What's confusing about it? Harry needed to get the Firebolt in the film since it'll be important for the next film. An entire subplot about the Firebolt which starts in the middle will be too boring, confusing and convoluted for the average moviegoer who hasn't read the books.

You have to remember: This is a movie not only for HP fanatics but also for the average movie goer who's looking for a good movie.

rela00

October 26th, 2004, 8:22 pm

Regarding the happy ending, wasn’t it enough that Harry and Hermione saved Buckbeak and Sirius from death? Was the introduction of the Firebolt at the last few seconds more uplifting or more confusing? Who knows... to each their own.
I found the end to PoA was far less sugar coated and sickly than the ending to CoS. All of the dinning hall (apart from Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle) bursting into applause because Hagrid was back from Azkaban? As if!! It was just pathetic. Plus, as remusjlupin1980 says, its inclusion is essential to the next film. OK so the giving of it came at the wrong place but I think it made as much sense (from a film watchers perspective) being at the end as half way through.

froglick00

October 27th, 2004, 2:58 pm

Hello again,

Just a couple of quick remarks.

Remusjlupin1980: Those scenes add to the magic, IMO. Besides I think all of those scenes you mentioned put together will only total less than 5 minutes. Plus they're mostly VISUAL things. Hello? Film is a VISUAL medium. I will gladly trade in 5 minutes of dialogue about the Firebolt (which will be boring on-screen especially for a non-HP reader) with 5 minutes of Cuaron's artistic visual flourishes.

This Firebolt thing will end up as a difference of opinion, I am sure. However, in regards to your comment, the whole movie is magic and visual. There is very little dialogue in general compared to the vast amount of activity and visual effects/images that occur in any of the HP books or movies. Sometimes if you sit down to a bowl of frosted sugar cocoa puffs with sugar injected marshmallows, then you do not necessarily need to add more sugar before you eat it. The scenes that I stated were merely examples of what I would consider FAR MORE than 5 minutes worth of additional information. I am not the type to go scene by scene through a movie and count the time spent, but I believe that most people who have read the books would agree that there was a significant amount of additional scenes.

Remusjlupin1980: What's confusing about it? Harry needed to get the Firebolt in the film since it'll be important for the next film. An entire subplot about the Firebolt which starts in the middle will be too boring, confusing and convoluted for the average moviegoer who hasn't read the books.
You have to remember: This is a movie not only for HP fanatics but also for the average movie goer who's looking for a good movie.

This will probably end up being a difference of opinion too. I personally have a little more faith in an 'average moviegoer' then perhaps others or Cuaron do; faith that was shown in the first movie where the director decided to include small segments of dialogue and subplot to better develop character interactions. I believe that it worked and would have continued to work if Cuaron had given it and the average moviegoer the benefit of the doubt. I believe that the Firebolt addition at the appropriate time could have taken relatively little time and would have added interesting character interactions for moviegoers of all ages (and not been as boring as others have speculated).

Regardless, my point was not to belabor one aspect of PoA such as the Firebolt (example only), but rather state my opinions on the movie as a whole. I just want to make that clear so that any and all readers do not confuse me with someone who is trying to nit pick the movie about the tiny little things. It was a whole package, and as a whole package I felt the director/screenwriter broke the continuity of the movies, something that I cannot remember ever being done in any other series of movies - even with different directors (help me out if you know otherwise). It left ME wondering what they were trying to prove and did they potential make it so that the series could lose some of its lasting affect on audiences as a whole. Only time will tell (no matter how much we agrue the point).

CajunFry

October 27th, 2004, 11:30 pm

I found the end to PoA was far less sugar coated and sickly than the ending to CoS. All of the dinning hall (apart from Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle) bursting into applause because Hagrid was back from Azkaban? As if!! It was just pathetic. Plus, as remusjlupin1980 says, its inclusion is essential to the next film. OK so the giving of it came at the wrong place but I think it made as much sense (from a film watchers perspective) being at the end as half way through.

You know, to an certain extent, I agree with you. But only to an certain extent. COS was a little cheesy at the end, that I can level with you on. However, it wasn't really all that far-fetched as you seemed to have made it sound. The entire student body of Hogwarts, minus a good number of Slytherins, loved or at least respected Hagrid in some way or another. That said, we can at least know that a strong applause and a few shouts of joy would at least be in order for his eventual return from Azkaban. Now, as far as all the cheering and tears and general pandemonium that ensued at the end of COS, I think that was a little much and in that case, you correct in believing that that was a bit sugary. So, while the scene wasn't entirely believable, it made sense as far as the overall plot was concerned.

Now, there has been a lot of debate over this Firebolt issue and I guess now is the time I put my thoughts into the matter. Froglick was correct in saying that this is just really a matter of opinion and no one way is truly right. However, as I have pointed out in a prior post, the Firebolt being given to Harry at the end of the film kind of gave me the same feeling as the issue of the Whomping Willow being moved and tampered with.

First of all, the Firebolt was given to Harry as a gift from Sirius Black, AFTER Harry had learned who he really was. Yet, the broom was confiscated by McGonagall because the rest of the wizarding world believed Black to be a mass murderer. To me, this scene in the book makes the mystery surrounding Black that much more prevalent. It also goes a way towards contributing to Harry's inner struggles with these developing events. Not to mention the fact that it was to be Harry's new broom for the non-existent Quidditch Cup. :grumble: With all of that said, the entire scene with Harry getting the Firebolt at the END of the movie just didn't feel right, ESPECIALLY when it's the icing on a cake that was already messed up earlier on to begin with. Kind of a sour way to end the film, in my opinion. I think it would have worked better if it had been inserted into the middle of the film somewhere, like after Harry falls through numerous clouds (which, on a side note, do not exist under 100 feet, as mentioned in the film, but yet was more like 500-600 feet, thereby reaching terminal velocity near the last 100 or so and technically, should have broken several of Harry's bones, and that's WITH Dumbledore slowing his fall) and wakes up in the hospital wing. The next morning could have been a good place to put it. Yes, it still wouldn't have been quite accurate in a timeframe sense, but at least they would've gotten it closer to what it was in the book, and not as a last minute addition (which is what it felt like). Of course, that would have changed the entire plot structure and script at that point in the film, because as Cuaron really didn't give the Sirius Black/Harry Potter relationship enough time or thought to really flourish, it would have further confused things even more. Which also brings me back to a previous argument in which I said that Cuaron just glossed over crucial scenes and added in ridiculous things that weren't entirely necessary. But I digress. Moving on......

This Firebolt thing will end up as a difference of opinion, I am sure. However, in regards to your comment, the whole movie is magic and visual. There is very little dialogue in general compared to the vast amount of activity and visual effects/images that occur in any of the HP books or movies. Sometimes if you sit down to a bowl of frosted sugar cocoa puffs with sugar injected marshmallows, then you do not necessarily need to add more sugar before you eat it. The scenes that I stated were merely examples of what I would consider FAR MORE than 5 minutes worth of additional information. I am not the type to go scene by scene through a movie and count the time spent, but I believe that most people who have read the books would agree that there was a significant amount of additional scenes.

As I have stated above, I agree with you.

This will probably end up being a difference of opinion too. I personally have a little more faith in an 'average moviegoer' then perhaps others or Cuaron do; faith that was shown in the first movie where the director decided to include small segments of dialogue and subplot to better develop character interactions. I believe that it worked and would have continued to work if Cuaron had given it and the average moviegoer the benefit of the doubt. I believe that the Firebolt addition at the appropriate time could have taken relatively little time and would have added interesting character interactions for moviegoers of all ages (and not been as boring as others have speculated).

I have to question the amount of integrity of a person who even hints at the idea that general movie-goers and the like aren't as smart as those who are avid film buffs and such. Like froglick, I think, remusjlupin, that it's a bit unfair to judge the general audience in such way. I understand exactly where you're coming from and your opinion does have some merit, but I don't think that you're really correct in assuming something such as that.

I also agree that, if done properly (with Cuaron, unlikely), the Firebolt could have been easily incorporated into the film and made a nice tie-in to the story. And since when was anything that was Harry Potter related ever boring?? Man, I wouldn't be bored by watching an extra 5 minute scene about a broomstick and it's emotional ties to Sirius Black, the infamous mass murderer of the wizarding world! That would have been great. That's just me though. :cool:

Regardless, my point was not to belabor one aspect of PoA such as the Firebolt (example only), but rather state my opinions on the movie as a whole. I just want to make that clear so that any and all readers do not confuse me with someone who is trying to nit pick the movie about the tiny little things. It was a whole package, and as a whole package I felt the director/screenwriter broke the continuity of the movies, something that I cannot remember ever being done in any other series of movies - even with different directors (help me out if you know otherwise). It left ME wondering what they were trying to prove and did they potential make it so that the series could lose some of its lasting affect on audiences as a whole. Only time will tell (no matter how much we agrue the point).

:clap: Well said froglick! Like you, I want to see the Harry Potter movies as something that I can watch back-to-back and not have too much of a stark contrast between them. A prime example would be Star Wars. I a huge SW fan and I own all the movies and dozens of books, novels and mags, etc. Anyway, if you watch the original trilogy back to back, they all connect and one ties in very nicely with the other. I'd also like to mention that the original trilogy had THREE different directors for each one. Episode IV: A New Hope was directed by George Lucas. Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back was directed by Irvin Kershner. Episode VI: Return of the Jedi was directed by Richard Marquand. Despite the fact that all three films were under the helm of someone else, they still had a universal conformity and a continuity that Harry Potter needs to keep its fanbase relatively content. Also, just for the sake of argument, I would like to use Lord of the Rings as another good example of this. Granted, it was the same director throughout all three films, yet they were filmed as a whole. They were conceived as a whole. The source material was written as a whole. Therefore, it was crafted and released as films that were of a whole. I get the same feeling from the Harry Potter series as well because they take place one year after another and with VERY LITTLE of a gap in between summers. I know this is a long-winded post, but such are the ways Texas muggles like meself.

remusjlupin1980

October 28th, 2004, 5:02 am

The average moviegoer catapulted Kangaroo Jack to the number one spot in it's opening weekend. The average moviegoer made Bad Boys 2 a hit. The average moviegoer encouraged the movie studios to make a Scooby Doo 2.

So, call me a snob, an elitist or whatever but sometimes I do not think highly of the IQ of the average moviegoer.

Based on what you've said, CajunFry, I gather you do not like change because you feel that the Harry Potter movies are a continuing story and that changing the style would detract from your enjoyment of the film.

Well, that's your opinion. In my opinion, the Harry Potter stories grow darker and more thematically and stylistically complex as it progresses because the story grows as Harry grows. Like many adolescents, Harry grows complex each time he grows up. The decision to have directors deliver a different stylistic pallette to the story reflects on how the stories in the books progress.

First of all, the Firebolt was given to Harry as a gift from Sirius Black, AFTER Harry had learned who he really was. Yet, the broom was confiscated by McGonagall because the rest of the wizarding world believed Black to be a mass murderer. To me, this scene in the book makes the mystery surrounding Black that much more prevalent. It also goes a way towards contributing to Harry's inner struggles with these developing events. Not to mention the fact that it was to be Harry's new broom for the non-existent Quidditch Cup. With all of that said, the entire scene with Harry getting the Firebolt at the END of the movie just didn't feel right, ESPECIALLY when it's the icing on a cake that was already messed up earlier on to begin with. Kind of a sour way to end the film, in my opinion. I think it would have worked better if it had been inserted into the middle of the film somewhere, like after Harry falls through numerous clouds (which, on a side note, do not exist under 100 feet, as mentioned in the film, but yet was more like 500-600 feet, thereby reaching terminal velocity near the last 100 or so and technically, should have broken several of Harry's bones, and that's WITH Dumbledore slowing his fall) and wakes up in the hospital wing. The next morning could have been a good place to put it. Yes, it still wouldn't have been quite accurate in a timeframe sense, but at least they would've gotten it closer to what it was in the book, and not as a last minute addition (which is what it felt like). Of course, that would have changed the entire plot structure and script at that point in the film, because as Cuaron really didn't give the Sirius Black/Harry Potter relationship enough time or thought to really flourish, it would have further confused things even more. Which also brings me back to a previous argument in which I said that Cuaron just glossed over crucial scenes and added in ridiculous things that weren't entirely necessary.

I disagree with you that Cuaron disregarded the Harry/Sirius relationship. There are two major, major scenes in which Harry and Sirius bonded. One was before Lupin's transformation and the other after they rescued him from the Tower. I don't know if you fell asleep at those or whatever but I think it convincingly portrayed the godfather/godson relationship between these two characters well. (I don't think the scene after they rescued him from the Tower was in the book.)

Quidditch Cup - I have to admit that I really wanted to see this on film but Quidditch scenes are VERY expensive to shoot. Lots of stunt/wirework and CGI involved. So in all Harry Potter movies they only have one each. But I realize in order for the Quidditch Cup to work and really be exciting, you have to do a lot yakking about the point systems and what-not's, not to mention explanation after explanation on how the Quidditch Cup is important. It will take way too much time and people will be bored by then. When the Quidditch Cup arrives, the only people who'll be excited are HP fans who read the book. I'm sorry to say this but that's a fact. It's way too long and the story can do without it.

The Firebolt - It is tied to the Quidditch Cup. There will be an entire subplot on it that doesn't really service the MAIN plot and thematic element on the film. It was excised because the filmmakers wanted to concentrate on the SUBSTANCE of the Harry Potter stories. The Firebolt subplot does not really contribute much to that. There is already enough mystery and menace surrounding Sirius Black that the Firebolt isn't really needed for it.

So, CajunFry, I am sorry that PoA didn't come off as a filmed checklist of what happens in the book but rather a stand-alone film that concentrated on the substance and character of Harry Potter.

CajunFry

October 28th, 2004, 12:53 pm

The average moviegoer catapulted Kangaroo Jack to the number one spot in it's opening weekend. The average moviegoer made Bad Boys 2 a hit. The average moviegoer encouraged the movie studios to make a Scooby Doo 2.

So, call me a snob, an elitist or whatever but sometimes I do not think highly of the IQ of the average moviegoer.

Then again, which of those films were adaptations of a best-selling series of novels that sold millions worldwide and took the world by storm???? When you refer to the Harry Potter films in this manner, the bar is raised a bit higher for your average movie-goer and thus, a larger percentage of the audience has already read the novels to some degree and so are familiar with the story, background, etc. You are not a snob or even elitist (in my circles, that's a very insulting term). You have your opinions and I respect that. I just don't believe that the average movie watchers for the Harry Potter series are less smart than those you give credit to. HP crowds are mostly a different breed. LOTR fans are a different breed. It basically comes down to the ratio of fans/casual watchers in the theater. In this case, the fan percentage is much higher than a Bad Boys sequel.

Based on what you've said, CajunFry, I gather you do not like change because you feel that the Harry Potter movies are a continuing story and that changing the style would detract from your enjoyment of the film.

WRONG! I specifically stated in recent posts that I didn't like RADICAL changes. I've NEVER stated that I didn't like change BY ITSELF. I ALREADY emphasized the point that change is expected, even encouraged, just not in the ways that I found to be too important to tamper with. Please re-read my posts for clarification.

Well, that's your opinion. In my opinion, the Harry Potter stories grow darker and more thematically and stylistically complex as it progresses because the story grows as Harry grows. Like many adolescents, Harry grows complex each time he grows up. The decision to have directors deliver a different stylistic pallette to the story reflects on how the stories in the books progress.

Is there a point you're trying to make with that statement or are you just restating something that has already been stated by myself and others numerous times already to further your argument?

I disagree with you that Cuaron disregarded the Harry/Sirius relationship. There are two major, major scenes in which Harry and Sirius bonded. One was before Lupin's transformation and the other after they rescued him from the Tower. I don't know if you fell asleep at those or whatever but I think it convincingly portrayed the godfather/godson relationship between these two characters well. (I don't think the scene after they rescued him from the Tower was in the book.)

First of all, please don't patronize me. There is no place for such comments. Second, you say major scenes. I say major scenes that merely came off as minor references in the grand scheme of things. It may have done the job for you, but there are a lot of folks on this board who think otherwise. I'm just one of them.

Quidditch Cup - I have to admit that I really wanted to see this on film but Quidditch scenes are VERY expensive to shoot. Lots of stunt/wirework and CGI involved. So in all Harry Potter movies they only have one each. But I realize in order for the Quidditch Cup to work and really be exciting, you have to do a lot yakking about the point systems and what-not's, not to mention explanation after explanation on how the Quidditch Cup is important. It will take way too much time and people will be bored by then. When the Quidditch Cup arrives, the only people who'll be excited are HP fans who read the book. I'm sorry to say this but that's a fact. It's way too long and the story can do without it.

Again, you underestimate the audiences. If you were to take a survey and ask everyone on the boards if they would have gotten bored from an extended Quidditch Cup sequence, including the background as you have described, you WILL find an overwhelming amount of support for such an idea. Yes, those scenes are costly and rather difficult, but I believe fans would have been very appreciative and happy with the outcome. A lot of people here describe POA as being too short. That usually means that they were willing to watch another 30 minutes or so of film in order to get the full dosage of HP that they could get. I may be wrong, but it seems to be the general consensus around here.

The Firebolt - It is tied to the Quidditch Cup. There will be an entire subplot on it that doesn't really service the MAIN plot and thematic element on the film. It was excised because the filmmakers wanted to concentrate on the SUBSTANCE of the Harry Potter stories. The Firebolt subplot does not really contribute much to that. There is already enough mystery and menace surrounding Sirius Black that the Firebolt isn't really needed for it.

That, again, goes back to my Harry/Sirius relationship in which I stated that it came off as weak and underdone. But I digress.

So, CajunFry, I am sorry that PoA didn't come off as a filmed checklist of what happens in the book but rather a stand-alone film that concentrated on the substance and character of Harry Potter.

LOL. You over-generalize my comments. All I do is constantly ask that things be done in a logical, yet consistent manner. Please tell me where I have ever come off as being one to use any sort of checklist or the like to embrace my arguments. Seriously. Don't hold back. Prove me wrong on this one. :rotfl:

remusjlupin1980

October 28th, 2004, 6:30 pm

Again, you underestimate the audiences. If you were to take a survey and ask everyone on the boards if they would have gotten bored from an extended Quidditch Cup sequence, including the background as you have described, you WILL find an overwhelming amount of support for such an idea. Yes, those scenes are costly and rather difficult, but I believe fans would have been very appreciative and happy with the outcome. A lot of people here describe POA as being too short. That usually means that they were willing to watch another 30 minutes or so of film in order to get the full dosage of HP that they could get. I may be wrong, but it seems to be the general consensus around here.

The key word here is Harry Potter fans. You have to remember: The movies are not made ONLY for Harry Potter fans. Though there may be a large number of them, the movies also seek to reach out to people who have not a read a single word of Harry Potter or who haven't even HEARD of Harry Potter. That way, it can win new fans and make more money.

MrsRemusLupin

October 28th, 2004, 8:54 pm

Hey guys tried searching for anything similar to this but couldn't find anything.

Got my Empire Magazine today, and flipped straight to the back to look for the review to PoA.....well, anyway I found it and was rather surprised at the review it got.

HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN
Cert PG
Out: November 19
Buy: DVD £24.99

FEW LAMENTED Chris Columbus' relinquishment of the Harry Potter director's chair, but you could argue he had a far tougher job than his successor, Alfonso Cuaron. After all , Cuaron nabbed the best of the Potter novels and inherited his leads after they'd had two films to get used to this acting lark. Even so, there's no denying Azkaban's superiority: it's a leaner, less creaky adaptation, boldly excising scenes and shifting locations.
Cuaron is massively creative with what he's been given, milking the Dementors for all their whispy creepiness, laying on billowing stormclouds and inventively utilising the Whomping Willow. Yes, the three lead kids still need some fine-tuning, but this is the first Harry Potter to feel like a proper movie - and an enjoyable one, too - rather than just everything that happened in the book put on a big screen.

DVD extras:
Despite the film's relatively grown-up atmosphere of hormonal storminess, the extras are still aimed at ankle-biters. So there's no commentary, but several patronising voice-overed interactive set tours, a batch of games and some cast interviews, the Qs being thrwon by Johnny Vaughn and an excrutiatingly unfunny Shrunken Head (Lenny Henry). One welcome change is that Warners has relaxed its bizarre ban on anything that'll 'spoil the magic' and allowed featurettes on the animal trainers and the genesis of the Dementors and Buckbeak. Guess what, kids: hippogriffs don't really exist...

Words by Dan Jolin

Film ***
Extras ***

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Call me weird but I think the film deserved way more than three stars (most you can get is five)....not seen the extras yet, but I would say they would still maybe deserve more than three stars.

What do you guys think??

If anyone is interested I also have the original review of when it was released in the cinema (I think it still only got three stars)....if anyone wants to see the original review, let me know and I will post it up.

MoodyHarry

October 28th, 2004, 8:58 pm

I agree with the main movie review. Other reviews and stories about PoA have basically the same context and opinions behind them.
Four stars would have been better, IMO, but I think they knocked off one for the DVD commentary and extras. Any only extremely exceptional movies get 5 stars. There's not too many of those out there these days.

4.5 stars in my biased opinion! :)

marauderlupin

October 28th, 2004, 9:32 pm

When I read the word "Disgrace" in the title, I thought it was a negative review, but it wasn't bad at all. He liked the movie :tu: and he railed against WB's children-focused treatment of the DVD :tu:

GredandFeorge

October 28th, 2004, 9:40 pm

That review wasn't so bad - and really at the end of the day, who cares with the reviewers think? It's what you think that matters!

jazzy nifflah

October 28th, 2004, 9:44 pm

Actually, three stars aren't all that bad. Prisoner of Aakaban was a pretty good film, but it's no Godfather. :cool:

froglick00

October 28th, 2004, 10:20 pm

Hello again all,

Not meaning to stir the pot yet again (it already looks pretty well mixed), but there are a couple of points that I would again like to make.

Remusjlupin: So, CajunFry, I am sorry that PoA didn't come off as a filmed checklist of what happens in the book but rather a stand-alone film that concentrated on the substance and character of Harry Potter.

I just had to make a comment about this quote. I know that CajunFry can do himself justice, but this catches me on two different levels.

First off, I think that it is very clear what Cajun and I have been debating, and that is consistency. Have the HP movies (as a series) make sense when seen back to back. Simple as that. Now, as a side note, some elements of the books we felt would have added significantly to the enjoyment of all movie-goers if left in place rather than edited because of time, because average movie-goers couldn't handle it, or because the director/screenwriter felt they could do better (all very debatable). Mentioned are only a few key, plot developing scenes that did not agree with us. This is not a check-list philosophy, just a matter of opinion where we can disagree.

Secondly, you hit the nail on the head of a point that I have been trying to make. You call PoA a stand alone film. The changes that were made, I believe, make it exactly that... 'stand alone'. If the director/screenwriter had not tried so hard to have it stand alone but rather have it be part of the series of HP movies like so many great movies in the past have done, then it could have potentially better focused on the 'substance and character of Harry Potter' rather than its own agenda. Just my 2 cents.

Remusjlupin: The key word here is Harry Potter fans. You have to remember: The movies are not made ONLY for Harry Potter fans. Though there may be a large number of them, the movies also seek to reach out to people who have not a read a single word of Harry Potter or who haven't even HEARD of Harry Potter. That way, it can win new fans and make more money.

You site that HP movies were made to reach out to people who have not read a single word. Agreed. But the first 2 movies reached out to non-readers and readers alike. You also insinuate that PoA was not made for HP fans. I completely disagree. At this stage, with 2 movies under the belt, who else are you making these movies for other than the FANS who watched the first 2 movies and put tons of money into the movie-makers pockets. My guess is that the percentage of people who saw PoA without having seen either of the first 2 movies nor having heard good things about the other 2 movies from family and friends would be very, very low. What would be the point of seeing PoA in the theater first when you could rent the other 2 at your local video store? And if you have seen the other movies, you might, like several of us, have a problem with consistency. Also, if you want people to watch the movies over and over again and continue to make money decades from now, then having a consistent story line is the best way in my mind.

Alhanalasa

October 28th, 2004, 11:31 pm

I think 3 stars is actually very fair. It was my favorite of the 3 HP movies so far, but on a grander scale all the HP movies are, objectively speaking, a bit mediocre. I had a blast seeing them because they are HP movies, not because they are amazing movies in and of themselves.

MrsRemusLupin

October 29th, 2004, 1:29 am

the point I was trying to make was I think the first two films got more than three stars (don't quote me), and PoA was way better, so I thought it deserved more.

Alhanalasa

October 29th, 2004, 2:54 am

the point I was trying to make was I think the first two films got more than three stars (don't quote me), and PoA was way better, so I thought it deserved more.

Oh! Sorry! If that is the case, you are absolutely right. PoA should have gotten more stars than the other 2 movies. I hadn't heard how many stars PS/SS or CoS got. :blush:

Jedi Potter

October 29th, 2004, 6:46 am

Empire is kind of funny. They weren't all into POA when it came out back in June. Gave it one of the worst reviews of the major press. What is weird is Empire gave AOTC 4 stars when that came out. Now I liked that movie but 4 stars come on.

Magical_Me

October 29th, 2004, 6:51 am

PoA was brilliant compared to the first two films. By itself it's good at best. Three stars is an accurate score I believe.

Ludivine

October 29th, 2004, 6:55 am

Yes, the review is pretty good, except the part on the DVD extras (but I can't comment on that since I haven't seen them all) and I mostly agree with it, exept that I would have given 4 stars to the movie.
I also have to disagree on another thing... hippogriffs do exist :lol:

Lady Greyjoy

October 29th, 2004, 7:11 am

Mainstream reviewers tend to be harsh on genres like fantasy (and sci-fi and horror), it seems like critics sometimes see movies that don't deal exclusivly in modern (or historical) reality as lacking.

However out of the mainstream, there are alot of praise for genre films like HP. Here (http://www.chud.com/reviews/hp3.php3) is a nice one. Warning may feature adult language.

Blizzard

October 29th, 2004, 9:37 am

Reviewers=Stupid :)

Raven_Girly

October 29th, 2004, 11:15 am

Well, I would have given it more than 3 stars, but I guess everyone has different views and 3 stars isn't all that bad. The review itself was alright, i thought

dumbleedore

October 29th, 2004, 12:45 pm

I'm assuming you're talking about the UK Empire Magazine- Empire here in Australia are the best reviewers- they're always fair and, well, tell you honestly what they think- and they raved about PoA the first time.

Kimmetje

October 29th, 2004, 1:13 pm

In Holland I believe that most people were quite postive. At least, I wasn't. Here's the PoA movie discussion anyways;

SPOILERS - PoA Film Discussion v3 (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=27297)

Tane

October 29th, 2004, 2:29 pm

Review - Empire - Disgrace

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey guys tried searching for anything similar to this but couldn't find anything.

Got my Empire Magazine today, and flipped straight to the back to look for the review to PoA.....well, anyway I found it and was rather surprised at the review it got.HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN
Cert PG
Out: November 19
Buy: DVD £24.99

FEW LAMENTED Chris Columbus' relinquishment of the Harry Potter director's chair, but you could argue he had a far tougher job than his successor, Alfonso Cuaron. After all , Cuaron nabbed the best of the Potter novels and inherited his leads after they'd had two films to get used to this acting lark. Even so, there's no denying Azkaban's superiority: it's a leaner, less creaky adaptation, boldly excising scenes and shifting locations.
Cuaron is massively creative with what he's been given, milking the Dementors for all their whispy creepiness, laying on billowing stormclouds and inventively utilising the Whomping Willow. Yes, the three lead kids still need some fine-tuning, but this is the first Harry Potter to feel like a proper movie - and an enjoyable one, too - rather than just everything that happened in the book put on a big screen.

DVD extras:
Despite the film's relatively grown-up atmosphere of hormonal storminess, the extras are still aimed at ankle-biters. So there's no commentary, but several patronising voice-overed interactive set tours, a batch of games and some cast interviews, the Qs being thrwon by Johnny Vaughn and an excrutiatingly unfunny Shrunken Head (Lenny Henry). One welcome change is that Warners has relaxed its bizarre ban on anything that'll 'spoil the magic' and allowed featurettes on the animal trainers and the genesis of the Dementors and Buckbeak. Guess what, kids: hippogriffs don't really exist...

Words by Dan Jolin

Film ***
Extras ***

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call me weird but I think the film deserved way more than three stars (most you can get is five)....not seen the extras yet, but I would say they would still maybe deserve more than three stars.

What do you guys think??

If anyone is interested I also have the original review of when it was released in the cinema (I think it still only got three stars)....if anyone wants to see the original review, let me know and I will post it up.I would say that 3 stars is not that bad of a review when you take into account the poll in this thread. I gave it 4 stars only because you can not have a 3 ½ . Why would I rate it like that, well because I think the blackouts where Harry faces the dementors could have been done a little better and the shack scene missed a lot out, then there are the next books to come? The best rating is no doubt going to be reserved for the final film in the series based around book 7. In my opinion it is better that the series gets increasingly good reviews as they progress through the books than get poor ones midway through.

I think Empire did the film justice though by at least saying it was the best one yet.

nat089

October 29th, 2004, 3:58 pm

i think it should be give 3.5 stars rather than 3 stars. okay, so the movie on its own wasn't THAT great. but it was definitely much better than the first two in my opinion, apart from the shrunken head, which i found kind of annoying sometimes. PoA was a good movie and i'm not sure what the first two movies got. but i'd give the first two movies either 2.5 or 3 stars and PoA 3.5 stars.

i thought the PoA soundtrack was the best of the three though. that music was powerful stuff. :)

and for the other comment by Jedi Potter about how they gave Star Wars Episode II : Attack of the Clones 4 stars... well, i must say i agree with you. i mean, i enjoyed the movie but i didn't think it was THAT great. the Original Trilogy was still better in my opinion (though i must admit that the visuals for AOTC were definitely the best so far). i would have given it 3 or 3.5 stars myself. oh well.

jazzy nifflah

October 29th, 2004, 7:03 pm

Oh! Sorry! If that is the case, you are absolutely right. PoA should have gotten more stars than the other 2 movies. I hadn't heard how many stars PS/SS or CoS got. :blush:
Agreed. PoA was a much better film. :tu:

Yummy

October 29th, 2004, 8:21 pm

Don't agree with comments here, and probably would agree with the reviewer, except this characterization: "boldly excising scenes and shifting locations" - ugh, that was the worst part of it, but Cuaron gets credit for being "bold".

I'm not the biggest fan of PoA, as might be known from other posts. I know some think it was the best of the three, and that might be so. But, it missed important elements of the story, and was therefore disappointing. [sigh]

MrsRemusLupin

October 29th, 2004, 8:23 pm

I'm not the biggest fan of PoA, as might be known from other posts. I know some think it was the best of the three, and that might be so. But, it missed important elements of the story, and was therefore disappointing. [sigh]

So did you obviously prefer the book then, and do you think you will like GoF movie?

DutchHermione

October 29th, 2004, 8:26 pm

Bleh! Poa is out on November 27 in the Netherlands! That's a loooong time...
I can't wait till then!

MrsRemusLupin

October 29th, 2004, 8:30 pm

19th here
so who has pre-ordered it?

:clap: me :clap:

can't wait

froglick00

October 29th, 2004, 9:18 pm

Similar to opinions on this forum, opinions of reviewers vary regarding PoA. Most reviewers gave the movie a good review, but seemed split regarding whether or not they liked PoA better than the first two HP movies. I think that looking at a single review provides a rather unfair slant and would highly encourage people interested in movie reviews on PoA to visit rottentomatoes.com which gives I believe 204 different reviews on PoA.

Alhanalasa

October 30th, 2004, 12:32 am

It's out the 23rd here! I have it preordered, but I'll be away for Thanksgiving, so I won't get to see it again until I get back on the 28th. Of course, where I'm going for the holiday is my fiance's sister's home, and she owns video stores, so maybe she can bring a copy for us to watch after the pie. :clap:

MrsRemusLupin

October 30th, 2004, 1:05 am

I'm going on holiday as well, and it is supposed to arrive the day I come back...hopefully, I don't want to think on it sitting here waiting on me while I'm away...lol

Picko

October 30th, 2004, 11:29 am

Three stars for the DVD extras is pretty generous in my opinion. The PoA DVD really isn't anything to get excited about from an extras point of view.

Wab

October 30th, 2004, 5:01 pm

Three stars for the movie is fair as that's was the film was.

As for the extras they're in a bind as the extras on PS were considered to set a benchmark and were largely considered (according to those in the know) better than the film.

marauderlupin

October 30th, 2004, 6:58 pm

If you compare the movie reviews, POA had the most positive reviews, 88%. Cos is second place with 82% and PS is last place with 78% ( pecentages from rottentomatoes.com) I pretty much agree with the reviewers. The movies are slowly getting better. POA was actually a huge leap in quality in my opinion. I hope GOF can keep up the trend.

Theatre Diva

October 30th, 2004, 9:54 pm

I liked PoA much more than I did the first two movies. I thought that Cuaron's interpretation of the wizarding world as a darker, scarier place was great, because PoA is a darker book than the first two. However, I was a little mad that everything about Gryffindor winning the Quidditch Cup was cut. I know that it would have made the movie even longer, but I was really looking forward to seeing that.

hawk1245

October 31st, 2004, 3:02 am

[QUOTE=froglick00]
I just had to make a comment about this quote. I know that CajunFry can do himself justice, but this catches me on two different levels.

First off, I think that it is very clear what Cajun and I have been debating, and that is consistency. Have the HP movies (as a series) make sense when seen back to back. QUOTE]

Well, um...COS wasn't completely consistant with PS either. Watch both quidditch scenes, Hogwarts has tall stone ruins there that weren't there in PS, and also a building that resembles the clocktower from POA is in COS and wasn't there in PS, The dursley neighborhood is inconsistant with POS (The houses look slightly different in PS, in COS they all look exacly alike). The WHomping Willow iand the greenhouses were not there in COS (I know where to look too). I personally just say that magic did it, and enjoy the film. I personally think that POA is a great follow up to COS. I watched COS right before I saw poa, and I felt like I was right back where I left off, and was in for another year at hogwarts, but thats just me ;)

PotionsPunk

October 31st, 2004, 3:09 am

GAH! Thank you! I know exactly what you mean ATexasMuggle! You have all of the same complaints that I do! The biggest issue that I had with the film is that the Marauders are meerly a FOOTNOTE in that story, when they are the ENTIRE story in POA. As soon as I learned there were going to be Harry Potter movies this is the one I hjad my eye on. This was the one I was hoping for! It was such...a disaster! Alfonso's genius did not shine here....

LuvHP_001

October 31st, 2004, 3:13 am

The acting was terrible! The trio didn't shine like they did in the book at all! Harry was different,Hermione wasn't Hermione,Ron was a whimpering whimp and Dumbledore was a ******** hippie. The werewolf should have been scarier. And just like everyone else, I think they should given more information (especially the Maruder's map,I can't stress that out enough!).

Lash Dresden

October 31st, 2004, 3:22 am

Taleeya

October 31st, 2004, 4:18 am

I have a few minor ones, but what movie (especially a book-turned movie) doesn't? I have them for the first two as well... but the BIG ones for me are:
1. The Firebolt - this could have been added in about 7 minutes (Harry could have received the broom at the table (like in the movie) Prof. McGonagall asks Harry where he got it, says he doesn't know, and she takes it away. A few scenes later, Harry is walking in the Hall, and she gives it back to him. It wouldn't have added alot of time to the movie, but it would have added alot of depth to the storyline (which I felt PoA lacked a bit).
2. The Marauders - I walked out of the theater explaining to my Non-HP reading friend, all about how Lupin was Moony, Sirius was Padfoot, etc etc and that they made the map, and thats why Harry's patronus was so significant, etc. Sure maybe people didn't walk out confused. But why leave out such an important element of the story?
3. The ending - I watched this about 2 weeks ago, and they ending just comes SO suddenly (and the firebolt seems totally out of place here) you expect about 10-20 more minutes of movie, and then BAM! Harry Potter - The End Title just shows up on screen. It was very disappointing.

But Hey, I still can't wait for Nov. 23rd!!!!

lorna

October 31st, 2004, 5:37 am

Taleeya I think you're absolutely right about the having to explain the whole Marauder thing to non HP readers. I found I had to do exactly the same thing.
That's not a difference between book and film as mediums. I didn't have to explain who everybody was to non readers of Gone With The Wind
when I watched it with them. The film laid it out.
My second quibble involves how the whole Shrieking Shack played out. Plot point after plot point (Black is there, Lupin is there, Lupin's a werewolf, Snape arrives, Pettigrew's alive) bang, bang. It was like the director was ticking off plot points without giving people time to take them in.
If it's a time issue, OK here's a suggestion.... Harry's already flown broomsticks and cars. Did he really need to fly all over the lake on Buckbeak too. I mean we get. WB can afford really cool CGI. He could have flown a far shorter time and you could have spent more time in the Shack making it just a tad clearer who all these people were!
Outside of those issues, it's a fun film.

SoObvious

October 31st, 2004, 5:58 am

They gave all the lines demonstratng any intelligence to Hermione. Some of Harry's lines, even Dumbledore's lines, and most of Ron's lines. That's not the director who's to blame, it's Kloves, but you didn't specify what about the movie we could rant about. And this really irritated me!

I totaly agree with you! Didn't you want to just stand up and scream "That's Ron's line" I did (I don't know if that makes me crazy) It just bugs me the way they portray Ron and Hermione!!!! (breath breath) *calms down* and WHAT is with the shrunken head in the Knight Bus!? Comic relief? because it wasn't funny to me. But I did like the Ron/Hermione handholding scene :p Just think about Hermione (the movie Hermione) makes me SO ANGRY! FIRSTLY she did NOT have frizzy hair! Why didn't she have frizzy hair!? and SECONDLY she was wearing pink. PINK!! HERMIONE DOES NOT WEAR PINK!! SHE HATES PINK!!! and the "is that really what my hair looks like from the back?" I understand that it was important so people could understand the whole timeturner thing. Infact that whole part was pretty cool. But HERMIONE DOESN"T CARE ABOUT HOW HER HAIR LOOKS LIKE FROM THE BACK!!! *sigh* wow that was a long rant.

But I am exited for the movie to come out, because it's supposed to be better the second time you see it.....

pasalita

October 31st, 2004, 7:26 am

Hm. I still don't believe that this topic warrants its own thread. Ranting or complaining about the movie is also simply analyzing and critiqueing, which belongs in the thread linked by Picko. As such, I'll merge this thread.

Taleeya

October 31st, 2004, 7:26 am

Oh, and I forgot about the werewolf..... Sorry when I saw it, I laughed.... Hard!

Blizzard

October 31st, 2004, 12:40 pm

when i watch a hp movie i coudlnt care less about how faithful it is to the book, they are 2 seperate things, if u go into the theatre expecting everything to be the same then, sorry but you need to sort somethings out.

natemac

October 31st, 2004, 2:58 pm

Yeah, one thing that is different about movies than books: Movies are stories, as well as books. But their main purpose is to summarize a story, progress the story, etc. Books have all these little add-ons that you would never have in a movie. The criteria for picking content in a movie is usually determined by asking this: "Does it have to do with the progression of the storyline?"

Some examples:

Harry Potter:

The Quidditch Cup was fun to read, but didn't really contribute to the story. It was a little add-on that enriched the story.

In Lord of the Rings:

Tom Bombadil. I know many LOTR fans wanted to see him on the big screen, but Tom just didn't have much to do with Frodo completing his quest to destroy the ring.

The Battle for the Shire. The ring is destroyed; Sauron is gone; the world is now safe. Why add another 30 minutes to the film if it will not contribute to Frodo's Quest to destroy the Ring. They already eliminated more important stuff than the Battle for the Shire. Why include it? The only reason is that you wanted to see it; and that reason isn't good enough.

-Natemac

CajunFry

November 2nd, 2004, 9:37 am

Sorry for not responding to these posts sooner, folks. I was out of town on a very personal vacation over the weekend. Glad to see things haven't hit the fan while I was away. :rotfl: :tu: Anyway, here we go:

Well, um...COS wasn't completely consistant with PS either. Watch both quidditch scenes, Hogwarts has tall stone ruins there that weren't there in PS, and also a building that resembles the clocktower from POA is in COS and wasn't there in PS, The dursley neighborhood is inconsistant with POS (The houses look slightly different in PS, in COS they all look exacly alike). The WHomping Willow iand the greenhouses were not there in COS (I know where to look too). I personally just say that magic did it, and enjoy the film. I personally think that POA is a great follow up to COS. I watched COS right before I saw poa, and I felt like I was right back where I left off, and was in for another year at hogwarts, but thats just me

I think what me and froglick00 were really talking about were the major inconsistencies that are obvious and that detract more from the overall flow of the films as a whole rather than just little tiny things that make little or no difference one way or the other. I think that you're being a little too picky with those examples, although I must say that they are good and I admire your research on the subject. :eyebrows:

My second quibble involves how the whole Shrieking Shack played out. Plot point after plot point (Black is there, Lupin is there, Lupin's a werewolf, Snape arrives, Pettigrew's alive) bang, bang. It was like the director was ticking off plot points without giving people time to take them in.

You are absolutely right. I made a post earlier in this thread that addressed that quite specifically. Here is what I had written earlier: I was completely expecting something similar to one and two where the director followed the books as closely as possible so nothing would be too amiss or totally wrong. Well, the first scene with Harry practicing magic late at night was good. That was fine. However, 20 seconds later I'm already in the midst of Harry's Aunt Marge and another minute or so Harry gets highly upset and makes Marge become bloated and float off. By the time Harry is rolling his suitcase in the streets, only six, maybe seven minutes have gone by and we're already prepped for the Knight Bus scene. UMMMM, WHAT HAPPENED?? My God, that scene alone should have been at least 12 minutes long. We then would be able to get more emotionally attached to Harry and his feelings and would have a better understanding of what was going on. Granted, if you read the book than you could just fill in the gaps, so to speak, but that's cheating. If you hadn't read the book, then you'd have no idea of what I'm talking about and would then just consider me a rambling fool who doesn't appreciate a good movie. Whatever. I am ranting now, I know. But I really don't care because it ticked me off to no end and more so because it basically insulted every true fan of the book and even those who worked on the first two films. Anyway, from that point on when Harry leaves the Dursley's, the rest of the movie is little more than mere HIGHLIGHTS from the book and I felt as if I were watching a visual reproduction based on a VERY simplified outline of the story. We would get one scene that touched on a VERY IMPORTANT AND SPECIFIC event and nothing more. Just a brief look is all. It was scenes like this that needed to be elaborated upon and extended for everything to make sense as a whole to the story. Again, I'm saying this for those who are faithful to the book, not those who haven't read it. Aside from these numerous scenes throughout the movie, including those that were LEFT OUT COMPLETELY (I refuse to touch on this as it will lead me to write a novel length entry and that's not cool) there were dozens of HIGHLY questionable (and rightly so, because I can back it up) decisions and additions of the look and feel and general world as overseen by Alfonso. Yes, I know that you can’t have everything in a movie for time purposes, etc. but some of these were just inexcusable!

As you can see, I point out my disappointment with the structure and pace of the film. Remember folks, this is just my opinion (though it is shared by many on this board.)

when i watch a hp movie i coudlnt care less about how faithful it is to the book, they are 2 seperate things, if u go into the theatre expecting everything to be the same then, sorry but you need to sort somethings out.

Really? Please, enlighten us with your wisdom, Blizzard. We (or at least those who are obviously a bit mental in your opinion) would love to hear your thoughts as to why you have misconstrued our words and taken them to mean something that they aren't. Thank you.

Yeah, one thing that is different about movies than books: Movies are stories, as well as books. But their main purpose is to summarize a story, progress the story, etc. Books have all these little add-ons that you would never have in a movie. The criteria for picking content in a movie is usually determined by asking this: "Does it have to do with the progression of the storyline?"

Some examples:

Harry Potter:

The Quidditch Cup was fun to read, but didn't really contribute to the story. It was a little add-on that enriched the story.

In Lord of the Rings:

Tom Bombadil. I know many LOTR fans wanted to see him on the big screen, but Tom just didn't have much to do with Frodo completing his quest to destroy the ring.

The Battle for the Shire. The ring is destroyed; Sauron is gone; the world is now safe. Why add another 30 minutes to the film if it will not contribute to Frodo's Quest to destroy the Ring. They already eliminated more important stuff than the Battle for the Shire. Why include it? The only reason is that you wanted to see it; and that reason isn't good enough.

-Natemac

Nate, you make some really good points.

The Quidditch Cup was truly a huge disappointment, but we all understand that it would have been very difficult to do in the timeframe that was allowed.

Tom Bombadil was something that would have been nice to see and experience, but not very many people were too up in arms over him not being onscreen. To be honest, how do you really know that the Hobbits didn't meet Tom in the movies? This is a passage taken from a wonderful and VERY informative source called The Encyclopedia of Arda.

In the film, we see the four Hobbits escape across the Brandywine at Bucklebury Ferry on a dark night. In the next scene, still in the dark, they knock on the gates of Bree. Despite appearances, though, Bree is not just across the Brandywine river - it's seventy-five miles away. The book takes four chapters to describe the Hobbits' adventures on the journey, including a trip through the Old Forest, a meeting with the mysterious Tom Bombadil and a very close shave indeed among the Barrow-downs.

As is stated above, the Hobbits went through quite a lot to get to Bree. In the film, the gates of Bree appear immediately after they cross the Brandywine river. The end of the bridge-crossing scene and prior to their arrival at the gates of Bree scene is where the chapters of Tom Bombadil take place. So, in essence, they may have gone to see Tom, but we just didn't see it. The same can be said of the Quidditch Cup. It could have happened, but not have witnessed it. Also, though we never saw Tom, we did get to bear witness to a few references to him in the Extended Edition of The Two Towers DVD. Instead of the Hobbits getting trapped by the willow in in the FOTR, they get trapped by the tree in TTT. Furthermore, Treebeard saves them instead of Tom and also has a line or so that contains fragments from Tom's speech in the books. So, when you think of it that way, Tom really did make it into the films, albeit in spirit, at least.

As for the Scouring of the Shire, it would have been neat to see it, sure. However, it wouldn't have made much sense really because we have already had our climax(es) of the story (Battle for Minas Tirith, the destruction of the Ring and Aragorn's Coronation). Therefore, why add another one to the mix? If anything, it would have come off as ANTI-climatic because we have just been ooed and awed by the amazing spectacle that was the battle for Minas Tirith. We have to be honest here. This would never have emerged as an amazing scene when compared back-to-back with the previous 30 minutes of the film. Sure, it would have been cool to stay with the book in order to help set up the final ending with Sam's speech, but realistically, it would have been too much. However, as a comfort to us, we did get to see the scouring of the Shire (to some degree) when Frodo looked into Galadriel's Mirror and saw the future (or what may come to pass should he fail). I rested a bit easier with that in mind.

These are just comments based on your comments, Nate, so please don't think that I'm trying to show you up or anything. I guess you could say that I am just expanding on what you said, to get the point across, perhaps.