Harry Potter Movies

[jynni]

I looked at the pic and it seems like that's just a really well shaped/padded bra. It also appears to be a pretty low key pic so I'm sure once she gets under lights & makeup she'll be fine (course I said that about Fleur too).

[Deleted]

I don't really care who plays lilly as it's such a small part in the film. I'm just glad that not only are they working on the film right now, but she's also working on the film. I'm crossing fingers and toes that I won't have to wait another two years for the next book.

[kostgard]

If that is the person who plays Lilly, I think she'll be fine. That doesn't look like the greatest picture, but she seems cute enough, they can dye her hair red, and she looks like the actress who has been played the older Lilly in the movies.

Good to hear that Gary Oldman and David Thewlis are still playing those roles.

[realitybug]

The GOF DVD is released today.

[susyhomewrecker]

Yes! Time to go to BlockBuster...

[heavenleigh2001]

I know I'm not suppose to like Snape in the books. But can I just say that I love Alan Rickman. I was laughing my ass, off when all the kids were in class, and he just kept slapping them upside the head.


I wonder how they are gonna do book five? They had to cut out alot of stuff in the goblet to fit into a two hour movie. Book 5 is gonna have to be a least three hours long.

[Deleted]

heavenleigh2001 said:

I wonder how they are gonna do book five? They had to cut out alot of stuff in the goblet to fit into a two hour movie. Book 5 is gonna have to be a least three hours long.

You know, I was wondering why they insist on keeping the movies at a two hour length. I think even Chris Columbus said after the first movie that every kid he met wouldn't have minded seeing a longer HP movie. I understand that they have to cut stuff out and that's fine but especially in the fourth movie (as great as that one was IMO) they should have kept some important stuff in to make more sense.

[thesurlymermaid]

Ironically, I think OOtP, as the longest book, actually could afford to cut a bunch of stuff out in the film. For one thing, Umbridge was nothing but a red-herring that took up alot of pages...even Rowling admitted she was less than satisfied about how sprawling the narrative was. I don't know how much screentime I would devote to it. There have to be other cinematic ways to indicate the Ministry's (and everyone's) suspicion and disbelief of Harry rather than showing repetitive Umbridge-hates-Harry scenes.

I would also lose Grawp, but apparently, there are no plans to do that as of yet.

[kostgard]

I think they could stand to make the movies a smidge longer - I didn't feel like they cut too much big stuff out of GoF, but they could have spent more time on transitions. It was all, this happens! Then this happens! Then this happens! It just jumped from one major event to the next and not a lot of breathing room in between.

I'd have to re-read OOtP to figure out what could go - though I agree that they could easily lose Grawp. They could condense the "Dumbledore's Army" stuff down quite a bit as well. They could condense some Umbridge stuff as well, but I'm glad they are keeping her - she's the first villian in the books that I wanted to reach through the pages and slap. That lady was seriously evil in just a petty and vindictive way - and for some reason that ticked me off a lot more than say, Voldemort - you know, just they guy trying to kill Harry.

[thesurlymermaid]

kostgard said:

I think they could stand to make the movies a smidge longer - I didn't feel like they cut too much big stuff out of GoF, but they could have spent more time on transitions. It was all, this happens! Then this happens! Then this happens! It just jumped from one major event to the next and not a lot of breathing room in between.

I'd have to re-read OOtP to figure out what could go - though I agree that they could easily lose Grawp. They could condense the "Dumbledore's Army" stuff down quite a bit as well. They could condense some Umbridge stuff as well, but I'm glad they are keeping her - she's the first villian in the books that I wanted to reach through the pages and slap. That lady was seriously evil in just a petty and vindictive way - and for some reason that ticked me off a lot more than say, Voldemort - you know, just they guy trying to kill Harry.

Oh, I definitely agree that movies 3 and 4 could have been a smidge longer. Maybe even 10 or so minutes, nothing huge. I thought movies 1 &2 were a little long and bloated, especially movie 2. The merman, who is at least as big a Potter fan as me, was falling asleep by our second viewing!

However, we could have easily watched more of movies 3 and 4. For one thing, although PoA is my favorite and I worship Alfonso Cuaron, I think the Marauders backstory and an explanation of Prongs (heck, they NEEDED that scene...in the book it makes me cry) was necessary. The movie was SOCLOSE to perfect and just missed it, IMO.

I think OoTP needs to find a "theme", kind of like what PoA did, and try to focus on it, even it means a few unnecessary subplots get axed. I personally think the Dumbledore's Army stuff is very close to the "heart" of the story...as it involves Harry's subversive efforts to fight Voldemort as no one from the Ministry believes him. Also, the climactic battle at the end, and even the kissing scene with Cho (you KNOW that's going to be in)...these all stem from Dumbledore's Army. So I would play that aspect of it up.

I dunno, though, I'm certainly no screenwriter or filmmaker. I just think with a sprawling epic like OoTP, advice like Cuaron's will help get to the heart of the story.