Originally posted by ILuvMillsy
I'm glad the movies when they did too, Then i wouldn't have fallen in love with Dan, aww...Dan is so hot!
lol 🙄 its that precise reason that i wish they HAD waited. it wouldve been easier to get the feel of the movies right and notleave out important stuff, and maybe they wouldve chosen better actors *runs away from fans hurling abuse*
footlupcy, i agree, umm.. dont all you guys kill me, but i really dont like dan that much, i dont think he is a very good actor, and i dont think he is all that cute either. but i can understand y some people would. just my opinion. and i think they should have waited because there could be little things in the books that they didnt include in the movies that turn out to be something big in the following books, and then the movie people will be really screwed. unless rowling has the whole story totally figured out right now and has told them what will be important and what will not be. idk if she does or not.
I am no way going to say that i wish they had waited to make the movies, caus by the time the last book was written and the first film made, i wud have probably grown tired of harry potter and i love the movies!!! so i wudn't want that to happen, but on the other hand, it wud have been a good idea to wait, as they would have been able to include everything thats important in the books, in the movies...there may be something in book three that becomes majorly important in book 7, but they cut it out in the film as they dfidn't realise it wud play such a big part later on and it cud ruin the whole feel of the movies.
Originally posted by frootlooplucy
lol 🙄 its that precise reason that i wish they HAD waited. it wouldve been easier to get the feel of the movies right and notleave out important stuff, and maybe they wouldve chosen better actors *runs away from fans hurling abuse*
just my words 😆
okay tom n emma are reall good actors, i think, but still they wouldnt chhose dan... it would mae the movies maybe much batter, maxbe then would be another director, i cant stand both...
okay tom wpuldnt be in teh movies, but i think, cuz i wouldnt know i wpouldnt be that mad 😉
Originally posted by Bloom4ever
i think she shouldve got a different director or something, cuz her bks r good but, sry to say, the movies kinda sucked
the movies never live up to the books they're based on...no matter what the book/film is. Its the same with The green mile, or Pride and prejudice etc, the films were good, but the books were fantastic. You will often find tho, that ppl that saw the films first will appreciate them alot more than the ppl that read the books, then saw the films...it's just how it is! i don't dislike the films, i think they cud be better, but i don't hate them. I think without the books, and as films on their own, they are really good. it's just that we end up trying to relate them to the detailed descriptions of the characters and the harry potter world as it is in the books, and when they appear in films, they just don't match up. Its difficult for directors to get these things spot on, as no two people have the same imagination, so to two different people the weasley house would seem completely different to each other's interpretation of it. The directors have to try their best to encorporate as much of the detail as possible, so every one of us can find at least one small point of the film that we can recognise as something that we imagined whilst reading the books. Having a different director wouldn't solve anything...all it'll change is the mood of the movie, not the characters appearences, or the appearence of the set, or even the actors, it will just give us another interpretation of the harry potter world, one that will seem as equally wrong to some of us....Reading the books allows us to use our imaginations to get the most out of the story, where as with a film, what you see is what you get, you don't get a chance to change the minor details that you feel don't fit in. Thats why the books are always better than the films.
i don't think that it was becuse they looked too young...i just think their acting was a bit out of whack...but that was only because they had never done it before...and i agree, the second film was a lot better.....although, i think the best actor out of all of them is rupert...he's just so natural in the way he delivers his lines...even in the first one...i definately think he's the best of the three