Discussion:
POA - the Movie... I'm Greatly Disappointed
(too old to reply)
Chip Stobb
2004-06-05 03:59:07 UTC
Permalink
I just saw POA the movie, and I was greatly disappointed. There was
SO MUCH missing! I do understand that it's impossible to cram
everything from these books into 2 1/2 hours, but they had to chop a
ton of the book out. I feel that this ruined it. The basics were
similar, but the plot was effectively altered enough to say that the
book and the movie were two different stories.

Once again, I make the suggestion that instead of attempting to cram
everything from each book into one movie, PLEASE make two to three
movies per book. IMHO that will be the only way to truly do justice
to these books.

And no - I'm not usually a severely critical person; I simply prefer
movies that follow the books they are based on as closely as possible.

- Chip

"Ignorance is bliss, and we're in Nirvana." - C. Stobb

P.S. - They also butchered James Clavell's "Shogun" when they made it
into a miniseries... and that was 12 hours worth of video time!
Magchiro
2004-06-05 04:53:27 UTC
Permalink
Just saw the movie tonight myself. And I was just wondering was there
anything at the end of the movie credit's at the end?! Cause I felt kind of
jipped myself.
Cause they had said that the movie was supposed to have been 2hr's and 21
min's long. And it seemed like only 2hr's long to me?! Tell me I didn't miss
anything did I?!
Otherwise my friend and I are just going to have to go see it again next
week at some point just to see for ourselves?!
But I feel the same way about these movie's that u have just said. I would
greatly appreciate any help on this u might be able to help with?! Thanx in
advance!
ProjectBlack.com
2004-06-05 05:37:31 UTC
Permalink
Bear in mind, children, that you paid to see a movie based on the book...
not the book itself. As a filmmaker I can't stress this point enough: If
you went into a movie theater expecting a book, then you are as foolish as
the one who went into the bookstore looking for a chinese buffet.

That being said, I'm waiting to see what Hermione's summer break is like in
the next film... can you imagine her in a bikini? I know I can!
Post by Magchiro
Just saw the movie tonight myself. And I was just wondering was there
anything at the end of the movie credit's at the end?! Cause I felt kind of
jipped myself.
Cause they had said that the movie was supposed to have been 2hr's and 21
min's long. And it seemed like only 2hr's long to me?! Tell me I didn't miss
anything did I?!
Otherwise my friend and I are just going to have to go see it again next
week at some point just to see for ourselves?!
But I feel the same way about these movie's that u have just said. I would
greatly appreciate any help on this u might be able to help with?! Thanx in
advance!
Kevin Karpenske
2004-06-05 06:42:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by ProjectBlack.com
Bear in mind, children, that you paid to see a movie based on the
book... not the book itself. As a filmmaker I can't stress this
point enough: If you went into a movie theater expecting a book,
then you are as foolish as the one who went into the bookstore
looking for a chinese buffet.
Indeed, indeed...

It aggravates me everytime I see "they cut this!" or "they skipped
that!" No, they simply didn't use this, or that, and they used
such-and-such in a way that would work better on-screen. A movie
doesn't operate in the same way that a book does. That's why it
wasn't a movie in the first place.

When a book becomes a movie - well, that's just it: it becomes a
*movie*, an *adaptation*. IMHO, the movie was both hilarious and
deeply moving - just as anything "Harry Potter" should be. In that
respect, I think the film is as true to the book as can be desired.

Not to mention, on top of having the "spirit" of the books, I though
it was fresh, entertaining, and absolutely inspired.

(But, of course, YMMV.)
--
Kevin Karpenske, krk at firefox dot com
yak
2004-06-05 10:05:09 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@216.196.105.130>, ***@my.sig
says...
Post by Kevin Karpenske
Post by ProjectBlack.com
Bear in mind, children, that you paid to see a movie based on the
book... not the book itself. As a filmmaker I can't stress this
point enough: If you went into a movie theater expecting a book,
then you are as foolish as the one who went into the bookstore
looking for a chinese buffet.
Indeed, indeed...
It aggravates me everytime I see "they cut this!" or "they skipped
that!" No, they simply didn't use this, or that, and they used
such-and-such in a way that would work better on-screen. A movie
doesn't operate in the same way that a book does. That's why it
wasn't a movie in the first place.
When a book becomes a movie - well, that's just it: it becomes a
*movie*, an *adaptation*. IMHO, the movie was both hilarious and
deeply moving - just as anything "Harry Potter" should be. In that
respect, I think the film is as true to the book as can be desired.
Not to mention, on top of having the "spirit" of the books, I though
it was fresh, entertaining, and absolutely inspired.
(But, of course, YMMV.)
See, I think that this movie is for people who NEVER heard of Harry
Potter at all. Especially for people who didn't see the first two movies
(everyone, right?)... Everyone is radically different in this movie.
They went from 13 year olds in a non-descript time era (a good thing) to
superhero knowitalls who watch too much mtv.

No good.
Mags
2004-06-05 10:48:43 UTC
Permalink
Personally, I felt quite strange about the movie. I guess I let my hopes for
it run away with me which is stupid because then nothing ever lives up to
expectations.

I thought this movie was quite dark and there were a few places I jumped!
(ok because of loud noises in the film, but still!)


Because of the original Dumbledore, I couldn't picture anyone else acting
his part and I was greatly disappointed. They made THIS Dumbledore scruffy
with his hair and his nails being black.

I know they had to replace him but I wish they could have stuck to the same
principal as the previous brilliant Richard Harris made him to be.

An elusive wise old man who had a clever word whenever he spoke.

The dementors to me where the best they could've made them. I watched the
reaction of people around me and they were as pleased as I was.

I was thinking they should make these books into a series, like the worst
witch, and then they could focus on all the parts of the book, but then I
figured it just wouldnt work without the cast they have now.

I love being able to see the books on screen and for that Ill always be
grateful. That to me is the most important thing.

I just remember, that no matter what my grumbles are these people have set
out to try and entertain me as best they can and that's what I'll
remember when they bring the fourth out and the third on DVD.

I'll be thankful that the same cast remained for at least one other film.

That's my humble opinion.
Kevin Karpenske
2004-06-05 16:13:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by yak
See, I think that this movie is for people who NEVER heard of
Harry Potter at all. Especially for people who didn't see the
first two movies (everyone, right?)... Everyone is radically
different in this movie. They went from 13 year olds in a
non-descript time era (a good thing) to superhero knowitalls who
watch too much mtv.
No good.
I've honestly no idea where most of that just came from. I mean, on
this planet, who hasn't heard of Harry Potter? "At all?"

In your first point, however, I feel you couldn't be more wrong.

The film, IMHO, caters more to the casual Potter fans - that is,
those who tend not to obsess over every last detail - which I think
would include those who only saw the first two movies and happened
to rather enjoy them.

Let's face it: the Harry Potter franchise has many millions of fans,
but the vast majority are what you'd consider "casual" - who, as you
can see, aren't the ones you'll find flooding newsgroups and
messageboards to voice their opinions. Their opinions you'll find in
their own personal, independent reviews elsewhere.

For instance, check IMDb. The movie's up to a 7.8 now, higher than
the first two films' pair of 7.3s, and I think it's bound to
increase further as still more "casual" fans (those who didn't rush
out on opening weekend) go to see it.

This is all a huge generalization, of course. I mean, I've been
obsessing over the details of the books for years now - would hardly
consider myself a "casual" fan - but I still loved the movie.
--
Kevin Karpenske, krk at firefox dot com
OJ
2004-06-05 13:00:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Karpenske
Post by ProjectBlack.com
Bear in mind, children, that you paid to see a movie based on the
book... not the book itself. As a filmmaker I can't stress this
point enough: If you went into a movie theater expecting a book,
then you are as foolish as the one who went into the bookstore
looking for a chinese buffet.
Indeed, indeed...
It aggravates me everytime I see "they cut this!" or "they skipped
that!" No, they simply didn't use this, or that, and they used
such-and-such in a way that would work better on-screen. A movie
doesn't operate in the same way that a book does. That's why it
wasn't a movie in the first place.
When a book becomes a movie - well, that's just it: it becomes a
*movie*, an *adaptation*. IMHO, the movie was both hilarious and
deeply moving - just as anything "Harry Potter" should be. In that
respect, I think the film is as true to the book as can be desired.
Not to mention, on top of having the "spirit" of the books, I though
it was fresh, entertaining, and absolutely inspired.
(But, of course, YMMV.)
Hi,

Yes, of course you make changes. But the ultimate section of the
book, the section that sets up a lot for the future movies, and the
relationship between Harry and Sirius, was skimmed over. The
Shrieking Shack scene.

We heard nothing at all about the really close relationship between
them, why they became animagi together, a little more exposition about
what happened, the names on the map, etc. Harry just jumped to
Sirius' side so quickly. I think a few more minutes spent in there
would have helped a lot.

Otherwise, a fine production.

oj
Meghan Noecker
2004-06-07 23:03:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Karpenske
It aggravates me everytime I see "they cut this!" or "they skipped
that!" No, they simply didn't use this, or that, and they used
such-and-such in a way that would work better on-screen. A movie
doesn't operate in the same way that a book does. That's why it
wasn't a movie in the first place.
So, it is better to stick on a long scene of Hermione being flung
around by a tree when the "real" scene would have been a quick
walkthrough of a cat. That would have saved enough time to explain the
marauders.


Meghan & the Zoo Crew
Equine and Pet Photography
http://www.zoocrewphoto.com
Kevin Karpenske
2004-06-07 23:55:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Meghan Noecker
Post by Kevin Karpenske
It aggravates me everytime I see "they cut this!" or "they
skipped that!" No, they simply didn't use this, or that, and they
used such-and-such in a way that would work better on-screen. A
movie doesn't operate in the same way that a book does. That's
why it wasn't a movie in the first place.
So, it is better to stick on a long scene of Hermione being flung
around by a tree when the "real" scene would have been a quick
walkthrough of a cat.
I sense this was meant to be slightly rhetorical, but ... yes,
exactly! Hermione and Harry being flung about by the tree offers an
essential bit of relief from the ongoing tension.

(Ron has just been dragged into the tree, screaming for his life, by
a huge, vicious black dog.)
Post by Meghan Noecker
That would have saved enough time to explain the marauders.
I think this had less to do with time concerns than it did with the
average capacity of an audience member's head. (No, I don't mean IQ,
but rather "information overflow.")
--
Kevin Karpenske, krk at firefox dot com
Todd Martin
2004-06-08 00:11:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Karpenske
I think this had less to do with time concerns than it did with the
average capacity of an audience member's head. (No, I don't mean IQ,
but rather "information overflow.")
People of young ages are attracted to the books precisely because they do
not "dumb themselves down" in this way. The fact that the movies do, speaks
volumes for the retardedness of Hollywood in general and their disgustingly
short sighted need for cheap thrills instead of plot and character
development.

-todd
--
And on the seventh day, God turned off his Macintosh.
Kevin Karpenske
2004-06-08 00:21:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Martin
Post by Kevin Karpenske
I think this had less to do with time concerns than it did with
the average capacity of an audience member's head. (No, I don't
mean IQ, but rather "information overflow.")
People of young ages are attracted to the books precisely because
they do not "dumb themselves down" in this way. The fact that the
movies do, speaks volumes for the retardedness of Hollywood in
general and their disgustingly short sighted need for cheap
thrills instead of plot and character development.
Ergh, you took exactly the WRONG meaning...

What I meant by "information overflow" was too much information
coming at the audience *too quickly*. You can cram all of that
information into a book - that's fine, someone can read it at their
own pace - but a movie has only one pace, and it has to work for
the vast majority. You don't want to leave some members of the
audience feeling as if they've just been bludgeoned incessantly with
a wet herring.
--
Kevin Karpenske, krk at firefox dot com
Meghan Noecker
2004-06-09 09:41:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Karpenske
What I meant by "information overflow" was too much information
coming at the audience *too quickly*. You can cram all of that
information into a book - that's fine, someone can read it at their
own pace - but a movie has only one pace, and it has to work for
the vast majority. You don't want to leave some members of the
audience feeling as if they've just been bludgeoned incessantly with
a wet herring.
Yes, but when I saw Hermoine pick up Harry by the collar, I took that
as so impossible (she isn't strong enough to pick him up with two
hands let alone one hand, and hold onto a tree thrashing her about).

I was so afronted by the wrongness of that scene, that it pulled me
out of the movie. And then I had to get over it and settle back into
the movie.

To me, things like this, that cause us to stop and consider the logic
of the scene, pull us out of the movie. Rather than staying immersed
in the story, it is like throwing in a commercial. It distracts us. It
damages the flow.




Meghan & the Zoo Crew
Equine and Pet Photography
http://www.zoocrewphoto.com
Miranda
2004-06-09 23:08:00 UTC
Permalink
***@zoocrewphoto.com (Meghan Noecker) wrote in news:ca6lvs$tks$4@
216.145.17.194:

<snip>
Post by Meghan Noecker
Yes, but when I saw Hermoine pick up Harry by the collar, I took that
as so impossible (she isn't strong enough to pick him up with two
hands let alone one hand, and hold onto a tree thrashing her about).
She is a witch, you know. :) They get odd bouts of superhuman strength in
moments of supreme danger.

Miranda
CDriver333
2004-06-05 15:32:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by ProjectBlack.com
That being said, I'm waiting to see what Hermione's summer break is like in
the next film... can you imagine her in a bikini? I know I can!
Hey, you should've stuck around past the closing credits... there she was!
(Just kidding!)
Nopporn Wongrassamee
2004-06-06 07:07:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by CDriver333
Post by ProjectBlack.com
That being said, I'm waiting to see what Hermione's summer break is like in
the next film... can you imagine her in a bikini? I know I can!
Hey, you should've stuck around past the closing credits... there she was!
(Just kidding!)
I hate to burst your bubbles, but given that GoF is quite a bit thicker that
PoA,
the Hermione-in-binkini scene is probably going to be cut.

...

I don't recall Hermione being in a bikini at the begining of GoF...

- Nopporn Wongrassamee

Homepage: http://hometown.aol.com/evilauthor/myhomepage/index.html
gjw
2004-06-06 01:47:54 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 00:37:31 -0500, "ProjectBlack.com"
Post by ProjectBlack.com
Bear in mind, children, that you paid to see a movie based on the book...
not the book itself. As a filmmaker I can't stress this point enough: If
you went into a movie theater expecting a book, then you are as foolish as
the one who went into the bookstore looking for a chinese buffet.
I haven't yet seen the film, but it's not at all unreasonable for
people to insist that a screen adaptation of a beloved book include
enough of the essential basics of the original story to make it
coherent.

Imagine, for instance, if someone re-made "Casablanca", but forgot to
mention that Rick and Ilsa had ever met before she arrives at the
Cafe... and didn't bother to mention that there was a war on, or that
the Nazis were occupying the region...

Imagine if they re-made "Citizen Kane" and never mentioned his
childhood...

Imagine if "Psycho" failed to reveal anything about Norman's mother.

You get the drift.

Any producer of an adaptation of a well-known book has an obligation
to preserve enough of the vital details of the plot so that the story
makes sense to those unfamiliar with the book.

I have no idea if the movie does or does not meet this obligation, but
if it does not, then the complaints are legitimate.
StrikitRich
2004-06-05 12:36:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Magchiro
Just saw the movie tonight myself. And I was just wondering was there
anything at the end of the movie credit's at the end?! Cause I felt kind of
jipped myself.
Cause they had said that the movie was supposed to have been 2hr's and 21
min's long. And it seemed like only 2hr's long to me?! Tell me I didn't miss
anything did I?!
Otherwise my friend and I are just going to have to go see it again next
week at some point just to see for ourselves?!
But I feel the same way about these movie's that u have just said. I would
greatly appreciate any help on this u might be able to help with?! Thanx in
advance!
No, there was nothing special at the end, except the closing of the map by
Harry. Voice only, of course. Rather disappointing if you ask me.
iota1617
2004-06-05 22:13:02 UTC
Permalink
Rather disappointing if you ask me.

PoA was INCREDIBLY disappointing.
I get everything about how the movie can't be just like to book, but
my gosh stick to the storyline. Tell the same story. I don't think
the director, Alfonso Cuaron, cared about this movie fitting into the
rest of the series. He only put in what was immediatly important to
that one year at Hogwarts. What about the whole seven book plot.
There was not much mention of Voldemort.

AND Dumbldore.... Michael Gambon moved and spoke way too fast.
Dumbldore is a very old man weighted with many, many things. Also,
Gambon does not speak deliberatly and carefully as Dumbldore would.

It also would have been nice to see even a little more than 2 seconds
of Sir Codagan. The Trio could have went back to the dormitory at
least one more time to encounter him.

What is going on with Hermione's hair? It is supposed to be a big,
frizzy mess, isn't it? Well it is getting less fizzy with each movie.
What are they going to do in GoF when she puts tons of gel in it for
the Ball. (oh yeah probably just take to scene out)--said with
disgust--

The ending was abousolutly appalling. To start the ending looked like
it belong to a stupid tween movie. (keyword: stupid). And secondly,
Harry is supposed to get the firebolt in to middle of the story and
then Mcgonagall was supposed to take it away, not the end.

On the other hand, I did like the fact that the obvious facts were not
beaten into us like the first two movies, but it is obvious that the
movies should grow with the characters.

I did think Gary Oldman was a fantastic Sirius and Peter Pettigrew
looked pretty similar to what i had imagined. But whoever played Lupin
just didn't do it for me. The personality and acting were good, it
was just how he looked was not what I had imagined at all. What was up
with the mustache?
Buckbeak was fantastic too.

Well you've all had enough of my opinion.

Oh one more thing. I LOVE the Trio. Diniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint,
and Emma Watson are absolutly perfect for their roles. I hope they do
all seven movies (probably won't, sadly though).
CDriver333
2004-06-05 15:30:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chip Stobb
Once again, I make the suggestion that instead of attempting to cram
everything from each book into one movie, PLEASE make two to three
movies per book. IMHO that will be the only way to truly do justice
to these books.
WHAT?! At that rate we'd be seeing the movie for OotP in about ten years!
jen
2004-06-05 16:12:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by CDriver333
Post by Chip Stobb
Once again, I make the suggestion that instead of attempting to cram
everything from each book into one movie, PLEASE make two to three
movies per book. IMHO that will be the only way to truly do justice
to these books.
WHAT?! At that rate we'd be seeing the movie for OotP in about ten years!
No, film the entire book at once (LotR). And show each part each quater
of the year. Consistant production, consistant cash flow.
Maestro Muten
2004-06-05 16:27:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by jen
No, film the entire book at once (LotR). And show each part each quater
of the year. Consistant production, consistant cash flow.
Not possible: characters and actors are growing up. In LotR all
characters were adults, there was no phisical aspect problem. in HP
there is.
Ben Murphy
2004-06-10 08:39:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maestro Muten
Post by jen
No, film the entire book at once (LotR). And show each part each quater
of the year. Consistant production, consistant cash flow.
Not possible: characters and actors are growing up. In LotR all
characters were adults, there was no phisical aspect problem. in HP
there is.
How is that going to be any different from the way they film at the
moment?

If one movie was released per quarter from the beginning to the end of
a movie they would only have to age 3 months, and most people wouldn't
nitpick and complain about the actors looking the same when the movie
is part of the same book.
--
remove nothing to reply to this message. My email program has a delete
button.
ProjectBlack.com
2004-06-05 21:36:20 UTC
Permalink
I would like to add onto this that the time it took to
film/edit/finish/release on DVD the Lord of the Rings Trilogy was close to 8
years... they were even shooting new sequences for Return of the King while
Two Towers was still running in theaters.

Which means, still, the idea of filming X amount of Harry Potter pictures at
the same time is just as unfeasable as filming them one at a time... but
hey: For that matter, it would mean we get to see a 21 year old Emma
Watson...

"Hermione Granger and the Graduation Party" anyone? No? Well then just for
me!
Post by jen
No, film the entire book at once (LotR). And show each part each quater
of the year. Consistant production, consistant cash flow.
Loading...