Harry Potter Film

[Ono]

Does anyone else not really give a sh1t about this Big film release??



:rolleyes:

[Xenole]

Never read a Harry Potter book, have no intention of seeing the film, although I may get it on DVD next year just out of curiosity.
Until the latest book, I'd never heard of Harry Potter to be honest.......

[urruri]

Couldn't give a damn about it either

[mjb1975]

nope - couldn't give a toss.

I don't see the big fuss tbh.....

[sariel2002]

Harry To**er more like!:mad:

[Brunnen-G]

I've read the book's (quite enjoyed them to be honest :o ) and am interested in seeing how it translates to the "Silver Screen". There seems to be some real acting talent involved and the special effects look pretty good. I probably won't shell out to see it at the pictures, but will almost definately buy the DVD (and then trade it quickly ;) ).

[Bolch]

I've never read a HP book and I don't intend to.

But to be honest from the trailers I think this looks a better film than Lord of the Rings

[neverland]

Originally posted by Brunnen-G
I've read the book's

Conclusive proof that by encouraging a generation to read again, J K Rowling is doing her bit to improve young people's literacy. ;)

[mjb1975]

I just don't see the big deal - I know I can't really comment as I've not read the books, although I've got lots of friends going on and on about them! I took a look at a couple of pages and I wasn't really impressed.

Mind you, although it looks 'ok', why is there this HUGE hype over Lord of the Rings? Yes, it's by Peter Jackson, but I don't get that either.....

maybe I'm just not into all this 'wizardry' thing!

[Bleeders]

It isn't just me then? Phew! I couldn't give a monkey's-uncle about Lord of the Rings nor Harry Potter. Neither interest me in the slightest to be honest.

[Zander]

I am currently on the 4th HP book and I must say they are absolutely superb (and no I'm not 12, married with 3 kids of my own!!). They are pure escapism and have a joy and innocence in them that is really quite refreshing.

It strikes me that some people will discount books/films just because they are popular and hyped. This does not mean that they are not good and by doing this you are missing out on something quite special. Read them then make a comment!!

I totally agree with neverland's comment, spot on m8.

So I am looking forward to seeing the film to see how it translated onto screen and I am also looking forward to the Lord of the Rings for the same reason.

[Floop]

Frankly, I loved all of the books, having covertly stolen them from my nephew, and am very eager to see the new movie.

I expect the movie will be quite good, but inevitably a disappointment when compared with the greatness of the book itself, the more so because of the 2 years of hype surrounding the movie.

What I find a little funny is people moaning about Harry Potter, because it seems to be 'everywhere' at the moment, when their actions only contribute to this!!!

If you don't like Harry Potter, then fine, and you can even slag it off (if you have read the books, and have all the facts). Some, however, find a pure enjoyment in it - it makes me smile, okay!

I am willing to stick my neck out, open myself up to flame war central, and state for the record that I think Harry Potter is great. :D

cheerio



Floop

P.S. Bring on the multi-disc, feature packed, limited edition, director's cut, funkily packaged, extremely expensive Harry Potter DVD. I'll be first in line... at least I'm not one of the lemmings that capitulate to Rupert Murdoch by continuing to pay for Sky Sports subscriptions, just to watch things that used to be free!!!

[EdgeOfVictory]

I've decided to de-lurk :)

I read the books for the first time just over a year ago and I really liked them - someone who actually comes close to Dahl in the kids' writing stakes. I have my movie tickets booked for one of the preview showings on the 10th and I can't wait

One thing I'm worried about though... it's a Warners release so that means it'll come in one of those snapper cases that Warner's seems to adore :(

[DVDWotcha]

I find books rarely translate well onto the screen. I guess mostly because they have to compromise the story to fit it into such a small ammount of time.
It has been mentioned that the HP film was cut down from 4 hours running time to 2.5 so if we assume 4 hours was the full story, we'll be getting quite a lot less (even taking into account some tight editing). I'm not sure how that will affect the story telling, as when I read the book I thought that there was not a single part of the book which did not progress the plot.

The Lord of the Rings film we already know is not true to the book, but then the book is so damn huge to follow it accurately would result in many hours of material. The film will be a "re-interpretation". Whether this turns out to be good or bad remains to be seen. You could take the view that a reinterpretation of a story has got to be better than a half assed attempt at sticking to the original story.

[Floop]

Books rarely translate well from print to screen due to the simple fact that an average book may take you 5-20 hours to read, whereas most films are only about 2 hours long, give or take.

Either way, the amount of time spent reading the book allows your imagination to create a vast world which inevitably makes the world shown in any movie version seem shallow, in comparison.

Having said that, you do have to distinguish between books which put the emphasis on plot, or on detail.

The Harry Potter books I believe are the former, and there is so much 'plot' in there that it seems unlikely that they will be able to show it all on the screen. This is what worries me about the movie, although the fact that they have made it longer than the average 80 minutes which seems to be allowed for most movies that could appeal to a younger age group, like Toy Story, gives me hope.

A film like 'Snow Falling On Cedars', on the other hand, spends many pages going into depth about the colours in the trees, the expressions on people's faces, and so forth. These are much quicker to show on screen, compared to the reading time. I personally enjoyed the book but felt I got more 'value-for-time' enjoyment out of the movie, the cinematography was stunning.

Either way, the first reports of Harry Potter being 4 hours long were inaccurate. This '4 hour long cut' had not been edited properly, and apparently included multiple takes of the same scene for the director to compare, as well as dead time at the beginning and end of takes.

Due to the expense of filming, I highly doubt they filmed the entire book, and then cut the scenes out that they didn't need. While this does happen with an occasional scene here and there in movies, the huge expense of filming means that by the time filming starts, the director has a pretty good idea of exactly he does want to film.

Anyway, roll on the film... I hope it's good.


Floop

[Creamstick]

Rowling is a reknowned plagiarist, and Time/Warner are backing her up. There was a woman who published books in the early 80s about a character named LARRY Potter, who had a sister named Lilly, with characters called Muggles, and castles on mirrored lakes.

The books were even looked into be Time/Warner as a possibility.

[Ono]

I don't read.








/except newspapers and magazines:D

[Alanok]

Originally posted by mjb1975
I took a look at a couple of pages and I wasn't really impressed.

Maybe if you read the pages and not 'looked' at them then you might find out why they have so many fans;) Seriously though read a couple of chapters before you make your mind up.

Originally posted by mjb1975
Mind you, although it looks 'ok', why is there this HUGE hype over Lord of the Rings? Yes, it's by Peter Jackson, but I don't get that either.....

Maybe because it has been voted the most important book of the last century (I think:D) and has a HUGE following. And it looks more than 'ok'.

Originally posted by mjb1975
maybe I'm just not into all this 'wizardry' thing! [/B]

You might change your mind if you gave the books a chance. Go on, pick up The Hobbit or Fellowship of the Ring and you might be pleasantly surprised.

[Floop]

I know Creamstick is probably only trolling, but if he had even bothered to look at the facts of the J.K. Rowling / Nancy Stouffer so called 'plagiarism' case, he would have discovered that Stouffer's case seems to have very little merit at all.

Yes, the character's Harry Potter and Larry Potter share the same last name, and a similar sounding first name. They are however completely different characters (and species).

Yes, Harry Potter's mother's name is 'Lily', and in Stouffer's book Larry Potter's sister is called 'Lilly'. They are however completely different characters - Lily Potter never actually appears in any of the Harry Potter books (she is dead, and is only referred to), whereas Lilly Potter is one of the two main character's in Stouffer's books.

And Yes, Hogwarts Castle is by a lake, as the castle in Stouffer's book is by a lake. Gosh!

The point is, none of these coincidental, circumstantial, so-called similarities have anything to do with the success of the books. The success comes from the writing style and the plot, which are very different from Stouffer's work, and not from the fact that there are some verbal similarities.

Also, how many castles in fantasty books are NOT by a mirrored lake?! Does Stouffer have a claim against anyone who has written a book which has a castle on a hill by a lake? In fact, I'm fairly certain she wasn't the first person to create such a mind-bendingly different location for a fantasy story.

For Creamstick to claim that Rowling is a renowned plagiarist is about as logical as me accusing him of plagiarising me; he used the same words 'the', 'to' and 'books' in his post, just like me, and he also formatted his post using words, commas, sentences, and paragraphs, JUST LIKE ME!

I feel that I need to protect the intellectual investment I've put into writing my posts. Maybe I should sue that renowned plagiarist Creamstick!

I'll see you in court!


Floop

[Arch Stanton]

Just looking at the website for my local multimegahugeplex cinema and there taking advanced orders for Harry Potter. Screening start at 9.30. am and then there every 20 mins till midnight!

Blimey, what if no one turns up?

[Tyler]

Oh please just read the books and then you'll know what all the hype is about.

Its been a while since I've looked forward to a film release as much as this. The books are really fresh and entertaining with good characters that keeps the story moving at a fine pace.

Hopefully the film will be at least half as good as the books.

Go and have a look at this film. I doubt if you'll be disappointed

Tyler

[GregB]

Originally posted by Arch Stanton


Blimey, what if no one turns up?

That would be very funny but not very likely

[Bob B]

Originally posted by Ono
I don't read.








/except newspapers and magazines:D

And the DVD Forum!!!:)

I've read the books and am looking forward to the movie. The trailer looks good and the cast sounds good - fingers crossed it lives up to at least some of the hype!

[Davester]

Is this a thread for all the nati LOTR and HP (I am l;ooking forward to both btw)? If so, could I add JarJar Binks - just watched TPM dvd and have decided to sell it as he ruined the film :(

[Preacher]

I read half of the first HP book and didn't finish as I found it to be totally average and very very derivative. I'll probably watch the film when it's on BBC1 on Christmas day in about three years time but for the moment I couldn't give a toss. Don't believe the hype.

[gram99]

I have read the first two books and enjoyed them . Didn't think much of the last book though. I am looking forward to seeing the movie but I have a feeling I will be dissapointed by it. Though I do like Robbie Coltrane, Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman so they may just pull it off.