The Chu Forums

joyce heard from a classmate that it's the best one so far. i found all of them to be around the same quality, so i find it a bit hard to believe that suddenly this one could be that much better using the same cast, etc...

but i trust the consensus on these forums, so what do you guys think or what have you heard so far?

Really? I thought that Prisoner of Askaban sp? and Deathly Hollows part 1 were CLEARLY head and shoulders above the others. Like it wasn't even close.

Here's a quote from my cousin, "Went to see harry potter, my only advice for those who have yet to see it, bring tissues". She's in middle school and is a Twihard Pothead though, so YMMV.

whois this harry potter fellow?

i thought the first one (the only one i've watched) sucked too. never had any interest in watching others nor reading the books nor reading threads on the topic. oh wait.

This movie was alright... it had a lot of boring parts, but the good parts were good.
Just like in the very first HP movie though, I think they could have cut out a lot of parts.

Snape: Do you know, Mr. Potter?
Harry: I don't know.
Snape: You don't know?
Harry: I don't know.
Snape: You don't know?
Harry: I don't know.

lol that joke will never get old.

watched this over the weekend. wasn't impressed and found it all to be a little anti-climactic...

Was talking to Corris this past weekend (she's read all the books like 6 times over) and apparently the movies showed a ton of things that were confusing because it left out a lot of details that were explained in the book.

From a person that did NOT read the books, the movie was not confusing at all.

I thought the movie was enjoyable enough and tied things up neatly for the rest of the movie.

What I did NOT enjoy, was the annoying woman beside me that let out a MASSIVE overdramatic sigh every time the movie must have deviated from or eliminated something from the book. This happened a LOT during the course of the movie. (No, Corris did not sit beside me)

People need to understand that condensing a 1000 page novel into 4 hours of screen time will necessitate cutting and or changing the order of stuff to accomodate proper pacing. If you understand this, then you might actually have a chance at enjoying the movie, if not, why bother going as you know that you are only going to be dissappointed. It's not rocket science. I challenge anyone to demonstrate an example where a 2 hour movie adaptation is better than the book.... it just doesn't happen. LOTR was close... but still fell short.

This is why I am much more a fan of what HBO is doing with really popular novels. Make a Kick ASS series out of them.
R. R. Martin's A Game of Thrones is 800+ pages long and the HBO series took up 10 hours of screen time. There were still a few things that were left out and or glossed over but all in all, a VERY accurate recreation of the novel. Probably close to 90%. This is how you do an adaptation properly.

I agree with what you're saying about movie adaptations of novels... it's impossible for the movie to be an exact re-telling of the books.
... but still, you really didn't find Harry Potter confusing?? I didn't read the books, and I found some parts so confusing.

For examples:
***********spoiler alert *****************

Why the resurrection stone was called a "resurrection" stone if it didn't actually resurrect people and why did Harry Potter just drop the stone on the ground?

Why did Harry Potter not recognize that the invisibility cloak that he had since the first movie was actually a Deathly Hallow when he finally heard the story of the Deathly Hallows?

He destroyed the Elder Wand and dropped the resurrection stone, but the whereabouts of the invisibility cloak is still unknown... or if Harry Potter still has it, why didn't he destroy it?

Is Snape actually Harry's father?

lol oh yeah the star wars and harry potter parallels are pretty uncanny too...
harry = luke
ron = han
hermoine = leia
snape = vader
voldamort = emperor
dumbledor = obiwan