Leave a comment

penguinsuzie August 5 2015, 19:36:02 UTC
Happy Birthday!

I hadn't de-lurked yet since I was never quite sure what to say, might as well start though. Hope that isn't creepy.

This point in the book was about where Part 1 of the movie ended. It was really annoying because it finally seemed like something interesting was going to happen then 'boof'.

I wonder if Rowling noticed that Dumbledore having the Elder Wand all this time implies he might not be as mega powerful as everyone thinks he is. It's probably just meant to imply that Dumbledore is so awesome because he can command the wand.
EDIT: Also Harry's wand acted of it's own accord in this book and it wasn't even against his 'brother wand' which opens up the idea that that's something that can happen. Unless it was suppose to be the Horcrux protecting itself.

Reply

jana_ch August 6 2015, 05:00:44 UTC
It would have greatly improved Deathly Hallows to have been condensed into one film. Endless camping and endless battle are not so fascinating as to require two films to explore their nuances. The second film was especially tiresome. Battles that go on and on and on do not, to my mind, constitute good theatre. Battle scenes need to be short and exciting, not long and tedious.

Reply

penguinsuzie August 6 2015, 14:21:20 UTC
It often feels like a wasted opportunity when filmmakers split films into 2 or 3 because they don't take advantage of the extra space. There's always so much they could expand on and add to the characters/world/stories but instead everything's stretched out. Like how they split The Hobbit into 3 films but most of the main dwarves were still basically extras by the end.

I must admit I had a lot less patience for the things they left out of the last 2 HP films than the rest. I can't believe they cut that Dudley scene.

Reply

vermouth1991 August 7 2015, 06:09:39 UTC
For me the HP movies were basically dead to me (script-&-adaptation-wise) since PoA, and I only stayed on because of the actors' performance. I seem to be in the minority here (mostly everybody else I've encountered - apart from a girl I met in a Beijing Foreign Bookstore - seem to think that PoA is the best of the eight), but if noticing that the PoA story was horrendously butchered in the script (especially the Snape/Black/Lupin confrontation and their childhood backstory) and impacting all later films makes me a freak, then lock me away for all I care. You think Chris Columbus is bad? Well he reined in Steve Kloves' scripts, didn't he? And he had to tangle with the child cast when they were the least experienced ( ... )

Reply

penguinsuzie August 8 2015, 11:02:26 UTC
I think the first two are the only ones that feel like they're set in the Harry Potter world. POA is one of the most enjoyable but it's bad as an adaptation because it's so incoherent. I really enjoyed the fourth one as that was always the book I reread (Though WTH Dumbledore?!). I haven't re-watched them in a while though so certain things might be worse than I remember. Despite the flaws I didn't start getting truly annoyed at the films until the sixth one. You really couldn't hide from the way it seemed to celebrate the character's flaws (just like the book did).

Reply

vermouth1991 August 12 2015, 13:00:40 UTC
Ugh yes, VALIDATION. *Confetti ( ... )

Reply

wolf_willow31 August 7 2015, 03:22:16 UTC
Battle scenes need to be short and exciting, not long and tedious.

I seem to recall scene after scene with extras dressed as Hogwarts students pointlessly running up and down stairs in the background while major characters talked in the foreground. I started snickering after a while.

(P.S. Happy Birthday and thanks for all your efforts, sweettalkeress!)

Reply


Leave a comment

Up