62 replies to this topic

[Mitchfork]

Yeah, the book made it seem frantic and chaotic... the movie didn't. Still good, though. I was also disappointed by the fact that by the end of the book, Harry's like "I won!" and doesn't freak out like he did in the book. I thought that was a rather poignant passage.

[The Satellite]

I noticed right off the bat that he didn't go on the rampage in Dumbledore's office at the end. Though I can see why that was cut.

I also just looked, and remembered the Snape and Pensieve scene. That was crapped up.

[Zemious]

I just saw it like an hour ago, very good movie.

[Mitchfork]

It isn't Order of the Phoenix, but while we're bashing the movies...

[Limzo]

I guess I liked the film, I thought it was really good. But they missed all the important bits out!!

Hermione and Ron being prefects, Harry being jelous,
The coins telling the time and place of the Da meetings,
The Society for the Promotion of Elfish Welfare (SPEW),
Ron being Quidditch captain,
The Pensieve,
Fawkes, the whole damn reason for the film's name,
Rita Skeeta (and respective article in below magazine, also featured "exclusively" in the Daily Prophet),
The Quibbler (Luna's dad's magazine),
Many many more...

[The Satellite]

There's too much that it's missing. It's almost a shame to call this based off of the book. It's almost as bad as the Count of Monte Cristo film; that is, in how much different the movie is from the book.

It's strange: I really liked Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, but it got (for the most part) bad reviews. And now, I don't really like Order of the Phoenix, and it generally got great reviews. Just goes to show you that you can't trust somebody else's judgement.

[Limzo]

... but then again, if it had included all of that, it would be 5 hours long and I would have ended up in the middle of the city at night time!

[Sharon Daniel]

I wish it was that long; the movie seemed really short to me, although I think it was 2 1/2 hours.

[Limzo]

Yeah, it was that long aroundish, but the cinema I went to was really crappy and showed an hour of advertisments.

[Mitchfork]

I think that's why I like LotR. They didn't seem rushed. Harry Potter does, because they tried to fit it into a normal movie timetable.

[Captain Magenta]

The irony about that is that even the Lord Of The Rings, with as good as it was, did not adhere entirely to the conventions of the books either. I can remember that the theatrical release of the Fellowship of The Ring cut out the scene with Tom Bombadil entirely, and it also left out the hobbits' encounter with the Barrow Wight. Another issue was the circimstances under which Aragorn receives Anduril, the blade that was broken in the fight against Sauron. In the book it was reforged before Aragorn left Rivendell as Aragorn had actually been carrying the hilt of the sword up until that point, whereas in the movie he does not receive it until the Return Of The King as a gift from Elrond. Even the cause of the blade's destruction was changed. The fact that Gimli thought he was in love with Galadriel was also omitted from the movie. That's why the books of a series are always better since they have the ability to introduce and expand upon ideas that would be too difficult and expensive to implement in a movie relatively to their storytelling value. But I think the fact that they cut the hospital Saint Mungo's, the fact that the severity of the combat in the Department of Mysteries was significantly toned down (Hermoine was stunned unconscious and actually presumed slain at first, as well as most of the other students sustaining serious injuries or being completely incapacitated), the omission of Harry's anger and rampage about Sirius' demise, and the fact that the pensieve scene was totally omitted since Snape's lessons were not even held in Dumbledore's office just brought down this movie too much and removed much of the element of fear and the threat of Voldemort and the Death Eaters. The only thing about the films that can make them fun to watch are all the special effects that can be thrown into the spells that are being used by characters for people that can't visualize how the spell might appear based on the description in the book.

[CastChaos]

I think that's why I like LotR. They didn't seem rushed. Harry Potter does, because they tried to fit it into a normal movie timetable.

Maybe LotR wasn't rushed, but it was COMPLETELY different than the book. It's a miracle that the title remained the same.
True that a whole long book can't fit into a movie timetable, but they could make about 3 parts or something... Of course, it would be more expenses and not sure if more income...

[Mitchfork]

There's a lot that was left out of LotR, to be sure, but most of it wasn't major plot points. Although I did like Tom Bombadil...

[Bayta]

Trying to get back on topic here, I really liked HP 5. I did notice they left out some parts that were in the book, but overall, it was much better than the past 2. There wasn't anything too big they left out.

[The Satellite]

Actually, I thought Goblet of Fire (the movie) was better.