Alright as the only sane voice of reason reading this over the age of 12 not nit picking the details.
1. Might be green did you look closely?
2. Makes the demeantors seem more menicing and works with the
3. Emma is a good idol for the young fan base that watches the movies.
4. Puts emphasys on the importance of the situation..
5. Yhea a little odd with no Peeves.
6. Movie SEVEN ? why are you worried about that now that's almost 4
years from now probably.
7. even in the books he takes the eye out to clean it.
8. I honestly don't think that they moved Hagrids house just shot from
different angles probably.
9. That could be true but there's seems to be alot of change of cast from
movie to movie so it keeps it fresh.
10. What you thought doby wouldn't be annoying?
11. That's preffrence not seeing the twins they'll make their grand
entrance in the OOTP really.
12. Yhea I do agree I really don't see why he would be so angry
uncharechteristic as an actor he should have questioned it.
13. Well there is a chance the next director will be better than the
14. All prefrence John Williams is a great composer he did well with
the information and the setting he was given.
15. I don't know if I agree but that's so obscure of a fact it's hard to
16. They could have been better sure but they worked with what was
available which by the standards of WB are prob pretty damn
17. Let's just think about this the last book was what 1000 pages or
something like that you try encluding everything the movie would
be 5 and 1/2 hours long and it probably is before editing.
18. It might be a bit difficult to really show all of the magic that they
can do they do show a share bit tho and not showing everything
keeps the movies and books more "Magical"
19. Who said that they had a choir, could have been a just a group of
students that like singing.
20. Durmstangs is precived as an all male school and it sets a tone
for a strong point in the movie.
21. Bauxbatons is probably mostly girls plus is another strong point in
the movie that needs to be exagerated.
22. They wanted the surprise be something that you wouldn't have
23. Damn!! Fluer is Hot she is amazingly hot so "unimaginably
beutiful" kinda fits I'd marry her..
24. He was never meant to be a main fixture of the movie.
25. They made the movies based after the fan base closer to the
younger end of kids that prob wouldn't understand it.
26. The MAJORITY of the viewers are the people whom read the
books, or even safer to say the viewers that will view the next
few movies will be readers.
27. Same with question 26 mostly readers that watched the movies
plus the previous movies really do explain the base charachters.
28. I precive Harry to be dark haired.
29. Meh preception again, I don;t think that it's that well kept.
30. How do you know is there a science behind the curse.
31. Would like to meed volermolt in a dark alley alone "NOT ME"
32. Perception really.
and so on and so forth......
Here's some good advice from a person that takes time looking for flaws in movies.
Just sit back relax forget what you have read and watch the movie and appreciate it let the magic of the movie engulf you into the experience that's what they are meant to do.
1. I didn't notice, but in the books there is alot of emphasis on his eyes being green, so they should probably make it clear in the film.
2. it didn't make them feel more menacing it made them stupid and gimmicky. As for the quidditch match, it is still an inaccuracy which would be ok if it helped make the story more presentable on film, but it doesn't.
3. How is she a good idol? The character of hermione is a good idol. Emma is just the perso who presents the character. She is not an idol.
4. What? How does the close they wear convey any importance at all? This is another needless innaccuracy. Again, it would be excuasable if it helped the story which it doesn't.
5. We agree.
6.I don't understand this complaint either.
7. Yeah he takes it out but that doesn't mean he straps it on. He just pops it out of his socket.
8. Hagrids hut is located at the edge of the forbidden forest in the first to with flat fields between it and the castle, but in film 3 it is at the bottom of a steep rocky hill. Watch the films dude it isn't hard to notice.
9. Well that is an excuse for bad acting, but it stilll doesn't change the fact that the acting is bad. And it doesn't keep it fresh. It only succeeds in keeping us from understanding the characters because different people play them.
10. He's not annoying in the books.
11. this is another deviation from the book that doesn't help the film and actually hurts it because it takes away two of the most amiable characters in the series.
12. We agree.
13. There is a chance. It doesn't change the fact that the first three sucked.
14. it's not preference if you say one score is better written than another, it just might not be true. it is preference if you say you like one score better than another. anyway we both know that this is his worst work. I also disagree that he did well with the materil he had. A childrens fantasy film is the perfect opportunity for grand over-the-top, rousing score. He was totally uninspired.
15. Yeah it is pretty obscure.
16. what , do you think that HP is some low-budget film that couldn't afford the best equipment. The spent millions on the digital effects and production designe and it still looks crappy. Your saying "WB did the best they could" doesn't change the fact that it looks awful.
17.the last book was about 600 pages. your only off by 400. and they could have made the films a little longer, around three hours, or they could stop putting in stupid prolonged action scenes that aren't in the book, and use material that is actuallly in HP.
18. that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I said nothing about them not showing enough magic. i said that HP is a book that can't be made into a film.
19. A group of kids who like to sing???? they are being conducted by a Teacher!
20. What is this "strong" that it makes?
21. Again, what strong point does it make?
22. yeah the surprised me with all that action that wasn't there. there is a word for that. It is called disappointmen.
23. Now THAT is totally perception. You are being pretty hypocritical.
24. True, but he is still a good character, who, like the twins, adds some of Rowling's best absurd humor.
25. Roal Dahl wrote children's books1 It is meant for children to understand it. Anyways kids seem to get the humor in Rowling's books. Why can't the same humor be in the movies?
26. You know a movie really sucks when it has to rely on its source matrerial for things like plot and character development.
27. It doesn't change there beig no character development in the films. If this movie was any good, people who havn't read the books would be able to enjoy it.
28. It says multiple times in the book that it is jet black so even if you percieved it as brown, the film makers should have assumed that most people who read the books would imagine Harry as he is described.
29. It isn't perception. rowling describes her very clearly in the books. Have you read them?
30. yet again it is described in the book what happens. i suggest you read it. It's pretty good.
31. your hypocracy is astounding. this is perception on your part again. It is also perception on theirs, but they aren't preaching to other people about not letting perception control your judgment of a movie.
32. THis is not perception at all! Stop saying it is when it is actually described multiple times in alll the books. It is a fact the scar is in the center of his head. Rowling tellls us so.
"and so on and so forth"? Does this mean you can't think of response to the other 25 reasons as to why the films are bad?
You could just say the whloe thing is our perception. That is kind of the point of a message board. To you know, give your opinion. Howver, one should always defend one's opinion or perception with fact. you are totally entitled to your opinion, but I am curious to know why you are posting why the films are good in a thread which is about why the films are bad.
__________________ christmas... christmas dinner...dinner means death... death means carnage... CHRISTMAS MEANS CARNAGE!!!
I don't have specific things to add to the list, because you basically took all mine. But the movies are completely awful. True fans would want a 4 hour movie with everything left intact, not the commercialized, badly acted, stripped-down pieces of crap we've been served. If you can't make a qulaity adaptation, don't do one at all.
Well, only thing we can say, and what we already know is that it was the money. I went from being very excited when the Philosopher's Stone film was released, but after seeing it, I've given to missing every new film out at its theactrical release, and only buying the 3rd and 4th films due to Alfonso Cuaron being the director on the 3rd, and the 4th because of the reviews.
I must say I was completely underwhelmed by the graveyard scene at the end of Goblet of Fire, Ralph Fiennes, as good as an actor he is, just was not that convincing. I wanted the image of Voldemort from Order of the Pheonix, a tall, slender figure in a hooded cloke, with one bone white hand visible, with spidery hands clutching a hand, not a rasping blad man with sweeping gestures.
Of course, a 4 hour movie is out of the question, but the charm of the books isn't recreated in the films. They are kids movies. And a kids movie and a kids book, are very different.
First of all, they should put more emphasis on the whole "Magical World" thing. I mean, I was astounded when I saw the flying car, because I was sure they wouldn't add it. Cool thing, when I went to England on my vacation I actually saw the same exact car that was used on the scene in a huge transportation museum there.
The magical duels in COS were really stupid.
Bonnie Wright's forehead is bigger then my computer monitor. My computer monitor is actually really big.
All members of the Weasley's have red hair. I guess directors thought of this as "irrelevant."
Dan can't act for life.
Fleur wasn't that hot. Really, I've seen much better on my block.
The whole Hermione thing, I think it's good that they put Hermione as "OKEY" looking. Makes her a more likeable charachter, and I bet no-one would watch the movie with an ugly a$$ hermione.
I can't wait to see what Luna looks like thought.
They may to us because we've pictured it in our minds,if we hadn't dont that then its actually okay looking.Not the best but okay.
Bonnie actually doesn’t have that big forehead.(Diamonds will kill you if she saw your post,.)
I think Dan acts good for his part apart from that crying scene.
Emma’s actually good-looking for her part.
Luna too(in the O0pt) looks a lot better looking for her part.
Last edited by PrincessNk on Apr 17th, 2007 at 01:59 AM
I know this has been said but i don't think it was really emphasized.
52. Michael Gambon does not resemble dumbledore in ANY WAY. I think Richard Harris (movies 1 & 2) came very close to a perfect match of Dumbledore. It's too bad he died...
But you guys also forgot that Dobby found the Room of Requirements in the OOTP and gave Harry the gillyweed in the GoF. I just hope they put BOTH Dobby and Kreacher in HBP whenever Harry asks them to spy on Malfoy. If they don't I'm gonna be so mad.
__________________ hearts are won, empires fall in love with love
love will conquer all for one, one for all
all is fair in love and war, love and war are one