-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is available! Price is $250 ea (shipped within CONUS).
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/
Harry Potter
- Thread starter T.K.C.
- Start date
I already bought my ticket too!! I can't be the only one!!!
oldrifleman
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2006
- Messages
- 2,093
I will be going next week. Also the book will be delivered 1st day. Yes, my name Steven and I am a geek!
Just saw it today here in my country.
With how cinemas are priced nowadays, there are some flicks that when you go home afterwards, you feel you've wasted money you should've spent on something else, plus the 2 hrs. you're never gonna get back.
I'm glade to say THIS was not one of 'em!
With how cinemas are priced nowadays, there are some flicks that when you go home afterwards, you feel you've wasted money you should've spent on something else, plus the 2 hrs. you're never gonna get back.
I'm glade to say THIS was not one of 'em!
yablanowitz
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2006
- Messages
- 10,141
I guess I shouldn't go to movies based on books I have read. It reminds me of speed-reading the Reader's Digest condensed version of a book. Or watching a movie in fast forward. For me, the best part of going to Harry Potter movies is seeing how close I have guessed (I make a list of events from the book and guess which ones will be in the movie). So far, they have always left out one or two that I considered vital to the overall story line.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2005
- Messages
- 952
Say that with PRIDE!:thumbup:
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2000
- Messages
- 15,406
Yeah... Taking the wife next week to see it.. Gonna be a bank breaker though!
5 hour drive to nearest city with theatre(about 250 miles away)
Movie, then hotel, then drive back next morning after doing some shopping..
x 10
It'll be on DVD in 4 months. You should just wait and buy it and then your wife can watch it whenever she wants. I love my wife but driving 5 hours to see a movie is nuts.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2001
- Messages
- 18,423
Saw it last night, pretty good, but I haven't seen the 4th one so I was a little lost at times.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2000
- Messages
- 4,347
Don't hate me.
I have yet to read any of the Harry Potter books or see any of the movies. They sound like they are fantastic.
I might just see if they are out on audio cassette so I can listen to them while driving to/from work.
Sometimes I am way behind the times and only realize something is wonderful to read or watch years later.
I have yet to read any of the Harry Potter books or see any of the movies. They sound like they are fantastic.
I might just see if they are out on audio cassette so I can listen to them while driving to/from work.
Sometimes I am way behind the times and only realize something is wonderful to read or watch years later.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2004
- Messages
- 490
Its the movie paradox!
The whole thing with movies is that you usually dont NEED to see the previous ones to be able to watch the current one. Movies are designed that way because the movies have to make money. If you have to see em all, they usually wont make sense to a lot of people and then they wont sell as well.
My advice? Read the book AFTER the movie or read the book and just be happy with it. So far ive been quite dissapointed with most of the books/comics/games to theater movies so far.
Now I understand that they cant have everything in the book go into the movie because its just too long. It just pisses me off when they CHANGE stuff. I mean if youve read the 5th HP book and then watched the movie it would make very little sense to you. The book is jsut that much better.
Of course there is the problem of watching the movie BECAUSE you like the book. I have that problem in that I already know that most movies suck in comparison to the books. Yet I find myself wasting my time and sometimes even my money on going to see the film. Personally I didnt like the first 4 HP movies either yet I still watched the 5th movie just because its harry potter. Other examples are the spiderman movies (which werent that great, ESPECIALLY the third one), the x-men movies (although the first one was pretty good), and now im debating watching the transformers movie. I might watch it though since a lot of people are telling me its pretty good, but ive already prepared myself to be disappointed.
Now I understand a lot of people cant just sit down and read a book. Most books that interest me I can just sit down and finish it in a day. Im sure some people have seen how long the books are and then given up. BUT in my personal opinion, one could find even just an hr in their days to sit down and relax with a good book. They way I see it, if you have time to watch TV and movies then you could make time to read the actual book, even if it takes you a month to finish it. I read through books 1-6 again in a week just to get ready to read the last book.
The whole thing with movies is that you usually dont NEED to see the previous ones to be able to watch the current one. Movies are designed that way because the movies have to make money. If you have to see em all, they usually wont make sense to a lot of people and then they wont sell as well.
My advice? Read the book AFTER the movie or read the book and just be happy with it. So far ive been quite dissapointed with most of the books/comics/games to theater movies so far.
Now I understand that they cant have everything in the book go into the movie because its just too long. It just pisses me off when they CHANGE stuff. I mean if youve read the 5th HP book and then watched the movie it would make very little sense to you. The book is jsut that much better.
Of course there is the problem of watching the movie BECAUSE you like the book. I have that problem in that I already know that most movies suck in comparison to the books. Yet I find myself wasting my time and sometimes even my money on going to see the film. Personally I didnt like the first 4 HP movies either yet I still watched the 5th movie just because its harry potter. Other examples are the spiderman movies (which werent that great, ESPECIALLY the third one), the x-men movies (although the first one was pretty good), and now im debating watching the transformers movie. I might watch it though since a lot of people are telling me its pretty good, but ive already prepared myself to be disappointed.
Now I understand a lot of people cant just sit down and read a book. Most books that interest me I can just sit down and finish it in a day. Im sure some people have seen how long the books are and then given up. BUT in my personal opinion, one could find even just an hr in their days to sit down and relax with a good book. They way I see it, if you have time to watch TV and movies then you could make time to read the actual book, even if it takes you a month to finish it. I read through books 1-6 again in a week just to get ready to read the last book.
Planterz
Іди на хуй Путін!
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2004
- Messages
- 24,918
Zip is spot-on. I thought the movie was pretty good, but compared to the book, it went way too fast. Obviously, some fat is destined to get trimmed, as with the previous 4, but this particular installment is even leaner. Not surprising, it's a 870 page book in a little more than 2 hours. IMO, Order of the Phoenix is the best book so far, but it's not the best movie ("Prisoner of Azkaban" holds that honor). I felt, as I did with "Goblet of Fire", that if it just slowed down a slight bit, added maybe 20-30 minutes of time, it would have been much better and fuller, more rounded out.
So basically, it's still a great movie, but those who've read the book first will probably feel like I did that the story seemed rushed and a bit thin.\
A few points I feel like mentioning (spoiler alert):
Although probably not deliberate, you get some pretty heavy Darth Vader/Emperor and Obi Wan/Yoda overtones from Harry's teachers and enemies, and some Luke Skywalker overtones from Harry himself. This was all in the book of course, but when they boiled dozens of pages down into a few lines, it comes out sounding like Star Wars.
Michael Gambon continues his brasher, less kindly interpretation of Dumbledore, which works better in this installment (since Dumbledore purposely gives Harry the cold shoulder) than previous ones.
The Centaurs looked kinda cheesy. A bit disappointing. The rest of the graphics and special effects kicked ass.
There's absolutely no quidditch whatsoever in this film. One of the sacrifices made squeezing 870 pages into 2 hours of movie.
Alan Rickman as Professer Snape, as always, is awesome. One of my favorite things about the movies is that pretty much every character was perfectly cast (with the possible exception of Dumbledore Mk.2--Richard Harris was much better, alas, RIP) with exactly the right actors. But Alan Rickman as Snape takes the cake. Besides being one of the slickest villain actors of all time (Hans Gruber in "Die Hard), his greasy, snide line delivery matches the Snape in the books perfectly. If you read the books after seeing the movies, it's impossible not to imagine Alan Rickman giving Harry a bad time and playing favorites with his Slitherin students.
So basically, it's still a great movie, but those who've read the book first will probably feel like I did that the story seemed rushed and a bit thin.\
A few points I feel like mentioning (spoiler alert):
Although probably not deliberate, you get some pretty heavy Darth Vader/Emperor and Obi Wan/Yoda overtones from Harry's teachers and enemies, and some Luke Skywalker overtones from Harry himself. This was all in the book of course, but when they boiled dozens of pages down into a few lines, it comes out sounding like Star Wars.
Michael Gambon continues his brasher, less kindly interpretation of Dumbledore, which works better in this installment (since Dumbledore purposely gives Harry the cold shoulder) than previous ones.
The Centaurs looked kinda cheesy. A bit disappointing. The rest of the graphics and special effects kicked ass.
There's absolutely no quidditch whatsoever in this film. One of the sacrifices made squeezing 870 pages into 2 hours of movie.
Alan Rickman as Professer Snape, as always, is awesome. One of my favorite things about the movies is that pretty much every character was perfectly cast (with the possible exception of Dumbledore Mk.2--Richard Harris was much better, alas, RIP) with exactly the right actors. But Alan Rickman as Snape takes the cake. Besides being one of the slickest villain actors of all time (Hans Gruber in "Die Hard), his greasy, snide line delivery matches the Snape in the books perfectly. If you read the books after seeing the movies, it's impossible not to imagine Alan Rickman giving Harry a bad time and playing favorites with his Slitherin students.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 1999
- Messages
- 3,277
I'll be seeing the movie in a week or so. Both my son and myself are dying to see it.
Question for those who have seen it: Do the centaurs look better in this than in the first Harry Potter movie?
I thought Michael Gambon was a questionable selection for Dumbledore, he's just too young. Richard Harris had wanted Peter O'Toole to replace him - I would agree with that! I thought perhaps Christopher Lee, but at 6'5", he may be a little too imposing amongst the students at Hogwarts.
yablanowitz
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2006
- Messages
- 10,141
Question 1, No. They are bit part players, no close-ups, no detail, no real life to them.
Christopher Lee would have been a good physical casting, as Dumbledore is supposed to be very tall, but I think Peter O'Toole would have been a better character fit.