I saw it the day after (well, I guess the day it came out, as midnight is technically the next day ), and wasn't terribly impressed. I know this is a terrible attitude to have, but I'm one of those people that, for the most part, want it just like the book, down to the dialogue (at least with HP, with other book-to-moves like LotR, I'm fine with some cuts). Now, I know that this is no where near possible, but it always seems like they manage to take out/mess up the best parts of the books.

The first thing I hated was them removing
The second was the random scene they added in in the middle , and the way we knew The last thing I abhorred was the overall All in all, it wasn't terrible by any means. I really felt that they captured the I'll probably see it again anyway.

Blade wrote: The first thing I hated was them removing

Hidden/Spoiler:

all of the memories besides Slughorns. It felt like we didn't know where the Horcruxes (especially the Ring, but the locket, too) came from. It also doesn't give any credence (is that the right word?) as to why Tom hates his father so much. They also removed all references to the other Horcruxes, which will be hard to recover in the next film, as that's how Harry knew what he was looking for. I'm betting that they're going to have him steal Dumbledore's portrait for a good part of the film, but that's just my guess. Either that or Xenophilius will tell them about it with the Deathly Hallows.

Huh, that's dissapointing... and it's gonna be hard to cover up when they make the Deathly Hallows film... but then what about Dumbledore's hand? Was is blackened? And if so, he must have explained it in some way to Harry, and in the book it is explained through the memory at the House of Gaunt.

the movie itself was a good movie.
but the whole thing was nothing like the book.
Totally different. Kinda pathetically different actually.

i agree with the burning of the burrow part.
they really couldnt think of anything...

*resists urge to post nasty stuff about Harry Potter in general*

*takes a deep breath*

OK, I'm good now.

*twitches eye*

Edward Cullen wrote:Was is blackened? And if so, he must have explained it in some way to Harry, and in the book it is explained through the memory at the House of Gaunt.

My favourite part:
But seriously, I felt about this movie much the same as I have all the others: It was good, and got most of the book, but still got many things wrong, and had one or two moments that made me think "WTF?! NO! OMG! Why would you do that?!"

Hebes24 wrote:I'm going to see it sometime. Should be a good movie, even though I know they're going to leave out a lot of important stuff.

That is what ruined all the movies after Chamber of Secrets.

It lacked crucial subplots, too many minor characters didn't get enough screentime, it was full of filler that wasn't even close to any events in the books, and because of this the next movies will be full of plot holes.

Blade wrote:

Edward Cullen wrote:Was is blackened? And if so, he must have explained it in some way to Harry, and in the book it is explained through the memory at the House of Gaunt.

Hidden/Spoiler:

He tells Harry that it happened while retrieving the ring, but we don't really know how he got the ring/where it came from. We're told about the Horcruxes (and that there are seven of them) but besides the book, the ring, and the locket, we (and Harry) are not told anything.

PLOT HOLE!

Taivyx wrote:Then neither film would do as well as if they were released a year apart.

But the problem with that is that since they're so close together they're rushed and lack many crucial elements.

Please do not triple post, -Staff

Hebes, your entire post (especially the first part ) pretty much sums up my feelings for the movie as well. Good overall, but had those "NO, PUT THAT PART BACK IN, NOW!" moments (and just a few too many of them for me to truly enjoy it).

Darth_Squoobus wrote:

Taivyx wrote:Then neither film would do as well as if they were released a year apart.

But the problem with that is that since they're so close together they're rushed and lack many crucial elements.

Blubbering humdinger, what?

I was stating that the two parts should be released a year apart.
As in, there should be more time between to the two than previously suggested, not less.

On a slight side note, though still relevant....
That year between the first and second parts would be spent on special effects and CGI, which, as stated in many interviews with the crew, takes about that much time in every film.
The cast is working on filming the 7th right now; in fact they're more than halfway through filming the second part.

Taivyx wrote:

Darth_Squoobus wrote:

Taivyx wrote:Then neither film would do as well as if they were released a year apart.

But the problem with that is that since they're so close together they're rushed and lack many crucial elements.

Blubbering humdinger, what?

I was stating that the two parts should be released a year apart.
As in, there should be more time between to the two than previously suggested, not less.

On a slight side note, though still relevant....
That year between the first and second parts would be spent on special effects and CGI, which, as stated in many interviews with the crew, takes about that much time in every film.
The cast is working on filming the 7th right now; in fact they're more than halfway through filming the second part.

I guess I misread your post...

The special effects are good, I'll give you that. It's the writing. When John Carpenter was writing the script for The Thing, he had a whole year to write the script due to some sort of scheduling error or something. And since he had so much time to write the script, the result was an amazing movie.

But with the Harry Potter movies on the other hand, they push it to an annual release date and there's very little time to write the scripts, and what we end up with is a mediocre CGI pigout full of cheesy romance scenes that's only fun on an adolescent level.

Darth_Squoobus wrote:But with the Harry Potter movies on the other hand, they push it to an annual release date and there's very little time to write the scripts, and what we end up with is a mediocre CGI pigout full of cheesy romance scenes that's only fun on an adolescent level.

I hardly think that these are "mediocre CGI pigouts," and I enjoy them - and I'd hardly call them "only fun on an adolescent level" (that's quite ignorant, especially given the critical reviews). Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean that:
a) It was bad
b) You should pigeonhole everyone who does like it

I thought, in "essence", this movie did the best job of preserving the arc of the book concisely and in a manner that translated well to the screen, and I thought that the "cheesy romance scenes" were hilarious and added to the movie as comedy (which is what they were supposed to be, you got that, right?). I was confused as to why there was an additional scene (the Burrow one) and wished that the ending had been more drawn-out, but I enjoyed the movie for what it was, and as being a big fan of the book.

I hardly think that these are "mediocre CGI pigouts," and I enjoy them - and I'd hardly call them "only fun on an adolescent level" (that's quite ignorant, especially given the critical reviews). Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean that:
a) It was bad
b) You should pigeonhole everyone who does like it

I thought, in "essence", this movie did the best job of preserving the arc of the book concisely and in a manner that translated well to the screen, and I thought that the "cheesy romance scenes" were hilarious and added to the movie as comedy (which is what they were supposed to be, you got that, right?). I was confused as to why there was an additional scene (the Burrow one) and wished that the ending had been more drawn-out, but I enjoyed the movie for what it was, and as being a big fan of the book.

Because of the movies, the books are doomed to obscurity. Typically, when a popular book is made into a movie, if the book is good, people will want to see the movie and forget all about the book.

On the other hand, if the movie sucks, no-one will want to read the book based on what they saw in the movie. Either way, the books are doomed.
And the reviews praised it for it mainly for it's score, cinematography, acting, and special effects. While those are the high points of the movie, the main problem is that too many minor characters didn't get enough screentime. It suffered from Twilight syndrome. And looking back, it felt more like Twilight than Harry Potter.

And another thing that made it like Twilight was the emphasis on love scenes. While romantic subplots are necessary for a good story, it seemed to be the main theme of the film.

The main theme of the book on the other hand was shoved in a corner of unimportance. The movie is called Harry Potter and The Half Blood Prince so I thought they would center it on the mystery of whom Harry's mysterious textbook used to belong to, but they bogged it down in lighthearted romance scenes. Many of the reviews called it dark, but only about twenty minutes of the the film were actually dark. They showed death eaters attacking a muggle bridge (which wasn't in the book), the burrow being set on fire by death eaters (which also wasn't in the book), zombies that look like gollum (which were toally nude and in a certain shot one's genitals were clearly on-screen), and Dumbledore's death. While the last two of those were done justice, the first two were mere gimmicks. You see buildings being torn down in Transformers, some of the robots actually bleed a mysterious orange liquid, and several characters die viloently but that movie wasn't dark in any way. I don't see how it makes Harry Potter dark, especially since Harry Potter had none of that. (In no way am I saying transformers is any better, though. That movie was terrible.) I came in expecting dark, faithful adaptation of a great book and I got basically One Tree Hill with magic.

Darth_Squoobus wrote:Because of the movies, the books are doomed to obscurity. Typically, when a popular book is made into a movie, if the book is good, people will want to see the movie and forget all about the book.

What? Can you name one? I can't think of a single instance where a movie adaptation of a popular book or series has ever mitigated or diminished the writings in a single way. If anything else, adaptations lead to resurgences of series (e.g. LotR in recent years), which is... the opposite of what you're saying.

As mentioned above, clearly you didn't see what you wanted in the movie. Fine. You are entitled to your opinion, but eschewing the opinions of others (or, as I said, pigeonholing their interest as merely "adolescent") is uncalled-for.

I won't bother trying to adjust your opinion, as you appear entrenched in it, but I will once again emphasize a fact you missed - this wasn't a "romance movie" and never purported to be. The majority of the on-screen romance was played for laughs - this seems to have escaped you as you file all of that away as things to "bog down" the movie.

Maveritchell wrote:

Darth_Squoobus wrote:Because of the movies, the books are doomed to obscurity. Typically, when a popular book is made into a movie, if the book is good, people will want to see the movie and forget all about the book.

What? Can you name one? I can't think of a single instance where a movie adaptation of a popular book or series has ever mitigated or diminished the writings in a single way. If anything else, adaptations lead to resurgences of series (e.g. LotR in recent years), which is... the opposite of what you're saying.

As mentioned above, clearly you didn't see what you wanted in the movie. Fine. You are entitled to your opinion, but eschewing the opinions of others (or, as I said, pigeonholing their interest as merely "adolescent") is uncalled-for.

I won't bother trying to adjust your opinion, as you appear entrenched in it, but I will once again emphasize a fact you missed - this wasn't a "romance movie" and never purported to be. The majority of the on-screen romance was played for laughs - this seems to have escaped you as you file all of that away as things to "bog down" the movie.

Yes, you have paid the price for your lack of vision.

And now, young Squoobus, you will die... :emp:

Darth_Squoobus wrote:And another thing that made it like Twilight was the emphasis on love scenes. While romantic subplots are necessary for a good story, it seemed to be the main theme of the film.

I haven't seen the movie so I can't comment on anybody's opinions about it as a whole, but a prominent theme throughout the series was coming of age, and awkward romances have a big place in coming of age. It seems to me that an emphasis on the various romances would be appropriate (and if I remember correctly, the novel did spend a decent amount of time on them).

Maveritchell wrote:

Darth_Squoobus wrote:Because of the movies, the books are doomed to obscurity. Typically, when a popular book is made into a movie, if the book is good, people will want to see the movie and forget all about the book.

What? Can you name one? (The Hunt For Red October, Starship Troopers, Gone with The Wind, V for Vendetta, The Leaugue of Extraordinary Gentlemen, The Silence of The Lambs and the rest of the Hannibal saga) I can't think of a single instance where a movie adaptation of a popular book or series has ever mitigated or diminished the writings in a single way. If anything else, adaptations lead to resurgences of series (e.g. LotR in recent years), which is... the opposite of what you're saying.

As mentioned above, clearly you didn't see what you wanted in the movie. Fine. You are entitled to your opinion, but eschewing the opinions of others (or, as I said, pigeonholing their interest as merely "adolescent") is uncalled-for.

I won't bother trying to adjust your opinion, as you appear entrenched in it, but I will once again emphasize a fact you missed - this wasn't a "romance movie" and never purported to be. The majority of the on-screen romance was played for laughs - this seems to have escaped you as you file all of that away as things to "bog down" the movie.

Well, now that you've checkmated my cynicism and disappointment there's not much left for me to say, but nonetheless, the advertisement was still somewhat misleading.

I was about to say:

"And as for my pigeonholing, where were you when Blade, Kooster, and The_Emperor were talking down on it?"

But I get it now, it's one those "n00b" disadvantages. Since they weren't "n00bs" they were able to dodge that bullet. Forget I ever said that.

Darth_Squoobus wrote: Well, now that you've checkmated my cynicism and disappointment there's not much left for me to say, but nonetheless, the advertisement was still somewhat misleading.

I was about to say:

"And as for my pigeonholing, where were you when Blade, Kooster, and The_Emperor were talking down on it?"

But I get it now, it's one those "n00b" disadvantages. Since they weren't "n00bs" they were able to dodge that bullet. Forget I ever said that.

Uh, no. They were expressing their opinions, but not trying to "pigeonhole" it on everyone else.

Darth_Squoobus wrote:

Maveritchell wrote:

Darth_Squoobus wrote:Because of the movies, the books are doomed to obscurity. Typically, when a popular book is made into a movie, if the book is good, people will want to see the movie and forget all about the book.

What? Can you name one? (The Hunt For Red October, Starship Troopers, Gone with The Wind, V for Vendetta, The Leaugue of Extraordinary Gentlemen, The Silence of The Lambs and the rest of the Hannibal saga)

Except all of those are very famous books (except of course for the Alan Moore graphic novels, which were already mixed-media to begin with, but not books). I'm not sure what the transition to screen did to them, but it certainly didn't make them fade into obscurity (especially since all the authors of those are well known - certainly wouldn't the authors have been sidelined if the books had been diminished?). That may be a matter of opinion.

Darth_Squoobus wrote:But I get it now, it's one those "n00b" disadvantages. Since they weren't "n00bs" they were able to dodge that bullet. Forget I ever said that.

I can't see every post at once, so forgive me, please, if it seems like I'm singling you out. However, going back and looking at them, none of them make the error of applying broad labels to people for liking or disliking something so trivial as a movie. I'm willing to let people hold whatever opinions they want, but there is a line that's crossed when one starts belittling the opinions of others. Please steer clear of that line.

And on a lighter note I still have not managed to see this movie yet. I'd like to, but I'm totally broke right now, so it looks like I'm waiting for the DVD.

Maveritchell wrote:I can't see every post at once, so forgive me, please, if it seems like I'm singling you out. However, going back and looking at them, none of them make the error of applying broad labels to people for liking or disliking something so trivial as a movie. I'm willing to let people hold whatever opinions they want, but there is a line that's crossed when one starts belittling the opinions of others. Please steer clear of that line.

How often does this kind of thing happen?