f13.net

Felt great to see the blue tights and red cape on the big screen again, even if it was only a brief trailer.  I expect fantastic music if the trailer's is any indication.

Oh, and Year 4 was okay, all things considered.  I still think Prisoner' is the best Potter movie so far.

I think the wife and I are going to see Goblet in DLP on Tuesday. Digital is all sold out until Monday. Bastards.

I thought GoF's music was far below par this time.  Prisoner of Azhkaban's made the movie almost feel like one big poem.

Prisoner had the best music of the first three.

I'll be seeing mediocre fantasy movie #17 sometime next week.

Should I feel bad about having not seen any of the Harry Potter movies, nor having read any of the books?

Not really, but the books are excellent and the last two films have been good.  If you're just doing it to thumb your nose to the mainstream, then perhaps you're doing yourself a disfavor.

I liked GoF better than PoA. I think the farther they get from the Chris Columbus pics the better they end up being as movies.  This one also felt a lot more like the book than PoA.  Of course, I'm biased;  Goblet of Fire is the favorite of the series for me.  This one also moved pretty damn well for a 2 hour 30 minute flick.

Did anyone else think "OMG, M. Bison!"  when Krum showed up for the Yule Ball?

A little bit, yes.

Looks like the wife and I are going to see this tonight in digital projection. Turns out some people she knew had tickets they couldn't use. Joyous.

The movies keep coming on TV, but never in the right order.....And I tend to forget about checking older film releases whenever I head to a video store.

One day it'll all click, I suppose.

Everyone except Harry and Hermione have gotten hit with the ugly stick as compared to 1-2.  I literally wince everytime I see a closeup of Ron in 3 or the previews for 4.  Most other characters didn't fare any better.  Without getting into creepy territory, Hermione, lets just say...has chosen not to go in that direction.

You can say it. Hermione Emma Watson is on her way to hotsville. Unfortunately, she's what? 15? And a not very good actress. I want to see a cage match involving spiked bats between her and Dakota Fanning in a decade.

I like that they all looked ugly and awkard.  Really fits in with that phase.

Although, the kid that plays Potter can't act AT ALL.

God forbid you go to the library and read a book, eh?   :wink:

I saw the movie today.  I think they did as good a job as possible given the length of the source material.  When I looked back on what was and wasn't in the movie, I realized that the book was really composed of several intertwining stories, and for the movie they just took one of those stories (the tournament) and either excluded the others (SPEW, Rita Skeeter, Harry and Cho, Hagrid and Maxime) or whittled them down a lot.  But the one story that they did do, they did a very good job on, even if it felt a bit rushed.

Wonder if they'll be able to pull it off again for Order of the Phoenix.  Not holding my breath.   :wink:

Oh, I do my fair share of reading, but I generally haven't had a positive opinion of fantasy novels. It's just not my thing. So far, there's only one fantasy writer that I like.

As for the Potter movies, I wasn't very curious about them until I found out about some of the cast (I'll watch anything with Oldman in it, for instance). And knowing my own tastes, I'm pretty sure that if the stories have a chance with me, it'll be on some visual storytelling level (i.e. film), not literary.

I'm wondering if they haven't kept the movie time down because these are kids books.  That is, there wasn't nearly as much reason to make it a 3h+ movie as with LotR, because of the intended audiance.  And with a 700 page book, you're hard pressed to get everything into a 2.5h movie without massive cuts.  And yeah, there seemed to be a lot of time in the books spent on character socialization, as opposed to LotR which dove into great detail on specific issues (eg, council of Elrond, etc).  Much harder to sum up the book as a result.  I wonder - would it have been better to make 2 movies out of this book?

I enjoyed the movie -- two thumbs up from me!

The Superman trailer was interesting up until the end where they showed the CG looking Superman.

The movies was good in the sense that it did tell the story decently. The devil is in the details with book > movie conversions. You can't possibly do it all, so you have to make some cuts. That's where the fun begins. Did they make the right cuts? Fleur, who comes back later, got almost no coverage in the movie as a character. I think that's a mistake. Dumbledore, with the transition of actors, is not being played to the pattern we've seen in the books. I have a problem with him in this movie. He's a little off and I can't put my finger on why.

The rest of the movie is great. The pacing is quick, but that's the only way you could do it. The small plots were exchanged for action, and it places, hints at action. I liked that. It did well to establish moods, and it worked well with material to make the major points concrete.

Fleur never really comes back later.  I wouldn't be surprised if she just kept getting cut for the movies.  Her part in the books is totally forgettable and unnecessary.

Ooh, I like the Spellchecker...

Richard Harris *was* Dumbledore. Presumably Michael Gambon is intentionally not trying to mimic Richard Harris's portrayal which is understandable but unfortunately that means his version will never be as good. He doesn't even look the part to me, with his grey bread vs. Richard's white version.

Having never read a Potter book, I have to agree that Harris fit the role better. Gambon is a tad bit creepy to me whereas Harris always felt like a grandfatherly figure who was honestly concerned for Harry's well-being.

I liked the movie, but not as much as the last. I'm assuming there was a shitton cut from the book in order to get this to 2.5 hours, which I felt hurt the feeling of it being a school year. The last three movies I got the feeling they were in school for another year, but this one not so much. Too much was focused on the Tri-Wizard tournament, but it had to be in order to get it all in there I suppose. What was the other Hogwarts contestant, Cedric? Too bad about him. He seemed like a nice guy. Emma Watson is going to be hottie mchothot in a few more years.

Hmm...I didn't know Richard Harris was in one of these. All the more reason to watch them, I think.

Part of that is the actor, but I think part of it is purposeful- Dumbledore begins to distance himself from Harry in the later books for reasons I won't mention in deference for those of you who have yet to read them.

Saw GoF Friday night. By the time the goddamned commercials and previews were done, I was about ready to walk out (it was like 20-30 minutes worth of shit, after standing in line in the cold for a fucking hour. Just start the goddamned movie already!). However, as soon as the movie started, I was entertained the entire time. Well paced, interesting, and fun. They did cut out a lot from the books, but nothing major that can't be spliced in to the next movie if they are integral to the plot.

Oh, and Emma Watson needs to eat a sandwich or twelve. The girl looks anorexic. That said, I couldn't help but notice that she was <ahem> more noticeable in the 3rd dimension this time around, if you take my meaning. She is gonna be majorly hot. To steal a quote from "Dazed and Confused"- that is the best thing about high school girls. No matter how old I get, they stay the same age!  :evil:

No. I sure don't.

You are really missing out. Popular or not, they are pretty high quality entertainment.

What he said.  I resisted them for years because they were so popular, and I figured anything that popular had to be crap.  I think Harry Potter is the exception that proves the rule.

Most of the people I know expressed skepticism and/or contempt for the Harry Potter series before reading any of the books.  I do not know a single person who felt that way who did not then do a complete 180 after finally reading one of them.

I don't resist them because they're popular. I don't mind popular. I just resist them because it's fantasy literature (especially considering that it's fantasy literature originally targetted towards adolescents). No offense, Sam (since you take Samwise as your board name), but I didn't even like LotR (I barely liked the movies either, but I at least got further with those than with the books).

Yeah, put me in the "resist until read" category.  I finally broke down, and just finished reading the whole series over about three weeks.   I will say that her writing style often bugs the hell out of me, but overall very entertaining.  Which, all told, is good enough.

I saw most of the first movie and while I didn't dislike it, I didn't like it enough to seek out the books, or make the time for it out of the other things I want to read or watch.

Not sure if this movie had a chance given the source material.

That isn't to say the book (GoF) is bad, because it isn't bad.  In fact, most Potter fans seem to like it quite well, even compared to others in the series.  The book just presents a lot of problems in translation to the screen: 

    1.) About three too many subplots that provide tempo for the book are left out in the film.  I understand that we can't make a movie that lasts four hours, but I wind up craving a Ritalin after watching Goblet of Fire.  Plot is pounded out in exposition scenes to allow time for Sixteen Candles at the Christmas Ball, extended CG dragon-time, and general poutiness to establish adolescence.  This would be a better movie if it wasn't for the Tri-Wizard tournament mechanic constantly interrupting.

    2.) It is hard to establish a sense of dread in the film.  Every main character seems scared, even Dumbledore, but we keep right on with the business of another year at Hogwarts.  Until somebody dies.  Yet by the time we meet Voldemort, the movie is over.  The Tri-Wizard tournament does not seem any more dangerous than anything else that happens at Hogwarts, but there is much trembling.

    3.)  Finally, we have yet another Defense of Dark Arts teacher who is not what he seems.  A repeat in plot mechanic is more forgiveable when it is 700 pages apart than when I sit in the theatre and say, "Just like last year, and the year before, and the year before, and the year before."  New modus, please.


    Overall, this movie did not have the chance to be what Azkaban was, even before the first scene was shot.  The dementors, Sirius Black, etc made that movie the quintessential Potter film in my mind, even if was not the best book of the series.

I can very well believe that since I didn't feel like I was seeing another year at Hogwarts so much as the Tri-Wizard contest that really wasn't all that captivating.

The film had the same problem the books had:  now that the larger Voldemort plot is moving,  the school plot is too much.  Rowlings has pretty much dropped the typical school "Quiddich, House Cup, studying" crap,  or would be faced with 1000 page plus novels.

The last two movies have been truer to the spirit of the books,  while the first two were to text if somewhat soulless.

To bring up a Boog criticism of The Lord of the Rings movies:  cuts have to be made,  but the cuts you make in the early movies are going to have radical implications for the latter ones. 

Cutting alot of the Maxine/Hagrid plot,  the Fleur/Ron's brother plot, the whole mess with Percy (Ron's slightly older brother who worked for Barty Crouch and goes slightly rogue), and the Snape/Deatheater plot is going to bite later directors in the ass.  Some of it will come off like deus ex machina simply because the setup is ignored.

I think the only significant cut there is Percy.  Even then, he really doesn't make a radical impact on the plot of the books.  You can have book 5 & 6 without Percy, IMO.

Really, they at least somewhat addressed Hagrid/Maxine and Snape as a deatheater. The Hagrid/Giant plot and Snape "betrayal" are still very much in play. I don't think Bill/Fleur is even touched upon until book 5 and uhh.. there's no movie of that yet.  Even so, her only major contribution from now is a few scenes at Ron's house.   

If anything though, yes, they should have been drawing more attention to Snape this movie.  The Order of Phoenix and Half-blood Prince plots though, bring him in heavily.  If anything, Phoenix should bring him out a little more.  I'm willing to give them a chance, even if they did spend 10 minutes too long with Harry avoiding the stupid dragon.

She had half dropped that by book 3, and pretty much for good by 4.  That she didn't sooner was one of the biggest weaknesses of book 2.  I mean, the notion of "wow, magic!" was handled in book 1; anything more was just retreading old ground.  I also get the feeling that she has started to dislike writing Quiddich into her books - she killed it in book 4, and tried to push it off in 5 and 6.  She stated on her website that she has written her last Quiddich match.  That is, that there won't be another one in book 7.

It wouldn't happen to have anything to do with the fact that Quiddich is a very stupid game? Is there any kind of point to the game outside of the seekers?

There was one game in one of the books where Harry's team was down by 150 points for a while, such that he had to NOT go for the Snitch lest the game end while they were still down in points.

The Quaffle points are also much more important in a series of games, since I think the scores for a series of games are all tallied together; if there are two games and each team got the Snitch once, it comes down to the Quaffle points to decide victory.

That said, yes, 150 points for the Snitch and 10 points for a goal seems pretty damn stupid given how much effort is expended on each.   :roll:

Yeah, the game itself makes no sense.  The 150 point rule is just a mechanic to let Harry be the hero.  Nevermind that, at age 11 and with zero prior experience, he is better than anyone else in his house up to and including 17 year olds.  Or that 15 year olds are team captains.  Or that the game ought to be lethal, what with no safety anything and falls from multiple stories up.  The only good concept was to include a "wizard sport" - everything she thought up after that was terrible.

I actively disliked the first movie, to be honest.  Kids that young irritate me, and the "Happy Christmas, Harry!" "Happy Christmas, Ron!" scene made me stabby.

I felt Chamber of Secrets was okay.

I really enjoyed Prisoner of Azkaban.

I had a blast with this one.  I liked it better than Prisoner of Azkaban, to be honest.  PoA seemed like it just missed some of its potential, probably because it's a kids movie- same way Star Wars missed its potential for some really cool stuff and interesting themes in the name of keeping it safe for teh children!1!!  Of course, PoA wasn't /nearly/ as bad about this as Star Wars, but I left the movie feeling just a bit of disappointment.  This one seemed darker.  Hell, that maze was creepy, and SPOILER seeing Cedric get pwnt in two seconds really gave you an idea of how evil and powerful these guys are.  Instapermadeath sucks.

Though the killing curse still sounds like "Abra Kadabra" whenever anyone says it.

I enjoyed PoA because it was with that movie I really started taking an interest in the characters. The first two movies were a bit flat for me except for Harris' performance.

I think I still like the first movie best out of all of them.  It had Harris as Dumbledore, it wasn't at all hurried, and it hit on all the major plot points.

Chamber of Secrets annoyed me because the screenplay completely omitted the clues that (OMG SPOILER) Ginny was the one doing all the stuff, aside from a couple of throwaway reaction shots.  The "solving the mystery" aspect is about half of what draws me to Harry Potter stories, so that was an unforgiveable omission IMO.

Prisoner of Azkaban was excellent except for the lack of Harris.  And the change in wardrobe, which seemed to me like laziness on the part of the costume designer; Rowling goes to great lengths to describe how wizards don't dress like muggles, but around PoA they chickened out on translating that to the big screen and started dressing everyone in ordinary clothes.  (E.g. translating "dress robes" into "tuxedos" for the Yule Ball in GoF.)  Boo.

Goblet of Fire was as good as it could have been, but as has been stated, I think the book was just too long and complex to make into a really good movie.  The Tri-Wizard tournament was the background against which everything else in the book happened, so bringing it to the foreground and dropping everything else feels a bit odd, even if there was really no better way to do it.

Awful.  That film was God-Awful.

I was about to say that's not quite correct.. it wasn't awful, then I stopped to think about it.  If I hadn't read the books, and it weren't Harry Potter, we'd all be ripping it to shreds for not only the pacing, but how slapped-together it feels.

So I concur.

I don't understand how any child that hadn't read the books was supposed to follow ANY of that.

Creaky, Clunky and about as natural as Moody's left leg.
Dumbledore was awful.  I know that some of you have tried to rationalise this but you should really stop.  This is not Dumbledore at all.  It's an awful portrayal of what should be a man who's always calm and confident to the last.  The Dumbledore I watched on screen tonight deserved my utter contempt.
Oh, and please God STOP putting hot young women in the films.  The actress who played Fleur is 23/24 and by God does it show, especially in the swimsuit.  Almost ALL of the females in that school look over 20 and maybe it was just me but it kept putting me off. 
Maxime was awful too - she's meant to have Giant parents, not stick insects.  Bad, Bad, Bad casting.  Someone with BEEF please !
The dragon scene was overlong and the underwater scene was too convoluted and what the fuck was going on in the hedge maze I do not know.  Hard drugs I feel.
Someone please help Emily Watson - She really needs your support.  And acting lessons.  You're character is meant to grow dear girl, so fucking quit it.  You can't be an actor if it's only the weepy performance we give two hoots about.
Rita Skeeter was there as a total pointless character.  Hey, guys, if you're going to cut out the plot point you may as well fucking cut out the character.  Like you did with so many others.
Voldemort was almost done well, but could we have a little more 'assuredly evil' and a little less psycho please ?  When Harry came out from behind the fucking grave I expected another 'I HAVE THE HIGH GROUND' speech.  Jesus.
And why the fuck did we elongate the bathroom scene so that moaning Myrtle could make a series of painful dick jokes ?  Really ?  FUCK OFF.

Moody was good.  The actor.  The actual Barty Crouch thing was anorexic to the point of pointlessness.

I have more to say (imagine your surprise) but I'm not going to.

This was a bad film.

I agree with everything you said.  Except on the dick jokes, which I found funny in a cringing sort of way.

Maybe it was just that I couldn't get out of my head that Moaning Myrtle is played by a 40 year old Scottish woman.

Urg.

Leave the poor boys todge alone.

My wife, who's the big HP fan in the family loved it, I thought 'meh'. But the two last books were also pretty meh for me.
After reading Ironwoods rant, I'm disliking oit more...
Prisoner was clearly the better movie of the lot.

Ironwood has it just right. I went with someone who hasn't read the book (she was waiting until she saw the film first) I enjoyed the film, she was mostly confused through the whole thing.

Too many cuts, too many jumps, and too much fucking dragon, prom, and bathtub.

I thought it was "ok". But having read the books, it was easer for me to figure out what was going on. Why did we have a 20 minute dragon scene, and yet cut a bunch of good plot stuff? Sorry HP is not an action series.

Also, the two guys sitting behind me, one had read the books, the other hadnt, and he kept having to explain to his friend what was going on. I did have to cringe at one point when the one guy exclaimed rather loudly "Oh look, FISH people".

Anyway. All I could think of was that it really needed to be about twice as long, and cut in to two movies some how.

Haven't read the books. Insert my opinion of mediocre. Super mediocre. So mediocre in fact that I didn't give a flying fuck for any of the characters and wished Gary Oldman was actually in it just so I could enjoy it half as much as Azkaban. Not giving two shits about the characters wasn't so bad for the first 3, but here they really wanted to stuff it down my throat with that funeral at the end. Sorry, but I just can't be asked to care when I've paid $6.50 and sat in a crowd of 150 wee tots. This series definately needs more cowbell when it's transplanted on the silver screen.