Dumbledore's hiring decisions...impact on the Huskers?

I wish I could watch GoT with my mom but I don't think she can handle the boobs and the violence. So that only leaves the... ok I don't know why I want to watch it with her.

 
macroboy said:
Does anybody remember when threads used to get Pony Gif bombed?
Click to expand...
giphy.gif


 
Landlord said:
Too bad the Trivial Pursuit is based on the movies. I'm a massive Potter meganerd, but the movies are only okay. Other than Azkaban and specific moments of the last four, the movie franchise is wildly disappointing. But I've read each of the books at least 8 times.

Your live tweeting of your first run through GOT is one of my favorite things ever.
Click to expand...


As a person that has only seen the movies I enjoyed the movies a lot.  I thought they were very well done.  Books are always better than the movies.  Azkaban is my least favorites of the movies.  To me it doesn't make sense all the time.  My son who is a total HP nerd says it would make more sense if you read the book.  I do like how it is quite a bit darker than the first 2.  I would expect nothing else when Alfonso Cuaron is directing.  My favorite of the movies is the Goblet of Fire.  

I really should read the books, I have just never got around to it.  

 
NUinID said:
As a person that has only seen the movies I enjoyed the movies a lot.  I thought they were very well done.  Books are always better than the movies.  Azkaban is my least favorites of the movies.  To me it doesn't make sense all the time.  My son who is a total HP nerd says it would make more sense if you read the book.  I do like how it is quite a bit darker than the first 2.  I would expect nothing else when Alfonso Cuaron is directing.  My favorite of the movies is the Goblet of Fire.  

I really should read the books, I have just never got around to it.  
Click to expand...




Let me just tell you you're missing out on a lot. Not in a pretentious way, I'm just trying to let you know as a friend that there is a neverending treasure chest of wonder in the books that the movies didn't/couldn't replicate. It's partly that movies can't do what books do, but it's also partly that the HP book series is one of the all time most imaginative pieces of fiction ever made, and the HP movie franchise is mostly pretty standard fare stuff. 

Also, this:



 
NUinID said:
As a person that has only seen the movies I enjoyed the movies a lot.  I thought they were very well done.  Books are always better than the movies.  Azkaban is my least favorites of the movies. To me it doesn't make sense all the time.  My son who is a total HP nerd says it would make more sense if you read the book.  I do like how it is quite a bit darker than the first 2.  I would expect nothing else when Alfonso Cuaron is directing.  My favorite of the movies is the Goblet of Fire.  

I really should read the books, I have just never got around to it.  
Click to expand...






What Cuaron did for the series is much more than just direct that movie. Just the tone change alone really helped. I do like the first 2 movies and they are good for the material, but the music was very cheesy/corny/Disney-esque and that really improved with the 3rd movie. There was way too much twinkly/sappy music every time something magic happened. The colors were also very Disney-esque in the first 2 movies. Cuaron helped set the tone for what followed. He also did a good job at making it seem like all the kids were used to the magic (taking it for granted almost) and stopped having them dressed and groomed perfectly all the time.

I remember the next director saying that a lot of stuff he wanted to change about the series in Goblet of Fire, Cuaron had already started in Azkaban.

Anyhow, my favorites in order are probably 8, 7, 4, 6, 3. I love Snape and he finally got a little more time in the last 2. I read an article about some of Alan Rickman’s letters that were sold at auction and he was a bit unhappy about how little time Snape was getting. I was happy he at least tried to fight for more Snape time. I know, of course an actor wants his part to be bigger, but there were a couple movies I was pissed off at because it was like the directors didn’t understand his importance. Snape was way more Harry’s nemesis than Draco was, imo. There are at least 2 or 3 Harry-Snape scenes that should have been in the 3rd and 4th movies instead of more stuff with the kids.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
For those who have read the book and the movie, what is your biggest pet peeve of something they left out or changed from the book to the movie?

Mine is in the 6th movie when they come back from the cave and **SPOILER** Dumbledore is killed. In the book Dumbledore puts a binding curse on Harry which is all he has time for and harry is hidden. ZERO CHANCE that Harry would have just stood there and watched malfoy put a wand in Dumbledores face like they have in the movie. It completely changes who Harry is as a character. Harry is punch first, ask questions later and Dumbledore knows this and also knows what is about to happen to himself.  When Dumbledore dies the binding curse is broken and that is how harry knows dumbledore is for sure dead. I get you cant put everything in the movie but this scene itself changes who Harry is at his core.

Along that note. What characters do you think most match what you sort of thought when reading the book? Obviously it was hard for them in casting 11-12 year olds and hoping they grew up a certain way.

McGongall is one of the better ones. Not a fan of Ginny. Harry, Ron and Hermione all turned out great, only issue is in the Books Harry is tall and obviously that isnt the case in the movies. 

 
1 hour ago, Landlord said:





Let me just tell you you're missing out on a lot. Not in a pretentious way, I'm just trying to let you know as a friend that there is a neverending treasure chest of wonder in the books that the movies didn't/couldn't replicate. It's partly that movies can't do what books do, but it's also partly that the HP book series is one of the all time most imaginative pieces of fiction ever made, and the HP movie franchise is mostly pretty standard fare stuff. 

Also, this:

Click to expand...


I believe my third sentence states that the book is always better than the movie. 

 
Goblet of Fire is absolutely trash as a movie as far as I'm concerned. I can't bring myself to watch it. Michael Gambon's Dumbledore, especially in his first appearance, is incredibly offensive to the character and to me personally :lol:  Dumbledore is a gregarious, charming, polite and gracious character. Gambon's Dumbledore is just a f#&%ing grumpy geezer to start out. Certain 'spectacle' elements of the challenges seemed long and unnecessary especially at the cost of losing screen time to missing character development/interactions. Not only that, but the transliterated elements seemed pretty boring while we somehow missed the most entertaining elements of the challenges, ESPECIALLY in the maze. All we got were killer vines, when the book was full of blast-ended skrewts, a riddling sphinx, the giant spider, the upside down mist, etc. Complex character motivations like Barty Crouch casting the Dark Mark to *scare* the Death Eaters because he views them as not loyal enough get simplified into "he's an evil guy doing an evil thing". On top of all that, the whole thing had a jilted, awkward almost wannabe Tim Burton vibe to it that I just didn't care for at all.

 
Agree on GoF Dumbledore. Not sure how everyone involved in the movie thought that take was okay.

As far as scenes left out/changed... I was pretty underwhelmed with the Harry chasing Snape scene at the end of 6. I didn’t care about them leaving the battle out but Snape was way too stoic. But around the 4th movie I kinda started to view book Snape and movie Snape as different characters. I love them both but book Snape was way more emotional and hateful (and uglier) than Rickman portrayed. Book Snapes scenes were always intense and great because of the mutual hatred. It was sometimes even scary when Harry was confronted by him. You don’t get that feeling from the movies. 

One scene that drives me crazy, not because it’s a huge deal but because it’s such a glaringly obvious, easy to fix mistake... The child Lily’s eyes were black/dark brown. Like 2 mins in film time after Snape tells Harry he has his mother’s eyes. The girl had like 2 lines, how hard is it to find a cute redhead girl with blue eyes to say 2 lines in a movie?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The use of Snape's character in the 6th movie was kind of odd, in that they didn't play up the mystery of who the Half Blood Prince, leading to the final scene where he just kinda says "Yes, I'm the Half Blood Prince" and walks away. Snape should have been featured more as a character in that movie, especially given his role in the climax and his importance in the last movie when it all comes together. The movies dropped the ball on building up Snape's character throughout the series. 

One other thing that bothers me about the movies is that they didn't really have a role in the script for Flitwick as a teacher, so they stuck him in as a choir director for no reason. That and he was a furry little troll in the first movie but a well groomed guy in the later movies. That was just weird.

 
And does anyone else think that Voldemort is kind of a weak villain? The idea of his character is more menacing than the execution of it. He kills a lot of people, but basically gets foiled by a teenager in every book (except #6, where he isn't featured much at all, and the bad guys actually come out ahead). Voldemort reminds me of the villains in my childhood cartoon shows, like Mumm-Ra or Shredder, where they get their asses kicked at the end of every episode but still laugh it up ("I'll be back, bwa-ha-ha!") only to get their asses kicked again. 

And the idiot could have hired a muggle private detective to find Harry Potter at any time, he was hiding in plain sight in a quiet neighborhood. His location was protected from magic but perfectly accessible to normal people.

 
Ulty said:
And the idiot could have hired a muggle private detective to find Harry Potter at any time, he was hiding in plain sight in a quiet neighborhood. His location was protected from magic but perfectly accessible to normal people.
Click to expand...




This is a fair reality-based criticism of Voldemort but rationale like this can be applied equally to anybody in the wizarding universe. There are tons and tons and tons of muggle technology/social inventions that would make life way easier for wizards, but some kind of sociological elixir of pride/separatism/obsession with wonder/social conditioning/etc. keeps their world from caring  or utilizing such things. Like, Arthur Weasley is shunned and thought of as 'less than' because of his fascination and enjoyment of muggle culture. Social pressure is am immensely powerful force and would have been even moreso on a kid/adult like Tom Riddle who grew to despise all things muggle.

 
Back
Top