PDA

View Full Version : Movies and TV Teaser - Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows


Count Zarth
06-08-2010, 01:06 PM
I haven't read the book and it will stay that way until the movie is over. Both of them.

(btw, you can watch in 720p on youtube)
<object height="385" width="640">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/w6NgUhl96CQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="385" width="640"></object>

Pestilence
06-08-2010, 01:22 PM
So wait......are they splitting this up into two movies? Or is this the last one?

Mr. Plow
06-08-2010, 01:26 PM
When does the movie come out?

Mr. Plow
06-08-2010, 01:27 PM
So wait......are they splitting this up into two movies? Or is this the last one?


I believe 2 movies. Nevermind....I know it's 2 movies.

Pestilence
06-08-2010, 01:28 PM
I believe 2 movies. Nevermind....I know it's 2 movies.

I've always found it interesting that I could get into the movies but I never really liked the books.

I wonder if it has to do with that Hermione chick though. :D

Mr. Plow
06-08-2010, 01:39 PM
I've always found it interesting that I could get into the movies but I never really liked the books.

I wonder if it has to do with that Hermione chick though. :D


Initially, I put this movie into the "Lord of the Rings" category for me. Never cared to see either one. My oldest wanted to see the first HP movie, so I bought it. Sat down, watched it.....still can't explain why like it so much, but I do.

Bought my son the series of books last year. He read through all the books in less than a month. He's a reader, but he took it to an extreme. Reading before school. Coming home and skipping video games & tv to read. Reading up until bed. It was crazy. I've never seen read like that. Then, my wife started reading them. Took her a bit longer, but she still read through every damn book.

Now, they look at me like I'm an idiot for not reading them. Pointing out differences between the books & movies like "Duh....you didn't know THAT!"

The reality is, I'll probably never read them. I'm not a slow reader, nor a fast one, but it would take me God knows how long to read them all. So, I'm thinking of sitting down and trying to read the last one.

Who am I kidding....I won't read it.

Sofa King
06-08-2010, 01:40 PM
The movies are progressively getting worse IMO... less action, less plot twists, more stupid love crap....

Mr. Plow
06-08-2010, 01:41 PM
The movies are progressively getting worse IMO... less action, less plot twists, more stupid love crap....


My wife and son tell me that the last book (or last 2 movies) have a lot more action in them.

Sofa King
06-08-2010, 01:46 PM
My wife and son tell me that the last book (or last 2 movies) have a lot more action in them.

There better be dying, things blowing up, and Hermoine getting railed......


guess i'll just have to wait.

Mr. Plow
06-08-2010, 01:50 PM
There better be dying, things blowing up, and Hermoine getting railed......


guess i'll just have to wait.


Yes....if there isn't a good ole fashioned Hermoine railing scene, I'll be disappointed. Maybe a Harry & Ron double team?

KurtCobain
06-08-2010, 01:51 PM
The movies aren't anything like the books.
Posted via Mobile Device

Pestilence
06-08-2010, 01:53 PM
Yes....if there isn't a good ole fashioned Hermoine railing scene, I'll be disappointed. Maybe a Harry & Ron double team?

Dude....no one wants to see that ginger rail anyone on screen.

Mr. Plow
06-08-2010, 01:54 PM
Dude....no one wants to see that ginger rail anyone on screen.

ROFL

Sofa King
06-08-2010, 01:56 PM
Dude....no one wants to see that ginger rail anyone on screen.

substitute the ginger out and replace with that french chick from the Globlet of Fire... i think she already has some naked videos floating around out there...

Mr. Plow
06-08-2010, 01:57 PM
Nevermind....it's already been done.

Link NSFW...... http://pic.aebn.net/Stream/Movie/Boxcovers/a128254_xlf.jpg

Sofa King
06-08-2010, 02:01 PM
Nevermind....it's already been done.

Link NSFW...... http://pic.aebn.net/Stream/Movie/Boxcovers/a128254_xlf.jpg

awesome... so now i've got 2 hours of work left before i can click that link...... during which, i will not be able to concentrate on work knowing this is here...


...... unless it's just the blonde chick again... in which case i've already spent past time on that one...

InChiefsHell
06-08-2010, 02:04 PM
I'm afraid to see this one, given how far the movies have trailed away from the books. There is a TON of stuff they are simply not going to be able to do...I honestly can't imagine how they plan on finishing this thing right.

...but of course, I'll be there opening night like a retard..

Mr Plow, I was like you once. Then I read the damn things...

Count Zarth
06-08-2010, 02:11 PM
I'm afraid to see this one, given how far the movies have trailed away from the books. There is a TON of stuff they are simply not going to be able to do...I honestly can't imagine how they plan on finishing this thing right.

...but of course, I'll be there opening night like a retard..

Mr Plow, I was like you once. Then I read the damn things...

Two movies ensures they'll fuck it up less.

InChiefsHell
06-08-2010, 02:14 PM
Two movies ensures they'll **** it up less.

I hope so...seriously. The last one was a bit depressing...really they went off the rails in Goblet of Fire...

Amnorix
06-08-2010, 02:29 PM
Initially, I put this movie into the "Lord of the Rings" category for me. Never cared to see either one. My oldest wanted to see the first HP movie, so I bought it. Sat down, watched it.....still can't explain why like it so much, but I do.

Bought my son the series of books last year. He read through all the books in less than a month. He's a reader, but he took it to an extreme. Reading before school. Coming home and skipping video games & tv to read. Reading up until bed. It was crazy. I've never seen read like that. Then, my wife started reading them. Took her a bit longer, but she still read through every damn book.

Now, they look at me like I'm an idiot for not reading them. Pointing out differences between the books & movies like "Duh....you didn't know THAT!"

The reality is, I'll probably never read them. I'm not a slow reader, nor a fast one, but it would take me God knows how long to read them all. So, I'm thinking of sitting down and trying to read the last one.

Who am I kidding....I won't read it.

The books are like popcorn. You'd get through them pretty quick. They also are very good, in general. The first one is what? 220 pages or something? Give it a shot, you might be surprised.

Amnorix
06-08-2010, 02:33 PM
I hope so...seriously. The last one was a bit depressing...really they went off the rails in Goblet of Fire...

It's nearly impossible to stick to the books, as they become more and more detailed in their convoluted plots, etc. You'd think they could do a better job of cutting through it to keep the meat, however, as Jackson did with LoTR.

All that said, the sixth movie just sucked. It sucked if you read the books. It sucked if you hadn't read the books. It was just plain boring. B-O-R-I-N-G. Which is just completely inexcusable given what happened in the book.

kysirsoze
06-08-2010, 02:39 PM
I hope so...seriously. The last one was a bit depressing...really they went off the rails in Goblet of Fire...

I thought Order of the Phoenix was the best one. To me, it's less about getting all the stuff from the book in, and more about getting the essence of the story and the characters. I thought 1 and 2 were boring as hell because they were basically straight translations of the books rather than great films in their own right.

Like LotR. Jackson took many liberties but made it just enough his own that they were fantastic films.

kysirsoze
06-08-2010, 02:40 PM
It's nearly impossible to stick to the books, as they become more and more detailed in their convoluted plots, etc. You'd think they could do a better job of cutting through it to keep the meat, however, as Jackson did with LoTR.

All that said, the sixth movie just sucked. It sucked if you read the books. It sucked if you hadn't read the books. It was just plain boring. B-O-R-I-N-G. Which is just completely inexcusable given what happened in the book.

It's also easier to do that when a third of the book is comprised of lyrical poetry and songs. :)

I'm a fan of the LotR books, just sayin.

Sofa King
06-08-2010, 02:44 PM
It's nearly impossible to stick to the books, as they become more and more detailed in their convoluted plots, etc. You'd think they could do a better job of cutting through it to keep the meat, however, as Jackson did with LoTR.

All that said, the sixth movie just sucked. It sucked if you read the books. It sucked if you hadn't read the books. It was just plain boring. B-O-R-I-N-G. Which is just completely inexcusable given what happened in the book.

this is pretty much what i thought... like i said, they are rapidly going down hill....

kaplin42
06-08-2010, 02:49 PM
Initially, I put this movie into the "Lord of the Rings" category for me. Never cared to see either one. My oldest wanted to see the first HP movie, so I bought it. Sat down, watched it.....still can't explain why like it so much, but I do.

Bought my son the series of books last year. He read through all the books in less than a month. He's a reader, but he took it to an extreme. Reading before school. Coming home and skipping video games & tv to read. Reading up until bed. It was crazy. I've never seen read like that. Then, my wife started reading them. Took her a bit longer, but she still read through every damn book.

Now, they look at me like I'm an idiot for not reading them. Pointing out differences between the books & movies like "Duh....you didn't know THAT!"

The reality is, I'll probably never read them. I'm not a slow reader, nor a fast one, but it would take me God knows how long to read them all. So, I'm thinking of sitting down and trying to read the last one.

Who am I kidding....I won't read it.


Audio books FTW. Get them on CD or throw them on your ipod, and listen to them to and from work. thats how I did it. Great way to pass the time while chillen in traffic.

Amnorix
06-08-2010, 02:49 PM
It's also easier to do that when a third of the book is comprised of lyrical poetry and songs. :)

I'm a fan of the LotR books, just sayin.

Yeah, but Jackson knew what to axe and what to keep to keep the essence of the books there. I could quibble about a number of changes that he made, different things that I would have done, but there's no doubt that the movies were great overall, and kept closely to the heart of what the books were about.

I have exactly one thing I truly hate from each movie, but on balance, I love them.

Amnorix
06-08-2010, 02:50 PM
this is pretty much what i thought... like i said, they are rapidly going down hill....

I didn't think so. I thought 1-5 were consistently good. Some better than others, but I had no major complaints really.

Then six. :Lin: :Lin: :Lin:

kaplin42
06-08-2010, 02:52 PM
Dude....no one wants to see that ginger rail anyone on screen.

I would go for this ginger.

http://www.contactmusic.com/pics/lb/17_again_premiere_3_260309/bonnie_wright_5268616.jpg

Mr. Plow
06-08-2010, 02:57 PM
Audio books FTW. Get them on CD or throw them on your ipod, and listen to them to and from work. thats how I did it. Great way to pass the time while chillen in traffic.

That's a great idea.

Pestilence
06-08-2010, 02:58 PM
I would go for this ginger.

http://www.contactmusic.com/pics/lb/17_again_premiere_3_260309/bonnie_wright_5268616.jpg

Game.

Set.

Match.


So I'd like to see THAT ginger rail Hermione on screen.

Mr. Plow
06-08-2010, 03:23 PM
Game.

Set.

Match.


So I'd like to see THAT ginger rail Hermione on screen.


Now we're talking.

JD10367
06-08-2010, 04:24 PM
Books are awesome.

Movies?

First one ("Sorcerer's Stone"): excellent. 5 stars.
Second one ("Chamber of Secrets"): very good. 4-1/2 stars.
Third one ("Prisoner of Azkaban"): excellent. 5 stars.
Fourth one ("Goblet of Fire"): good but not great. 3 stars.
Fifth one ("Order of the Phoenix"): pretty blah. 2 stars.
Sixth one ("Half-Blood Prince"): sucked balls. 1 star.

Bad trend.

The last one was so frigging bad I couldn't stand watching it, even in IMAX. Right before it I ran "Transformers 2", which blew "Half-Blood Prince" out of the water both visually and even story-wise... which is pretty damn sad. "Half-Blood Prince" was two hours of moping around, no action, filmed about 2 f-stops lower than it should have been.

And guess what? The same hack (David Yates) who directed "Phoenix" and "Prince" is doing the last two. Which means, if we go by what we've seen already, they're going to suck balls.

"Stone" and "Secrets" were Chris Columbus. "Azkaban" was Alfonso Cuaron. "Goblet" was Mike Newell. In descending order, that's who they should've lured back to do the last two films. Yates whacks it.

Count Zarth
06-08-2010, 04:30 PM
Fifth one ("Order of the Phoenix"): pretty blah. 2 stars.
Sixth one ("Half-Blood Prince"): sucked balls. 1 star.


None of them are so bad as to merit one or two-star ratings. You're talking like they're transformers-level bad. Not even close.

You're just disappointed they didn't live up to the books.

Frazod
06-08-2010, 04:37 PM
Somebody please tell me he stops being a total puss in this next one, because I really don't think I can take anymore of the CHOSEN ONE getting his ass kicked by pretty much everybody.

KurtCobain
06-08-2010, 04:40 PM
You're just disappointed they didn't live up to the books.

None of the movies lived up to the books.

Sweet Daddy Hate
06-08-2010, 06:11 PM
Really, GC?

Sweet Daddy Hate
06-08-2010, 06:12 PM
:36

"ENGLIH WIMP FIGHT! ENGLISH WIMP FIGHT"!!!!

irishjayhawk
06-08-2010, 06:33 PM
I'm afraid to see this one, given how far the movies have trailed away from the books. There is a TON of stuff they are simply not going to be able to do...I honestly can't imagine how they plan on finishing this thing right.

...but of course, I'll be there opening night like a retard..

Mr Plow, I was like you once. Then I read the damn things...

Same here.

I still contend 3 is the best movie with 6 following close behind. Then it's a drop off.


What I've seen from this movie so far is that It's continuing the trend of making shit up as they go along. Burning house in 6 and the Harry-Ron "your parents are dead" fight in 7.

irishjayhawk
06-08-2010, 06:36 PM
Books are awesome.

Movies?

First one ("Sorcerer's Stone"): excellent. 5 stars.
Second one ("Chamber of Secrets"): very good. 4-1/2 stars.
Third one ("Prisoner of Azkaban"): excellent. 5 stars.
Fourth one ("Goblet of Fire"): good but not great. 3 stars.
Fifth one ("Order of the Phoenix"): pretty blah. 2 stars.
Sixth one ("Half-Blood Prince"): sucked balls. 1 star.

Bad trend.

The last one was so frigging bad I couldn't stand watching it, even in IMAX. Right before it I ran "Transformers 2", which blew "Half-Blood Prince" out of the water both visually and even story-wise... which is pretty damn sad. "Half-Blood Prince" was two hours of moping around, no action, filmed about 2 f-stops lower than it should have been.

And guess what? The same hack (David Yates) who directed "Phoenix" and "Prince" is doing the last two. Which means, if we go by what we've seen already, they're going to suck balls.

"Stone" and "Secrets" were Chris Columbus. "Azkaban" was Alfonso Cuaron. "Goblet" was Mike Newell. In descending order, that's who they should've lured back to do the last two films. Yates whacks it.

I agree up to 3.

4 was, by far, the worst. 5 was a step up, but what wouldn't be. 6 was a step up, but showed how much they screwed up in 5.

I'm still out on Yates. He's screwed up major portions of 5 but Newell's 4 was so bad I forgave him. Then he piled on shit into 6 and while it was still a better film than some of the others, his decisions really stuck me. But it's better than 4.

On the other hand, one of the reasons I think many don't like - in retrospect - 1 & 2 is not because of the direction but because of the kiddie actors. IF you took the actors now and plugged them into 1 & 2, they'd instantly be more likable.

Sweet Daddy Hate
06-08-2010, 06:39 PM
"Hermonie and ROR's Saggy Balls"

fuckin' epic.

irishjayhawk
06-08-2010, 06:40 PM
I didn't think so. I thought 1-5 were consistently good. Some better than others, but I had no major complaints really.

Then six. :Lin: :Lin: :Lin:

Have you read the books?

Six's movie was a pretty good representation of the book, aside from some glaring things (H&G's kiss, whole Hogwarts Battle, Weasley's house never "catches fire" for absolutely no reason whatsoever). The tone was spot on, though.

I would go for this ginger.

http://www.contactmusic.com/pics/lb/17_again_premiere_3_260309/bonnie_wright_5268616.jpg

Me too.

Sadly, her off camera (meaning movie camera) persona is much more engaging than the "act" she puts on. If she acted like she does in interviews for the movie, she'd be 2984739847398479x better. A part of me thinks it's Yeats that has ruined her/Ginny.

Somebody please tell me he stops being a total puss in this next one, because I really don't think I can take anymore of the CHOSEN ONE getting his ass kicked by pretty much everybody.

You're confusing CHOSEN ONE with Matrix a bit too much. The books make the chosen one perfectly clear while the movies tend to go the Matrix way where he should be unstoppable.

JD10367
06-08-2010, 06:40 PM
Emma Watson is attending college in my town. I'm still waiting to catch a glimpse of her. I wonder if she'd find it funny if I whipped out Little JD and asked her if she wanted to "ride my Firebolt". :shrug:

irishjayhawk
06-08-2010, 06:41 PM
Emma Watson is attending college in my town. I'm still waiting to catch a glimpse of her. I wonder if she'd find it funny if I whipped out Little JD and asked her if she wanted to "ride my Firebolt". :shrug:

Feel free to do so. Preferably on video. :)

JD10367
06-08-2010, 06:43 PM
Feel free to do so. Preferably on video. :)

Well, she *is* supposed to be very talented with magic wands. :hump:

irishjayhawk
06-08-2010, 06:44 PM
Well, she *is* supposed to be very talented with magic wands. :hump:

Just watch out for the Unforgivable Curses.

JD10367
06-08-2010, 06:46 PM
Just watch out for the Unforgivable Curses.

I've already been hit with it. I'm married. :D

InChiefsHell
06-09-2010, 06:09 AM
I've already been hit with it. I'm married. :D

CRUCIO!!

...heheheh...

Amnorix
06-09-2010, 06:17 AM
Have you read the books?

Six's movie was a pretty good representation of the book, aside from some glaring things (H&G's kiss, whole Hogwarts Battle, Weasley's house never "catches fire" for absolutely no reason whatsoever). The tone was spot on, though.



Read the books, yes. Several times at this point.

What may make me different from some is that I don't care about slavish devotion to putting the books on screen. The books are the books. The movies are the movies. The movies are based on the book, but it's the director's job to recreate the story while keeping the movie to a reasonable timeframe (always a big challenge) and maintaining the spirit of the books.

But a really f'n boring movie is, well, really f'n boring. The Sixth movie was really goddamn boring.

JD10367
06-09-2010, 06:39 AM
What may make me different from some is that I don't care about slavish devotion to putting the books on screen. The books are the books. The movies are the movies. The movies are based on the book, but it's the director's job to recreate the story while keeping the movie to a reasonable timeframe (always a big challenge) and maintaining the spirit of the books.

But a really f'n boring movie is, well, really f'n boring. The Sixth movie was really goddamn boring.

"Bingo! We've got bingo!" --- Troy Brown

Yes, the sixth movie stuck close to the book. Unfortunately, it was the one book so far where they SHOULD'VE added a little extra flair by putting in some of their own stuff. "Prince" (the film) was overlong, too full of talk, too dark. All I remember about the film is muttered conversation. It was a giant celluloid turd.

Here are the film costs vs. US grosses:

"Stone": 125M vs. 317M
"Chamber": 100M vs. 262M
"Azkaban": 130M vs. 249M
"Fire": 150M vs. 290M
"Phoenix": 150M vs. 292M
"Prince": 250M vs. 302M

Can someone tell me what the fuck in "Prince" was worth $100M in production costs? Was that the cost per-foot to underexpose the whole movie?

I might be in the minority, but I have absolutely no faith that the final two films will be very good, given this director's track record.

KC_Connection
06-09-2010, 06:42 AM
Alfonso Cuaron's Azkaban was the best movie of the six, mostly because he gave it his own personal touch and separated his vision from the book. He's only directed one movie since then (the very good Children of Men), they really should have tried to bring him back instead of going with the boring Yates again.

The 7th book was the best one and it would be a shame if they screwed up the movie (which, based on the last two, I'm sure they'll do).

JD10367
06-09-2010, 06:46 AM
Alfonso Cuaron's Azkaban was the best movie of the six, mostly because he gave it his own personal touch and separated his vision from the book. He's only directed one movie since then (the very good Children of Men), they really should have tried to bring him back instead of going with the boring Yates again.

The 7th book was the best one and it would be a shame if they screwed up the movie (which, based on the last two, I'm sure they'll do).

Given the fact that the last book wraps everything up, it'll be hard even for Yates to fuck it up TOO much. It should certainly be better than "Phoenix" and "Prince" (at least, "Hallows Part 2" should be). I think "Hallows Part 1" and most of "Part 2" will be the same boring, dark, talky dreck that his first two films were, but at least the last half-hour of "Part 2" will be climactic and leave people exiting and saying, "Well, the ending was good, at least". (Especially for those who've never read the books.)

KC_Connection
06-09-2010, 06:50 AM
Given the fact that the last book wraps everything up, it'll be hard even for Yates to **** it up TOO much. It should certainly be better than "Phoenix" and "Prince" (at least, "Hallows Part 2" should be). I think "Hallows Part 1" and most of "Part 2" will be the same boring, dark, talky dreck that his first two films were, but at least the last half-hour of "Part 2" will be climactic and leave people exiting and saying, "Well, the ending was good, at least". (Especially for those who've never read the books.)

I'd still rather have someone creative doing the ending, especially the scene at "King's Cross Station."

kaplin42
06-09-2010, 08:44 AM
Hallows Part 1 will not be all that exciting. If you have read the book, then you know it's pretty much all setup for the dramatic ending.

Hallows Part 2 should be a special effects masterpiece. I believe someone was saying there is going to be a 25 minute fight scene at Hogwarts.

JD10367
06-09-2010, 08:47 AM
Hallows Part 1 will not be all that exciting. If you have read the book, then you know it's pretty much all setup for the dramatic ending.
Hallows Part 2 should be a special effects masterpiece. I believe someone was saying there is going to be a 25 minute fight scene at Hogwarts.

Which begs the frigging question... WHY are they making it into two parts?!? When we all know the first part will be a boring, long-winded, incomplete suckfest? Especially because of Yates?

Simple. They're greedy motherfuckers. They know they'll rake in another $300M for trotting that shit out there. It's incredibly annoying, and part of me hopes it fails miserably and the film makes around $50M and is a net loss. They could've EASILY just made one film, especially since Cameron just pushed the IMAX film limit to almost 2:40 (which is plenty of time to tell a story).

kaplin42
06-09-2010, 08:59 AM
Which begs the frigging question... WHY are they making it into two parts?!? When we all know the first part will be a boring, long-winded, incomplete suckfest? Especially because of Yates?

Simple. They're greedy mother****ers. They know they'll rake in another $300M for trotting that shit out there. It's incredibly annoying, and part of me hopes it fails miserably and the film makes around $50M and is a net loss. They could've EASILY just made one film, especially since Cameron just pushed the IMAX film limit to almost 2:40 (which is plenty of time to tell a story).

The guy that looks on the brighter side in me says they will make the first one for completeness of story. So that if you never read the books, and just watched the movies, you would get pretty much the whole story. While the first part was not thrilling, it was crucial to the plot, and crucial to how Voldemort is taken down.

The realist in me knows that they know that they could put a pair of glasses and a robe on steaming pile of shit and they would probably make record profits off of all the Potter fans out there.

Mr. Plow
06-09-2010, 09:09 AM
Ok, I'm looking for suggestions. I think I'm going to start on the audio books, but my question is do I:

A - start from the beginning and work my way through them all

or

B - since I've seen all the movies up to this point, pick up the last book first and then go back through them when I have the time?

DeezNutz
06-09-2010, 09:15 AM
Ok, I'm looking for suggestions. I think I'm going to start on the audio books, but my question is do I:

A - start from the beginning and work my way through them all

or

B - since I've seen all the movies up to this point, pick up the last book first and then go back through them when I have the time?

Winner.

JD10367
06-09-2010, 09:15 AM
Ok, I'm looking for suggestions. I think I'm going to start on the audio books, but my question is do I:

A - start from the beginning and work my way through them all

or

B - since I've seen all the movies up to this point, pick up the last book first and then go back through them when I have the time?

Go in order.

One thing that's unique about Rowling's work is that she specifically wanted to make each book more mature, so that as the kids in the books age, and as the kids reading the books age, they get more in-depth, more adult. So it makes the most sense to start from the first book.

InChiefsHell
06-09-2010, 09:17 AM
Start at the beginning dude. Trust me, when you get to the end, you will wonder why you took so long to read them...or listen or whatever.

InChiefsHell
06-09-2010, 09:18 AM
Which begs the frigging question... WHY are they making it into two parts?!? When we all know the first part will be a boring, long-winded, incomplete suckfest? Especially because of Yates?

Simple. They're greedy mother****ers. They know they'll rake in another $300M for trotting that shit out there. It's incredibly annoying, and part of me hopes it fails miserably and the film makes around $50M and is a net loss. They could've EASILY just made one film, especially since Cameron just pushed the IMAX film limit to almost 2:40 (which is plenty of time to tell a story).

I'm actually glad they are making 2 movies, because it will probably take them 5+ hours to possibly salvage the story. If they did just one 2.5 hour movie, I honestly don't know if I'd even bother seeing it in the theaters...

Mr. Plow
06-09-2010, 09:19 AM
My wife keeps telling me there is tons that they've left out of the movies that was in the books.

kaplin42
06-09-2010, 09:25 AM
My wife keeps telling me there is tons that they've left out of the movies that was in the books.

Start from the begining. And yes, there is a ton in the books that is not in the movies. Hell even Prince was a good book, though as mentioned, the movie was pretty boring.

InChiefsHell
06-09-2010, 09:42 AM
You almost have to view them as 2 similar yet different stories, the books vs. the movies I mean. The movies have (partially out of necessity due to time) left more and more out of the books, so that what you are left with is the basic gist of the story. The books are much better. By the time you get to book 3, you can't put them down.

Amnorix
06-09-2010, 01:32 PM
The movies have maybe 20% of the detail of the books. IMHO the movies are "fine", for the most part, but the books are GREAT.

There are a few issues with some books. Goblet of Fire and Order the Phoenix were much too long. Like she got drunk and went wild and her editors lost all control. But by and large they are extremely good.

I doubt you'll find many that would disagree that:

BOOKS! > movies

Much moreso than, say, Lord of the Rings, where both the books and the movies are great, but in different ways (though I think that's also a case of Books > Movies, certainly, just to be clear).

Sweet Daddy Hate
06-09-2010, 03:04 PM
BOOKS! > movies



Every time.

Fried Meat Ball!
06-09-2010, 03:40 PM
Never read the books, but watch the movies. For me, 3 was the best, not sure where 6 was, but it was better than 1, 2 and 4 for sure. But I like slow movies - I'm a sucker for character development, and the one thing I couldn't stand in 6 was the added house burning scene, which felt forced. They obviously thought the pacing was too slow, so they inserted a random action scene. And at least for me, actually did the opposite of what they were trying to do. Completely derailed the pacing.

EDIT: I'm not a fan of Chris Columbus as a director. I think he's a hack. You'll never get anything from him that's not written on the page for him to do. He has no artistic vision, IMO.

Mr. Plow
06-09-2010, 04:51 PM
Ok. Just bought book #1. Listening to it now.

JD10367
06-09-2010, 06:37 PM
EDIT: I'm not a fan of Chris Columbus as a director. I think he's a hack. You'll never get anything from him that's not written on the page for him to do. He has no artistic vision, IMO.

As a writer: Gremlins, The Goonies (screenplay), Young Sherlock Holmes.

As a director: Home Alone, Mrs. Doubtfire, Harry Potter 1 and 2, The Lightning Thief

He's certainly not Orson Welles, but I don't know if I'd call him a hack.

irishjayhawk
06-09-2010, 08:31 PM
"Bingo! We've got bingo!" --- Troy Brown

Yes, the sixth movie stuck close to the book. Unfortunately, it was the one book so far where they SHOULD'VE added a little extra flair by putting in some of their own stuff. "Prince" (the film) was overlong, too full of talk, too dark. All I remember about the film is muttered conversation. It was a giant celluloid turd.

Here are the film costs vs. US grosses:

"Stone": 125M vs. 317M
"Chamber": 100M vs. 262M
"Azkaban": 130M vs. 249M
"Fire": 150M vs. 290M
"Phoenix": 150M vs. 292M
"Prince": 250M vs. 302M

Can someone tell me what the **** in "Prince" was worth $100M in production costs? Was that the cost per-foot to underexpose the whole movie?

I might be in the minority, but I have absolutely no faith that the final two films will be very good, given this director's track record.

If you thought it was boring then I point to one main omission: the lack of battle of Hogwarts at the end.

Read the books, yes. Several times at this point.

What may make me different from some is that I don't care about slavish devotion to putting the books on screen. The books are the books. The movies are the movies. The movies are based on the book, but it's the director's job to recreate the story while keeping the movie to a reasonable timeframe (always a big challenge) and maintaining the spirit of the books.

But a really f'n boring movie is, well, really f'n boring. The Sixth movie was really goddamn boring.

I think that'd have changed if they'd included the ending battle. But the added house burning scene and some of the streched out love stuff (especially when the FUBAR'd the Harry-Ginny kiss which was written perfectly in the book).


Which begs the frigging question... WHY are they making it into two parts?!? When we all know the first part will be a boring, long-winded, incomplete suckfest? Especially because of Yates?

Simple. They're greedy mother****ers. They know they'll rake in another $300M for trotting that shit out there. It's incredibly annoying, and part of me hopes it fails miserably and the film makes around $50M and is a net loss. They could've EASILY just made one film, especially since Cameron just pushed the IMAX film limit to almost 2:40 (which is plenty of time to tell a story).

To me, splitting 7 into two movies makes sense. But it would have made more sense if they'd split 5 into two movies. 6 was short enough to be one, but 5 and 7 shouldn't be 1.

Ok, I'm looking for suggestions. I think I'm going to start on the audio books, but my question is do I:

A - start from the beginning and work my way through them all

or

B - since I've seen all the movies up to this point, pick up the last book first and then go back through them when I have the time?

My wife keeps telling me there is tons that they've left out of the movies that was in the books.

EASILY what you're wife said and option A. Also, ignore all my posts. :p

irishjayhawk
06-09-2010, 08:32 PM
Never read the books, but watch the movies. For me, 3 was the best, not sure where 6 was, but it was better than 1, 2 and 4 for sure. But I like slow movies - I'm a sucker for character development, and the one thing I couldn't stand in 6 was the added house burning scene, which felt forced. They obviously thought the pacing was too slow, so they inserted a random action scene. And at least for me, actually did the opposite of what they were trying to do. Completely derailed the pacing.

EDIT: I'm not a fan of Chris Columbus as a director. I think he's a hack. You'll never get anything from him that's not written on the page for him to do. He has no artistic vision, IMO.

The pacing WAS atrocious. But that's in large part because they skipped the ending battle scene. I mean it wasn't even shown.

Mr. Plow
06-09-2010, 08:52 PM
EASILY what you're wife said and option A. Also, ignore all my posts. :p

The only one I'm concerned about is the final book. Spoilers or changes in the 1st 6 books is fine for me to read. Hell, I've been asking my wife the differences.

irishjayhawk
06-09-2010, 09:51 PM
The only one I'm concerned about is the final book. Spoilers or changes in the 1st 6 books is fine for me to read. Hell, I've been asking my wife the differences.

Also, Jim Dale is awesome at reading (and as much as I love Stephen Fry, I prefer Jim Dale) but audiobooks, for the record, are MUCH MUCH MUCH slower than reading, even for my slow reading ass.

ThaVirus
06-09-2010, 10:05 PM
PENIS!!!

Mr. Plow
06-10-2010, 07:47 AM
Also, Jim Dale is awesome at reading (and as much as I love Stephen Fry, I prefer Jim Dale) but audiobooks, for the record, are MUCH MUCH MUCH slower than reading, even for my slow reading ass.

I think you're probably right about the speed. I used to be a big reader and then stopped. Now, I can't really explain it, but I can't get into a book. Listening to it last night was easy to follow and worked great for me. I made it through the 1st 6 chapters and already starting to see differences.

Walking up to the train to Hogwarts and the book says something along the lines of "4 brothers walked up".....I was like, no...it was Ron, his 2 brothers, and his sister. Didn't know anything about Percy or the rest of Ron's brothers.

Fried Meat Ball!
06-10-2010, 08:24 AM
As a writer: Gremlins, The Goonies (screenplay), Young Sherlock Holmes.

As a director: Home Alone, Mrs. Doubtfire, Harry Potter 1 and 2, The Lightning Thief

He's certainly not Orson Welles, but I don't know if I'd call him a hack.

I specified as a director. And the biggest reason I think he's a hack is because I think he's capable of only pulling off what is given to him. I think he has zero artistic credibility and vision.

HP1 and 2 are only slightly better than Goblet of Fire, IMO. Home Alone - blah. Mrs. Doubtfire, enjoyable because of Williams. Bicentennial Man, crap. Stepmom, syrupy crap. Nine Months, blah. Adventures in Babysitting... well, I still have a crush on Elisabeth Shue because of this movie, but it's pretty mediocre.

That is just my opinion, though.

Mr. Plow
08-23-2010, 08:54 AM
And.....Done.

Did the audio book method through the first 3 books, then decided to take on the remaining 4 books just by reading.

Books 1-3 were ok. From there on, I didn't want to stop reading them. Started on the Deathly Hallows on Tuesday of this past week and finished it last night. Didn't want to put it down honestly.

Anxious to see how the final book translates to the movie.

donkhater
08-23-2010, 09:28 AM
My biggest problem with the movies is that they've deviated from the essential story that you get wrapped up in in the books:

Is Snape good or bad?
What's his connection to Harry?
What they HELL happened to the whole Horcrux angle? Barely a mention of it in the 6th movie.

Then there are problems with the protrayal of the characters. I think Harry and Hermione are fine, but they are WAY off with the Ron and Ginny characters. Ron is too mope-ish in the movies. In the books he's funny and extremely loyal and gets agitated eaisly by Malfoy. Ginny is an extremely strong girl in the book and socially popular. In the movies, she's a wallflower.

These are things that are not hard to put into a movie. If they had time for that whole 'Burrow-burning" scene, they had time for a better explaination of the Horcruxes and Voldemort's past. Snape's character has been an afterthought pretty much throughout the movies, yet in the books (particulary after #4) his role is HUGE. With an actor like Rickman, this would've been a piece of cake AND highly entertaining to explore.

donkhater
08-23-2010, 09:30 AM
And.....Done.

Did the audio book method through the first 3 books, then decided to take on the remaining 4 books just by reading.

Books 1-3 were ok. From there on, I didn't want to stop reading them. Started on the Deathly Hallows on Tuesday of this past week and finished it last night. Didn't want to put it down honestly.

Anxious to see how the final book translates to the movie.

Yeah, they are surprisingly addictive.

Saulbadguy
08-23-2010, 09:32 AM
Yeah, they are surprisingly addictive.

I finished the last book in one day. I couldn't put it down knowing I hadn't finished the story.

Sofa King
08-23-2010, 09:37 AM
http://nerdarama.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/ogre.jpg

Old Dog
08-23-2010, 09:38 AM
I finished the last book in one day. I couldn't put it down knowing I hadn't finished the story.

Did each of the final two books in one sitting.
Am hoping that Part one of the first movie starts with what was the end of the 6th book (Dumbledore's funeral). I think for that to be left out in its entirety would be wrong. I know there have been a plethora of differences, but that would be my new #1 thing that should have been shown/explained.

InChiefsHell
08-23-2010, 10:30 AM
My biggest problem with the movies is that they've deviated from the essential story that you get wrapped up in in the books:

Is Snape good or bad?
What's his connection to Harry?
What they HELL happened to the whole Horcrux angle? Barely a mention of it in the 6th movie.

Then there are problems with the protrayal of the characters. I think Harry and Hermione are fine, but they are WAY off with the Ron and Ginny characters. Ron is too mope-ish in the movies. In the books he's funny and extremely loyal and gets agitated eaisly by Malfoy. Ginny is an extremely strong girl in the book and socially popular. In the movies, she's a wallflower.

These are things that are not hard to put into a movie. If they had time for that whole 'Burrow-burning" scene, they had time for a better explaination of the Horcruxes and Voldemort's past. Snape's character has been an afterthought pretty much throughout the movies, yet in the books (particulary after #4) his role is HUGE. With an actor like Rickman, this would've been a piece of cake AND highly entertaining to explore.

The movies deviated harshly from the books after Azkaban. It seems they are shells of the story. Then when they do these BS scenes that are unnecessary to the story (burning of the Burrow which never happens in the book,) Harry hitting on the chick in the diner, etc. They wasted a ton of energy on some parts while ignoring the important stuff. They have a lot of work to do in this last installment to fix everything.

Saulbadguy
08-23-2010, 11:51 AM
The movies deviated harshly from the books after Azkaban. It seems they are shells of the story. Then when they do these BS scenes that are unnecessary to the story (burning of the Burrow which never happens in the book,) Harry hitting on the chick in the diner, etc. They wasted a ton of energy on some parts while ignoring the important stuff. They have a lot of work to do in this last installment to fix everything.

The dance scene with the crappy rock/metal music in Goblet of Fire. :shake:

InChiefsHell
08-23-2010, 12:48 PM
The dance scene with the crappy rock/metal music in Goblet of Fire. :shake:

Yeah, that was pretty bad. But, they did have The Weird Sisters playing at the dance in the book didn't they?