The New Harry Potter Film

[knightni]

[Rowand44]

I can look at Emma Watson pictures online, don't need to see the movie.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I can look at Emma Watson pictures online, don't need to see the movie.

I've never really found Emma Watson all that attractive. she has her moments, but in general not my type.

[Nyx81]

Her new short 'do looks good on her.

[Balta1701]

~3:30 ish today, taking the spouse.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Will probably wait to see it after Thanksgiving. Might take the family to see Megamind tonight before it leaves theaters.

[Brian]

I've never really found Emma Watson all that attractive. she has her moments, but in general not my type.

 

Hate the short hair

[Rowand44]

Hate the short hair

I agree with that.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I posted this in the Films thread, but this seems to be the "official" place to talk Deathly Hallows:

I did feel like the middle section was rushed a lot. it was very disjointed and frantic. Jumping from one scene to another with characters seemingly making revolutions out of no where (

the swords ability to be injected with basilisk venom

) and entire scenes were set-up by three or four lines of dialog (

breaking into the ministry

). I understand they had to do it that way. There's too much in the book that HAD to be wedged in. I felt like if you had not read the book you might not understand some key parts.

the influence of the locket on people was seemingly interjected with no explanation

and probably could have been left out.

 

The best parts where when they slowed down like at

godric's hollow and Malfoy Manor

(after the snatchers). Those scenes had some real depth and where fantastic.

 

Overall, it was really good, and July is going to be epic.

Edited November 20, 2010 by Athomeboy_2000

[ThunderBolt]

I just got back from Part 1. That was absolutely intense; I really liked it, and apart from a few flaws found it to be consistently engaging throughout. A word of caution: this is absolutely PG-13 to the core. There were people sobbing in the audience at times during this movie.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I just got back from Part 1. That was absolutely intense; I really liked it, and apart from a few flaws found it to be consistently engaging throughout. A word of caution: this is absolutely PG-13 to the core. There were people sobbing in the audience at times during this movie.

Did you have the feeling that if you haven't read the books, some of the finer points might be looked over by someone who has only seen the movies?

 

I have no emotional attachment to the Harry Potter series (Harry Potter is my wife's obsesion), but

Dobby's death chocked me up

.

 

Oh, and

Harry and Hermine making out naked was really unnecessary

.

Edited November 20, 2010 by Athomeboy_2000

[ThunderBolt]

Did you have the feeling that if you haven't read the books, some of the finer points might be looked over by someone who has only seen the movies?

Absolutely, the film kind of assumes you have book knowledge at a couple of points. It’s a minor thing, but it’s a bit confusing.

[Brian]

Oh, and

Harry and Hermine making out naked was really unnecessary

.

 

Agreed. We didn't even get any side boob.

Edited November 20, 2010 by Brian

[HuskyCaucasian]

Absolutely, the film kind of assumes you have book knowledge at a couple of points. It’s a minor thing, but it’s a bit confusing.

Ok, good. I thought maybe I was be a little too critical.

 

Overall, I thought they did a REALLY great job at translating key point in the book onto the screen.

[Leonard Zelig]

Did you have the feeling that if you haven't read the books, some of the finer points might be looked over by someone who has only seen the movies?

 

Every one of the movies left out details that were very important in the book.

[qwerty]

Every one of the movies left out details that were very important in the book.

 

That's only logical... even in the very best of adaptations. Otherwise book adaptations would be upwards of 6 hours long if people wanted the proper detail. This is the day and age in which people are lucky to have a long enough attention span to watch a measly 90 minute film... if not even less.

[ThunderBolt]

Every one of the movies left out details that were very important in the book.

This movie pretends that they haven't. It's an interesting approach.

Edited November 21, 2010 by Thunderbolt

[Balta1701]

I feel walking out of that one like I felt after the first LOTR movie. Yeah, it was entertaining, but you feel like you've gone so far already, and yet you're barely along the road towards the finish.

[dasox24]

Can't wait to see it. May go tomorrow... but it will be disappointing knowing it's only half of the book.

Edited November 21, 2010 by dasox24

[Steve9347]

Happily able to say I've never seen one of these lame things and never will.

[Brian]

Happily able to say I've never seen one of these lame things and never will.

 

Than how do you know it is lame?

 

I like the Potter movies and hated hated hated LOTR.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Than how do you know it is lame?

 

I like the Potter movies and hated hated hated LOTR.

you and I are in the same boat on that. My wife still cant understand how I could possibly have disliked LOTR.

[Leonard Zelig]

That's only logical... even in the very best of adaptations. Otherwise book adaptations would be upwards of 6 hours long if people wanted the proper detail. This is the day and age in which people are lucky to have a long enough attention span to watch a measly 90 minute film... if not even less.

 

Yes, I am aware of that. I was responding to somebody who said that finer points were left out, when major details were left out of the others.

[BigSqwert]

Than how do you know it is lame?

I will vouch for him that they are lame since I did see the first 3.

[Leonard Zelig]

I will vouch for him that they are lame since I did see the first 3.

Did you read the books?