AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2009-07-22, 09:46   Link #81
Kitsu
The unlucky one
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Hiding
Quote:
"Harry Potter and the Jealousy of Hermione."
or
"Harry Potter and the Angst of Malfoy"

Just watched it yesterday and I liked it, it was pretty decent
__________________
Thanks for the Signature, Vandakiara
Kitsu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-07-22, 14:06   Link #82
Hs Vi Germania
Please call me "senpai":)
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 24
Send a message via ICQ to Hs Vi Germania
Its title "...and the Half Blood Prince" was really a bit senseless.
I don't want to spoiler but what did we experience about him?
Only who he is....
__________________
Hs Vi Germania is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-07-22, 16:59   Link #83
MisterJB
Warden of the West
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Casterly Rock
Yeah, it's like this...

watch out for spoilers.

"This diary belongs to the Half-Blood Prince."

"Ginny: Look, it's says here that this diary belongs to the Half-Blood Prince"

1 hour later

"Snape: I am the Half-Blood Prince."

The shock. The surprise. The insignificance.
__________________
MisterJB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-07-23, 03:31   Link #84
Frailty
Half-yōkai
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Pearl of the Orient Seas
Age: 21
Send a message via Yahoo to Frailty
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reckoner View Post
I saw the movie, I raged.

This movie is a further degeneration of Harry Potter. There was so much cut out that it was a joke. I don't even know how people who have not read the books can follow what is going on anymore.

My biggest beef with the movie is that this book is supposed to be centered on Voldemort and his history. Despite this, we were only shown two memories. What happened to all the other memories? They decided to include all of the teen drama scenes, and even added more that wasn't even there, instead of showing vital scenes in the story. The reason I found the 6th book so interesting was because of these memories. They could have cut out certain things that weren't supposed to be there like the Burrow getting attacked during Christmas.

Now there is nothing wrong with the teen drama. If anyone noticed while watching the movies, most of the audience most likely consisted of giggling girls. Hollywood is obviously playing towards a certain audience no?

Certain details were changed throughout the movie for no apparent reason. Why did Luna Lovegood pick up harry in the train instead of Tonks (The Order seems almost nonexistent). Why do the death eaters all of a sudden fly around the city (This was something special that only Voldemort could do)? Snape didn't confiscate the book after Sectumsempera like he did in the book and Harry had to go into the room of requirement again to hide it...

Snape as a character isn't developed at all. Ginny was thrown into the movie and instantly became a major character. Ughh.. I really could rage forever...

The last thing I didn't like is that the Yates treats his viewrs like 10 year old children. I don't need easybake thank you very much.

This was the worst Harry Potter movie, bar none. Fire Yates. I want my director from the third movie... No big wonder that Rowling herself said that of th emovies that was her favorite one. BAH!!
you pretty much said everything I wanted to say
to add some up

Dumbledore and Harry apparate from cave to hogwarts instantly? no...
they apparated to the "three broomsticks" where they get on their brooms to reach the tower

second where's Dumbledore's tomb dammit? it's suppose to be the most dramatic scene with fawks crying, singing, and burning...?

another, Harry didn't reall drank all of the Felix Felicis to get Slughorn's memory? he didn't even drank half of it.
they use it for the protection of the Dumbledore's Army, and where the hell is the magic battle between Hogwarts and the Death Eaters?

why didn't Draco cast expelliarmus on Dumbledore? how will he be the master of the Elder wand if he didn't do that in this movie? wait that's a spoiler
Harry was supposed to be wearing the invisibility cloak and was in a freeze charm by Dumbledore

meh~
to people who didn't read the book, they'll say yeah this movie's great
but I as a reader is dissappointed
__________________

Frailty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-07-23, 03:40   Link #85
Lolipopo
Srsly ?
*Artist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Age: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJB View Post
The movie could be called "Harry Potter and the Jealousy of Hermione."

The Goblet of Fire it's still the best movie IMO.
Pfff you must be kidding me honest. This book is one of my favorite, both because of Voldemort's story, the Half Blood prince thing, and the Ron/Hermione/Lavender triangle.
And I was disappointed by everything. Come on, even the pseudo jealousy was shitty (though the Harry/Hermione moment was kinda cute), they even failed at what people are calling "teen drama romance"

The only thing I want to remember is the Tiny Voldemort. God the actor was perfect in this role, he seemed devious and yet innocent.

Now maybe I'm disappointed because I was waiting too much of this movie (postponed, favorite book...)
(Bleh even the revelation at the end came out of nowhere. (Just like Ginny and her role...) Honestly, that is the first time I'm bored in front of an HP)

Goblet of Fire and Order of Phoenix forever~
__________________

Lolipopo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-07-23, 04:21   Link #86
Kid Ying
Pon pon pon
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Rio
Never watched any Harry potter's movie... Only read the first book a thousand of years ago(when harry potter was just "a book" not "FRIGGIN HARRY POTTER"), but i liked this one, even if i don't... Get a lot of the story, since i don't know what happened all that time...

But i loved that guy Snape. Man, he's AWESOME. Not just because he's the guy from Die Hard, but because he kicks ASS. And Hermione sure turned into a good looking woman...

I thought the movie was kinda dark and grim, but it worked with the feeling of the story, which is not that tamed at all. In the end, i really liked... Even if i didn't knew almost anything about the Harry potter universe.

It was a really enjoyable experience and an actually pretty good movie. The ending didn't touched me that much because... I didn't cared enough, i guess it wasn't the best movie to start seeing the series.

I guess i'm going to watch the other ones to catch the story... Or read the books, since they're probably more complete and detailed.
Kid Ying is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-07-23, 11:17   Link #87
sonotme_9FedriqSama
Clamotgun
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UK
I agree Goblet of fire is best...but many are saying this is still good...since most ppl have already read the book...they are saying half blood prince is as good as any others HP movie or can be considered even better....I think they are finding it refreshing to see somthing new from book itself... and I think the director is also thinking the same...since everyone had already read them why waste money following the same freaking script making a ditto copy....

Last edited by sonotme_9FedriqSama; 2009-07-23 at 11:34.
sonotme_9FedriqSama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-07-23, 23:21   Link #88
Lil' Wayne
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frailty View Post
Dumbledore and Harry apparate from cave to hogwarts instantly? no...they apparated to the "three broomsticks" where they get on their brooms to reach the tower

second where's Dumbledore's tomb dammit? it's suppose to be the most dramatic scene with fawks crying, singing, and burning...?

another, Harry didn't reall drank all of the Felix Felicis to get Slughorn's memory? he didn't even drank half of it.
they use it for the protection of the Dumbledore's Army, and where the hell is the magic battle between Hogwarts and the Death Eaters?

why didn't Draco cast expelliarmus on Dumbledore? how will he be the master of the Elder wand if he didn't do that in this movie? wait that's a spoiler
Harry was supposed to be wearing the invisibility cloak and was in a freeze charm by Dumbledore
This is what I was talking about before, all those details you just mentioned are unimportant if not extremely minor details. Except for maybe the battle between Hogwarts and the Death Eaters, none of those details has dynamic, if any, affect to the plot.

Who cares if Harry and Dumbledore went to the Three Broomsticks to get their brooms to go to the tower instead of apparating there? The point is that they went to the tower.

Who cares if you didn't see Dumbledore's tomb? Fawks is a representation of Dumbledore, which is why we see him in that scene. That's what's important. But, oh, wait a minute, Fawks is present at the end of the film. Why spend another million dollars to create a set with Dumbledore's tomb rather than film the one meaningful event in that scene?

Who cares how much of the potion Harry drank? The important part is that he looked at the memory.

If you don't understand why Malfoy didn't cast Expelliarmus you weren't paying attention to his character for the whole film.

And it doesn't matter if Harry was in a freeze charm, or stopped by Snape like he was in the film, the same conclusion occured: he couldn't do anything.

I fail to see how anything you just listed would make you disappointed in this movie.
Lil' Wayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-07-23, 23:55   Link #89
AnimeFan188
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by @paulsee View Post
This is what I was talking about before, all those details you just mentioned are unimportant if not extremely minor details. Except for maybe the battle between Hogwarts and the Death Eaters, none of those details has dynamic, if any, affect to the plot.

Who cares if Harry and Dumbledore went to the Three Broomsticks to get their brooms to go to the tower instead of apparating there? The point is that they went to the tower.

Who cares if you didn't see Dumbledore's tomb? Fawks is a representation of Dumbledore, which is why we see him in that scene. That's what's important. But, oh, wait a minute, Fawks is present at the end of the film. Why spend another million dollars to create a set with Dumbledore's tomb rather than film the one meaningful event in that scene?

Who cares how much of the potion Harry drank? The important part is that he looked at the memory.

If you don't understand why Malfoy didn't cast Expelliarmus you weren't paying attention to his character for the whole film.

And it doesn't matter if Harry was in a freeze charm, or stopped by Snape like he was in the film, the same conclusion occured: he couldn't do anything.

I fail to see how anything you just listed would make you disappointed in this movie.
Can't Hermione just use her time travel item? If they can save Buckbeak,
why not Dumbledore?

Note: I've seen the movies, but I haven't read the books.
AnimeFan188 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-07-24, 00:15   Link #90
james0246
Senior Member
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnimeFan188 View Post
Can't Hermione just use her time travel item? If they can save Buckbeak,
why not Dumbledore?
That would break a law of time travel. If you see someone die, then they must die. Hermione and Harry were able to save Buckbeak in the 3rd Book because they never actually saw Buckbeak die.
james0246 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-07-24, 02:20   Link #91
Lolipopo
Srsly ?
*Artist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Age: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by james0246 View Post
That would break a law of time travel. If you see someone die, then they must die. Hermione and Harry were able to save Buckbeak in the 3rd Book because they never actually saw Buckbeak die.
Now that is interesting. I don't remember that but that makes sense.
(Though....technically, Hermione never saw Dumbledore die...but I guess you meant dead )
__________________

Lolipopo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-07-24, 02:51   Link #92
Clarste
Human
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Age: 28
I don't think it has much to do with seeing someone die or not. You just can't change the past. You can only go back in time to do the things that technically already happened that you didn't know about. It's sort of a predestination paradox.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...TrickedOutTime
Clarste is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-07-24, 04:10   Link #93
james0246
Senior Member
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lolipopo View Post
Now that is interesting. I don't remember that but that makes sense.
(Though....technically, Hermione never saw Dumbledore die...but I guess you meant dead )
I should clarify, first of all, that Hermione does not have a Time Tuner anymore, and in the 5th book (and presumably the 5th movie) all the Time Turners were destroyed during the raid on the Department of Mysteries. So, presumably, no one would have had a time turner in which to actually go back in time.

That being said, seeing someone dead doesn't really matter (or at least it matters less than you'd think). All you would need to do is polyjuice someone to look like Dumbledore, and then kill them, and voila (pun intended), a dead Dumbledore (this possibile use of the polyjuice was shown in the 4th book when Barty Crouch Jr.'s mother disguised herself as her son with polyjuice, and then when she died, she retained the form of her son). So, conceivably, seeing a dead body that looks like Dumbledore potentially does not matter (unless there is some strange metaphysical angle involved which prevents traveling in time to fake someone's death).

What really matters is if you actually see someone die. True, the polyjuice angle still probably works (i.e. the person you saw die, could have been someone else disguised with polyjuice), but it hard to say if such an elaborate bending of time is possible, and it would definetly take several hours to pull off such a heist. The incident in question was not like the encounter between Past Harry and Future Harry in the Prisoner of Azkaban, in which Past-Harry could not see his benefactor, which allowed Future-Harry to help his past self. In this case, Harry knew the individual in question was Dumbledore, and all those present actually saw Dumbledore die. So, there was little leeway to actively use a time turner (even if they were not all broken) to save Dumbledore.

That being said, Dumbledore wanted to die...which is learned about in the 7th book.
james0246 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-07-24, 04:22   Link #94
Clarste
Human
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Age: 28
The " the timer turners have all been destroyed" thing has always struck me as pretty hilarious. Basically, Rowling noticed that they had the potential to make the plot infinitely more complicated, so she decided to get rid of them before people started thinking too much. I can't say I blame her.
Clarste is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-07-24, 11:18   Link #95
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
Time travel is *always* a plot device that will ruin a story under most circumstances if it is introduced casually. As soon as TNG (star trek) introduced "the time police from the future" they were screwed. Because absolutely every mistake can hypothetically be fixed or things changed and you'd never know it.

So yeah.. points to Rowling for clearing them out of the story asap.
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-07-24, 11:32   Link #96
AnimeFan188
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by james0246 View Post
That would break a law of time travel. If you see someone die, then they must die. Hermione and Harry were able to save Buckbeak in the 3rd Book because they never actually saw Buckbeak die.
Just give Dumbledore some charm to block the spell that killed him, and maybe
another to prevent falling damage. Then let him play out the scenario without
the Death Eaters realizing it.

Sort of like what happened with the Professor's "murder" by the terrorists in the
first "Back To The Future" movie.
AnimeFan188 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-07-24, 13:50   Link #97
Reckoner
Bittersweet Distractor
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by @paulsee View Post
This is what I was talking about before, all those details you just mentioned are unimportant if not extremely minor details. Except for maybe the battle between Hogwarts and the Death Eaters, none of those details has dynamic, if any, affect to the plot.

Who cares if Harry and Dumbledore went to the Three Broomsticks to get their brooms to go to the tower instead of apparating there? The point is that they went to the tower.

Who cares if you didn't see Dumbledore's tomb? Fawks is a representation of Dumbledore, which is why we see him in that scene. That's what's important. But, oh, wait a minute, Fawks is present at the end of the film. Why spend another million dollars to create a set with Dumbledore's tomb rather than film the one meaningful event in that scene?

Who cares how much of the potion Harry drank? The important part is that he looked at the memory.

If you don't understand why Malfoy didn't cast Expelliarmus you weren't paying attention to his character for the whole film.

And it doesn't matter if Harry was in a freeze charm, or stopped by Snape like he was in the film, the same conclusion occured: he couldn't do anything.

I fail to see how anything you just listed would make you disappointed in this movie.
For one thing, they never explained how the necklace got into the hands of Katie Bell. We already know that Malfoy could never have brought in such dark magic through the barriers himself. Why was this? He put the imperius curse on Madam Rosmerta. That was an important detail that helped explain how he did these things.

Harry put in the freeze charm was very important because that is why Dumbledore got disarmed in the books. He didn't trust Harry to stay in hiding and let him die, and I felt this was a very emotional scene in the sense that Harry couldn't even lift his hand to try and save him if he wanted it.

The funeral scene is a matter of opinion I suppose, but I felt it was a lot more potent than the one they showed us.

Dumbledore's character, btw, is portrayed really badly. He is consistently shown in the movieslosing his cool over certain things and making out of character comments like "This is far beyond anything I ever imagined!" When really, in the books it was just as expected to him.

I don't think many of these things are minor details, but even when they are, it is irksome that they change certain things for no reason that actually benfits the film.
Reckoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-07-24, 14:22   Link #98
james0246
Senior Member
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reckoner View Post
For one thing, they never explained how the necklace got into the hands of Katie Bell. We already know that Malfoy could never have brought in such dark magic through the barriers himself. Why was this? He put the imperius curse on Madam Rosmerta. That was an important detail that helped explain how he did these things.
Actually, they explained (or at least hinted) that Malfoy placed the Imperio on Bell while she was at the Three Broomsticks. So, Rosmereta was unneeded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reckoner View Post
Harry put in the freeze charm was very important because that is why Dumbledore got disarmed in the books. He didn't trust Harry to stay in hiding and let him die, and I felt this was a very emotional scene in the sense that Harry couldn't even lift his hand to try and save him if he wanted it.
And, in this case, Harry feels even more guilt because he trusted Snape to help, only for Snape to seemingly betray both Dumbledore and Harry's trust. Consequently, the rage felt against Snape becomes more palpable and effective. The next films will, in turn, use this rage to fuel Harry's character in interesting ways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reckoner View Post
Dumbledore's character, btw, is portrayed really badly. He is consistently shown in the movieslosing his cool over certain things and making out of character comments like "This is far beyond anything I ever imagined!" When really, in the books it was just as expected to him.
The movies make Dumbledore less god-like (and less manipulative), and far more approachable and interesting. Unlike the books where you almost expect Dumbledore to fold his hands in front of his face as say something like, "Everything is going according to the plan," the films version of Dumbledore is as an old wise wizard that wants to help but realizes that he does not have much time left (the full realization that Harry is a horcrux was an especially interesting scene in the film because Dumbledore appears clearly dismayed). It's 2 different versions of the same character, but I think the film version is far more human.
james0246 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-07-24, 14:36   Link #99
Reckoner
Bittersweet Distractor
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by james0246 View Post
Actually, they explained (or at least hinted) that Malfoy placed the Imperio on Bell while she was at the Three Broomsticks. So, Rosmereta was unneeded.
But who handed her the necklace? Malfoy? He had the necklace simply lying around all this time and picked it up after he went to Hogsmeade?

Quote:
Originally Posted by james0246 View Post
And, in this case, Harry feels even more guilt because he trusted Snape to help, only for Snape to seemingly betray both Dumbledore and Harry's trust. Consequently, the rage felt against Snape becomes more palpable and effective. The next films will, in turn, use this rage to fuel Harry's character in interesting ways.
In the books, Harry never trusted Snape that much. There was a memorable scene where he found out that Snape delivered the information from the prophecy to Voldemort and Dumbledore simply made him hush. I liked the feeling of Harry being utterly helpless much better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by james0246 View Post
The movies make Dumbledore less god-like (and less manipulative), and far more approachable and interesting. Unlike the books where you almost expect Dumbledore to fold his hands in front of his face as say something like, "Everything is going according to the plan," the films version of Dumbledore is as an old wise wizard that wants to help but realizes that he does not have much time left (the full realization that Harry is a horcrux was an especially interesting scene in the film because Dumbledore appears clearly dismayed). It's 2 different versions of the same character, but I think the film version is far more human.
This is a matter of preference, but I must remind you...

Spoiler for Do not read unless you read the books. Big spoiler.:


I prefer the cool and collected Dumbledore.
Reckoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-07-24, 14:41   Link #100
Theowne
耳をすませば
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada
Age: 25
Send a message via Skype™ to Theowne
Gambon's Dumbledore may be more realistic for some people's perception of what realistic characters act like, but in terms of adapting a story, it's a poor rendition of the book's character. Book-Dumbledore is a little bit mischievous, calm, collected, and confident. Gambon/Yates's version is nothing like this. He doesn't seem like the (second) most powerful wizard in the world.
__________________

My Site - Reviews collection, Sheet music, and etc.
Anime reviews/blog, piano arrangements, Studio Ghibli..
Theowne is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 13:35.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.