Go See Harry Potter!

Post Reply New Topic

Don't ask questions, don't bother with the reviews, just get your asses in the seats and go see it! I just got back from the midnight showing, it's hands down the best adaptation of any of the books, and should be a case study in how to compress a long novel into a feature length film without ruining it, yes, it IS that good.

I think that it was my favorite out of the books anyway. When S k's D (trying to avoid spoilers for the 3 people that haven't read the book but will see the movie), is it every bit as good as it was in your head?

I saw it, there were some diferences from the book and a few things left out, but I think it was realy well done. I especialy liked how Draco Malfoy was done it realy looked like how it was meant to be done, where he was actualy more scared then anything, and though from a comercial to the game didn't feel like the Slughorn I thought of, in the movie it was also well done. Another scene that was interesting was how Harry was whent with Dumbledore to the cave, I was worried how they would handle the Infury, but I think it was good, it was funny in the cinema as someone let out a classic movie scream which added in lots of people jumping and laughing. I say it was good only bad points is that there was not enough room for some of the finer points, or a proper explanation of where the werewolf Greyback fit in, including the wound he was suposed to inflict a slight infection to Bill Weasly. Also sadly no Weasly is our King.

I'm a huge HP fan, pretty obsessive about the books, I guess. I hope to see it tomorrow with my kids and several times in the next 2-3 weeks. Just curious--did the movie include any of the stuff about the Gaunt memory--Tom Riddle's ancestors (Morfin, Merope, Marvolo)? I think its pretty important stuff, but heard on a HP fan site that lots of the memories are not in the movie. ("Hissy, hissy little snakie, slither on the floor, you be good to Morfin or he'll nail you to the door.")

I saw it too! loved it!

I just got back from seeing it. I have never read the books. But I like the movies. That being said. I feel there was some major logic issues with this movie:

1. Dumbledores cabinet of memories. Where did he get all these memories from other people? Also, should'nt it be illegal to take someones memories without premission? Movie never really got into that.

2. Ron getting posioned. The professor says "I have a bottle I was saving, now is a good a time as any. So they open it. Then later on the professor says he was going to deliver the bottle as a gift to Dumbledore. So he opens a bottle he was planning to give as a gift? Does not make sense.

3. When Harry and Dumbledore go to find the holicrux. They teleport onto a big rock with the ocean around them. There is a cliff with a big cave opening in the distance. Next thing we see is Harry and Dumbledore inside the cave. There clothes are not wet or anything like that. How did they get inside the cave and stay dry? Don't tell me they telported because then they could have just teleported into the cave in the first place without landing on the big rock outside the cave.

Just saw it today. Pretty much there are only three memory scenes, the one at the orphanage and the two different versions of the Slughorn memory. The memory scenes are REALLY well done though. Tom Riddle was scary as hell, he looked like he belonged in an exorcist movie. The one thing that kind of threw me off (and this is just me being picky) when Harry drinks the Felix Felicis to go get Slughorn's memory, he chugged the whole frikkin bottle. In the book, he only drinks it 1/3 of the way, then later when he's about to leave with Dumbledore he gives it to Ron, Hermione, and Ginny to help them defend the castle while he and Dumbledore are away.

One major thing they changed was (spoiler) < the Death Eaters attacking the Burrow on Christmas and burning it down. > That defintiely did not happen in the book. Also, the movie didn't show Fudge and Scrimgeours meeting with the Muggle Prime Minister. I thought it would be a cool way to show how the events in the wizarding world were affecting the non-magic world, but I guess it was to extraneous to keep.

1. The first memory they show is his own, and the other one was given to him by Slughorn. As far as I remember, a person has to willingly give you their memory and that's why he asked Harry to convince Slughorn to give the real memory.

2. He changed his mind about the bottle and decided to use it for himself and the boys. I've done stuff like that before...a little ashamed to admit it.

3. As for the cave, I don't remember that part of the book well enough to explain it. It's possible that they shot it that way for the view...

1. I would asume that they were given to him witht their permision, and that is why Slughorns first one was a lie, he changed it. Other ones also included some that he had got in conection to Tom Riddles Mother, Uncle and Grandfather, his Uncle and Grandfather abused his mother who fell in love with a Mugle and used a love potion so she could be with him.

2. He was originaly planning on giving it to Dumbledore (not realising it had been poisoned) but with the suden incident of with Ron and his own problems he probably figured the situation called for it.

3. Teleporting on that rock was probably a good way for Dumbledore to show Harry what type of enviroment they were, as in how Voldemort had decided to hide this one. Voldemort hides each one in a different place and has some meaning to Voldemort himself, Dumbledore wnated to show Harry a lot about Voldemort. Also if you are worried over the fact that they were not wet, don't worry they have magic, I am pretty sure some spell to dry them wouldn't be much of a problem for Dumbledore.

In the books, Dumbledore had obtained the memories that were not his own from various sources and at least on some occasions with the permission of the memory owner. Some came from a house elf, and I doubt there are legal protections for their memories given their position and treatment within the wizarding world. Whether there are generally legal protections around memories in the wizarding world is not fully explored in the book, but Dumbledore is not a stickler for inconvenient rules.

I’m not convinced he had informed consent for all of the memories he gathered in the book, because I fail to see why Mordeth (in the book one of the memories was from Mordeth) would cooperate. On the contrary, I expect Mordeth would have taken perverse pleasure from not cooperating.

With regards to the bottle of booze, in the book, Dumbledore himself states that anyone who knew the Professor well would be unsurprised by his deciding to keep such an item for himself (and along with the clumsiness of the necklace attempt, it could be concluded that the would be assassin was particularly desperate and therefore dangerous).

In the book they swim in. Initially Dumbledore dries Harry with magic when he sees Harry shivering (and apologizes for having overlooked the matter).

Quite true, especially considering the would be assassin was MAJOR SPOILER:Malfoy:

WEASLEY CAN SAVE ANYTHING
HE NEVER LEAVES A SINGLE RING
THATS WHY GRYFFINDORS ALL SING
WEASLEY IS OUR KING

Heheh... I thought they would put that in there, but you have to admit that was more prominent in the 5th movie. The only time it's mentioned in Book VI is when Ron is single-handedly winning the match against Slytherin while high on lucky potion...

No, I'm an adult.

Vanilla_Slice

As demonstrated by the very mature way in which you opened a thread you knew would not interest you and took the time to post a snide comment insulting those who are interested in the content of the thread.

This movie was a 10 for me. The images alone are beautiful. BTW, does anyone else but me think Luna is supposed to be an aspie?

500 Galleons says you're right.