Movies, Music, TV, Books, Pop Culture

by **Bill the Butcher** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 3:06 pm

Magic up your ass. :yessss:

I read a short article stating HP readers will not be disappointed.

Regardless, I'm still pumped.

Midnight showing, here I come.

:bunny:

by **Guest** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 3:11 pm

My wife and daughter are going to the midnight show tonight.

And I have been cordially UN-invited.

"This is a mother-daughter thing. I WON'T have it ruined by sitting next to a Critic!"

This...despite the fact that I've loved every movie, and I anticipate the same for this.

No respect. No respect, I tell ya'.

So I'll catch it on Thursday...gotta play golf tomorrow.

by **jordan kramer** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:55 pm

there is no other book/movie craze i can't stand more than Harry Potter....

check that, i forgot about Twilight....

by **StewieG** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:26 pm

Pumped about this one. I'll be seeing it tomorrow with some friends.

I've heard positive things about this movie, so hopefully it won't disappoint!

by **Bill the Butcher** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:14 am

SPOILER ALERT

My opinion: It was okay.

by **StewieG** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:49 am

I enjoyed it. I'll try to keep spoilers out of this for those who haven't read the book or seen the movie yet.

First, the things I didn't like:

-The movie was very long. In some places, especially in the middle, it felt a little too long.
-There was a certain action scene I was really looking forward to that was cut because of the length (though I knew this going in to the movie).
-A few important characters were cut (but I know at least one of them will be in the final movie(s)).
-Because there was so much crammed in, some of it felt really rushed.
-Speaking as someone who's read the books, I don't think enough was made of objects like the ring, the diary, and the locket. Though an outsider may find what was in there sufficient.

What I did like:

-The scene I was looking forward to? It was moved to the middle of the movie and changed quite a bit to fit the new setting. While the new scene itself wasn't anything special, it served its purpose of making something big happen in the middle of the movie to break up some of the monotony.
-There were several laugh-out-loud moments, specifically from Dan Radcliffe. He was pretty funny in this movie.
-I'm no critic, but I thought Tom Felton did a nice job with Malfoy in this one. And the kids who played Tom Riddle were sufficiently creepy. And Alan Rickman was the perfect casting choice for Snape. He was excellent again in this movie.
-I thought the ending, though it differed somewhat from the book, was very well done. Once more people have seen it, I'll go into more detail about that.
-The Cave scene was awesome, though they left out one of my favorite lines of the series.
-They did an OK job at setting up one of the plots (I'm not talking about THE plot...but more one of the sideplots that plays into the main one) for the final movies. They left it kind of ambiguous, but kind of not. I'll explain more later.

There's more I liked (and didn't like) that I'm sure I'll remember later. But my overall opinion was that it was a good, not great movie...one that did a better job of following the book than some of the previous ones, and was a very entertaining way to spend an evening. Certainly better than a lot of the other crap that's getting pushed out right now.

by **Bill the Butcher** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:38 am

Halfway through the film, I said to myself "Fuck, I should've read the book again before seeing this..."

I read all the books two summers ago. And to be honest. I've basically forgotten the story in detail.

by **Mr. MacPhisto** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:29 pm

There be SPOILERS below, so don't read unless you want to find out what happens!

SPOILERS:

Overall I really liked the film. Probably enjoyed it the most of any of the other films in the series. A LOT was left out from the book, but it didn't feel like a total rush job as Order of the Phoenix did. We didn't get to see hardly any of the memories that Harry is shown in the book, so the legacy of the locket and of the ring is not explained. I think that'll likely happen in the next two films.

The film did fail to really give Riddle's background. You know he was found in an orphanage. You know there was some warning signs early one. But you don't know about his parents' history. Of course the movies also never revealed Tom's murder of his father and grandparents either. Some of those details were first revealed in Goblet of Fire, but they were not shown in that film.

Things were moved around a bit. The attack on The Burrow (The Weasley's home) was not in the book, though Rowling said the scene in the film was based on something she thought about putting in the book but decided against, so Kloves, the screenwriter, decided to use it to create some action and tension in the middle.

The major issues with the movie are issues that book adaptations generally have. The formats are very different and what holds your attention in a novel may not do so in a film. When I first read HBP I was always waiting for Harry's next meeting with Dumbledore. But building a movie around the slow reveal created by the memories and discussions is problematic. Half Blood Prince is a book with a lot of exposition and very little action. I was disappointed that we didn't see some of the students fighting at the end, but I can understand why especially since I know what is to come. The ending worked and was powerful, even though I knew what was to happen.

But I thought the film flowed well. As I said, it didn't feel as rushed as Order of the Phoenix - the longest book and shortest film. The most impressive thing is that I didn't get pulled out of the movie at all. The first two could pull me out because they were a bit tedious. The third had a couple of things left out that irritated me (the origins of the Marauders Map and who the Marauders were - and how Lupin knew of the map). I liked Goblet pretty well. Order just moved at a torrid pace. People I know who had not read any of the books thought it was great. I just noticed ALL of the stuff that was left out and how quickly we ended up in the Department of Mysteries.

This film walked the fine line. We didn't see Kreacher and Dobby follow Malfoy. We didn't find Harry obsessing over Malfoy over much because that doesn't work so well in the films versus the book. The memories and the story they told were the most glaring issue to me, but understandable.

But I loved how they handled Snape at the end, with him seeing Harry in the Astronomy Tower before killing off Dumbledore. That made it more potent.

And Jim Broadbent as Slughorn was brilliant. I'm a fan of Broadbent. Loved him in Hot Fuzz. Loved him when he appeared all those years ago in a coupled of Blackadder episodes (fantastic as Prince Albert in Christmas Carol). Thought he was great in Gangs of New York as Boss Tweed. Liked him in the last Indy movie (a movie I enjoyed and found to be a fun ride) and in The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe. A great character actor.

That's something I love about the Potter movies. The British (specifically the English) just seem to me to be the best when it comes to acting. Perhaps its because they practically invented modern drama and revived it from the grave (after the Romans things were bleak for theatre).

Michael Gambon also deserves Kudos (so I guess I should include the Irish as well, eh?). I finally started to respect him in the role during the last film, but this one sold me. I just couldn't get over Richard Harris' turn as Dumbledore. My big problem was I had seen the first two movies before reading the book, so whenever I read Dumbledore I saw Richard Harris' portrayal in my head. Gambon was fantastic here.

As it stands now this movie, Star Trek, and UP have been the only worthwhile films out this summer in my eyes. All three are of a very high quality.

by **Guest** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:54 pm

+1 to almost everything Mac has said.

Except that I'm saying it as someone who has not read the books, and will not do so until after I've seen all of the movies.

He hit on something I plan on bringing up in the review...Michael Gambon has previously not held a candle to Richard Harris in my eyes.

He did in this movie.

More things to say, but I'll put them in words in the next few days for the review. Although I'll admit that Mac has done a great summary here, and has all the makings of a top level critic (if we can get him over that obsession about comic books, that is ;-) ;) :wink:

by **Mr. MacPhisto** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:17 am

Mitch wrote:+1 to almost everything Mac has said.

Except that I'm saying it as someone who has not read the books, and will not do so until after I've seen all of the movies.

He hit on something I plan on bringing up in the review...Michael Gambon has previously not held a candle to Richard Harris in my eyes.

He did in this movie.

More things to say, but I'll put them in words in the next few days for the review. Although I'll admit that Mac has done a great summary here, and has all the makings of a top level critic (if we can get him over that obsession about comic books, that is

I appreciate it, especially coming from someone who is one of my favorite film critics to read. But the comic books aren't going anywhere. I do think there needs to be a good film there and that often a director and screenwriter just slap a bunch of explosions in with some characters and call it a day, but there are some interesting personalities and stories in comics. V For Vendetta and Watchmen strike me as two that are outside of the recurring comic characters, but both were good in my eyes.

Feel free to take anything you like from the post if there's anything particularly striking.

I hope you can last through the last film without reading the books. I won't give anything away, but I will say that I love the direction things go in.

And I must ask, did you know Dumbledore was going to die at the end of the movie? I don't know how widespread that knowledge is outside of the reader base. I'm just interested because I'm interested in the reactions of those who don't know, including members of my own family.

I also forgot to mention how much David Yates has grown as a director since the last film. A lot of people were upset that he was pegged for the rest of the films and I'll admit that I was unsure after Order of the Phoenix, but he did a fine job here. The feel of the film is different and the shots are more suitable for conventional film. It seems that he favored twisting the camera and pulling back on shots a lot more in Order. Not as much unnecessary camera movement here and I think it helps the presentation.

And whenever you do read the books I think you will enjoy them. It's amazing when you see how Rowling set things up for even the last book as early as the second book. For instance, the vanishing cabinet that was used by Malfoy in Half Blood Prince is first mentioned in Chamber of Secrets when it was broken by a character not in the films. It was then mentioned again in Order of the Phoenix when the Weasley twins shut a Slytherin who is loyal to Umbridge into the broken cabinet and he was trapped there for months. That's where Malfoy got the idea for using it from, because that Slytherin could hear what was happening in Borgin and Burke's but was unable to exit until he figured out how to apparate (transport himself as Dumbledore did with Harry in this film). Just little touches found throughout that show Rowling has had a definite plan for these books all along. In fact the Half Blood Prince title and plot point was originally supposed to go into Chamber of Secrets but she thought it was too soon. I doubt the horcruxes would have been discussed at that point, but the book would've turned up.

And if you're wondering about the mysterious R.A.B. - I will say this much, there is a hint that survives even in the film. Who it is is mentioned. I won't say by whom or when, but it's there. The name was originally mentioned in Order, though I'm not sure if it survived the movie.

by **Guest** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:20 am

Did I know about the fate of Dumbledore?

Sort of.

My daughter is a fantatic, so I "knew" that Sirius Black and Dumbledore "died". Although I never pressed enough to ask about how permanent that was, and I don't want to know now.

And I'll admit to seeing enough spoilers to know the final fate of Harry, Ginny, Ron, and Hermione...but I have no idea HOW they get there.

Yates has grown on me as well, and I'm looking forward to the last two films.

For me...I appreciate this story as much for the realistic portrayal of teenage hormones and the effects they have even on wizard heroes as I do the advancement of the story. Radcliffe, Watson, and Gint have show incredible talent. And this movie has also shown Tom Felton to be a very talented young actor as well as Draco Malfoy. I really was surprised on how he was portrayed, and how good of a job Felton did in showing his conflict.

I haven't had this much impatience waiting for two movies since anticipating The Two Towers and The Return of the King after watching The Fellowship of the Ring.

by **StewieG** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:02 am

I'll echo again that I really liked Felton's work in this film. Having known what happens in the last book, I thought he absolutely nailed everything he needed to. The stress of being under a deadline, knowing that either he succeeds or dies. The knowledge that he's a pompous jerk, but not a killer. The panic of having Dumbledore offer him a way out, and then that way out closed with Dumbledore's death just a few moments later. He really did a fantastic job.

I'll agree on Snape's sneaky shhing when sneaking up on the Death Eaters. I thought that was a really good job of doing it.

I'll also agree on Gambon. He finally felt like Dumbledore. The caring, easy-going, almost buddy to Harry. That was one of the things I meant to mention but forgot.

One more...I thought the guy who played Cormac McLaggern (the rival to Ron, who Hermione asks to Slughorn's party and then spends the whole party avoiding him) did a nice job in his few scenes. The one where he looks across the table at Hermione, licking the desert off his fingers was hilarious, I thought.

They did a pretty nice job of setting up for Deathly Hallows. There's probably a couple things they'll have to mention that they didn't get a chance to in this (or the previous) film, but for the most part they're set.

IN THE QUOTE BOX, THERE WILL BE SPOILERS FOR DEATHLY HALLOWS. DO NOT READ THE QUOTE BOX IF YOU WANT TO BE SURPRISED.

I think I've figured out where the split will be, for those who want to know. I think it happens after Malfoy Manor, just after Dobby's death. They've already filmed the scene where Dobby is being buried, and Dobby's voice is confirmed in the first movie, but rumored to be in the 2nd. Also, Xenophilius Lovegood is only cast for the first part.

Some other characters cast:
Bill Weasley, Fleur Delacour, Hermione's parents, Scrimegeour, Ollivander, Griphook, Grindlewald, Gregorovich, Kreacher, Mundungus Fletcher, and the three people the Trio impersonate to break into the Ministry.
Rumored still are Auntie Muriel, Umbridge, Bathilda Bagshot, Charity Burbage, and Rowle. So if they do all the people rumored, which I'm sure they will, then it doesn't look like any plotline will be left out aside from the Dursley's farewell (which is a shame...I think it would be rewarding to see Dudley grow up).

The Battle of Hogwarts is supposed to last around 30 minutes. I'm hoping that's just the battle itself, and not things like seeing Snape's memory, entering the Room of Requirement from the Hog's Head, etc. But I have a feeling it starts from the Hog's Head. Hope I'm wrong.

The scene I'm looking forward to the most is the scene where Harry knows he's going to die, tells Neville about killing the snake, and marches to his death with his parents, Sirius, and Lupin at his side.

I'm also looking forward to The Prince's Tale scene. I hope they don't skimp out on it.

by **Mr. MacPhisto** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:28 am

Deathly Hallows talk below! Don't read this post if you don't want to know!

StewieG wrote:I think I've figured out where the split will be, for those who want to know. I think it happens after Malfoy Manor, just after Dobby's death. They've already filmed the scene where Dobby is being buried, and Dobby's voice is confirmed in the first movie, but rumored to be in the 2nd. Also, Xenophilius Lovegood is only cast for the first part.

Some other characters cast:
Bill Weasley, Fleur Delacour, Hermione's parents, Scrimegeour, Ollivander, Griphook, Grindlewald, Gregorovich, Kreacher, Mundungus Fletcher, and the three people the Trio impersonate to break into the Ministry.
Rumored still are Auntie Muriel, Umbridge, Bathilda Bagshot, Charity Burbage, and Rowle. So if they do all the people rumored, which I'm sure they will, then it doesn't look like any plotline will be left out aside from the Dursley's farewell (which is a shame...I think it would be rewarding to see Dudley grow up).

The Battle of Hogwarts is supposed to last around 30 minutes. I'm hoping that's just the battle itself, and not things like seeing Snape's memory, entering the Room of Requirement from the Hog's Head, etc. But I have a feeling it starts from the Hog's Head. Hope I'm wrong.

The scene I'm looking forward to the most is the scene where Harry knows he's going to die, tells Neville about killing the snake, and marches to his death with his parents, Sirius, and Lupin at his side.

I'm also looking forward to The Prince's Tale scene. I hope they don't skimp out on it.

Well, they have five hours to do the book - two 2.5 hour films.

As for the split, I think Malfoy Manor is a possibility. It leaves both the Gringotts break in and the Battle of Hogwarts coupled with Snape's tale and King's Cross. Between The Prince's Tale and Kings Cross there is so much to take care of as everything is laid bare.

Daniel Radcliffe has said that the first film ends with a horrible cliffhanger, so I'm not sure if Malfoy Manor would be where it ends unless they're going into Malfoy Manor. Imagine if they are taken in, Hermione is being tortured, and they're locked in the basement. That would be pretty cruel. Or it could be after Malfoy Manor where Harry is trying to decide Horcuxes or Hallows. Not sure that's a horrible cliffhanger. It could just be when they are captured by the snatchers, we see Malfoy Manor looming ahead of them as they apparate away from camp.

From what I understand both films are being done simultaneously. It is mostly back-to-back unless they need to grab a scene for film two right now, so Dobby's burial doesn't necessarily mean it's in part one.

I think it will happen some time around Malfoy Manor. That's one logical stopping point. Or they could put the brakes on after the Silver Doe shows up. The big problem I see there is that the Deathly Hallows are not even part of the plot until after Ron returns. The symbols show up, but we don't find out about the Hallows until right before they are captured.

by **StewieG** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:49 am

DEATHLY HALLOWS TALK IN THIS POST, DON'T READ LEST YE BE SPOILED

Hmmm...if it ends in a horrible cliffhanger, sometime around the middle of the movie, the most logical choices would be Malfoy Manor, as you said (perhaps with Ron screaming Hermione's name as she's being tortured), the Lovegood house (perhaps it ends just before the Tale of the 3 Brothers), Godric's Hollow after Harry and Hermione escape Voldemort (it could end with him picking up the picture of Grindlewald and figuring out who he is), and perhaps just before hearing of the wandlore (though that's probably too late in the story).

I personally think the Silver Doe, while being a really great cliffhanger, would be too early in the story to stop, and would leave too much for the 2nd part. I'm fine anywhere from Lovegood's house to Shell Cottage. My biggest hope is that they do the explanations (like the Prince's Tale and Kings' Cross) enough justice, which they absolutely have not in the previous movies. Some of my favorite parts in the books were Dumbledore's explanations on why and how things happened, and aside from the first two movies, they never really happened.

by **Bill the Butcher** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:04 am

CAUTION: HALF-BLOOD PRINCE AND DEATHLY HALLOWS SPOILERS BELOW

I farted.

:bunny:

Teehee.

by **Guest** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 5:59 pm

*The movie was meh. I was disappointed it lost so many plot points. Hated how they handled the Harry/Ginny thing - was much better in the book. Hated that random piece of shit battle scene in the middle where Harry goes running off into the corn for no goddam reason at all. Hated that they lost the battle in the castle after Dumbledore got offed. Hated how they made Lavender Brown into a drooling lunatic.

*If I'd never read the books, then I'd probably think it was pretty decent. I recognize this possibility, and don't damn it accordingly.

*I understand why they cut out so many of the scenes of Voldemort's past, but that was really the purpose of the whole damn book and what made it interesting. So maybe the movie was sabotaged by a book that is - of all of the 7 - the most unadaptable.

*I still think David Yutz (Yates) is ham-handed with actors and should stick to special effects or music videos.

*I think Deathly Hallows will be split either at Malfoy Manor (or when they get captured), but I doubt they end Part 1 with Hermione getting tortured while they're locked up. I think that would be cool, but I just don't see the movie execs giving the green light to such a dark cliffhanger when a large part of their audience is children and their parents.

by **Mr. MacPhisto** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 12:31 am

Hiko wrote:*The movie was meh. I was disappointed it lost so many plot points. Hated how they handled the Harry/Ginny thing - was much better in the book. Hated that random piece of shit battle scene in the middle where Harry goes running off into the corn for no goddam reason at all. Hated that they lost the battle in the castle after Dumbledore got offed. Hated how they made Lavender Brown into a drooling lunatic.

Harry didn't run off for no reason. He ran after Bellatrix, the one who killed his Godfather and was singing, "I killed Sirius Black" as they ran. Since Sirius was the closest Harry had to real family I would say that's a good reason to burst out after her.

Hard to deal with the romantic stuff perfectly because there's no narrator that can tell us the thoughts and feelings of out main character. I thought the romance was handled as well as possible.

There was no battle in the castle. There were no students and teachers fighting. It was an unopposed escape with Harry chasing. Ron's brother didn't get mangled by Greyback, etc. My guess is that [spoiler] they felt it would be redundant to have a full on battle in the castle at the end of this movie and the last one [/spoiler].

And as for Lavender, she was as irritating here as I thought she was in the book. She seemed like a drooling lunatic in the book too. Don't you remember how teenage girls act? They're all drooling lunatics when they become obsessed with boys.

*I understand why they cut out so many of the scenes of Voldemort's past, but that was really the purpose of the whole damn book and what made it interesting. So maybe the movie was sabotaged by a book that is - of all of the 7 - the most unadaptable.

I'd agree here. I think the content of HBP doesn't work well on the silver screen. Repeated flashbacks would be difficult to make work. You don't learn as much about Voldemort and that did suck because HBP was fascinating because of all you learned about him. Rowling really kept us in the dark until that book which opened the door to a lot of guesses based on clues.

*I still think David Yutz (Yates) is ham-handed with actors and should stick to special effects or music videos.

I'd disagree. I think he got quite a bit of really good performances here. In fact, I think everyone did very well. This was the best acted and even the best paced off all the series.

*I think Deathly Hallows will be split either at Malfoy Manor (or when they get captured), but I doubt they end Part 1 with Hermione getting tortured while they're locked up. I think that would be cool, but I just don't see the movie execs giving the green light to such a dark cliffhanger when a large part of their audience is children and their parents.

SPOILER

Yeah, but it would definitely be bold. Most of the kids would likely know what happens. I think it would be great if you see Hermione writhing and screaming as Bellatrix pulls out her knife and walks towards her, aiming her wand at Hermione while doing so. The camera pulls back out of the room, out of the house, down the entrance path, and out the front gates as the gates slam shut. Just as that happens Hermione's screams intensify and the screen goes black.

by **Bill the Butcher** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 2:23 am

Mr. MacPhisto wrote:
*I think Deathly Hallows will be split either at Malfoy Manor (or when they get captured), but I doubt they end Part 1 with Hermione getting tortured while they're locked up. I think that would be cool, but I just don't see the movie execs giving the green light to such a dark cliffhanger when a large part of their audience is children and their parents.

SPOILER

Yeah, but it would definitely be bold. Most of the kids would likely know what happens. I think it would be great if you see Hermione writhing and screaming as Bellatrix pulls out her knife and walks towards her, aiming her wand at Hermione while doing so. The camera pulls back out of the room, out of the house, down the entrance path, and out the front gates as the gates slam shut. Just as that happens Hermione's screams intensify and the screen goes black.

Agree with Mac. IMO, it would be very good that they let Part I end that way. The films have gotten progressively darker with each one, gotta kick it up a notch with a frightening cliff hanger. Who cares about the kids.

by **StewieG** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 2:59 am

Really, by the time Voldemort returns in GOF, the series stopped being a kids series. You could even make the case that POA wasn't a kids movie.

by **Guest** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 4:28 pm

Mr. MacPhisto wrote:Harry didn't run off for no reason. He ran after Bellatrix, the one who killed his Godfather and was singing, "I killed Sirius Black" as they ran. Since Sirius was the closest Harry had to real family I would say that's a good reason to burst out after her.

I missed her saying that, and that gives him justifiable motivation. Scene was still crap, however.

Mr. MacPhisto wrote:There was no battle in the castle. There were no students and teachers fighting. It was an unopposed escape with Harry chasing. Ron's brother didn't get mangled by Greyback, etc. My guess is that they felt it would be redundant to have a full on battle in the castle at the end of this movie and the last one.

I think you misunderstand me. When I say they "lost" the battle in the end of the movie, I meant that the creative team cut it from the script. That's a great scene in the book, and I wish it had been in the movie, although you have a point about a battle taking place there 2 movies in a row (well, 2 out of 3).

Mr. MacPhisto wrote:And as for Lavender, she was as irritating here as I thought she was in the book. She seemed like a drooling lunatic in the book too. Don't you remember how teenage girls act? They're all drooling lunatics when they become obsessed with boys.

Gotta disagree with you. She was annoying in the book. She was certifiable in the movie. She was a characiture. She was done over the top to get laughs. I thought it was unnecessary.

I also think they did themselves a disservice by not showing the Bill/Fleur situation, since it's key to the 7th book. Really, how long would it have taken to establish Bill & Fleur were going to get married?

The 7th book definitely lends itself to the screen a lot more than HBP, so I still have hope that this Director can figure it out. But I'm not a fan of his. I really wish they'd brought back Cuaron, who did Prisoner of Azkaban. The best thing I can say about Yates is that at least he's not Chris Columbus.

by **Mr. MacPhisto** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 8:51 pm

StewieG wrote:Really, by the time Voldemort returns in GOF, the series stopped being a kids series. You could even make the case that POA wasn't a kids movie.

I like what Rowling has said about this, that the first book ends with a guy who has another person stuck to the back of his head. So even at the get go there was plenty of really dark stuff out there. Chamber of Secrets was full of it as well. I think the first two had a tone more in line with children's books.

The cool thing is how the kids that first read the earliest books a decade ago got to grow up with the series and the books really grew up with them - just as the stories grew up with the characters.

That Rowling realized that kids can handle more than padded stories designed to protect them is what really helped to make the series so enjoyable for kids and adults. I initially dismissed the books because they were categorized as children's books and too many like to pander to the kiddie sensibilities, but I read them and enjoyed them after I saw the second film. That was the story that revealed to me that the series had a lot of depth and wasn't scared of going to some every nasty places.

by **aoxo1** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:42 pm

Read something recently that made the argument that novels in general, with Harry Potter being the one referenced, are served better by being translated to television, due to the ability to tell most of the stuff and have episodes devoted to things that are interesting but not essential and would get cut out in a 2.5 hour movie. Movies really are a better medium for short stories. Especially now that television production values have become very good and there have been a lot of successful "Lost" and "24" type shows with long story arcs, they could really do justice to novels with 15 episode seasons (or whatever). They could have had 1 season per book, so a 7 season run. Then they wouldn't have had to cut out all the stuff they supposedly cut out (never read any of the books).

by **Bill the Butcher** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:02 pm

aoxo1 wrote:They could have had 1 season per book, so a 7 season run. Then they wouldn't have had to cut out all the stuff they supposedly cut out (never read any of the books).

Not a bad idea. But in this world, there's a balance of quality and monetary revenue. And the money they would have made through television wouldn't even come close to the amount they've made/will make on the big screen. Oh well.

by **Mr. MacPhisto** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:14 pm

aoxo1 wrote:Read something recently that made the argument that novels in general, with Harry Potter being the one referenced, are served better by being translated to television, due to the ability to tell most of the stuff and have episodes devoted to things that are interesting but not essential and would get cut out in a 2.5 hour movie. Movies really are a better medium for short stories. Especially now that television production values have become very good and there have been a lot of successful "Lost" and "24" type shows with long story arcs, they could really do justice to novels with 15 episode seasons (or whatever). They could have had 1 season per book, so a 7 season run. Then they wouldn't have had to cut out all the stuff they supposedly cut out (never read any of the books).

It does make some sense. There are still problems due to the book having a narrator that knows the thoughts and feelings of the main character.

I've thought the same about Lord Of The Rings. As much as I like Peter Jackson's films in Extended Edition form, there are still a lot of issues I have just because there's so much in the book itself.

An eighteen hour+ miniseries for Lord Of The Rings might be able to do well. The Potter series really only needs a movie for the first three novels but once Goblet Of Fire springs up they really need about five hours a piece. If all the films since that one had been done into two films then much more would have been told and revealed in the films. Makes a lot of sense from a financial perspective too since the two movies would really be shot as one long film, but imagine if both pulled in $1.8 Billion in international revenue versus $900M for just one.

by **aoxo1** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:06 pm

How much of that revenue would be made up by selling way more DVDs, since you would be selling several per season instead of one? Isn't that where most of the money is made now anyways?

by **Mr. MacPhisto** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:13 pm

aoxo1 wrote:How much of that revenue would be made up by selling way more DVDs, since you would be selling several per season instead of one? Isn't that where most of the money is made now anyways?

Depends. A really strong DVD showing can net you an additional $100M profit for a film like Potter, but the box office take is often around $1 Billion worldwide with probably 40% representing profit when the gross gets that big. So it's probably around a $300M profit for a Potter film, at least in raw numbers. I'm sure Rowling gets her slice of it, but the same goes for the DVDs.

DVDs just mean that a mediocre showing like Superman Returns (only $200M in the US versus a $200M budget plus advertising minus advertising tie-ins paid for and product placement plus $191M in foreign box) can actually turn a pretty solid profit despite not setting the world ablaze. It turned at $50M profit for WB.

by **Bill the Butcher** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 1:17 am

Slight tangent, but I just watched Order of the Phoenix for the first time in awhile. And...

I came to realize that it is a great movie.

I paid close attention to the pacing, the directing, acting, and the photography and was ultimately very impressed. Save for a few shotty acting moments because c'mon now, they're mostly kids, what do expect. I still don't understand the dislike for Yates. I think he did an excellent job in it as well as on HBP. The sequence when Voldemort and Harry were having that flashback/possessed moment at the Ministry of Magic really got to me (the score behind that sequence really made it, as well as the last words by Potter). Also, the battle sequence between Voldemort and Dumbledore was fuggin' epic. Sweet moves provided with excellent sound effects. Woohoo!

I hadn't planned on watching it tonight. It just happened on the fly. And I'm very happy I popped in the DVD.

by **StewieG** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 1:52 am

Order of the Phoenix isn't a bad movie. In fact, it's the one that convinced me to read the books, because after reading that one, I had to find out what happens next, and I didn't want to just read some spoiler site. The problem people have with it is that there was so much left out. It's the longest book, so a lot of things were going to have to get cut no matter what. But it's the shortest movie, so I think people were upset that a lot of things were left out that could have been put in.

by **StewieG** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 1:50 am

Great review, Mitch. And, on the future of the series, I guarantee you won't be disappointed. Like you said in your review, it would have to be a steaming pile of dog shit to really disappoint. But, if they fit in as much of the book as I think they're going to, it'll completely blow away any other movie in the series. Deathly Hallows was my favorite book, and I absolutely can't wait for the movie to come out.

And, on not reading the series: you have more patience than I do, that's for sure. I went out and read the series after the 5th movie came out. But, at this point I think you're better off waiting.

by **DarNoor** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 12:24 am

Just saw the movie today. Thought it was very good. This was actually the first time i seen one of these movies in a theater. My girlfriend is a big fan of the books, and she seen all of the movies, so when she asked to to go see this one, i thought i should watch the previous films. I did not read any of the books, so i didn't know what to expect. I was surprised how much i enjoyed the films. They are so good that they make me want to read the books (which i plan to do after the next film). I think my favorite part of the movies is the performance of Alan Rickman. I have always admired his work. But, these movies show how great he truly is.

by **Bill the Butcher** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 1:15 am

DarNoor wrote:They are so good that they make me want to read the books

Attaboy!

(which i plan to do after the next film)...

You mean next two films? LOL.

I think my favorite part of the movies is the performance of Alan Rickman. I have always admired his work. But, these movies show how great he truly is.

Rickman as Snape is fantastic. I liked him most in OOTP. I believe a majority of fans would think his portrayal of his respective character is the best in the series.

by **Mr. MacPhisto** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:01 pm

Rickman is tremendous.

I also must say that Michael Gambon's performance in this film has changed my opinions of his performance in the other films. Until now my bias towards Richard Harris' depiction has sometimes pulled me out when Gambon was on screen. The problem is that I saw the first two films before reading the book and Richard Harris' performance is what I saw when I read Dumbledore.

It's not the first time that has happened. I saw Jurassic Park when it came out before reading the book. Richard Attenborough played a kindly John Hammond in that film, very different from the character in the book. Despite the book's character being a meanspirited SOB, I still hated him getting eaten to death by compys at the end because I still saw Attenborough's kindly, grandfatherly portrayal of Hammond.

I wish there were more of him, especially at the end of Order of the Phoenix where I think more could be explained. But maybe being a book reader I see problems where they don't exist for those who have not read the books. Prisoner of Azkaban is a film I like alright, but the failure to properly develop the Marauders in the story and how Lupin knew of the map has often been a source of frustration. But those who haven't read the book don't miss it and seem to understand. Same happened with Order of the Phoenix. A friend who hasn't read them at all picked up all the important stuff and liked the movie well while I just saw all the omissions my first time through.

That's where Jackson did so well with Lord of the Rings. As a huge fan of that book, I mostly liked how well the world was represented. The two major issues I had were the shrinking of that world (Gandalf road to Isengard quickly and those from Rivendell seemed to get to Rohan quickly as well), but conveying the passage of time is difficult in films. The most egregious point in the whole series came early, as they replaced Glorfindel with Arwen, had the Ringwraith say, "give up the halfling, she-elf!" (goodness, that was awful), and had Arwen bawling over Frodo, a hobbit she had never met. There are a few other nitpicks, but overall the movie was well done and conveyed the spirit well.

And I think Harry Potter does the same, but it's easier to miss things in the films compared to LOTR. As much as I enjoy the Tom Bombadil tangent in Fellowship, it is still a tangent that would really slow a film down. I don't see as much of that in Potter, but I think ultimately they've done well in adapting the material and set up the films to flow quite well. The first two are the slowest, but they also set the series. You find out in this film just how important Chamber of Secrets was in finding out some of the secrets of Tom Riddle.

by **aoxo1** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:16 pm

Worst part of LOTR was what Jackson did to Faramir.

by **Mr. MacPhisto** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 3:29 pm

aoxo1 wrote:Worst part of LOTR was what Jackson did to Faramir.

Had forgotten about that bit. Yeah, that was very bad, turning him into more of a villain when he always was a high character guy in contrast to his brother.

There were some missteps. Jackson has said the Faramir change was to introduce more tension on Frodo's end and essentially drag his story through the end of the movie because Frodo and Sam end up much further along in the chronology by the end of Book 4 and very little is told of them in Book 6. From a film standpoint, not much exciting happens to them in the second half of The Two Towers. There's Shelob and Frodo's capture. I love reading through that part, but it's far from riveting for a film.

I was one who thought no one would be able to pull off LOTR on film because it really doesn't lend itself to it in its book form. Jackson could have radically restructured it with the second movie only dealing with the events occurring in Rohan and Gondor with the last movie focused on Frodo and Sam and the closeout. The second movie would have ended with Aragorn and company being assaulted at the Black Gate of Mordor, not knowing what has happened to Frodo and seeing his mithril coat paraded as a prize. In the book you do not know what has happened to Frodo. You knew he was captured, but you know nothing else - so upon first reading you really have no idea if he was brought before Sauron or not. Because Jackson did everything chronologically there is really no suspense there.

by **aoxo1** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 6:22 pm

LOTR is another example of something that should really be told in serial form with 15-25 episodes per book than in a movie form.

Would love to see HBO decide to do this kind of thing, not sure what they could do, but I'm sure there is plenty out there that I just can't think of off the top of my head. How about the Stephen King Dark Tower series? Never read it, but that seems like it would be a really kick ass show on HBO.

by **Mr. MacPhisto** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 7:10 pm

aoxo1 wrote:LOTR is another example of something that should really be told in serial form with 15-25 episodes per book than in a movie form.

Would love to see HBO decide to do this kind of thing, not sure what they could do, but I'm sure there is plenty out there that I just can't think of off the top of my head. How about the Stephen King Dark Tower series? Never read it, but that seems like it would be a really kick ass show on HBO.

I also think Asimov's Foundation Series would work well in a serial format. Roland Emmerich (ick) is working on a film version. The original three books are full of separate stories all linked together as they tell the history of The Foundation. I think there are five different tales in the first book and two each in the last two. The final two stories are full novels. Same goes for the prequel books.

Would be a good story to adapt in some way. I like the Foundation stories a lot. And they link with Asimov's other sci-fi writings, so there are around 20 or so stories in that universe.

by **StewieG** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 12:29 am

The Dark Tower would make a fascinating story to see. They could probably do a very long miniseries with that. Maybe 4-6 hours per book. There's not TOO much that would require high budget effects (though it's been awhile since I read it, so I may be forgetting some things).

But, the series does tend to drag in some places. Book 5 I had a really hard time getting though, and (surprisingly) book 7 was like that for me as well.

But overall it would make for a very good tale. I always though that one would make a much better thing to view than a lot of other Stephen King works would.

by **aoxo1** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 12:41 am

http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a15495 ... tower.html

by **StewieG** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 12:44 am

Fuck me, I had no idea. And JJ Abrams is doing it? He's been on fire lately.

by **Mr. MacPhisto** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 12:33 pm

aoxo1 wrote:http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a154951/bale-to-star-in-abramss-dark-tower.html

Just so long as it doesn't interfere with getting a new Star Trek flick out.

Bob Orci, one of the screenwriters for ST, suggested at ComicCon that they have a story to span a second and third Star Trek film. Maybe they'll shoot them back to back.

by **Bill the Butcher** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 12:51 pm

Mr. MacPhisto wrote:Bob Orci, one of the screenwriters for ST, suggested at ComicCon that they have a story to span a second and third Star Trek film. Maybe they'll shoot them back to back.

Hooray!

by **Guest** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 3:12 pm

The most egregious change in LOTR was Sam turning back after Frodo tells him to leave because of Gollum putting bread crumbs on Sam's cloak to "frame" him.

Frodo would never tell Sam to leave, and Sam would never do it regardless. Stupid melodrama.

The second most hideous change was any scene with Arwen. Puke. But at least I can understand why Jackson threw those scenes in. The part with Sam leaving but coming back after he realized Gollum was being tricky (huge revelation) has no possible defense.

Movies, Music, TV, Books, Pop Culture

Who is online

Who is online