Harry Potter - OK, Gonna say it....

[UberMouse]

There was enough stuff in the books left out of the Deathly Hallows Pt.1 and Pt.2 to have made a third movie. They whole history (back story) of Dumbledore and Gellert Grindelwald's friendship leading up to their becoming enemy's and the duel where Albus wins the Elder wand from him, just to name one of a few things. The battle could have really been extended by another 20 minutes.

Another thing that I found interesting was that in the book Mad-Eye Moody's eye is moving around on the door leading into Umbridge's office. The eye was stationary in the movie. In the book though it always left me wondering if he had somehow survived the attack because I would suspect that he would have had a magical connection to the eye. I guess we can assume he did die, however if there ever was another story I could see him being brought back.

 

[Captain Chaos]

I like the movies, LOVED the books... Out of the 8 movies, DH1 was the one I hated the most... Should have been called Harry Potter and the Way Too Long Camping Trip...

 

[DDuckFan130]

I like the movies, LOVED the books... Out of the 8 movies, DH1 was the one I hated the most... Should have been called Harry Potter and the Way Too Long Camping Trip...

:ROFLOL:

Yes, DH1 loses my attention after the wedding scene.

Well I will also say the Dobby scene is touching and Dobby is so adorable in this movie with his "trainers." I didn't care too much for him in Chamber of Secrets.

 

[flynnibus]

Watched the final one a couple nights ago. It was good. While overall, the films were OK, I really don't see the obsession people have with them.:shrug:

The final movies aren't really that good... they don't resonate much. Their purpose is really to close the story of Harry and LV. As you said, the first three-four movies are much better stand-alone films. By the time they get to the last three, they are really just slices that don't stand alone and is more about 'closure'.

The books do a far better job of keeping you engaged in this part of the story.. as they really do lead you 'battle to battle' as they research and seek the horocruxes. You also get elements that fill in gaps or untold portions and supporting elements of tales you already learned about in the earlier books. Really, the last two books are like 30% new stuff, and 70% tightening up and pulling everything together. In the movie it comes across as depressing and dark.. with little reward. In the books its a struggle, but the 'reward' comes across better in the books.

In short.. what you are saying is basically correct.. the later movies are actually less enjoyable to the casual viewer as they are too focused on the full saga... while the earlier movies can be enjoyed on their own.

Read the books.. you won't be disappointed.

 

[Prototype82]

Harry Potter is about magic, friendship, and love. It's about overcoming evil in the face of adversity. Yes, it's about a war, a war where loved ones are lost. I've choked up plenty of times over the latter films. But its a central theme in Prisoner of Azkaban and part 2 that the ones that love us never really leave us. Death will never really be the victor. That's what the seriousness of the films is teaching kids. Don't miss out on the final installment that really etches that theme in stone.(and now I'm reading that you watched it.)

 

[BigThunderMatt]

The films work as a good counterpart to the books IF you've read the books already.

Alone, they're a bit much to take in. Yes, the story gets progressively darker, but they're also meant to represent, taken in turn, Harry's transition from childhood to adulthood, which isn't always rainbows and sunshine.

The biggest issue that the films have is from 4-6 you're dealing with books that compared to the first 3 novels were about 5 or 6 times the length. The fifth book is actually the longest in the entire series. They had toyed with the idea of turning the longer books into 2 films as early as the fourth film.

The single film idea worked fairly well for films 4-6 but the problem that lies with the 7th book is that pretty much every detail from start to finish in that book is plot-critical, and it relies heavily on elements from previous books, that the books were able to fulfill based on great internal continuity, and there was simply no way it could have been done in one film.

The problem that this creates is while the 4th through 6th films rely on cutting corners to save time and tell the story in one film, suddenly the 2 films representing 7 are incredibly fleshed out and referencing things from the books that might have been overlooked in the previous films, or had references in the previous films that were so fleeting that only avid fans of the books would have caught them anyway.

READ THE BOOKS. You will have a much better appreciation of the films after that. You'll also see how Alfonso Cuaron should never be allowed near the Harry Potter IP again in his life and that Prisoner of Azkaban is the weakest film in the series by far in both terms of visual continuity and in cinematic style.

 

[DDuckFan130]

The films work as a good counterpart to the books IF you've read the books already.

Alone, they're a bit much to take in. Yes, the story gets progressively darker, but they're also meant to represent, taken in turn, Harry's transition from childhood to adulthood, which isn't always rainbows and sunshine.

The biggest issue that the films have is from 4-6 you're dealing with books that compared to the first 3 novels were about 5 or 6 times the length. The fifth book is actually the longest in the entire series. They had toyed with the idea of turning the longer books into 2 films as early as the fourth film.

The single film idea worked fairly well for films 4-6 but the problem that lies with the 7th book is that pretty much every detail from start to finish in that book is plot-critical, and it relies heavily on elements from previous books, that the books were able to fulfill based on great internal continuity, and there was simply no way it could have been done in one film.

The problem that this creates is while the 4th through 6th films rely on cutting corners to save time and tell the story in one film, suddenly the 2 films representing 7 are incredibly fleshed out and referencing things from the books that might have been overlooked in the previous films, or had references in the previous films that were so fleeting that only avid fans of the books would have caught them anyway.

READ THE BOOKS. You will have a much better appreciation of the films after that. You'll also see how Alfonso Cuaron should never be allowed near the Harry Potter IP again in his life and that Prisoner of Azkaban is the weakest film in the series by far in both terms of visual continuity and in cinematic style.

It's sad because I love the character of Lupin and Sirius and I didn't get enough of them when certain things could have been left in (i.e. the history of the Marauder's Map: without the book you wouldn't know much besides what Fred and George tell Harry in the movie :lol: )

 

[Zummi Gummi]

I enjoy all of the films a great deal. However, they don't begin to touch the level of brilliance of the 7 novels. The series is the best I've ever read, and Rowling a genius for what she crafted. I could write an essay on all of the themes she brilliantly weaves into the stories, but the main thing is Harry's growing up and coming of age. The stories do get progressively darker, but so does the world Harry is living in. The books (and ultimately the franchise) will endure because its themes- friendship, perseverance, loyalty, believing in yourself never get old.

You'll also see how Alfonso Cuaron should never be allowed near the Harry Potter IP again in his life and that Prisoner of Azkaban is the weakest film in the series by far in both terms of visual continuity and in cinematic style.

Rowling has actually stated that the changes Cuaron made in the third film caused them all kinds of problems in later films. And apparently, he wanted to make a number of changes to the storyline, but Rowling herself put her foot down and told him no, as it would have destroyed the central plot that carries through from novel to novel (and film to film).

 

[Saoirse1916]

i cannot stand to watch the first film... the acting from the kids is just painful.

Agreed. I got the first 7 movies (eighth wasn't out yet) because I figured I was missing out on some important part of the human experience but they sat in our library, unwatched for months. Eventually, people whom I trust about movies said they're worth a look despite my protests of "but I'm not a twelve year old girl..." One night my wife and I decided to check out the first one and almost gave up on the lot at that point because it seemed so cheesy. But we powered through and by the third one we were pretty hooked. I've since read the books three times and, of course, agree with everyone else that doing so adds a tremendous amount of important depth to the story.

 

[G00fyDad]

Agreed. I got the first 7 movies (eighth wasn't out yet) because I figured I was missing out on some important part of the human experience but they sat in our library, unwatched for months. Eventually, people whom I trust about movies said they're worth a look despite my protests of "but I'm not a twelve year old girl..." One night my wife and I decided to check out the first one and almost gave up on the lot at that point because it seemed so cheesy. But we powered through and by the third one we were pretty hooked. I've since read the books three times and, of course, agree with everyone else that doing so adds a tremendous amount of important depth to the story.

There are only 7 books and 7 movies. Not 8.

 

[Captain Chaos]

There are only 7 books and 7 movies. Not 8.

8 movies... Deathly Hallows was made in two parts, thus 8 movies...

 

[Captain Chaos]

Agreed. I got the first 7 movies (eighth wasn't out yet) because I figured I was missing out on some important part of the human experience but they sat in our library, unwatched for months. Eventually, people whom I trust about movies said they're worth a look despite my protests of "but I'm not a twelve year old girl..." One night my wife and I decided to check out the first one and almost gave up on the lot at that point because it seemed so cheesy. But we powered through and by the third one we were pretty hooked. I've since read the books three times and, of course, agree with everyone else that doing so adds a tremendous amount of important depth to the story.

Funny you mention about being a twelve year old girl.. That is what you have to be in order to enjoy Twilight... LOL...

 

[G00fyDad]

8 movies... Deathly Hallows was made in two parts, thus 8 movies...

7 books. 7 movies. They filmed 7 all at once but instead of forcing you to sit through 5 hours of a film they split it. It is still considered all the same movie.

 

[Saoirse1916]

7 books. 7 movies. They filmed 7 all at once but instead of forcing you to sit through 5 hours of a film they split it. It is still considered all the same movie.

Good recovery...but still: two movie tickets, two DVDs, two premiers, two rounds of Letterman interviews, two IMDB entries....two movies. And due to our current lack of time travelling abilities, when I got all seven movies, the eighth wasn't out yet for me to also pick up and watch as one long 5 hour movie. So I'm treating it as two movies like 99% of the rest of the movie-going public.

 

[G00fyDad]

Good recovery...but still: two movie tickets, two DVDs, two premiers, two rounds of Letterman interviews, two IMDB entries....two movies. And due to our current lack of time travelling abilities, when I got all seven movies, the eighth wasn't out yet for me to also pick up and watch as one long 5 hour movie. So I'm treating it as two movies like 99% of the rest of the movie-going public.

What recovery? I restated my original assertation. And no, 99% of the people do not consider it two different movies. Nice try. Even the producers and director stated that it was the same movie, just split into two for the sake of time in the theater. And I am officially done with this. I just realized that I am arguing about a movie being split in two parts.

 

[captainkidd]

Funny you mention about being a twelve year old girl.. That is what you have to be in order to enjoy Twilight... LOL...

I'm a 35 year old male and I enjoyed the Twilight movies.

As for Deathly Hallows being 2 movies, there really isn't any argument here - They ARE 2 movies. Doesn't matter if they filmed them at the same time. You had to buy 2 separate tickets, 2 separate DVD's. They came out at different times. They filmed all 3 Lord of the Rings movies at the same time and they pick up where the previous one left off. Would you consider that one long 10 hour movie?

 

[Thrill Seeker]

The books are far superior to the movies. My personal ranking of the movies are as follows:

1. Deathly Hallows Part II: Amazing film. True to the books with outstanding action sequences.
2. Half Blood Prince: It left out some important bits, but it's still a solid and outstanding film.
3. Deathly Hallows Part I: Dragged at moments, but was probably the best adaptation of the book in the series.
4. Goblet of Fire: Fantastic film that pretty much left in all of the important aspects of the book.
5. Chamber of Secrets: I actually liked the movie better than the book. Chamber was my least favorite book, yet one of the better movies.
6. Sorcerer's Stone: It's a solid retelling of the first story.
7. Order of the Phoenix: Cut out way too much. Should have been longer and included more details.
8. Prisoner of Azkaban: One of the better books was ruined as a film. I know those who haven't read the book love this one, but honestly it totally ruined several aspects of the book and it's timeline. Getting the Firebolt at the end was the kicker that ruined this one for me.

As for Wizarding World, I really like the area, but as a pretty consistent repeat visitor who is at the moment unable to ride Forbidden Journey, there isn't much to do besides ride Hippogriff and get a Butterbeer or two. I really hope the rumors about Diagon Alley are true at USF and that Gringotts Bank Coaster, which sounds almost too good to be true!

Oh, in case you couldn't tell, I'm a fairly hardcore Potter fan...

 

[Thrill Seeker]

Oh and Twilight is the worst thing to happen to pop culture. I was subjected to the first film and it was total and utter garbage. From a cinematic perspective, it was awful. From an adaptation perspective, I was told by my friend who read the books that it was an awful adaptation.

If I could thrust a wooden stake into the heart of Twilight, I would in a heartbeat.

 

[Captain Chaos]

What recovery? I restated my original assertation. And no, 99% of the people do not consider it two different movies. Nice try. Even the producers and director stated that it was the same movie, just split into two for the sake of time in the theater. And I am officially done with this. I just realized that I am arguing about a movie being split in two parts.

Nope, you are wrong... 99% of the people DO consider it two movies...

 

[Captain Chaos]

I'm a 35 year old male and I enjoyed the Twilight movies.

As for Deathly Hallows being 2 movies, there really isn't any argument here - They ARE 2 movies. Doesn't matter if they filmed them at the same time. You had to buy 2 separate tickets, 2 separate DVD's. They came out at different times. They filmed all 3 Lord of the Rings movies at the same time and they pick up where the previous one left off. Would you consider that one long 10 hour movie?

You enjoyed Twilight but found something not enjoyable about Potter.. Surely your taste in entertainment isn't that bad... LOL...

Let us not forget Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest and At World's End were filmed at the same time, and AWE picks up where DMC leaves off, bit we consider that two different movies, not one long 5 hour movie...