Originally posted by Member.Oh holy crap, don't start labeling people! We haven't had a debate where we had to label people since everyone was big on shipping.
the first two movies bored me to tears. u book purists need to make ur own movies then if u don't like the direction the movies are going now.
Originally posted by NickeyI know people that HAVE sat in theatres for 5 hours plus. There's a cinema near here that play trilogies. They had full houses for the LOTR trilogy, and the Godfather Trilogy. The entire trilogy of LOTR in length is a good 10 hours, and godfather about 8. And they do a fairly regular business.
Really? I thought they got better. No offense, but the first two were the longest ones. I mean no wonder I use to hate Harry Potter, the first two movies put me to sleep! Don't get me wrong now, I LOVE ALL HARRY POTTER BOOKS AND MOVIES! But you must admit, those two were as if he was trying to put everything from the book into the movie. No one, and I mean NO ONE would sit in a movie theatre for 5 hours!
SO yes, there are people who will sit in a theatre for 5 hours or more.
Yeah, I would have to say that filmaking is clearly an art all by itself. The Harry Potter films are an adaptation of the books...you cannot include everything in the books and have them translate into good movies on a consistent basis. If that could be done, JK might as well direct the movies.
Rather, the approach should be taken in similar fashion to the way Peter Jackson handled the LOTR trilogy. There is SOOOO much in those books to sort through and a LOT of stuff was left out of the films. However, I thought (and obviously many--including the Academy Awards voters--agree with me) that the films were fantastic. They really CAPTURE THE SPIRIT of the books, which in my opinion was nearly as important as plot continuity with the novels.
Having said that, OotP must be a darker film in order to be a success in my eyes. It must really illustrate how corrupt Umbridge was, how rebellious and risky DA was, how Harry struggled with Occlumency, how Snape was disliked (but given the benefit of the doubt) by everyone in the Order, how Harry now WANTS to impress girls, and it ABSOLUTELY MUST do the ending justice. By that I mean all that went down at the Ministry of Magic should be adapted carefully with a fast and exciting pace...whereby a SPECTACULAR one-on-one battle between Dumbledore and Voldemort conclude the movie.
Oh yeah, and there's this thing called the prophecy...pretty important too lol.
Originally posted by lionlover2053
Yeah, I would have to say that filmaking is clearly an art all by itself. The Harry Potter films are an adaptation of the books...you cannot include everything in the books and have them translate into good movies on a consistent basis. If that could be done, JK might as well direct the movies.Rather, the approach should be taken in similar fashion to the way Peter Jackson handled the LOTR trilogy. There is SOOOO much in those books to sort through and a LOT of stuff was left out of the films. However, I thought (and obviously many--including the Academy Awards voters--agree with me) that the films were fantastic. They really CAPTURE THE SPIRIT of the books, which in my opinion was nearly as important as plot continuity with the novels.
Having said that, OotP must be a darker film in order to be a success in my eyes. It must really illustrate how corrupt Umbridge was, how rebellious and risky DA was, how Harry struggled with Occlumency, how Snape was disliked (but given the benefit of the doubt) by everyone in the Order, how Harry now WANTS to impress girls, and it ABSOLUTELY MUST do the ending justice. By that I mean all that went down at the Ministry of Magic should be adapted carefully with a fast and exciting pace...whereby a SPECTACULAR one-on-one battle between Dumbledore and Voldemort conclude the movie.
Oh yeah, and there's this thing called the prophecy...pretty important too lol.
Yes, the L.R. films certainly "captured the spirit" - but were also over-simplified, or, perhaps, over-"Hollywoodized," in my opinion. The scenes that my friends (at least) remember the most were the ridiculous scenes of Legolas and his acrobatics. But that's a whole seperate topic.
Of all the H.P. films, I've found P.O.A. the most enjoyable, although I definitely loved the first two. But I was slightly disturbed by the amount of alteration towards the end of the story in the P.O.A. adaptation. Its almost like two endings.
I found G.O.F. disappointing overall, although it had its moments. A sad loss was S.P.E.W., but it was inevitable in a screen-adaptation. I think that the reported losses in the O.P. adaptation might be quite detrimental.