Harry Potter 3: I Actualy Saw It

[Mashirosen]

Moving to General.

[Bombshell]

The trid movie was good but I give it a 9/10 because it didn't tell all the parts from the book which would have made it alot better.

[Minor Dizaster]

Yea, I was kinda peeved because if you hadn't read the book, Wormtail, Padfoot, Moony, and Prongs aren't going to make any sense whatsoever. Other than that, I did enjoy it.

[Muffin Mage]

I'm a purist, in case anyone hasn't read my sig. I'll also say that it was much better than I expected, all the "it R t3h suxz0r" talk aside. The actual camera work was great, certainly Oscar worthy from what I've seen thus far this year. However, I've got some nit-picky details that were a bit irksome.

***SPOILER FOR THOSE WHO (FOR SOME BIZARRE REASON) HAVE NOT YET READ THE BOOKS***

What happened to the school part of the school? There were maybe three classes, ten minutes of quidditch, almost no spellcasting, and no exams. One thinks that a movie based on a book that is about a fictional school would actually have a school as more than an incidental setting, right?

Why was Crookshanks a bit part? She played no role whatsoever.

Was there any particular reason for the school and grounds being rearranged?

When did the dementors get Rings of Flying?

Dementors make you feel cold inside not outside, according to the books. I might have read wrong, though.

What happened to Christmas?

***[/Spoiler]***

However, I think that it was a better book-to-movie change than, say LotR, or Timeline. Timeline made my eyes bleed, and caused my spleen to gibber for the merciful oblivion of death.

[Minor Dizaster]

Well, there was almost no quidditch in the book, as Harry's broom got splintered. That aside, everything else you mentioned does make sense.

There was plenty Quidditch in the third book, its the only one where they win the cup majigger.

Still havent seen it, but I've heard it blows from book-point, but is otherwise ok.

[Angry_lizard]

yes they needed some more quidditch and more relationship tension between ron and hermione

[Hamelin]

Well, that's the thing when you take a book and make it into a movie. Things that seem extremely interesting in written form, when translated to live action... er... not so interesting.

Frankly, I think the new director did a fine job. So he left stuff out. What he put in was pretty polished.

[Pretty Mary K]

I haven't read the books, and when I was in the theater, this little kid spoiled every little fucking thing he could, and when they left stuff out, he started complaining. It wouldn't have been so bad if it was many kids, but it was ONE KID. My pals and I told him to shut up pretty hard, and then he would stop for a few seconds, and start doing it again. I 'accidentally' bumped him on the way out of the theater, and he fell down. I ran away.

Yeah, I'll beat up little kids if they ruin movies for me. Your children are not safe.

To the point: the movie lacked pacing of any kind, and the new guy who plays Dumbledore can't capture the character's mystique. Both of those things are probably the director's fault. Those were my only major beefs. Other than that it was complete gravy.

Emma Watson got veeery pretty veeery quickly. <3

[LeefRyder]

Originally Posted by Muffin Mage

Why was Crookshanks a bit part? She played no role whatsoever.

Crookshanks was probably played down considerably due to time constraints, it would have been nice to show all the stuff she did, but it also would have taken up alot of time. They did well enough I guess without having her part bigger. Tho it is a shame they wasted that time on say making dementors fly n' such. That was really dumb. And pointless, they're scarier just gliding in your general direction. Out of ALL the important stuff they left out of the movie I'm suprised you're talking about Crookshanks, I didn't even think of that really.