My Studios

J.I. wrote:

annyonggob888 wrote:

I was really disappointed by HP 4 & 5 so I'm not expecting much from 6. It seems the longer the books got, the more content seemed to be left out of the films and the quality declined IMO of course. I'm glad for the 2-part Deathly Hallows though.
Yeah, but isn't the sixth book really short compared to the 4th and 5th?

Eh, about 100 pages less or so, but still far longer than the first three books were. So by that logic Half-Blood Prince should be better than Goblet Of Fire and Order Of The Phoenix because there will be less content left out. But even then, the 1st 2 HP movies were ordinary IMO not because of the content, but because the actors (Radcliffe, Watson & Grinch) were SO raw, and just weren't ready. HP3 along with Cuaron's direction has been the pinnacle of HP movies so far, but with 4 + 5 being so disappointing, I'm not expecting much from 6. No doubt it'll make a tonne of money though...

if i forgot anything let me know i just updated the poll

transporter 3? didn't know they were making another
i'll have to see that but for me its definitely harry potter.

im really not that excited for another movie right now
because i know it won't be as amazing as the dark knight.

annyonggob888 wrote:

Eh, about 100 pages less or so, but still far longer than the first three books were. So by that logic Half-Blood Prince should be better than Goblet Of Fire and Order Of The Phoenix because there will be less content left out. But even then, the 1st 2 HP movies were ordinary IMO not because of the content, but because the actors (Radcliffe, Watson & Grinch) were SO raw, and just weren't ready. HP3 along with Cuaron's direction has been the pinnacle of HP movies so far, but with 4 + 5 being so disappointing, I'm not expecting much from 6. No doubt it'll make a tonne of money though...

yes! finally, everyone always disagrees when i say this.
HP3 was without a doubt the best harry potter film in the series so far.

Highschool Musical 3!!!!

bahahaha im kidding!
Definatley Pineapple Express

iamhollywood wrote:

annyonggob888 wrote:

Eh, about 100 pages less or so, but still far longer than the first three books were. So by that logic Half-Blood Prince should be better than Goblet Of Fire and Order Of The Phoenix because there will be less content left out. But even then, the 1st 2 HP movies were ordinary IMO not because of the content, but because the actors (Radcliffe, Watson & Grinch) were SO raw, and just weren't ready. HP3 along with Cuaron's direction has been the pinnacle of HP movies so far, but with 4 + 5 being so disappointing, I'm not expecting much from 6. No doubt it'll make a tonne of money though...

yes! finally, everyone always disagrees when i say this.
HP3 was without a doubt the best harry potter film in the series so far.

I'm with you as well, dark = better.

im sorry guys but i am just so sick of hearing people cant get excited about another movie because of The Dark Knight. It was great and all and maybe its just me there is not a single movie EVER no matter how amazing it is that will not get me excited for seeing another movie. that just stupid. sorry to anyone whose offended thats just my stance

transformers2 wrote:

im sorry guys but i am just so sick of hearing people cant get excited about another movie because of The Dark Knight. It was great and all and maybe its just me there is not a single movie EVER no matter how amazing it is that will not get me excited for seeing another movie. that just stupid. sorry to anyone whose offended thats just my stance

hey that was me

im over it though. just waiting for another shia labeouf movie (eagle eye)

The Prisoner Of Azkaban was a great book...then bastardized by the film. They took all of the good parts out (such as the magic and the Qudditch scenes)! And I also hated the repositioning and deletion of the Fireball subplot. Alfonso Cuaron is like Joel Schumacher...except people actually kiss Cuaron's ass rather than kick it.

The Goblet Of Fire on the other hand was a bad book turned into a good film because they cut all the bad parts.

Alfonse Cuaron is like Joel Schmacher?!? I'm no Cuaron fanboy, but he's a damn sight better than the mad who brought you Batman and Robin, one of the worst films ever made. Schumacher is a hack, whereas I think Cuaron puts a little more thought into his direction.

I've never read a HP book, and I never will (the films are drawn-out enough as it is), but I agree that Cuaron's film had a pace and energy the others didn't, and remains my favourite.

Buscemi wrote:

The Prisoner Of Azkaban was a great book...then bastardized by the film. They took all of the good parts out (such as the magic and the Qudditch scenes)! And I also hated the repositioning and deletion of the Fireball subplot. Alfonso Cuaron is like Joel Schumacher...except people actually kiss Cuaron's ass rather than kick it.

The Goblet Of Fire on the other hand was a bad book turned into a good film because they cut all the bad parts.

No, no, no, no, no!

Goblet Of Fire was actually the 1st HP book I read, and was the one that got me into the series. I was throughly, thoroughly disappointed in the film, they left EVERYTHING out... I can't recall anything right now, but they stripped the plot of the film paper-thin - revolving around the Tri-Wizard Tournament and almost nothing else, they hardly developed any of the secondary characters that were made prominent specifically in the GOF book (Cedric Diggory, Mad-Eye Moody, Barty Crouch etc), skimped on everything that you probably found superfluous Buscemi, but most of us HP fans truly enjoyed. The film just bastardized the Harry Potter series into a straight competition - like a wild goose chase which we already know the ending to.

Alfonso Cuaron brought something different to the plate with Prizoner Of Azkaban, whereas Mike Newell just went by the book with Goblet of Fire - and even then, he only incorporated one strand of the book and nothing else. I can't describe how disappointed I was with GOF, one of the most disappointing films of this millenium, I reckon...

The thing I'll never understand is why J.K. Rowling went overboard with the series. The first two books were the right length but everything became overlong and boring towards four. After reading the fourth (which could have been cut down to 300 pages), I stopped reading them as I didn't want to go through 750+ pages of nothingness to get to the point.

I also was disappointed with Gary Oldman's casting in The Prisoner Of Azkaban. No offense to Oldman but I imagined Jason Statham in the role.

Buscemi wrote:

The thing I'll never understand is why J.K. Rowling went overboard with the series. The first two books were the right length but everything became overlong and boring towards four. After reading the fourth (which could have been cut down to 300 pages), I stopped reading them as I didn't want to go through 750+ pages of nothingness to get to the point.

I also was disappointed with Gary Oldman's casting in The Prisoner Of Azkaban. No offense to Oldman but I imagined Jason Statham in the role.

Buscemi, are you on something? Like horse tranquilisers? Or are you just trolling?

The whole idea of Oldman's character is that he seems nasty but actually becomes a father figure for Harry. To achieve that you need charisma. Jason Statham has as much charisma as the lint in my pockets. I've seen more charm in a single cell amoeba suffering from Alzheimers.

When I read the book, Sirius felt like this mean and nasty character than becomes good in the end. Like The Grinch. Gary Oldman just doesn't seem like that. When I read the book, I envisioned Jason Statham the whole time. Also I remember that he was described as balding and with yellowing teeth. I can't imagine Gary Oldman that way.

numbersix_99 wrote:

Alfonse Cuaron is like Joel Schmacher?!? I'm no Cuaron fanboy, but he's a damn sight better than the mad who brought you Batman and Robin, one of the worst films ever made. Schumacher is a hack, whereas I think Cuaron puts a little more thought into his direction.

I've never read a HP book, and I never will (the films are drawn-out enough as it is), but I agree that Cuaron's film had a pace and energy the others didn't, and remains my favourite.

That's just silly. Schumacher could have never made "Y Tu Mama Tambien". I don't think that Cuaron's version of "Harry Potter" was the best, but I haven't seen them all and his definitely the most stylistic and daring of all of them. To compare him to Schumacher is a slap in the face.

My Studios

ADVICE & ANALYSIS: