[Demko]

I won't spoil anything here. Hell, I'm not even sure if there are any other Harry Potter geeks on the board here, but if you have any intention to go see HP, I'm sure this review won't dissuade you... but don't expect anything glorious. Expect a trainwreck.

Now, don't get me wrong... I'm not one of these purists who has to have every little fucking detail from a 1000+ page book in a movie. But when every scene in the movie completely reinterprets the premise of the book, it really tends to annoy me. And even moreso, it really upsets me that this movie completely sets up the final sequel to be a complete failure as well, because of its total disregard of the facts of the story.

I'm so pissed for having wasted $20 and 3+ hours of my life.

[Road Warrior Shark]

Jul 15, 2009 7:01:48 GMT -5 Demko said:

I won't spoil anything here. Hell, I'm not even sure if there are any other Harry Potter geeks on the board here, but if you have any intention to go see HP, I'm sure this review won't dissuade you... but don't expect anything glorious. Expect a trainwreck.

Now, don't get me wrong... I'm not one of these purists who has to have every little fucking detail from a 1000+ page book in a movie. But when every scene in the movie completely reinterprets the premise of the book, it really tends to annoy me. And even moreso, it really upsets me that this movie completely sets up the final sequel to be a complete failure as well, because of its total disregard of the facts of the story.

I'm so pissed for having wasted $20 and 3+ hours of my life.

Seeing it today. Thought the last 2 movies felt overly rushed. Not a purist. Didn't even read a book until I saw POA.

[Road Warrior Shark]

Disagree Demko. It was a good film. Not "The Greatest Film Ever!!!1!" but not a disaster.

It Did vary from the book more than the other movies. And there are omissions that must be dealt with in the 7th movie. 3.5 out of 5 stars from me.

The only 2 things that bothered me were the way

SPOILER: Click to show

Dumbledore was portrayed as less clued in about young Riddle, and the Death Eater attack on
The Burrow

[The Jewish Cunthead]

This is all I know about the movie: some guy at work said "That chick has tits now!"

I still won't see it.

[Lucky]

I saw the first few movies (is this really the 6th? Maybe I missed one) and I thought they were ok. Nothing special but a good little kids film that an adult can enjoy. It seems to tell a solid enough story through the series so I check out the new ones when they hit cable just to follow along.

I read the first couple of books just to see what all the fuss was about and I really don't get it. Don't get me wrong, they seem like fine enough books for kids that can engage them and open the door into something better. And Christ are they better than giving your kid one of those horrible written and morally depraved Twilight books. But I really don't get the appeal for adults. They're really not very well written at all and they're clearly kid's fare. I mean, if an adult wants super light reading I guess I can't call them any worse than a Stephen King book but I really don't get the adult appeal.

So I really don't care in the slightest if they stick to script. The books that I read were no works of art and they didn't really seem terribly transferable to film. The movie series was good enough for what it is so I can't see really getting hot and bothered about it changing.

[Stu]

Only going off the films, there's a few interesting things about the series, but I find too many plotholes/questions in it to really enjoy it
-They revealed the existence of time machines in the Harry Potter universe, but people only use them for...attending extra college classes, and not anything more usefull like saving dead parents or killing arch-villains
-what exactly is the purpose of wizards in the Potter universe? Other than to train other wizards? Yeah, they fight dark wizards, but they only exist because wizarding does.
-Do the Hogwarts kids get classes on mundane subjects? In the real (I refuse to use the M word) world, they wouldn't have a lot of transferrable skills
-why do Harry's friends care so little about him that they haven't gotten social services to get him a new family?
-Quidditch's rules are retarded
-You don't need a permission slip to play quidditch, even though you can die from it, but you need one to go on a supervised trip to the local town
-We have three badass characters in a mentally troubled, wrongly accused Gary Oldman, a one eyed Brendan Gleeson and a werewolf. Not to mention Snape could have been a cool dark horse addition at odds with them. So why are we following a bunch of kids as our main characters??
-the shittiest headmaster ever
-the tri-wizard tournament forces students to be part of a series of events that are potentially lethal. Not just for them, but their friends and family who are in on instance kidnapped and stuck at the bottom of a lake, in severe danger of drowning. Oh, and nobody needs a permission slip for that EITHER.
-If all that was needed to bring Voldemort back in Goblet of Fire was Harry's blood, why the fuck did Barty Crouch spend all that time helping him advance in the tournament?
-Stupid fucking character names

If anyone could address any of those issues for me, that'd be nice.

[Lucky]

Jul 15, 2009 19:04:37 GMT -5 Stu said:

-Do the Hogwarts kids get classes on mundane subjects? In the real (I refuse to use the M word) world, they wouldn't have a lot of transferrable skills
-why do Harry's friends care so little about him that they haven't gotten social services to get him a new family?

The first one I've just sort of assumed happens off camera but I admit I've been curious if these guys are all total idiots who couldn't do math or tell you basic things about history because their normal education stopped around 7th grade. The second one, though, has bugged me with each film. He has evil step parents who hate him. How in the fuck have the powerful wizards who love him and have all types of connections not yet pulled some strings to get his ass emancipated or adopted by one of the dozens who pop up to tell him how close they were to his parents and how they'll do anything to protect Harry. How about getting him out of a horrible home life! The step parents couldn't want to fight to hard to retain custody. Nothing in these movies/books seems as transparent a plot hole just for some cheap gags as this. Sure, it would make sense for the redheaded family or the big giant dude to adopt Harry but then we wouldn't open each film with a silly scene of him being depressed before magic liberates him from the mundane world.

But yes, overall I think I agree with all you questions and its a big reason why I can totally understand why these books/movies are good for kids and a perfectly fine distraction for adults... but not how adults can take them seriously and not just give up with all the poor writing.

And I'll second the "why are we following the students?" thing. I mean, I know why we are. Because these are children's books/movies. But that's another one of those adult/kid gaps I see. I'm actually kind of interested in all the war shit that's happening but we only get to see it from the perspective of the kids. Perfectly reasonable for a children's tale as you tell the story from a perspective your audience can relate to. But seems like one of those things that should make adults lost interest.

[Ryan]

Jul 15, 2009 19:04:37 GMT -5 Stu said:

-the shittiest headmaster ever

This one comment on there is amazing:

So much to say about this crapfest of an article and yet so little space. First off, I won't even touch upon the blaming Dumby for the troll. He's not omnipresent you nitwit, he can't be everywhere at once solving all the world's problems when assclowns like quirrell decide to become hosts for Voldypoo. The dementors, not his idea to begin with. Blame that little fart on the MoM like every other danger inflicted on hogwarts. No one believed that the Chamber of Secrets existed because no one could ever find it, Harry found it because he's just that nosy and a parseltongue. If they had taken the time to ask Moaning Myrtle how she died like Harry did, they would've found the entrance ages ago. Get over it. Drinking with an underage boy? W in the F are you talking about?? And they Triwizard Tournament was a time-honored tradition. The students knew that they were getting into some serious shit upon entering the contest. And it was regulated by the MoM hence the age restriction (17 is of age in the wizarding world). And hello, how even remotely relateable or even likable would Dumby be if he were PERFECT. everybody has flaws and at least Dumby acknowledged them and grew from them. jeez i really hate ppl like whoever crapped out this article. you have no real ideas of your own so you take someone else's creations and bash them for what? because they don't meet your ridiculously high standards. well-rounded characters have flaws, that's a DERF for any author.
also, dragon's aren't endangered, they're illegal. as for the elder wand. WHY IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT IS EVIL would dumby give that away to harry or anyone else when voldemort wanted it so badly?? that's really just an incredibly stupid remark on your part. harry wouldn't have been able to use it on voldy ANYway because he wasn't the true owner of the wand, that would be draco malfoy until later in DH. you really topped yourself with that one genius. and the invisibility cloak was a hallow. here's my take on how thoroughly you read the books...SparkNotes. i really really love cracked.com, its one of my favorite sites but goddamn this article is like taco diarrhea to read. whoever wrote it should be stripped naked, covered in honey, fed to a bear, and then promptly and very publicly fired for this turd of an article.

Also Lucky, I laughed at that Twilight joke.

[Lucky]

What Twilight joke?

[creepy]

So is mundane the M word?

[Byrntrigan]

nah, it's muggle.

I like calling people Valdemort better.

[ALL CAPS]

Movie was pretty good. Wasn't my favorite, but I do think it was probably the most well constructed film out of the bunch. I didn't mind the additions or subtractions but was a little upset that a few things I was looking forward to seeing from the book were left out. Happens all the time, so no biggie. But having read the book over a year ago, I have absolutely no idea what Demko is getting on about. I'm no "purist" either, but that mini-rant about "ruining" and "failure" sure sounds like it was coming from someone who had their favorite book in the series altered in ways that they didn't like and therefore couldn't relate to the film version.

As far as I could tell, they hit all the notes they had to to set up the finale just fine. What "facts of the story" that were SO vitally important were disregarded? Honestly, having read the book, I have no idea what you're talking about that could elicit such a reaction from a "non-purist".

[Stu]

Sure, it would make sense for the redheaded family or the big giant dude to adopt Harry but then we wouldn't open each film with a silly scene of him being depressed before magic liberates him from the mundane world.

Also, if they adopted him, that would make his ultimate love interest his sister.

Jul 16, 2009 0:00:39 GMT -5 Byrntrigan said:

nah, it's muggle.

I like calling people Valdemort better.

About that. At the end of Chamber of Secrets, Harry makes a point of saying that calling Voldemort "He who shall not be named" is just giving into fear of him, so maybe they should all knock it off. Then at the beginning of Prisoner of Azkebahn, he says "Voldemort" in front of Ron's dad, then apologises for it when he's lightly scolded for it. Way to stick to your convictions, Harry.

[Demko]

Jul 16, 2009 9:04:31 GMT -5 ALL CAPS said:

Movie was pretty good. Wasn't my favorite, but I do think it was probably the most well constructed film out of the bunch. I didn't mind the additions or subtractions but was a little upset that a few things I was looking forward to seeing from the book were left out. Happens all the time, so no biggie. But having read the book over a year ago, I have absolutely no idea what Demko is getting on about. I'm no "purist" either, but that mini-rant about "ruining" and "failure" sure sounds like it was coming from someone who had their favorite book in the series altered in ways that they didn't like and therefore couldn't relate to the film version.

As far as I could tell, they hit all the notes they had to to set up the finale just fine. What "facts of the story" that were SO vitally important were disregarded? Honestly, having read the book, I have no idea what you're talking about that could elicit such a reaction from a "non-purist".

Specifically, I'm referencing two very important facts that differ from the book:

SPOILER: Click to show

1) In the book, Dumbledore paralyzes Harry, so that he's forced to watch his death without the free will to be able to defend him. In the movie, Harry was completely free-willed. He could have done anything to try and save Dumbledore at any time.

To me, this represents a serious departure from the general mental attitude of Harry in Book 7. In Book 7, Harry is upset about Dumbledore's death, but he's more angry at Snape for doing it. In my opinion, if Harry did have compete free will, he would more likely blame HIMSELF for the headmaster's death, because he just failed to act at all.

In the book, he couldn't rush to Dumbledore's defense. In the movie, he DIDN'T rush to his defense.

2) The attack on the Burrow: it never happened in Book 6, and in fact, one VERY important thing happens at the Burrow in Book 7, Bill's wedding to Fleur, where Harry meets Xenophilius Lovegood, which influences a lot of what happens in Book 7.

Now, my guess is that they'll contrive some way for the Weasleys home to be re-built or something in the next movie, but then really... what the hell was the point of staging a pointless attack that did nothing except cause a few explosions on the screen. The attack didn't even really seem in line with anything else that was going on in the movie. It just really annoyed me.

[Lucky]

I've seen that 2nd complaint on multiple boards and my reaction keeps being the same... does it matter? Its just a location, right? The event can still happen, everything can still happen the same. I suppose there's probably some emotional significance to the location but is there really any practical problem that exists if they go somewhere else? I haven't seen the movie or read the book so I really have no idea but I haven't seen anyone actually give a reason why that's a problem. It sounds like a more or less insignificant detail that was changed but doesn't really change anything... even though people keep saying it creates a problem for Chapter 7. Maybe it does in a real way but I haven't seen anyone explain why.

[ALL CAPS]

Demko:

SPOILER: Click to show

1) Perhaps there will be further explanation in the next two films, but I think the short answer was that he trusted Dumbledore when he told him over and over again that "you're far more valuable than me" and Dumbledore trusted Harry to do what he was told. It establishes a maturity to the character to make his eventual journey outside Hogwarts (in a time-compressed format like film) more believable. I think Harry will still blame Snape. It won't be as "meaningful" as it was in the book, but there's no reason for Harry not to blame Snape based on the MOVIE VERSION of Harry. This kind of thing happens CONSTANTLY in book-to-film translations because there isn't enough time/resources to flesh things out like a book can. For example, Harry didn't have his invisibility cloak with him, and in the film version, he had no reason to have it with him so it was necessary to change things. That's unsatisfying, but it's a reality of the medium. I saw nothing inconsistent going on as it related to the other films in the series and THAT'S what's important... making sure the films are internally consistent, not making sure the book is as well represented as possible.

2) What Lucky said. The attack at the Burrow was added, I'm sure, to liven up what was an EXTREMELY slow portion of the movie. The movie isn't the book. It may seem like a shitty excuse, but the mediums are different. Because of that fact, I can almost guarantee that the wedding won't be in the next movie. It's extraneous in the scheme of things. They'll figure out a way around it and people will freak out. But as a narrative within the context of the FILM universe, it'll all make perfect sense.

[Ryan]

Jul 15, 2009 22:12:42 GMT -5 Lucky said:

What Twilight joke?

You calling Twilight "morally depraved" wasn't a joke?

[Angle]

Jul 16, 2009 16:19:26 GMT -5 Ryan said:

Jul 15, 2009 22:12:42 GMT -5 Lucky said:

What Twilight joke?

You calling Twilight "morally depraved" wasn't a joke?

From what I can tell, Lucky is a regular guy, so I'm pretty sure he wasn't joking when he said that.

[Ryan]

I've never read it, but I got the impression that it was a book which, due to a lack of explicitness appealed to mothers and conservatives and all of that. What about it was morally depraved? I'm genuinely curious.

[Stu]

www.cracked.com/funny-36-twilight/
There's various things in that that sound wrong, but most prominently:

Then Jacob falls madly in love with the newborn baby girl.

No, we don't mean in the sense of 'Oh, I fell in love with that kitten the moment I saw it'. We mean in love love. Really, what we're trying to say--and let us know if you don't understand--is that Jacob the borderline rapist and the tiny baby vampire chest-burster are going to get married and have babies.

What Jacob did, Meyer explains, was "imprint" on the baby. Imprinting, in the Twilight universe, is what happens when a werewolf finds his soulmate. It means that the two of them are now destined to be together, no matter what. What if the girl is unwilling at first? Too bad, because she isn't any more! It's the psychic equivalent of GHB.

We must have misunderstood, though, because we found this quote from the author:

"They ended up being vampires in the way they are because I have strong opinions on free will. No matter what position you're in, you always have a choice. So I had these characters who were in a position where traditionally they would have been the bad guys, but, instead, they chose to be something different-a theme that has always been important to me."

Apparently Jacob is choosing to be a pedophile.

[Ryan]

Whoa.

[Lucky]

Yeah, I can't go into much detail since I've never read more than a chapter or two of that drivel and most of my info comes 2nd or 3rd hand. But there's all manner of fucked up messages in those books from the basic creepiness of a teenage girl devoting her life to a man 300 or so years older than her, to an obsessive "love" based largely on phyiscal attraction, to a host of decisions the female makes that come off sexist and damaging to her all for the service of her man, to the creepy end result of a full grown male falling in love and being promised to a baby.

[Mikey]

But pro wrestling is silly and stupid.

[Habs]

The reason the let Harry at his step parents is that a spell was cast over the place and as long as he is there, nothing can happen to him. This lasts until he his 18 or something.

[Lucky]

I don't know. All those wizards I'd have to think there's a better way to protect him for 3 months out of the year than to send him to a vacation house where he'd be physically, emotionally, and mentally abused while risking to expose the world of magic. I mean, he spends 9 months out of the year away anyway.

EDIT: That read like it was written by a retard.