I don't really like HP. I've been reading the books when I was younger, but unlike other children's stories, it didn't maintain its charm. The thing is that some authors write "for children", but actually place deep philosophical ideas in their books (the Little Prince, Alice in Wonderland, Wizard of Oz, etc.). Rowling just doesn't do that. Her books seem to be designed only to be popular and interesting, but don't actually have any content for the mind in them. Not my kind of literature, therefore not my kind of movie.
I tried reading Harry Potter once and couldnt get myslef to do it... I dont know why because I wanted to see what all the talk was about, then I saw part of one movie it wasnt too bad. I wouldnt see the new one in the theatre but if it were on at my house I would sit and watch it. My boyfriend sorta looks like Harry Potter except he has red hair... yup thought you would all care so much.
to each his own, i liek HP books because i usually read the same type of books all the time. peter straub and stephen king are my favorite authors and so harry potter jsut seems so original to me.
I think the books are a thousand times better than the movies, but that's just me. The books are more detailed, but they still leave a lot of room for your imagination to arrange and imagine things the way you want to. The movies always feels sort of like "this is this, and that's they way it is" (not just HP, all book to movie deals that I've seen)
I read the first two books, because my brother had them to loan me (and he's older than I am!!). They didn't thrill me. I thought they were kind of trite, and for the love o' pete I can't stand how the higher-ups in the world of magic are so apparently damned CLUELESS about what goes on at their school... Like, how the FUCK do the teachers and administrators at the school not know that Malfoy and his cohorts and his family are evil scumbags?! Why don't they DO something about it?! The adults in that series are a bunch of incompetent stumblefucks, and it makes the story hard to read. Not to mention that the "magic" is few and far between, and that the "spells" are abysmally stupid and easy -- they just say like one word in some pseudo-latin and that's the spell?! Doesn't seem like anyone is born to magic they way they imply, either. What does it take, if all you're doing is saying spell words and using a wand that has its own magic built into it?! Why the hell couldn't a "muggle" do magic too?! I thought that the first movie (the only one I've seen) was horrible, particularly because the special effects looked pathetically blue-screened. VERY unconvincing. I'm talking "Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger" unconvincing... I heartily recommend to you a few alternative stories that are far better than the Harry Potter stuff, and predate it by decades: A Wizard of Earthsea by Ursula K. LeGuin (that one has the ultimate wizard school!), and The House with a Clock In Its Walls by John Bellairs. There is an anthology of John Bellairs' work available. I discovered it and re-read that book, which I had last read in 5th grade -- 1981!! Blue skies, -Jeffrey
I thought the Harry Potter thing was stupid at first but I read the books and got obsessed. The first two movies were cool, but left a lot out from the books. I saw the third movie at the theater. The movie is really good (better then the first two) but it still leaves a lot out from the books. There are a lot of details that need to tie in to the other books. They are making the 4th movie now and it's supposed to be released in November.
True.. but could you image how long the movies would be if they put everything in.. or even half of everything.. I personally would love it... but it would take 3 years atleast to make easch movie.
I'm sure. But everything counts in the story!! There's no way they'll be able to make all the movies. If they're making the 4th already, the 5th movie will be made next year. But the 6th book isn't even out yet and I think JK Rowling will wait a while before finishing the 7th book. By the time it comes out, the original actors will be too old to play the part I think. Plus, who makes that many movies anyway. The only other series I can think of is the Rocky movies. And those got old after the 3rd and 4th movie.
I like the books best but the movies are still fun to see. I don't like it when they change too many things from the books though... the Dementors in the books only float, they don't actually fly real high... and the werewolf was also described as a boar-like wolf and not such a thin, humanoid one... But some things are really cool from the movies too; the floating candles, Hogwarts itself, Hogsmeade looks like a lot of fun too... I think they over-do the special effects sometimes. The cold of the Dementors; if everything freezes instantly when one gets near, the prisoners in Azkaban would die from hypothermia in hours. The whomping willow; anyone getting caught & whirled around like that doesn't get up with just a tiny bruise & a bit of dirt on their clothes. I like fantasy & SF novels or movies to be as realistic as possible; even while I know magic isn't real, I still like it to make sense, be correct continuity-wise and all... Most of it was quite cool but well, as I said, just a bit overdone. It'd be 'magical' enough if the Dementors were just cold (btw, the *water* froze but you barely saw anyone shiver!) and if they 'only' got a few whallops from the branches...
I don't care, if they change some things as long as the original plot doesn't get destroyed. If you cut too many important scenes you change the story behind the movie and I do not like this. However it's some kind of fun for me to compare the movies with the books and see, what they actually cut, what they changed and how they revived the scenes explained in the book. First the books and then the movies left me speechless. So many scenes were actually plain beautiful, as the candle-filled Great Hall or Hogwarts covered in snow. Yeah, it would be wonderful if they produced all 7 movies...
I think one of the main reasons I didn't like those two changes is 'cause I liked the book version better, rather than that I never like any changes. 'My' werewolf is definitely the hairy, wolf-like kind rather than the bald, humanoid sort... But yes, the total visuals are just awesome. Have you seen the DVD of HP3 where you can go to Honeyduke's? I heard they put that on the DVD 'cause they made the entire thing and then ended up cutting all but a minute of it from the movie itself...
No way!!! Now I definitely have to buy the DVD. And they cut it ? What a shame ! Guess they couldn't make the movie too long... Yeah, you are right about the werewolf, I, too, imagine a hairy wolf-like creature . You have seen the ones in 'Underworld'? Sorry but that is definitely no werewolf...brrr...no.
i think the movies are ok.... but like most book/movies, the book is better. it is much more descriptive and it explaines what is going on alot more..
