|
|
Post by Cubicle No More ... on Aug 6, 2009 18:31:04 GMT -5
anyone see the movie in 3D? it was a big waste. only the first few minutes are in 3D ... so you pay extra for the damn glasses only to chuck them after the first few minutes ...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2010 0:34:54 GMT -5
I'm bringing this one back, because I've forgotten what we were talking about.
I have seen the movie, and they covered an awful damned lot. Not sure how coherently however. I'm still sorting it all out.
Emma Watson, who was absolutely terrible in the first two movies, has turned into a terrific actress -- a movie star even.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 20, 2010 0:50:34 GMT -5
I liked The Deathly Hallows a lot more with this reading than I did the first time. First time I read it, it felt like they spent 600pp sitting around in tents talking about how they had no idea where to look. It was actually only 200pp or so.  I had the same reaction to my re-read of Deathly Hollows this past winter. Reviews I have read say, "They cut some of the camping trip ... but not enough of it." |
|
|
|
Post by Barky on Nov 20, 2010 0:52:49 GMT -5
I saw it, too, and I agree about Emma Watson.
I really liked the way the movie was shot. I would have to say it's my favorite one of the series so far.
|
|
|
|
Post by Barky on Nov 20, 2010 0:54:05 GMT -5
I hated the whole camping part in the book - it dragged on way too long, but I didn't think that about the movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 4, 2011 20:15:55 GMT -5
I finally just saw the DH:P1. What struck me most was that regardless of all the things that are better about the books than the movies, one thing in particular is much better done in the movies: wand duels. Rowling was never really able to describe the wand duels very well. Lots of "green beams of light" and the like. But the movies really convey the speed and violence of a full-out wand battle.
I also still think Harry was better matched Luna than with Ginny. The movie Ginny is so bad that they pretty much cut her character to nothing, and the book Ginny is so wonderfully perfect that she's completely boring. But Luna, in the book or in the movies, steals almost every scene she is in.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Jan 5, 2011 16:10:10 GMT -5
I consider the most recent movie to be the best of the series so far. Lots of action, kept moving, and stayed pretty true to the story. There had to be concessions, of course, but still going alright. In light of my initial comments in this thread, so long ago:
1) They handled the locket alright, and just bounced off the fact that it was Regulus's as an excuse to invoke Kreacher (sp? I only listen to audio, so I don't know the spelling)
2) They can use Bellatrix's response to seeing the sword as an excuse to break into Gringotts. HOWEVER: what are they looking for when they get there? How are they going to know it's a horcrux? They haven't said anything about looking for founders' objects, so they can't just look for the badger or Ravenclaw's eagle. Unless they just make it up out of the blue that they know what they are looking for, like they did with the "we need to find 7" aspect. As far as I remember in HP6 (the movie), it was never established that there were 6 horcruxes. I just remember an idiotic scene with Dumbledore having a nervous breakdown about how this is worse than he feared (Dumbledore never loses control like that - it goes against his all-knowing nature), and they have no idea how many he made (I'd have to rewatch it, but it pains me to do it so I'd rather not). And where are they going to come up with the snake as the last one?
BTW mike, Luna belongs with Ron. She actually hits on him quite a bit in the book, but he is too oblivious.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 5, 2011 16:48:38 GMT -5
BTW mike, Luna belongs with Ron. She actually hits on him quite a bit in the book, but he is too oblivious. I'm not sure why, but Luna became my favorite character (in the books) pretty much as soon as she was introduced. And the movie Luna is almost as good. Ron has never been one of my favorites. He's not a bad kid, but I don't think I would get along with him very well. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2011 17:57:15 GMT -5
Ron and Harry spend too much time in the books looking for shortcuts. They really come off as lazy. It's probably an accurate representation of teenage boys, but it can make them a little hard to like at times.
But, then, Harry's father was a jerk too.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Jan 6, 2011 11:10:08 GMT -5
Ron and Harry spend too much time in the books looking for shortcuts. They really come off as lazy. It's probably an accurate representation of teenage boys, but it can make them a little hard to like at times. But, then, Harry's father was a jerk too. I always wondered what a book would be like written from Draco Malfoy's perspective? Especially at the beginning, before he got mixed up with He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named (I can't have any sympathy for a Death Eater, although one could argue that he was forced into the role - subject for another post) And it is true, that young James Potter was an arrogant, egotistical bully, but I will also note that I always found Snape's conflagration of that with "constant rule breaking" to be annoying. No, sneaking out of the castle at night did not make the Marauders bad people - being dicks and @$$%*!*s are what made them bad people. Harry was like his father with the stupid rule breaking, but did not have the characteristics that made James a toe-rag. But Snape always tries to make that association. It was very annoying. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 6, 2011 12:21:32 GMT -5
Harry was like his father with the stupid rule breaking, but did not have the characteristics that made James a toe-rag. But Snape always tries to make that association. It was very annoying. It was obvious from about Book 5 that Snape had been in love with Lily. Everyone constantly remarks on how Harry looks like James, so it is pretty natural that Snape (who is, at his core, a selfish jerk) would be predisposed to always hate Harry for being a constant reminder that Lily chose James over him. Snape was never a good guy -- he just hated himself and Valdemort more than he hated Harry or anyone else. |
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Jan 6, 2011 16:49:51 GMT -5
Harry was like his father with the stupid rule breaking, but did not have the characteristics that made James a toe-rag. But Snape always tries to make that association. It was very annoying. It was obvious from about Book 5 that Snape had been in love with Lily. Everyone constantly remarks on how Harry looks like James, so it is pretty natural that Snape (who is, at his core, a selfish jerk) would be predisposed to always hate Harry for being a constant reminder that Lily chose James over him. Snape was never a good guy -- he just hated himself and Valdemort more than he hated Harry or anyone else. And the only reason he hated Voldemort was because he killed Lily, thereby ruining Snape's chance to see her/be with her/steal her from James/feel he had a chance with her/see her naked/some or all of the above |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 6, 2011 17:09:47 GMT -5
It was obvious from about Book 5 that Snape had been in love with Lily. Everyone constantly remarks on how Harry looks like James, so it is pretty natural that Snape (who is, at his core, a selfish jerk) would be predisposed to always hate Harry for being a constant reminder that Lily chose James over him. Snape was never a good guy -- he just hated himself and Valdemort more than he hated Harry or anyone else. And the only reason he hated Voldemort was because he killed Lily, thereby ruining Snape's chance to see her/be with her/steal her from James/feel he had a chance with her/see her naked/some or all of the above He wanted Voldemort to kill James and Harry. But he got hit by a case of unintended consequences. |
|
