|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 1:17 am
Ceribri Thanks. smile Yeah, LotR was cut down for the first one but I love how they created the extended edition. heart ....anyways... At this rate we're gonna have Deathly Hallows either be 1 1/2 hrs long or just go straight to video. xp I understood the movie and accepted the changes immediately 'cause I knew what really happened, but my mom got confused, my little sister (to her credit she's read 1-3) got confused, and my dad thought he'd missed a movie in between 4 & 5.... .....if they're trying to go for the non-readers then they've made a mistake since a)a large amount of people only see the movie, and b)the fans will get angrier than Dumbledore in GoF... I miss Sirius already... crying Heh yeah I mean it was the longest book and the shortest film... yet it seemed to have more to it than GOF in which half the plot got hacked out of it. I thought it was okay though, it was darker than the other films, but thats to be expected obviously, and I agree with you on the whole 'making the movie for people who've read the books' becuase my mum got so confused towards the end it wasn't even funny, just irritating... And he needs more hair xd
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 5:23 am
The movies are exellent, just as movies, but they butcher the plot. GoF and OotF have been the worst. I was sitting in shock watching the latest movie. WHERE DID THE SUBPLOTS GO? It's basically just about Dumbledore's Army and Harry snogging Cho. I can't believe some of the key plot points they have missed out. Kreacher is a vital one. Come to think of it, the only one we've seen has been Dobby. Winky wasn't even mentioned, and GoF made changes with the 'stolen wand' bit. The lack of Snape just upset me. I adore him now i've read the 7th book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 7:43 am
There's a wee bit more to editing than making it timely. Sometimes you have cases of a scene you just love to keep, but destroys the flow of the movie. It happens ALOT. Much to directors, and writers upset. There was a scene in the movie "Signs" that everyone wanted, and were afraid wouldn't make it because of that flow. It made it.
Another matter that could create a problem are people called, "Producers." If they feel that something else should be done, or money should be cut. Example: Star Trek 5. (They really thought Trekies are a bunch of dummies that wouldn't care if it stunk just as long as it's Star Trek. They learned their lesson.) Another example: Alian 3. The original script was chopped, hacked, and set to purade.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 8:54 am
Triska There's a wee bit more to editing than making it timely. Sometimes you have cases of a scene you just love to keep, but destroys the flow of the movie. It happens ALOT. Much to directors, and writers upset. There was a scene in the movie "Signs" that everyone wanted, and were afraid wouldn't make it because of that flow. It made it. Another matter that could create a problem are people called, "Producers." If they feel that something else should be done, or money should be cut. Example: Star Trek 5. (They really thought Trekies are a bunch of dummies that wouldn't care if it stunk just as long as it's Star Trek. They learned their lesson.) Another example: Alian 3. The original script was chopped, hacked, and set to purade. Okay, I see your point...I'm not so much worried about 'scenes i'd just love to keep' as vital scenes that would prevent confusion in the next movie... like perhaps when we saw Kreacher, he might have had a locket in his hand or around his neck.. rolleyes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 4:56 pm
Cutting the length of the movies isn't going to make them more mainstream-friendly if they carve out so many important details that it confuses the heck out of anybody who hasn't read the books. I have a friend who stubbornly refuses to read the books until all the movies are out. She was really, really confused watching OotP & she hasn't had that level of trouble watching any of the other movies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 8:54 pm
Eirwyn Cutting the length of the movies isn't going to make them more mainstream-friendly if they carve out so many important details that it confuses the heck out of anybody who hasn't read the books. I have a friend who stubbornly refuses to read the books until all the movies are out. She was really, really confused watching OotP & she hasn't had that level of trouble watching any of the other movies. I agree. Heck, my own sister only picked up book 1 because she has to read something for her reading list and it was the shortest thing that might be allowed. (and I bug her night and day about it)..otherwise she'd wait three more years to find out the movie-twisted truth. confused
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 6:08 am
But really, I mean, overall, as in, all of the movies so far, (wow so many commas) I think they've done a pretty decent job. Obviously they made some mistakes, and cut a fair bit out as you have to in movies, but... compared to movies like Eragon and H2G2, the transition... well, worked.
(not saying H2G2 was bad but they botched up the transition really badly)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 10:32 am
Freaj But really, I mean, overall, as in, all of the movies so far, (wow so many commas) I think they've done a pretty decent job. Obviously they made some mistakes, and cut a fair bit out as you have to in movies, but... compared to movies like Eragon and H2G2, the transition... well, worked. (not saying H2G2 was bad but they botched up the transition really badly)  Yeah, H2G2 was the most botched movie I've seen in a long time. HP is pretty decent, and Eragon (book) was rubbish..I mean..the movie was PG. -_-;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:13 pm
So... I'm reviving this thread because of all the insaneness over the latest revelations from the Harry Potter world.
Dumbledore. Whyyyy?!?
If you know what I'm talking about; be here. I'd like all opinions.
If you don't know, you soon will. *sigh*
So I'll be adding a new poll relatively quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:16 pm
What, something just recently, or do you mean in the last book?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:20 pm
Eirwyn What, something just recently, or do you mean in the last book?
Post-Deathly Hallows, actually. Not in the books.
JKR announced it at one of her fan readings or something like that.
It's in the poll now. *sigh*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:29 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hairy Priest Vice Captain
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:27 pm
I don't think the revelation really adds or subtracts anything to the story or the character. Do we really want to know the sexual orientation of all the side characters?
Come to think of it, Prof. McGonigal didn't seem to have a boyfriend... razz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 7:10 am
Hairy Priest I don't think the revelation really adds or subtracts anything to the story or the character. Do we really want to know the sexual orientation of all the side characters? Come to think of it, Prof. McGonigal didn't seem to have a boyfriend... razz Eh.. I would be barely okay with it but I don't see the reason she brought it up....it doesn't do anything but make a large group of fans want to bash her. ><;; And I just assumed he and McGonnagall used to be together or whatnot. Suited me just fine. *sigh*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:08 am
It has no relevance to the story. If she had made more of it in the books, then that would probably have been better, because (and don't hit me for this), the only other positive gay role model I can think of offhand is Captain Jack. Saying it now just makes me think that she wants to stay in the press despite the fact that the series has finished.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
