Anyone seen Harry Potter?
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]" />
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]" />
Comments
<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.
<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.
Kids: "Yeaaaa!!!"
<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:
<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!
<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.
<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
<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...".
<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."
*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>
<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:
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>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.
No offense, but only the last book is 700 + pages. The rest are only like 300 - 400.
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.
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.