Fun Stuff > ENJOY
HP: Order of the Pheonix (movie)
0bsessions:
Oh, completely understandable. You should see me at a comic book movie. I teared the ever living piss out of Spider-Man 3.
I've only read the books once and just did so last summer (I plowed through them all over a brief period when I had time), so some things are fresh while others slipped through. So, for my part, I get kind of the best of both worlds in terms of how I viewed the movie (As both an insider and outsider).
While there are scenes I would have loved to witness, I was very much satisfied with what ended up on the screen in the end. I've seen outright fanboyish bitching of a calibur that cannot be described. I've seen people bitching about missing plot elements that were so irrelevant I don't even fucking remember them. I've actually heard people complain about the fact that they never delved into Filch's magic for beginners stuff in previous installments. Really, how relevant to the overall story is that? Filch is a tertiery character at best.
I basically go it the way I went about the Lord of the Rings movies. It's kind of an abridged version, but ever so delightful. Plus, from there, as someone who's read the book you become the authority to friends who haven't. It gives a little bit of a sense of ego when people are asking you for little details, especially when it drives them to go read the book. I don't treat the movie as an incomplete scenario, I treat the books as an extra treat that makes the overall experience of the two combined a great time.
I'm just a disgusting, glaring optimist. But hey, I'm happier for it, myself.
And to Anyways: Was that really new? I'm pretty sure that was just a slight alteration to get Flitwick a bit more screen time. I seem to recall the book mentioning a delighted smirk on either Flitwick or McGonagall's face.
I too liked some of the little additions. Adding the adava kadavra to the Siruis situation which should, hopefully, take a bit of the annoying ambiguity out of his death (That addition is one I've heard MANY complaints about, but in the time alloted, it was the only way to kill him without going to the trouble of explaining the gateway).
Lines:
Not much to do with anything, but I don't get why they changed Flitwick's appearance since the first few movies. I don't know if it got changed in the 3rd or 4th, but he used to have flyaway white hair and wore robes. Now he's got short brown hair and wears black. I don't really get why or how that happened, because at first he looked like the character and now he doesn't really.
0bsessions:
I believe the change happened in the fourth. As I recall, Flitwick didn't really appear in the third movie and was barely in the fourth (Really, I can't remember him outside of the Yule Ball).
I couldn't come up with a real reason why, but I also can't really come up with a reason to care. Even in the course of the books, Flitwick's always been mostly just an incidental character expressly for the purpose of filling out the teaching staff. He's never really done much of anything important and I figure the only reason he got much of any screen time in the first movie was to establish levitation for the troll fight. Since then, he's pretty much been background comic relief, so I can't bring myself much to care what he looks like anymore.
TrekkieTechie:
See, I don't like Michael Gambon at all for Dumbledore. Richard Harris's portrayal was perfect -- calm and collected, a little mysterious, he even looked the part. Gambon's Dumbledore is drugged out of his mind. He was okay in PoA, terrible in GoF (manhandling Harry, shouting at him? WTF) and just... austere in OotP. Which I suppose at the beginning he should have been a bit, as he was trying to cut himself off from Harry, but especially during/after the final battle -- I felt no more emotion from him when discussing the prophecy and its ramifications with Harry that if they'd been discussing the outcome of the last Quidditch match. And I agree with Faker, he seemed like he was losing it a bit against Umbridge in the Trelawney scene.
StaedlerMars:
--- Quote ---StaedlerMars, you really think that someone with no prior LOTR knowledge could sit down, watch Return of the King, and come away understanding what happened and why?
--- End quote ---
My point was enjoying, not understanding. Although it's probably equally important. I admit that LoTR was probably a bad example, but it was the only really comparable one I could think of. I think I could enjoy Return of the King if I hadn't seen the other movies. I mean, each movie gives a short summary of what happened prior, so you don't really need to. But I guess that's cheating.
--- Quote from: Faker on 13 Jul 2007, 00:46 ---Got to agree with what other people have been saying and say this one just felt a bit too rushed, I know there was a lot of material that had to be cut out, but I feel that , even without adding any extra subplots from the book, this film could have / should have been about 20 minutes longer, just to give the film more room to breath.
Also, and I think this has been true of all the films, I found myself filling in gaps with my knowledge of the books. I really can't imagine watching any of these films without any prior knowledge of the source material.
But despite my gripes I think this was one of the better movies, second only to PoA even.
--- End quote ---
Those 20 minutes is why I would watch a director's cut. I felt like this movie jumped from action to action, and there was a lot of details that I needed to fill in myself.
Also what happened to Hermoine's obsession with saving house elves?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version