posted on November 17, 2005 04:59:04 PM new
Tonight I will be going to the midnight opening of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. And then I will be seeing it again tomorrow morning. I've had my tickets for a couple of weeks now, and I can hardly wait!!! After bowling tonight, I'll go to the theatre and get in line--there's sure to be a crowd.
posted on November 17, 2005 05:36:51 PM new
Actually, Classic, many adults read and enjoy the Rowling books. They aren't just for kids.
Edit: Ah, I see that while I was typing you changed your "I'm older than 12" remark.
So, tell me, Classic, why do you wish the character "would get blown away"?
And bowling never "went out." In fact, the league that I am on is thriving. We have 40 teams and many 20 & 30 year-olds are in it.
____________________
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." -- George W. Bush
[ edited by bunnicula on Nov 17, 2005 05:39 PM ]
posted on November 17, 2005 07:24:11 PM new
" Classic, you've never read the Harry Potter books, have you?"
no profe-took one look at the dude and sumized
he was some nerdy pansy ass..-besides Im not really into reading books-I think the last book I read was "Watership Down" back in the 80's.
posted on November 17, 2005 07:44:08 PM new
I'm a big fan too. In fact i have a t-shirt that says Harry's A Pothead And The Sorcerer's Stoned I bought it on Ebay a couple of years ago. It might become a collectors item in a few more years.
posted on November 17, 2005 08:01:52 PM new
Linda, youre too funny maybe the next harry will be fighting the leader of a democratic nation and that will get you more interested in it
posted on November 18, 2005 03:21:45 AM new
Just got in from seeing the midnight show. overall, I think the film is pretty good, for what it is, but...
...they left out so MUCH of the book!!! Perhaps the fact that I re-read the book this past week made my disappointment over this so strong.
Don't get me wrong, they did a fantastic job with this film. The effects are incredible, and it it is a real thriller--and there is also a lot of humor.
But, to me, it seemed a bit...thin. The books in this series are rich with detail, characters and subplots. This film, more than the others, leaves out so much of all that or gives you just a taste. And the film is just short of 3 hours long! Gives you an idea of how rich the books are...
I will be seeing the film again at 9:15 this morning, so maybe my view will change a bit after the second viewing.
____________________
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." -- George W. Bush
posted on November 18, 2005 08:14:43 AM new
They ALWAYS leave so much out of the book.The problem is if they included everything in the book it would be a 24 hour movie.Me and the wife saw "Beyond The Sea" last Spring sometime.Its the Bobby Darin story.I had read the biography some years ago that the movie was based on.My wife thought it was good,I found it disappointing for exactly the same reason-too much information left out.
posted on November 18, 2005 08:49:33 AM new
I have to agree with the self professed bookworm above... most movies are found lacking after reading the book.
That's why I'm dreading the movie version of the DaVinci Code...there is no way they can encapsulate the depth of this book in a two hour movie.
posted on November 18, 2005 10:10:41 AM newmost movies are found lacking after reading the book
I think thats true, assuming one expects a movie to be an exact replica of a book. As far as I'm concerned a movie is just someone's visual interpertation of someone else's story. Movies can't possibly give the viewer the insight to character that books can. If I enjoy a book I could really care less how the movie version turns out. For instance, Stephen King's "Running Man is a terrific story. The only similarity to the book and the movie, however, is the title. The movie completly changed the story so that it would be a Schwarzenegger action flick instead of the deeply emotional and tragic story of poverty and decline in future America. Then there are movies like "The Lord of the Rings" triology which were mostly faithful to the books, but there were things done differently and short cuts taken because how could there not be? Certain aspects of books can never translate visually and I guess I'm wondering why people expect them to.
there is no way they can encapsulate the depth of this book in a two hour movie.
I don't agree with this. IMO, The DaVinci Code was written almost exactly like a film script. The shallow characters, completly predictable plot devices and the lack of depth to the overall story make it a perfect canadite to be filmed. I think that book was so lacking in depth that the movie version can only make it better.
posted on November 18, 2005 10:24:01 AM new
Ron, I'm shocked at your interpretation of the
DaVinci Code.
I read it and it piqued my imagination and oiled my thought processes, got all the gears turning in all directions..I thoroughly enjoyed it and Angels and Demons was equally fine reading imo.
posted on November 18, 2005 11:11:04 AM new
I've checked the writing in HP books and the author (Rowlings?) has a good hand. I'm saving them for the next time I get ordered to stay put with my feet up. Oh, and I've learned to fly a broom quite well, helping my daughter through a part of the HP game to keep her from destroying her computer. ;-D
posted on November 18, 2005 12:13:56 PM new
Ron? Not sure if thats a typo or yet another accusation that I am someone else so I'll leave it alone until I hear one way or the other.
As for my interpretation (assuming you are talking to me), I realize I am in the minority when it comes to how I felt about that book as it was on the best seller list for like 18 years or something. But I truly was dissapointed with it. I thought it started off very well but the rest just flowed like it was written to be a movie. I suspect that the movie will be very much like the book but we'll see.
posted on November 18, 2005 01:22:32 PM new
No harm done, Maggie, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt on the name thing.
I have not read Angels and Demons in large part because of how I felt about the DaVinci Code. Do you think that someone who didn't like the DaVinci Code would enjoy Angels and Demons?
posted on November 18, 2005 02:18:01 PM new
Bunni, I hope you enjoy the movie. Please give us your thoughts when you get a chance.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on November 19, 2005 10:53:04 AM new
Logansdad: after seeing the film a second time, my reaction is still the same.
Warning! Spoilers!
What we do get to see is sketchy, but beautifully done. The special effects are incredible. The music is superb. The acting is, for the most part, very good. Rupert Grint and Emma Watson as Ron & Hermione are especially good. Lord Voldemort, when we finally get to see him toward the end of the film is all you could wish him to be, though his rebirth gets the same short shrift as everything else. The film has humor, action, budding romance, and some real thrills.
What it doesn't have is depth. Almost every single one of the nuances and subplots that, in the books, bring the Hogwart's world to exciting life are absent from the film. Major characters in the book are missing or minimized. Dumbledore is mostly reduced to an uncertain, weak old man. Snapes puts in a minimal appearance. Not enough is done with the Rita Skeeta character, house elves are non-existent as is the Hagrid/giant sub-plot--and the twins have no real reason to be in the film at all. Major plot devices, such as Mad-Eye Moody being supplanted by a polyjuice potion chugging Bertie Crouch Jr., whip by so fast your head spins. In fact, most of the stuff that did make it into the film is touched on only superficially. Overall, if you haven't read the book you won't know what is going on or why in too many scenes. For instance: the reason Hogwarts students were so ticked Harry's name came out of the goblet is glossed over (the film intimates it's because he's thought to have cheated, but no one got bent out of shape when the twins tried to cheat--the Hufflepuff angle is totally ignored); just why Ron is so angry at Harry; why Krum asks Hermione to the ball; why Voldermort's and Harry's wands react the way they do against each other and why the spirits come out of Voldemort's wand; why Mad Eye Moody was replaced; why Nevil Longbottom reacts the way he does to the Cruciatis Curse; etc. etc. etc. etc. In addition, Daniel Radcliffe's acting skills haven't matured along with him and he is outshone by just about everyone else in the film.
I came out of the film--both times!--with a sense of disappointment. The film is OK--but you can see where it could have been great.
____________________
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." -- George W. Bush
I've had my tickets for a couple of weeks now, and I can hardly wait!!! After bowling tonight, I'll go to the theatre and get in line--there's sure to be a crowd.
Perhaps the fact that I re-read the book this past week made my disappointment over this so strong.