or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Anyone seen Harry Potter?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Anyone seen Harry Potter?

post #1 of 30
Thread Starter 
Many theatres in my area have pre-sold all the tickets this weekend so I can't watch it until next week. :eek:

Anyone here seen it yet? I don't care about the story. All I care is the vfx.....

This movie is making so much hype and people are crazy about it.... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
post #2 of 30
[quote]Originally posted by Leonis:
<strong>

Anyone here seen it yet? I don't care about the story. All I care is the vfx.....</strong><hr></blockquote>Never mind that, just think about how much J.K. Rowling is making out of all this :eek:

It will make you weep.

This is such a PHENOMENAL one person industry/success story. And, to boot, the woman isn't bad looking either . . .

Put her foot down too, as to having *total* control over the movie. No turning Harry Potter into a Hollywood movie. No, madam. Good for her.

- T.I.
post #3 of 30
I'm so sick of hearing about Harry Potter. I still don't get what's so amazing.
post #4 of 30
[quote]Originally posted by EmAn:
<strong>I'm so sick of hearing about Harry Potter. I still don't get what's so amazing.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Have you read the books? They're what's so amazing.
post #5 of 30
Harry Potter is the Devil.
The crucial memorandum will be snared in the out-basket by
the paper clip of the overlying memo and go to file.
Reply
The crucial memorandum will be snared in the out-basket by
the paper clip of the overlying memo and go to file.
Reply
post #6 of 30
iDude, I haven't read any of the books but friend have told me about them and it just didn't intrest me from what I heard. Maybe one day I will read at least one of them.
post #7 of 30
Flanders: "And then Harry Potter and all his friends went straight to hell for practicing witchcraft. The End."
Kids: "Yeaaaa!!!"
post #8 of 30
[quote]Originally posted by The Installer:
<strong>Put her foot down too, as to having *total* control over the movie. No turning Harry Potter into a Hollywood movie. No, madam. Good for her.

- T.I.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Some are saying the literal book to film transition got in the way of a better movie.

They say that this movie is in 1/2 of theaters and 1/4 of the screens in the US :eek:
post #9 of 30
[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>Some are saying the literal book to film transition got in the way of a better movie.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And it's two and a half hours long, more than an hour longer than most movies aimed at kids.

Perhaps The Installer can confirm this, but I heard the BBC had a reading of the first book on the radio last Christmas, and J.K. Rowling refused to have it abridged, so it ran to eight (8!) hours!
Chicanery.
Reply
Chicanery.
Reply
post #10 of 30
[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
And it's two and a half hours long, more than an hour longer than most movies aimed at kids.

Perhaps The Installer can confirm this, but I heard the BBC had a reading of the first book on the radio last Christmas, and J.K. Rowling refused to have it abridged, so it ran to eight (8!) hours!</strong><hr></blockquote>Yes. None of this short attention span nonsense that producers seem to live by these days. Stephen Fry - good man BTW - was reading it, and VERY succesful it was too <a href="http://www.bbcworldwide.com/spokenword/potterarticle.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bbcworldwide.com/spokenword/potterarticle.htm</a>

Again, good for J.K.

[quote]Some are saying the literal book to film transition got in the way of a better movie.<hr></blockquote>Some? Most likely people who were prevented from cashing in. Sounds like sour grapes to me.

It is not often that a movie is actually representative of the book that it is "based" on. In this case that is so.

And from where I am sitting, it is a huge success, critically and in terms of box office. Hollywood, eat your heart out.

Apart from anyhing else, I do think it is really cool that someone had the guts/power to stand up to the suits at Warner Bros.

- T.I.
post #11 of 30
[quote]Originally posted by Arakageeta:
<strong>Flanders: "And then Harry Potter and all his friends went straight to hell for practicing witchcraft. The End."
Kids: "Yeaaaa!!!"</strong><hr></blockquote>

While it may be funny, some people have taken it upon themselves to protest the movie becasue of the black magic and witchcraft. Some people just dont have life, and i thought i was pathedic
"Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school." -- Albert Einstein
Reply
"Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school." -- Albert Einstein
Reply
post #12 of 30
[quote]Originally posted by The Installer:
<strong>Some? Most likely people who were prevented from cashing in. Sounds like sour grapes to me.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Okay. I should have written "Most of the movie critics say...".
post #13 of 30
[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>

Okay. I should have written "Most of the movie critics say...".</strong><hr></blockquote>

I've seen that too. But really, as a moviemaker who would you rather please: millions of fans of the book, or movie critics?

Me, I'm just waiting for "Lord of the Rings."
Why am I whispering?
Reply
Why am I whispering?
Reply
post #14 of 30
it was too short, could of been an hour long. It left to much out and did not develope the characters enough. i would sit through 4 hours, just gimmie enough! <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> :cool:
post #15 of 30
I think it's easy to understand that the pacing of a good book is not the same as the pacing of a good movie.
post #16 of 30
The characters were underdeveloped. It is right to assume that we have read the books but you can't just assume all that making a film.

*SPOILER ALERT: SKIP THIS POST IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE FILM*

Draco Malfoy wasn't slimy enough. Snape wasn't sinister enough. Harry looks like the recipient of dumb luck and you felt NO mysticism between him and Voldemort. The final scene was a huge, anti-climactic letdown.

The book gave you time to get to know the characters, Hermione and Ron were done decently enough, but Draco's wicked wit directed at the two was tragically cut to one particularly weak joke.

The casting and set design was absolutely brilliant. The actors fit their roles beautifully. Snape looked absolutely perfect and it's a damned shame he wasn't brought out in all his sinister "evil".

I was disappointed all in all. Of course, my expectations were unrealistically high as I adored the books. The film didn't *need* to be four hours, but I think adding another half-hour of narrating (developing how abused Harry was by the muggles, especially) and character-building would have done wonders.

WHERE WAS THE NARRATOR!?!?

[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #17 of 30
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
WHERE WAS THE NARRATOR!?!?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

You are totally correct, a narrator would of helped possibly in the beginning or in those tense moments. Just to help convay how the carachters are feelings. most of the time it was obivous. But, they also took out the first 3/4 of the first chapter

:eek:
post #18 of 30
I saw Harry Potter and liked it very much.

I never read any of the books, but would like too. And those saying that kids don't have the attention span to sit through this movie at 2 and a half hours long are forgetting that many of the kids who really want to see this have read four books that are about 700 pages each. I think if they'll read the 700 page book, they'll sit through the movie.

Now let's see how LOTR does.
post #19 of 30
[quote]Originally posted by seb:
<strong>I saw Harry Potter and liked it very much.

I never read any of the books, but would like too. And those saying that kids don't have the attention span to sit through this movie at 2 and a half hours long are forgetting that many of the kids who really want to see this have read four books that are about 700 pages each. I think if they'll read the 700 page book, they'll sit through the movie.

Now let's see how LOTR does. </strong><hr></blockquote>

No offense, but only the last book is 700 + pages. The rest are only like 300 - 400.
post #20 of 30
Point taken iDude.

Like I said never read the books. They sure looked thick though.

However, I stick to my point (weakened as it is). If kids are going to read several 'multi-hundred page' books, they'll sit through a two and a half hour movie.

After seeing the movie, I kind of want to read the books. At least the first one.

My favorite thing about this film was how easy they made it to suspend my disbelief. It was a good story. Somehow it seemed familiar in its basic components - orphan abused by relatives escapes to a better place and makes new friends who join him in an adventure. As if it parallels a well known parable or something. Can't quite put my finger on it. But it was a good movie.
post #21 of 30
For some reason, the word "Muggle" makes me want to stuff my boot down someone's throat. However, J.K. Rowling is a rather atttractive redhead, so I'm forbidden by my beliefs to practice violence upon her. So, if you're in Portland, and you see someone stomping mudholes in passerby while screaming, "YOU DIE FOR ROWLING'S SINS!!!" you'll doubtlessly have encountered none other than moi

That being said, the prose style is too simplistic for my tastes...since I first read Lord of the Rings at age 9 (with the Hobbit having been read two years earlier), it'd be fair to say that the Harry Potter stuff would have been very appealing to me when I was, oh, 6. That was before I got all precocious and snotty.
post #22 of 30
Have not seen it nor read the books nor have any interest. I've seen the EP II trailer so their really isn't much reason for me to see it.
post #23 of 30
Just got back from Harry Potter. It was a pretty good movie. It was long but the pace was good. It was kind of a kids movie thought. Not like Monsters Inc which I think everyone can enjoy fully.

Worth seeing.

[ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: Scott H. ]</p>
post #24 of 30
The movie was pretty good, but I still think that part of what made those books amazing is something that can never be put into the medium of a film; the narration, plotting, and character development simply floored me when I read a few of the books at Barnes and Noble ( ) -- at least for the children's genre.

The depth of the stories and characters was really lacking, but I think it was to be expected. The narration was too crucial to the book, and narration often becomes cheesy in movies. It was very hard to pull off, but I still think they did a pretty good job with it.

I didn't know that about Rowling insisting on full control over the film; that's pretty cool though. Those goons who destroy books while turning them into multimillion dollar flicks that all turn out the same deserve to be put in their place for once. They wanted her, not the other way around, anyway...
"If I were a younger man, I would write a history of human stupidity; and I would climb to the top of Mount McCabe and lie down on my back with my history for a pillow; and I would take from the...
Reply
"If I were a younger man, I would write a history of human stupidity; and I would climb to the top of Mount McCabe and lie down on my back with my history for a pillow; and I would take from the...
Reply
post #25 of 30
Maybe I should have added that I never read the books so I wasn't think of them when watching the movie.
post #26 of 30
I think one of the strengths of the Harry Potter series, at least with the books, is that they can be enjoyed by all ages. Especialy book 3-4. I have noticed that as the series progresses it has really stopped becoming a childrens book. Unless you consider mutilation, murder, soul-sucking, assasination, the starting of a civil war, etc to be part of a childrens series. One of the reasons the books have been so successfull is that while they are targetted tords kids JK Rowling does not write like its for kids. This isnt the Red Wall seriers or the BFG.
"What makes a man turn... neutral?" -Futurama
Reply
"What makes a man turn... neutral?" -Futurama
Reply
post #27 of 30
Ugh just saw the movie and that wasnt very good at all. Didnt capture the books at all.
"What makes a man turn... neutral?" -Futurama
Reply
"What makes a man turn... neutral?" -Futurama
Reply
post #28 of 30
Finally saw it.
It could've been better (much). Very well done though and excellent casting. The lackluster of the film was in the scripting. While it was an intriguing adaptation of the book, some things that they left out would've helped in explaining what they left in. Norbert (dragon) needed more time, the should've put in peeves, the dursleys deserve more time, they need the potion thing after the chess game in the end. The great hall was great, diagon alley, Gringotts were very good, Snape was excellent, quiddich could've been better. Hopefully by the time the next film comes out, they will have had time to fix what was wrong with the first. Oh, and they deffinitely shoule have had the sorting hat singing.

[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: iDude ]</p>
post #29 of 30
It's all about the quidditch. That's the only reason i wanted to see the movie. It could've been better, at least more of it. The did show the Slytherin character in that scene, but thats the only one in the movie of several in the book.
42
Reply
42
Reply
post #30 of 30
The last book was 700+ pages written in a big text
ever read "the count of monte cristo"?
unabridged its about 1000 pages of like size 10 font or smaller actually.
My stance On H.P(no not the computer you twit) is that they are nice fun easy reads that really make you wish you were little again and open your eyes to what it was like being little and having everything be so amazing
the first two books were definate kids books but as they series is progressing its getting more mature, this makes logical sense as the characters are getting older and the kids reading them and keeping up with the whole deal wil start this at age 10 or so and end at age 16 or so, hahaha thats pretty funny come to think about it

I want to see the movie, my siblings saw it they liked it alot.

often times a narrator is the key to making a good book-movie transition but since I haven't seen the movie yet I won't judge

Lord of the rings!!!!!
I'm so stoked for LOTRs
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Anyone seen Harry Potter?