Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

[Chris_Sanders]

Nasser you need to realize that books are different than movies. There has never....ever....been a direct book to movie interpretation. Movies are never done that way.

A book lets you imagine things the way you wish. A movie has to go through not only a director's vision but a screenwriters vision, a corporate guy's vision, a producer's vision, ect...

I personally feel complaining about a book to movie adaptation is the height of fanboy nerdiness. The complaining is always the worst in the Potter movies and I am not sure why. I grew up reading comic books and I can tell you that they have gotten nothing right on Spiderman, Fantastic Four, X-Men, ect... yet all are decent movies if you understand that you are getting a retelling of the original tale.

Big pictures are ultimately money making vehicles. This is why time has to be sliced. Number of showings per theater screen is where the money is to be made. I was honestly amazed that Pirates of the Carribean III was kept at it's length and look at the general populace comments: Too long, overwrought plot, ect...

If any of the Potter movies went to 3 hours and included all the house elf stuff and the like you would get the same comments. The average moviegoer isn't that interested in subplots that can be richly explored in a book. Thus they end up on the cutting room floor.

 

[Chaplin]

Nasser you need to realize that books are different than movies. There has never....ever....been a direct book to movie interpretation. Movies are never done that way.

A book lets you imagine things the way you wish. A movie has to go through not only a director's vision but a screenwriters vision, a corporate guy's vision, a producer's vision, ect...

I personally feel complaining about a book to movie adaptation is the height of fanboy nerdiness. The complaining is always the worst in the Potter movies and I am not sure why. I grew up reading comic books and I can tell you that they have gotten nothing right on Spiderman, Fantastic Four, X-Men, ect... yet all are decent movies if you understand that you are getting a retelling of the original tale.

Big pictures are ultimately money making vehicles. This is why time has to be sliced. Number of showings per theater screen is where the money is to be made. I was honestly amazed that Pirates of the Carribean III was kept at it's length and look at the general populace comments: Too long, overwrought plot, ect...

If any of the Potter movies went to 3 hours and included all the house elf stuff and the like you would get the same comments. The average moviegoer isn't that interested in subplots that can be richly explored in a book. Thus they end up on the cutting room floor.

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!

 

[D-Dogg]

Everything that Chris said....

Exactly!!!

The most true book to film adaptation I can think of was A Time To Kill.


In these Potter movies, you simply CAN NOT bring it all in and still have a great running time. Things need to be cut.



To me, I view the movies and the books in separate spheres...sure, the books are the source for the movies, but in the end they are separate things.

In fact, it was the first movie that got my wife and I interested in the books...and when we read the first book we were blown away at how great the series was. Yes, the books are amazing and the movies are like Harry Potter lite...but that is how it always is.

I just look at it as twice the harry potter goodness...we are very lucky to have these movies being made for every book in the series...most stories never get that and if they do, it doesn't happen within two years of release of each book. That's just amazing and I love being spoiled like that.

 

[Nasser22]

I just don't like the things they left out. They can make it a little longer and they'd still have some interesting things to fill in unlike some other movies that get boring like Pursuit of Happyness, that Robin Williams president movie, etc...It's not just that they cut stuff out, but it's important stuff they leave out. It just doesn't seem like that book at all. I'll still watch it because I like having HP on the big screen. Not having high hopes for it will keep me from getting pissed off like I was after the 3rd movie. I thought the 1st two were the best. The filmmakers put in the important things and Dumbledore was perfect(RIP Harris). Those movies were pretty average but still my favorites because it was actually like the book. I don't like 2:18 for this movie at all. I agree with what Chap said earlier about the movies not being over 3 hours, but this one should be longer so they could put more into the big scenes. Reading the spoilers from Donald made me unhappy, but the good news is, it can't every get worse than movie 3.

I guess it does help me understand how comic book readers feel when they hate on these superhero movies that I like.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Ironically the 3rd movie is easily one of my favorites. The directing in that movie is outstanding. I feel like I am watching an art film about wizards when I watch that one.

 

[Stout]

Ironically the 3rd movie is easily one of my favorites. The directing in that movie is outstanding. I feel like I am watching an art film about wizards when I watch that one.

Yeah, but I look at it like this. The books faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar surpass anything the movies ever have been or every will be. Therefore, if it's a decent movie but screws up the book, then it's just blech. That's why the first is still my favorite.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Ironically the 3rd movie is easily one of my favorites. The directing in that movie is outstanding. I feel like I am watching an art film about wizards when I watch that one.

that's because Alfonso Cuaron towers over every other director in the series. Love that he did a Potter movie, loved even more that it was as good as it was.

 

[Stout]

that's because Alfonso Cuaron towers over every other director in the series. Love that he did a Potter movie, loved even more that it was as good as it was.

Cuaron may be the second coming of Christ, but he made a lousy Potter film.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Blech. The first is my least favorite. The acting from the kids is terrible.

 

[Nasser22]

Yeah, but I look at it like this. The books faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar surpass anything the movies ever have been or every will be. Therefore, if it's a decent movie but screws up the book, then it's just blech. That's why the first is still my favorite.

I agree. It was the worst movie compared to the book. At the time the 3rd was my favorite but they really screwed it up. My favorite is the 2nd. It was just a little more exciting than the first, both the movie and the book.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Blech. The first is my least favorite. The acting from the kids is terrible.

the first one was a steaming pile of crap. I fell asleep three times and never made it to the ending. Then again, I thought the book was kind of tiresome as well and after reading the second one and thinking the same thing, I just decided I'd let the movies tell the story for me. Cuaron's work was masterful next to Columbus' trainwreck snoozers.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

the first one was a steaming pile of crap. I fell asleep three times and never made it to the ending. Then again, I thought the book was kind of tiresome as well and after reading the second one and thinking the same thing, I just decided I'd let the movies tell the story for me. Cuaron's work was masterful next to Columbus' trainwreck snoozers.

LOL we are the difference between people who enjoy film as an art and people who enjoy film as a visual medium.

 

[Stout]

the first one was a steaming pile of crap. I fell asleep three times and never made it to the ending. Then again, I thought the book was kind of tiresome as well and after reading the second one and thinking the same thing, I just decided I'd let the movies tell the story for me. Cuaron's work was masterful next to Columbus' trainwreck snoozers.

Well, there you have it. Explains the difference entirely. If you didn't like the books, you'd definitely like the 3rd better, and if you did like the books, you wouldn't like the 3rd one as much. Makes sense to me!

To me, thus far the best book is probably book 3. She was clearly getting her feet under her as far as writing in book 1. As far as the first movie, a lot of people can complain about snoozers, or bad child acting, but you know? The kids acted like kids, the movie told the story of the book, and I found it highly entertaining.

 

[Mulli]

Well, there you have it. Explains the difference entirely. If you didn't like the books, you'd definitely like the 3rd better, and if you did like the books, you wouldn't like the 3rd one as much. Makes sense to me!

To me, thus far the best book is probably book 3. She was clearly getting her feet under her as far as writing in book 1. As far as the first movie, a lot of people can complain about snoozers, or bad child acting, but you know? The kids acted like kids, the movie told the story of the book, and I found it highly entertaining.

Agree.

 

[Chaplin]

Well, there you have it. Explains the difference entirely. If you didn't like the books, you'd definitely like the 3rd better, and if you did like the books, you wouldn't like the 3rd one as much. Makes sense to me!

To me, thus far the best book is probably book 3. She was clearly getting her feet under her as far as writing in book 1. As far as the first movie, a lot of people can complain about snoozers, or bad child acting, but you know? The kids acted like kids, the movie told the story of the book, and I found it highly entertaining.

I liked the books and the movies, and I still think 3 is the best film.

 

[Nasser22]

So I saw this movie. It was good, better than the last two. It may have been because I didn't have the high hopes for it as I had the others, but it was more true to the book. With that said, there were some things that bugged me. The whole movie was just a compilation of rushed scenes. I think an extra 30 minutes would've helped to put more in the different scenes...the whole book just flew by. I didn't like Cho taking Marietta's place, and I miss Dobby, but I can deal with that. I also don't like how they did the decrees or w/e they are called I forgot...but it was good for some laughs. The last scene was the main one I wish was not rushed.

If I were to give it a grade it would be a C-, tied with the 1st movie as the second best in the series.

I went to the 11:30 showing here in LA. Cali has some big movie theaters.:-o So after three days of not sleeping at home because of no AC I also only got 3-4 hours tonight because I got back at 2:30-3. Ugh...well it was worth it.

Oh and I was wrong about Cho and Ginny's looks. The poster was misleading for me. She may work out for the next movie after all, haha...

 

[D-Dogg]

So I saw this movie. It was good, better than the last two. It may have been because I didn't have the high hopes for it as I had the others, but it was more true to the book. With that said, there were some things that bugged me. The whole movie was just a compilation of rushed scenes. I think an extra 30 minutes would've helped to put more in the different scenes...the whole book just flew by. I didn't like Cho taking Marietta's place, and I miss Dobby, but I can deal with that. I also don't like how they did the decrees or w/e they are called I forgot...but it was good for some laughs. The last scene was the main one I wish was not rushed.

If I were to give it a grade it would be a C-, tied with the 1st movie as the second best in the series.

I went to the 11:30 showing here in LA. Cali has some big movie theaters.:-o So after three days of not sleeping at home because of no AC I also only got 3-4 hours tonight because I got back at 2:30-3. Ugh...well it was worth it.

Oh and I was wrong about Cho and Ginny's looks. The poster was misleading for me. She may work out for the next movie after all, haha...

See, I told you.

I really liked this one. It's probably my favorite movie of the series thus far. I really liked many of the direct from the book lines (emotional range of a teaspoon) but the previous writer is coming back for the next movie. Personally, I like this writer better...he did a fantastic job adapting the incredibly long book while maintaining it's feel and flavor.

 

[D-Dogg]

I liked the books and the movies, and I still think 3 is the best film.

I like both the books and the movies and 3 *was* my favorite book (until 6 came out). The movie gets hated on quite a bit, but I liked it a great deal.

Book 3 had so much new stuff in it, just a ton. You couldn't stuff it all in a movie but they did a great job with what they could and it was very beautifully done.

I'm not looking for a direct from book translation...I'm looking for an entertaining film based closely on the book.

 

[Nasser22]

What bugged me in the 3rd movie was they spent more time on hippogriffs than talking about the 4 old friends and the whole, moony, padfoot, wormtail and prongs thing. And after going from the 1st two which were really close to the book, that one really ticked me off. It also was my favorite book before 6, partly because someone gave away the ending to 5 before I finished it. My favorite part of the book was when Harry realized who Sirius really was and that was just way too short of a scene for how important that was.

The thing that it's missing is quidditch. I have missed that the last three movies. Cho vs. Harry, Wood's last year, dementor attack and the stuff that happened in this book. I thought the quidditch scenes were pretty good from the first movies.

 

[Stout]

I like both the books and the movies and 3 *was* my favorite book (until 6 came out). The movie gets hated on quite a bit, but I liked it a great deal.

Book 3 had so much new stuff in it, just a ton. You couldn't stuff it all in a movie but they did a great job with what they could and it was very beautifully done.

I'm not looking for a direct from book translation...I'm looking for an entertaining film based closely on the book.

I could easily have done without the 5 minute-long Knight Bus ride with the stupid talking head that Cuaron just put in there because it's a heritage thing he wanted to stuff in there, and oh, I dunno...had the stuff about his father and his friends? You know, the really important stuff instead of forcibly created fluff? And the big giveaways of the bad guys were really, really annoying, and really, really unnecessary.

 

[Chaplin]

I could easily have done without the 5 minute-long Knight Bus ride with the stupid talking head that Cuaron just put in there because it's a heritage thing he wanted to stuff in there, and oh, I dunno...had the stuff about his father and his friends? You know, the really important stuff instead of forcibly created fluff? And the big giveaways of the bad guys were really, really annoying, and really, really unnecessary.

Personally, I don't see the issue here. The dynamic of Harry's father and his friends was pretty much represented in the final climactic scene in the shack where Wormtail, Lupin, Sirius and Snape are going at it. As for the Proudfoot, et al, I could care less--it wasn't really substantial to the plot. The movie wasn't incomplete because of that omission. You can't just keep adding and adding stuff because then you'll have to take stuff out.

But it doesn't matter. On one hand you'll have people complaining they took too much out, but if they added that in, you'd have people still complaining they took OTHER stuff out. When adapting, it's really, really hard to get a situation where everyone is satisfied. That's why there are so few universally accepted adaptations.

 

[Nasser22]

That was one of the most important parts of the book and it only got 2-3 minutes. I don't think anyone would complain about a couple minutes off the pointless hippogriff scene, some of the Kight Bus being cut out or having to sit in the theater 5-10 more minutes so they could actually explain the story. If I hadn't read the book it would've been hard for me to follow.

 

[Chaplin]

That was one of the most important parts of the book and it only got 2-3 minutes. I don't think anyone would complain about a couple minutes off the pointless hippogriff scene, some of the Kight Bus being cut out or having to sit in the theater 5-10 more minutes so they could actually explain the story. If I hadn't read the book it would've been hard for me to follow.

You were probably 12 at the time, though, right? I can see having issues trying to follow the story if you're that young. I hadn't read the book at all and saw a sneak of the movie and loved it.

 

[Mulli]

You were probably 12 at the time, though, right? I can see having issues trying to follow the story if you're that young. I hadn't read the book at all and saw a sneak of the movie and loved it.

I was at least 30 at the time, had read the book, and thought the same as Nasser.

 

[Chaplin]

I was at least 30 at the time, had read the book, and thought the same as Nasser.

Congratulations.

Seriously, though, everyone is going to have nitpicks about all the movies, especially movies that are as popular as Harry Potter. It hasn't stopped any of you guys from handing over 10 bucks to see the movies, so I guess it's the filmmakers that are laughing all the way to the bank.