Well, this doesn't bode well.

Moderators: thunder, Gillian, Chari910, fruitbat, catloveyes, Helen8, kjshd05, Marie, LadyLucius

User avatar
Helen8
Pillar of the Community
Posts: 9322
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 11:18 am
Location: SoCal

Well, this doesn't bode well.

Post by Helen8 » Fri Mar 13, 2009 10:09 am

Harry Potter fans not happy with new film

The fans were particularly upset that main characters and key plot lines were erased. There also doesn't seem to be much about the Half-Blood Prince himself... They also labelled some scenes as "pointless", reports thesun.co.uk.

http://www.deccanherald.com/DeccanHeral ... updatenews

Oh, dear!

virtu1889
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: Michael Caffee's trunk

Post by virtu1889 » Fri Mar 13, 2009 12:15 pm

I think the only Harry Potter film that didn't disappoint me was the Chamber of Secrets because it revealed to me a vision a perfect male beauty : Lucius. :adore But I do feel sort of bad for the people responsible for making the Harry Potter films. It must be so terribly difficult to transfer the stories to film without leaving loads out and angering legions of fanatics. :bat But I can't feel too sorry for them because we rant and rave while still buying the tickets and dvds making them tons of money.

Gillian
Site Admin
Posts: 4407
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Post by Gillian » Fri Mar 13, 2009 4:25 pm

Weren't there similar complaints about the previous films?
I'm also a little suspicious that the few reports were negative -- as if that were the primary focus. Surely there were others there who enjoyed it?

User avatar
thunder
With her wheelbarrow full of surprises!
Posts: 5361
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:08 pm
Location: Norway

Post by thunder » Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:25 am

The media usually focuses on the negative, because they think that's what we want to hear (or read). I think Gillian have a point here. they probably talked to a lot of fans, but the two who were negative was the one's they decided to put in the article.

But I think the 5th film was one of the weakest of the Harry Potter films. It was very rushed and they didn't get to develop the charachters and their relationships enough (my opinion). It was the shortest film, and based on the thickest book! I wouldn't have minded it they had made it 30 minutes longer... Lucius saved it in the end though :D

I was a bit sceptic when I heard the same director was going to make the last three, But I'll give him a second chance. (I'll even give him a third and fourth chance - as long as he doesn't cut Lucius out!)

Mistress
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 2:49 pm
Location: Not far away from Liverpool

Post by Mistress » Sun Mar 15, 2009 5:07 am

I think the thing with HP films is they are good films...unless you've read the books. It all went a bit wrong by Prisoner of Azkaban to be honest. But not that it was a really bad film. Just that if you've read them, I think you just sit there shouting how they've missed this, this, that person did that, what happened to this?
I do agree that Lucius saved the fifth film...or according to the person I went with 'Gary showing some of his chest!!!!' :roll: I'm sorry but it doesn't come close to. "Let's all just calm down shall we?" Or "I know."
MM

User avatar
thunder
With her wheelbarrow full of surprises!
Posts: 5361
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:08 pm
Location: Norway

Post by thunder » Sun Mar 15, 2009 2:27 pm

Well, with the 5th one, you have to read the book first to understand what's happening. I spoke to a someone who watched the film without reading the book first, and she was completely lost... Well, I thought it was OK when I saw it. But it's not a very good film... aaa.gif

Who notice Gary's chest when Lucius is there...? :roll:

Mistress
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 2:49 pm
Location: Not far away from Liverpool

Post by Mistress » Sun Mar 15, 2009 3:28 pm

...Only because my friend at the time was going hysterical and pointing and drooling all over the place. I made her suffer at the end....screamed naughty words when Gary punched Jason.
MM

User avatar
Helen8
Pillar of the Community
Posts: 9322
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 11:18 am
Location: SoCal

Post by Helen8 » Sun Mar 15, 2009 11:11 pm

Ya know. Chris Columbus (director) came under fire because Sorcerer's Stone and Chamber of Secrets were too close to the books. It's obvious that most of us feel that the movies should follow what J. K. Rowling imagined. Hard to believe that Half-Blood Prince doesn't have a lot of the Half-Blood Prince in it. :scratch

Mistress
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 2:49 pm
Location: Not far away from Liverpool

Post by Mistress » Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:15 am

That doesn't make sense. It's a children's film. It helps if when trying to discover who the HBP is, that there is lots and lots of continuous flicking to the HBP in question. Give the kids a chance! And give the rest of us chance to see and hear Alan Rickman!
MM

marilaine
Posts: 2839
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 1:54 pm
Location: Desperately searching for Michael

Post by marilaine » Mon Mar 16, 2009 10:31 am

Other than GOF, most of these films seemed to have been rated PG. They must have omitted major clues and points from the books mainly due to time, and continuity. Somebody once stated they try to keep it as close to the books as possible, but if they did every single detail, each film would run about 3 or 4 hours long. (Can you imagine a four hour movie on ABC Fam? That would be an all-day showing, what with all the commercial breaks they have, and the fact that they include deleted scenes)
I think the reason DH is going to be two parts is because they are going to do the whole book, so it would have to be either two parts, or one very long film. They almost did the same with GOF, if I'm not mistaken.
Some characters/facts are changed in the films: like the fact that the Durselys are blond-haired in the books was changed.
(And, is it just me, or is Uncle Vernon getting more and more obese?)

~ML :???:

Angel Tavington
Posts: 4968
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 9:01 pm
Location: Col. Tavington's tent
Contact:

Post by Angel Tavington » Mon Mar 16, 2009 10:56 am

Somebody once stated they try to keep it as close to the books as possible, but if they did every single detail, each film would run about 3 or 4 hours long.
You make a good point, Marilaine! Yet I wouldn't mind to watch a movie over three hours long that has Jason in it (as long as he is in most of the scenes...) ;-)



~me

marilaine
Posts: 2839
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 1:54 pm
Location: Desperately searching for Michael

Post by marilaine » Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:01 am

me, too.

~ML ;-)

Mistress
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 2:49 pm
Location: Not far away from Liverpool

Post by Mistress » Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:21 am

(Uncle Vernon is meant to be, he runs some kind of food shop in a detective programme...I think its pies)

3 hours or 4 hours....as long as it's accurate/more so than it has been so far.
MM

marilaine
Posts: 2839
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 1:54 pm
Location: Desperately searching for Michael

Post by marilaine » Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:31 am

Mistress wrote:
(Uncle Vernon is meant to be, he runs some kind of food shop in a detective programme...I think its pies)
3 hours or 4 hours....as long as it's accurate/more so than it has been so far.
MM
I thought UV worked in a sporting goods store, or a hardware.....
or did you poke a funny?
I can't imagine him in one of Mrs. Lovett's meat pies. He'd clog up the grinder for sure. LOL!

~ML :twisted:

Mistress
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 2:49 pm
Location: Not far away from Liverpool

Post by Mistress » Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:34 am

Is that little john in the oven
mercy no sir, not john...it's vernon!

Poor Mrs. Lovett...she'd never get any customers back if she served that!
MM

Post Reply