WTF is up with Harry Potter movies?

[arcadian]

I watched the latest Harry Potter movie last night, Harry Potter and the Golden Owl or whatever the fuck and the movie was horrible. They referenced shit that was in the previous movie which I could not remember because that movie was so diluted and long. They kept mentioning the villain Lord Blackheart or whoever the fuck, yet they didn't add any real new information as it related to the storyline and they never showed the villain, again, like they didn't really show him in the last movie. It's obvious the franchise is being stretched to all of it's multi-billion dollar ends. I mean come on, Ellen Ripley or whatever her name is that writes that dreck just comes out with a new book when she decides she's had it living in her solid gold villa in Monte Carlo and wants to upgrade to a platinum one. It's a golden egg laying goose cum ATM machine for her and it is reflected in the drawn out storyline, which just kind of fades into so much dust and soot like the special effects in the Harry Potter movies. It's not like a children's fantasy adventure series from 50 years ago which was written and finished and was really good and over the years there have been movie and TV adaptations. No, Mrs Crowley writes the Harry Potter books to be screenplays. Oh, and the fundies are correct it does promote the occult(I have no problem with that) which is about the only interesting thing about it, maybe it'll bring a rise to more news stories about teenagers who think they are vampires, I get a kick out of those.

[sakabatou]

1. The books will always be superior to the movies

[Biker13]

2. Hey arcadian!

*Biker's Old Lady here*

Did you read the books? I just read all of them for the first time, and I can't imagine seeing the films without reading the books first. I have to admit, I got quite a kick from them, and I'm in my "50's"!

I can understand though, if they're not your thing. They are a tad juvenile, and not for everybody. But please, give the books a shot some time when you just want to zone out and are in the mood for a quick read. You may change your mind!

[arcadian]

3. No, I like fantasy and the occult.

I'm afraid the books will be too "kiddie" for me though. The first couple of movies were Okay.

[Biker13]

5. Have you read...

Roger Zelazny's "Amber Series"?

[arcadian]

6. Not familiar with it... n/t

[Biker13]

12. Give them a try!

Hey tigereye! Nice to meet you!

arcadian, they deal with parallel universes, you may enjoy them. Most libraries with a decent sci-fi section have the series.

I'm screwing up my "replies"! Still finding my way around here!

[tigereye]

19. welcome to DU!

we read the Amber series out loud to my son - very good. I had not read his books before even though I love sci-fi and I was impressed.

[tigereye]

8. great series...

[MrsMatt]

10. IMO, the first two movies were dreck

the director was ham-handed and pedestrian. Chris Columbus ruined the movies - they would have been far better served if Terry Gilliam had directed them.

That said, the books are far superior to the movies. As most are.

[tigereye]

20. Yeah, they weren't quite as interesting as the later ones- I thought the first

movie was better than the second.


Now Gilliam directing, that would have been very interesting!

[MrsMatt]

38. the rumor is that Gilliam was

Rowling's first choice to direct, but the studio objected.

[tigereye]

42. well, that's really cool - he has the ability to create wonderfully complex

visual and emotional worlds. The films probably would have been amazing had he done any.

[MorningGlow]

24. That's because they're kids' books and movies

What the hell, you want Citizen Kane, go watch Citizen Kane. I think the movies did a fair job, although the books are better.

[keroro gunsou]

62. the books age well

meaning they grow up wit the readers. the first one is fairly... kiddie... but they grow progressively more "mature" and co-respondingly dark as the series goes on.

for the record, Imelda Staunton is a wonderful Dolores Umbridge in the film, but the book version makes her look like a piker.... seriously.

[NJmaverick]

4. I hear Harry gets naked in the next one

[AwakeAtLast]

34. He does in the book...

So I'm imagining he would be in the movie!

[tigereye]

7. oh, that's crap

Have you read the books? She's a superb plotter. And, she managed to get millions of folks, kids included, to read 6-700 page books over and over. She didn't write em for screenplays. She wrote em because it's a great story.

Get your facts straight before you go on a rant, please.

[arcadian]

9. Then it doesn't translate to the big screen very well.

This last movie was crap.

It's also your opinion that those are good books. It's not fact.

[WolverineDG]

11. The last movie was "crap" because they left 3/4 of the plot out of it

how the hell they're going to get Book 7 filmed & have a script that makes sense (because a lot of what got left out of Half-Blood Prince builds up to a lot that happens in Book 7), I don't know.

dg

[tigereye]

16. I think they put in what they could- one could make this argument about

any book translated to film. They seemed to have touched on many major plot points... :shrug: I liked the dark and atmospheric feel of the film, actually. Each of the films has had some positive qualities - esp. by Cuaron.

[WolverineDG]

25. Too me they focused too much on teen-age hormones

The Hermione/Ron/Lavender triangle is not as important to the overall story arc as Snape/Lilly

dg

[LibertyLover]

30. They are splitting the last book into 2 movies. The first one

opens next year - I think in November - and the second one in 2012. That's how they are going to handle Book 7.

[TZ]

13. And this is your opinion

Frankly if you read the books you would know this movie is VERY true to the storylines. There are even a bunch of stuff left out. In fact so much is going to happen that the last book will be TWO movies. I strongly suggest you read the books before you bitch about the movies. Every HP fan I know loved the last movie.

[arcadian]

15. I don't think it stands alone very well.

I haven't read the books and found the movie to be lacking.

[tigereye]

18. that may well be true - but it might be better if you had read the books..

I can see how some of the plot lines would be bewildering in this film if you were not familiar with the story. I suppose that is the problem with any series.



What is great about the last book is how well she resolves so many plot lines from the previous books.

[tigereye]

17. yes, I thought they did prety well with this movie

the previous one had some stuff left out that I would have liked to have seen.

[tigereye]

14. no, I mean the details- all the names you list are wrong...

I didn't think the last movie was crap - the ones made by Cuaron were probably the best ones. Any complex book is hard to translate to the screen - however, I thought the scene where Harry and Dumbledore enter the cave was done pretty well - very similar to the book. All in all I think the film-makers tried very hard to bring the fantasy to life and did fairly well with the complex plot lines...


The books are pretty well-plotted and quite funny - not really as juvenile as folks say - IMHO as a person with an English Lit degree who has read thousands of books. Plus, I did not claim that my opinion that the books were good was a fact. :shrug:

[stray cat]

21. The only thing that has anything to do with Harry Potter is your title

[Danger Mouse]

22. What is this I do not understand...

[NV Whino]

23. I think you've mixed up your Potter series with your Twilight crap

[XemaSab]

26. This is a poorly-informed post

that I will not dignify with a thoughtful response. :P

[arcadian]

27. Well, I don't have time to read all 7 books.

:P

[dysfunctional press]

40. but plenty of time to display your ignorance on the topic.

got it. :hi:

[arcadian]

50. But I feel like I know all about it.

That's all that matters. :P

[GaYellowDawg]

56. With that response...

... you sound like a teabagger talking about healthcare, socialism, etc., etc.

[keroro gunsou]

66. a closed mind

and an open mouth seem to go hand in hand...

give the books a go, worst thing that happens is you prefer them to the films.

[SoxFan]

28. To alcohol! The cause of and solution to all of life's problems!

[Ghost of Tom Joad]

29. I agree

the Half Blood Prince sucked. I did not like the director and am very disappointed that he will be directing the final installments. Yes I have read all the books. One of my pet peeves is Hermoine and her falling in love with Ron. What a mismatch.

[JCMach1]

32. Last two movies have sucked big time... so much so I am not looking forward

to the last one at all.

[Auggie]

36. Lucky you -- there are two more to come

The last book will be made into two movies

[JCMach1]

48. :(

[Frank Cannon]

31. Harry Potter has a fuller five-o-clock shadow than I do

I thought he was supposed to be a kid or a teen or something.

[Withywindle]

54. As he should - he is 16 in the 6th installment, after all!

And 17 in the last.

The kids grow up over the course of the books. That's kind of the point.

[rcrush]

33. Bumpaddle!

[AwakeAtLast]

35. Too much plot in the book (and books 4,5, and 7) for a 2 hour movie

There is a whole subplot in the books that the movies NEVER touch (except the few parts where Dobby is crucial). I highle recommend reading the books if you have not already. It will be a whole new experience for you!

[RoyGBiv]

37. Indeed ...

That omission is going to make a significant part of the last movie(s) hollow. I don't know how they expect to make an audience who has not read the books care enough for the emotional impact of at least two necessary events as significant as it is.

And I still cannot figure out why they blew up the Burrow.

[Rabrrrrrr]

39. Ah... yes, I remember the first time I took acid, too.

[Still Blue in PDX]

41. That abysmal movie prompted me to finally read the books.

Actually, I'm listening to the audiobook read by Jim Dale. Now I understand why so many kids and adults were sucked into the Harry Potter series.

[WinkyDink]

43. I picked up one HP book ages ago, and couldn't get past one random page.

[WT Fuheck]

44. It's hard work not to suck as much as Twilight.

[gratuitous]

45. This reminds me sooo much of a former acquaintance

Said she didn't care for the Lord of the Rings movies. She and her husband had gotten the second one and were watching it. They'd never read the books, thought everyone talked really weird, there didn't seem to be any point to it, and figured the whole thing was just so much nonsense.

No, it wasn't possible even to begin to tell her where she had gone wrong. Either.

[Withywindle]

55. I bet she bitched about not wanting spoilers too.

I had some acquaintances like that. Sorry, punk, if the book was published in the 50s, the spoiler window is OVER.


(I did manage to make one of them cry by telling her one of the main hobbit characters dies in the third part. Which is, technically, true. I just bet she didn't know enough to think of the character I had in mind as a hobbit. :evilgrin:)

[gratuitous]

60. The Witch King was a hobbit?

News to me.

[Withywindle]

67. Gollum was.

[arcadian]

68. Gollum was hobbit-kind

Not a hobbit.

[gratuitous]

69. Kidding

But you knew that . . . right?

Anyway, back to the original acquaintance, it was hard to explain to her that she was coming in on the second part of a three-movie trilogy. So yeah, the beginning flashback where Frodo dreams of Gandalf's death, and he and Sam are rooting around in a trackless wilderness doesn't make much sense. She wouldn't hear of starting from the beginning with the Fellowship of the Ring. In a similar vein and referring back to the original post in this thread, watching the Harry Potter movies without some grounding in the books that inspired it is a recipe for missing a lot.

[Jamastiene]

46. And while we are at it, The Last Broadcast was WAY WAY WAY BETTER than Blair Witch Project.

}(

[bigwillq]

47. I tried to watch one of the movies

Watched for 15 minutes and shut it off. Just not interested in those types of movies.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

49. It's all a shameless rip off of the "So You Want to be a Wizard" series

Ellen Ripley ought to be sued back on to welfare.

[stewartcolbert08]

51. I'm with you!

I thought the most recent movie sucked ass!!:wtf:

[jobycom]

52. You are master of your domain. nt

[Withywindle]

53. The movies just have no meaning without the books.

They really, really don't. They cut out so much exposition that's important to the overall story that they really serve no purpose except as pretty moving illustrations to the books you already know very very well. If you don't know the books well already, expecting the movies to make sense serially is an exercise in futility.

J.K. Rowling is not really a children's fantasy writer at heart. She's a **mystery** writer, who loads every book up with clues and seeming throw-away asides and random backstory that will become crucial to the plot later on in the series.

Even though I think 'Prisoner of Azkaban' is the best-made MOVIE qua movie in the series (because Cuaron is the best filmmaker) that was the point where I REALLY started noticing all the important past-and-future plot points getting cut in favor of special-effects woo-woo and teen angst. Half the groundwork of the last 4 books was laid in the Shrieking Shack scene and the aftermath of that. And in the movie, most of it was lost. It was all downhill from there.

[PassingFair]

57. Funny rant!

I agree that the movies suck.

The books were BORING.

I read one of them, but my husband and
kids have bored their way through the
entire series.

The last Potter movie was the WORST.

Talk about an anti-climax...

"I am the Half-Blood Prince!"

"Who gives a shit?"

[arcadian]

63. Yeah. Who is the Half-Blood Prince?

Harry Potters long lost brother or something? It would have been better if it was the red hair kid, nobody would have seen that coming and it would have f-ed with all the people who had read the books.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

65. Will's Smith's step-brother....

Lives in Bel-Air.

[LynneSin]

58. The assumption is that those who watch the movie will have seen the movies & read the books

10 trillion times that they know this shit by heart

[dembotoz]

59. don't worry, the books and movies will never catch on--just a fad

[skygazer]

61. What a lovely rant!

:rofl:

Plus it's always kind of fun to watch the righteous indignation rise up when someone has the nerve to dislike a popular book/movie/musical artist. Because it's not opinion, you know - it's fact.

[Orsino]

64. I think it would be too much trouble to make the movies...

...for the few people who have not read and enjoyed the books.

I am fine with this, because I enjoyed the books, and the movies are turning out well--getting better and better, IMO. It's not inconceivable, though, that you are quite correct about the utility of the film versions for the non-readers (or for those who simply aren't well-versed in the books).