posted
Yup, I saw it last night. What with that and the happenings at Nocturne Alley last night, I nearly died of squee. I also immediately decided to throw of PoA party at my house on June 5th. Mark it on your calendars!
Posts: 1805 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am SO seeing this movie on my birthday. just...awesomeness. I was only lukewarm about the others, but this one looks like it's actually going to FEEL like harry potter.
posted
Stupid question: It seems like most Harry Potter fans admit that the movies are really bad. So why is everyone still so excited to see them? As someone who still hasn't read the books (you can publicly stone me later), I find myself not the least bit interested in this movie. If anything, I think the movie makes me want to read the book even less. So what's all the fuss about, then?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Same reason I bought the OotP the day it came out, even though I could have waited to read it without going crazy. It's the fandom. Having a connection with friends and other fans, having something to get excited about, just doing something together. That's what I love about Harry Potter.
Posts: 1805 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hated the first two movies, Jon Boy, but the third is being directed by a new director. And all the previews for PoA have looked original, and exciting, and fun. So, yeah, even though I swore after Chamber that I would never get overly excited about a harry potter movie just to have my hopes dashed upon viewing ever again, I'm giving this one the benefit of the doubt. It's a better story than Chamber of Secrets AND Sorcerer's Stone anyhow.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jon, I never thought that the other two really GOT harry potter. each time, I hope that this next one will catch the essence of harry potter. THis one might actually get it. Harry's hair is messy, that's a start.
posted
I thought the first two movies did a great job of catching the visual world of Harry Potter for us. I also think that the characterizations were really well cast. But, this one seems more exciting somehow.
I think it's simply because the third book itself was just better than the first two. The first two movies stuck to storylines and plots that weren't as strong, and came out weak movies as a result. I think that PoA is a really strong and excitingly complex plot with the great characters already in place and some new exciting things like Dementors, Sirius etc.
And if you don't agree with this Jon Boy than you'll just have to accept my raspberry.
Thanks for that link muppet. I'm so excited for this movie.
posted
I'm getting there. I'm just finishing Shadow Puppets <insert sheepish graemlin>, and I'm so leary of reading books before seeing the movies. I think I had a much better experience with LotR by waiting to read the books, but I'll at least read the first two HPs very soon. It's so convenient to have a friend that works at the library...
Posts: 1090 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Woo-hoo! Did you see that punch! Go Hermione!
I dunno about anybody else, but I wasn't interested in reading Harry Potter till I saw the first movie. I love the visuals and the feel of that movie, and I don't think I could really imagine the Harry Potter universe any other way. In any case, I am now addicted to the books AND the movies. I can't wait for PoA to come out. I also can't wait for book 6 to come out, though I probably don't have much of a choice there.... If i'm lucky, Rowling will finish the series before I'm thirty...
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The second movie, to me, was marginally better than the first, and in general, the books have progressively become more engrossing. The ending of the second book surprised me with its depiction (I was still operating under the assumption that HP was just a children's book series), and really, the last three books have been great by any non-elitist standard.
quote:Stupid question: It seems like most Harry Potter fans admit that the movies are really bad. So why is everyone still so excited to see them? As someone who still hasn't read the books (you can publicly stone me later), I find myself not the least bit interested in this movie. If anything, I think the movie makes me want to read the book even less. So what's all the fuss about, then?
Different reasons each time, really- and for many casual fans (as far as I can tell, anyway), it has little or nothing to do with fanboyism. For the first movie, the previews and stills seemed to really capture the "look" of Harry Potter- the costumes, sets, and cast looked as if they'd hopped straight out of Rowling's text.
When the movie itself came out, I thought, "well, that was terrible. Maybe the next one will be better." This feeling was exacerbated by the release of "The Fellowship of the Ring" a month later, which not only blew the Potter movie away in terms of capturing the look and feel of the source material, but was just damn good moviemaking. So, for me, it became a question of "Can director Chris Columbus do better now that he's more familiar with the cast, crew, and story?"
A year later, the answer is: well, sort of. There were things about the second film that I enjoyed (especially Kenneth Branaugh as Lockhart), but overall it demonstrated the same plodding dullness of the first movie. The shots were uncreative in the extreme, and though the special effects had been improved, they still insisted on wide shots of everything, minimizing the scale of such action centerpieces as the Quidditch matches and the Basilisk fight. The script was far more "purist" than, say, those of the LOTR movies, but it was boring, cramming in all the major plot points but ignoring the little side details that make Rowling's writing interesting. I'm sure it didn't help that Columbus was working from the weakest book in the series.
Now we get to PoA, generally considered Rowling's best work to date. Better yet, Columbus has been booted from directorial duties, to be replaced by Alfonso Cuaron, director of Y Tu Mama Tambien. Cuaron is known for (among other things) his visual style and willingness to experiment. Judging from the trailers (which show a greater level of creativity and freedom in composition and design than the entirety of the first two films combined), Cuaron is also more willing to change things in order to better adapt the story to the visual medium of film. Between the fantastic trailers and excellent early reviews, I suspect that "Prisoner of Azkaban" will quickly join its book counterpart as the best of an unfinished series.
Now, "Goblet of Fire," on the other hand... much less optimism there. They're getting another new director, whose last work was the execrable "Mona Lisa Smile," and who has publically stated that he plans to get that massive tome down to the length of a single 2-hour flick, effectively ensuring even more of the plot-heavy, character-light feel of the first two movies. Not an encouraging way to start, if you ask me...
posted
Hmm... I'd say I liked the movies, because I had low expectations for something I generally considered was going to be made as a children's movie. Pretty sure I was right, too; I mean, it had all the visuals and plot points with none of the spirit, which kids aren't going to miss until they're older.
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My problem with the first two movies is they cut too many important things out and the logical progression was wrong. Like cutting out the Deathday scene in the second one when it's one of the best scenes in the book. It just makes the plot... make so much less sense... I sometimes think they should stop making books into movies. Especially if they will cut out every tiny detail, replace key scenes and just ruin it. But visually, the movies were stunning, capturing the feel quite will. But there were just tiny discrepancies that annoyed me. But, they should NOT cut Goblet of Fire down to a 2 hour movie. There's too many good things in it that just can't be lost! They'd probaly try to do something stupid like cut the 3 trials into one or 2 trials... arg!!! I should just stick with books. Books, except for Forrest Gump seem to be better than the movie counterparts anytime. Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Did anyone else feel that O of the P didn't live up to the other books - it seemed too drawn out at the beginning and wasn't as exciting - it felt like she didn't do as much character development as in previous books despite HPs increased interest in girls - not many new chars either - I felt it was way too long for the content.
Hoping the final two books are better.
Posts: 394 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't bother to see the second Potter movie in the theaters. I wasn't very fond of the second book in general. But I loved the third book so much. If trailers mean anything at all, that one got me excited to see the movie.
Now Star Wars III, now that would have to be a mighty fine trailer to even get me to consider seeing it in the theater (if at all).
Of course such decisions only become final after reading reviews from my favorite, trusted reviewers (one of which is OSC). Not that I always agree with them, but after reading what they have to say, I can make a more informed decision.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can't believe I forgot the other reason I love the movies - the first one was my first date with my fiance. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought the resolution of Order of the Phoenix was disappointing, but the rest of the book was all right.
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I think the third will probably be the best one yet, better story, new director (I really don't like christopher columbus' style), and the actors have that much more experience, so hopefully it won't be horrid
I am actually really hopeful for this third movie, it looks darker and more funny than the first two, as opposed to the bright cartoon colours children's adventure of the first movies.
posted
It is interesting to notice how the child actors are growing up. There is a marked difference in the appearance of each one. The change is actually a little disconcerting, considering that only one year is supposed to have gone by since the story in the second movie. The discrepancy will be even more noticeable for the next movie. Perhaps the fact that they have begun filming it already indicates that they are trying to get it in the can while this set of child actors still looks like children. When they get around to doing The Order of the Phoenix though, they're going to look like college kids. They may have to make up an ad hoc explanation, like saying that wizards and witches grow up faster.
[ March 26, 2004, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really, Hermione only looks like a grown up 13 year old, which is what she is. If the directors don't dress them like college students they won't look like them. Honestly, most of the time the ddifferences between a moderately mature 16 year old and an 18 year old aren't that great.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
raspberry. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
"bother bother bother bother"
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
