|
|
|
|
#1
10-29-2010
|
||||
|
||||
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Pt.1 & 2)
Anyone excited for Part.1 to come out next month...?
I know I am~! HP_buddyicons_caught_harryherm_96x96_129322477959978420.gif 
|
|
#2
10-29-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
*raises hand*
Although I know they have to flesh out and finalize the romance, hopefully the split in the movie allows more of the secondary plots to come out. That's one of the reasons why I was disappointed in the sixth one. But even if I don't like it I'm still going to get it when it becomes available for purchase. Too much of a classic to miss out on.
|
|
#3
11-09-2010
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm pretty excited for the movie to come out. I'm glad that they split it into two parts, it's a shame they didn't do that for the sixth one as well. I thought it was very poor, especially in comparisson to the book so hopefully this one will be better for the two seperate parts.
I feel like a child waiting for this movie to come out 
|
|
#7
11-12-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
SO ...
YOU ESSITED?
|
|
#8
11-14-2010
|
|||
|
|||
|
*is already planning to see it with her friends*
...did you know that they had a premier of HP7 part 1 on the eleventh? In the USA, at least. (IN AMERICA) I didn't actually know that... >.> You had to get the tickets for it 123456789 weeks in advance, though...
|
|
#10
11-18-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
Midnight tonight!! Essited! :D
|
|
#12
11-19-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
Just got back from seeing the movie.
Spoilers V So...yes. Do tell. =w="
|
|
#13
11-19-2010
|
|||
|
|||
|
I agree with just about everything you've said.
 The silver hand suicide/homocide being omitted didn't bother me too much, but I don't really see why they ended up deciding against it.Like the fanboy that I am, I loved every part of it from start to finish. Even from an unbiased viewpoint, though, there's not much I would've changed. Almost every scene in the film played out as I'd pictured it while reading the book. The humour was great - in particular almost everything said by Rupert - which was definitely a good thing. I was also really pleased with how they handled the locket scene - the figures of Harry and Hermione tormenting Ron were beautifully done. I just kind of wish that the 13 year old girls up the back hadn't immediately fallen into a laughing stupor everytime someone wearing less than three tracksuits appeared on-screen. It finished with a cliffhanger, naturally, but I'm happy with where it ended - really looking forward to the bank scene, which will presumably take up most of the start of part two.
Last edited by Ohara; 11-20-2010 at 06:16 AM.
|
|
#14
11-19-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
#15
11-19-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
I love da Harry Potta. :O
I cant wait to see Part 1.
|
|
#16
11-19-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
>.>"
...When are you going to go see it...?
|
|
#17
11-20-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
Yup. Harry Potter 7 part 1 was freaking awesome. A little different from the book in some places, but not unmanageable. There's one line, though, that really, really annoys me. In the "Three Brothers" story, when Ron bursts out with the fact that it should be midnight, not twilight, and then says "Twilight is better, though."
Really, writers. REALLY??? I get the feeling the Twihards are cackling with glee.
|
|
#19
11-20-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
The same thought occured to me, too. I was a bit irritated, but I'm sure they ment the setting, not a crappy fucky book.
"twilight" doesn't have to mean that crapfest.
|
|
#20
11-21-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
I really liked it! It stayed really true to the book (I have a feeling that that's partially due to the fact that J.K. Rowling is one of the producers for this one XD )
|
|
#21
11-21-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
I really liked it too. :)
The part with the Harry and Hermione apparitions was awesome... but then they were suddenly naked and it took me until the second shot for me to realize it lol. First I was like l_l?? And then I was like O_O!! And then I was like, "Did that REALLY have to be in the movie?" lawlz
|
|
#22
11-21-2010
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#23
11-21-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
Yes. I loved the effects they did on their skin. I couldn't stop staring at Hermione and Harry's face when they were insulting Ron. They could've been calling him a fucktard nimrod, but I wouldn't be paying attention; I'd been too busy looking at their skin.
>_>
|
|
#24
11-21-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
I hear they have expanded the story for the films, which does come as a surprise - I knew they'd have to include all of the book's events since they all interconnect and without one the others wouldn't make sense but I did not expect them to expand on the books. I plan on seeing it after the New Year up in Woking or Reading.
|
|
#25
11-21-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
It was a great film. In my opinion, all of the previous films have been largely crap, because they either left out too much or kept in too much. And they didn't really know what direction it was going in. By splitting the narrative, they had the perfect balance and it gives a lot more freedom to Yates, which we can see in a lot of the fights. The fleeing from the wedding and the part when Ron comes back were exceptionally brilliant. And when they're running from the snatchers.
Tons of people have said it was like a road movie. I personally hate road movies, because there's virtually no plot, there's no relationship between the characters and audience and all the stories are just rehashed. I was worried that it would end up like that. Fortunately, it was nothing like a road movie, apart from the running from the Ministry. As is the norm when I see a HP film, I found it difficult to see how a person who hasn't read the books would understand what the fuck was going on. There was no explanation of the spells and the changing Ministers was barely a topic. Despite this, it seems people did find it engaging and, as we all know, the focus isn't on the magic, it's more on the struggle of the kids growing up into an adult world as well as dealing with the ever overbearing threat of Voldemort. What I also loved, and has been seen since Yates has joined, was the contrast between humour and dire situations and where they sometimes converge to create hilariously dark humour and noticeably British awkward humour. An example of that was, as you all pointed out and unnecessarily criticised, when Ron said twilight was better. Goddamn, has that pile of trash seriously infected your minds to the point that you believe an innocent and very humorous joke, made to emphasize how Ron was trying to get back on Hermione's good side, was a reference fucking Twilight? Anyway, a great film and very well made up for the mistakes and mess of the last 6 adaptations. I actually cannot wait for Part 2. Last edited by niknnik; 11-21-2010 at 07:24 PM.
|
|
#26
11-21-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#27
11-22-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
Thank you, niknnik. What you said explained everything quite well. x'D
No, I didn't even think of Twilight the book when Ron said that. I just thought it was funny, because he was saying that his mother told him that it was "midnight", and Hermione said "twilight" God, yes. You anti-extreme-twilighters are almost as bad as the Twitards. =/ I loved the movie. They held nothing back. They also had some lines refering to something that happened in previous books, and they didn't really explain it. I hate the fact that they try to waste time explaining things to people who have not read the books. READ THEM, YOU LAZY IDIOTS. >( If you wanna see the movie so frikkin badly, so pick up a book and read for once in your sorry excuse for a life. ..../endrant
|
|
#28
11-22-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
Yes, it's a shame that great books such as these are wasted like that. And then, just because they've seen the film, they don't feel they need to read the book.
Quote:
Thinking about it, the film could have flowed a lot better if they'd simply cut characters out. Such as Kingsley. Don't get me wrong, I'd love the film to feature them properly. But for they were somewhat important and I feel that if they are not going to show the characters in depth, they might as well not. Take Bill Weasley, for example. Obviously, he had to be included, because it was his wedding. But Harry speaks to him once and that's all we see of him (besides the brief shots of him at his wedding). What also peeved me was the change in Ministers. We barely see Scrimgeour (without, might I note, showing the departure of Fudge) and then he's suddenly dead. Then we have this new Minister, the most politically powerful person in the wizarding world, controlled by Voldemort and all we see him do is chase after Harry. I know that even with splitting the film, they couldn't keep everything in. But if you're going to include something, at least explain it and give it some background. Last edited by niknnik; 11-22-2010 at 03:16 PM.
|
|
#29
11-23-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
James and I were actually speculating after the movie that some of the characters (like Lupin) were given as few lines as physically possible because the director didn't like the original casting. =/ speaking of Bill, I was amazed at how much he looked like fred and george, considering the actors aren't related at all. (good for the movie, though in the book, fred and george are both stockier like charlie, as opposed to the lank that is bill, percy, and ron. ah well.)
|
|
#30
11-23-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
 |
|
|
