Ridikolous: What's your game?
Kenneth: Boggle!

"Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" hits screens on July 15, promising high-speed action, dark and dangerous battles with the forces of evil, budding romance at Hogwarts school for wizards and the expected death of a prominent character.

Yeah, trying not to spill THAT particular spoiler is about as stupid as writing a review of Titanic and trying not to tell people whether the boat sinks.

/I'll tell the secret
//Cho Chang gets detonated by a blast-ended screwt
///hawt
////lie

This was one of the best books in the series. If the worst book in the series (OOTP) became an entertaining movie, this one promises to be very good.

Yes, but is there is a Hermionicaus Boobicus spell?

How about analkous secksus?

Kid Mojo: How about analkous secksus?

For a moment, I thought that was a swimming pool in the background - and my mind started having thoughts...

I love these movies. We'll never see a series like this again. And if Dumbledore #1 hadn't have died, they'd still have all the same actors too.

Although I'm not sure what happened to Professor Flitwick along the way.

Confabulat: I love these movies. We'll never see a series like this again. And if Dumbledore #1 hadn't have died, they'd still have all the same actors too.

Although I'm not sure what happened to Professor Flitwick along the way.

Alphonso Curon portrayed him that way, but J.k. Rowling has noted that she originally intended that Professor Flitwick's backstory included a goblin ancestor, but ran out of room to include it in the novels. That's the explanation for his short stature.

Michael Goldenberg was the screenwriter for 'Order of the Phoenix.' I always got the impression he never bothered to read the book, but had just read notes written by somebody else about the book. Steve Kloves was the screen writer for the first four films, and is now back for the sixth and seventh films. They really should have burned the screenplay done by Goldenberg for 'Order of the Phoenix' - he somehow managed to turn gold into shiat (alchemy, perhaps?), and brought Kloves back sooner, rather what they did.

Marshall_O'Niel: Michael Goldenberg was the screenwriter for 'Order of the Phoenix.' I always got the impression he never bothered to read the book, but had just read notes written by somebody else about the book

It's my favorite book in the series. And the movie was such a huge disappointment.

Is anyone else disappointed with Voldemort's portrayal in the movies? It's your standard crazy movie villain portrayal, very stereotypical and unimaginative.

SNAPE K...

opiumpoopy: Kid Mojo: How about analkous secksus?

For a moment, I thought that was a swimming pool in the background - and my mind started having thoughts...

I thought it was too. It's one of them optical illusions!

FTFA: "...another box office bonanza looks assured for the Warner Bros. studio."

Nothing compared to the money you'd get with a Luna/Ginny nude pudding-wrestling scene.

Fraggler: This was one of the best books in the series. If the worst book in the series (OOTP) became an entertaining movie, this one promises to be very good.

OOTP was my favorite of the series, just out of curiosity why do you think it is the worst?

Rhaab: Nothing compared to the money you'd get with a Luna/Ginny nude pudding-wrestling scene.

Easy now. Ginny's just turned eighteen, but Luna isn't until August.

I'm sure the contracts have already been signed and the film crew is waiting.

Hetfield: Is anyone else disappointed with Voldemort's portrayal in the movies? It's your standard crazy movie villain portrayal, very stereotypical and unimaginative.

I'm not very savvy on the books (read the first one in a sitting a few weeks ago) but love the movies, I like Ralph's Voldemort being a little mad and very strange. Considering he's been formless for, what, 15 years at this point? and that he was revived in a pot. Makes sense that he's a bit manic.

Hetfield: Is anyone else disappointed with Voldemort's portrayal in the movies? It's your standard crazy movie villain portrayal, very stereotypical and unimaginative.

Yup, he's way more evil than that. I wish they'd made him look less cartoonish.

But this is the book that shows his childhood and roots as a villain, so they won't be able to get away with it, with any luck.

Pengfish: I'm not very savvy on the books (read the first one in a sitting a few weeks ago) but love the movies, I like Ralph's Voldemort being a little mad and very strange. Considering he's been formless for, what, 15 years at this point? and that he was revived in a pot. Makes sense that he's a bit manic.

Read all the books and then I'll bet your opinion is a little different. Your statement makes complete sense if you've only seen the movies, but his character is a lot more complex than it's portrayed.

Genevieve Marie: Read all the books and then I'll bet your opinion is a little different. Your statement makes complete sense if you've only seen the movies, but his character is a lot more complex than it's portrayed.

Hey guys! Girl fight!

Pengfish: I like Ralph's Voldemort being a little mad and very strange.

There are better ways to sell "mad" and "strange" to the audience than having the villain make seemingly unmotivated gestures and instructing him to move his head like a ballerina from time to time, especially if it's the kind of performance that you dread because you've seen it a thousand times before.

In this case less is more. Compare Ralph Fiennes superficial acting to Lost's Ben Linus or Hannibal Lecter. Their portrayal is far more intense, and far more enjoyable.

Genevieve Marie: I wish they'd made him look less cartoonish.

Me too. I don't really blame Fiennes for that, he's a fine actor. But he clearly got bad instructions for his role as Voldemort.

Kid Mojo: How about analkous secksus?

Hetfield: Me too. I don't really blame Fiennes for that, he's a fine actor. But he clearly got bad instructions for his role as Voldemort.

If we're going to seriously discuss someone getting bad instructions for playing their role, it has to be Gambon as Dumbledore.

Dumbledore /= yelling at students. Ever.

John Dewey: If we're going to seriously discuss someone getting bad instructions for playing their role, it has to be Gambon as Dumbledore.

Oh, yes, definitely. That was massive FAIL. That was in the fourth movie, if I remember correctly? An extremely awkward moment. A real shame, I actually find Gambon quite pleasant as Dumbledore.

Serious question: is there anyone on earth who doesn't know what happens at the end of this movie/book? Prior to the release of the sixth book, I had read the first five over the span of a couple weeks, and read the HBP almost immediately after it was released. I can't remember, but I think I finished it without having been spoiled -- I mean, I didn't have the internet at home at the time, which seriously helped.

Hetfield: Pengfish: I like Ralph's Voldemort being a little mad and very strange.

There are better ways to sell "mad" and "strange" to the audience than having the villain make seemingly unmotivated gestures and instructing him to move his head like a ballerina from time to time, especially if it's the kind of performance that you dread because you've seen it a thousand times before.

In this case less is more. Compare Ralph Fiennes superficial acting to Lost's Ben Linus or Hannibal Lecter. Their portrayal is far more intense, and far more enjoyable.

Genevieve Marie: I wish they'd made him look less cartoonish.

Me too. I don't really blame Fiennes for that, he's a fine actor. But he clearly got bad instructions for his role as Voldemort.

I think the whole idea is that he's trying to look like a snake-person. Hence the lack of a nose. He's trying to act like he's no longer completely human.

And while OOTP did lose a lot of the detail of the book (the memory-pool stuff got pared down to almost nothing) I do think it was the best movie.

Prisoner of Azkaban is marred by the terrible double-ending, Chamber of Secrets is just pointless (and the Basilisk looks terrible). Phoenix is the one I enjoyed the most of the movies - for one, it is the first "wizards duel" that didn't just look like two old men gesticulating madly while shouting gibberish.

I put Philosopher's Stone and Goblet in the middle.

Pxtl: I think the whole idea is that he's trying to look like a snake-person. Hence the lack of a nose. He's trying to act like he's no longer completely human.

I understand the reasoning behind it, but the execution has been poor.

Everybody talks about POA as the best movie. I like it the least of all of them so far. Cuaron's (sp) movie feels very disconnected from the rest of the series, and for some reason (to me) it doesn't gel with the rest.

I know people complain about the first two being very pedestrian, but I enjoyed them both a lot more than POA.

mjbok: Everybody talks about POA as the best movie. I like it the least of all of them so far. Cuaron's (sp) movie feels very disconnected from the rest of the series, and for some reason (to me) it doesn't gel with the rest.

I know people complain about the first two being very pedestrian, but I enjoyed them both a lot more than POA.

Cuaron took a lot of artistic license with his film, with some great results and some meh results. I LOVE all of the little details in the background, especially the figures in the paintings, which were spot-on perfect. His exclusion of the origin of the Marauder's Map is pretty inexcusable, though.

Most unfortunately, Cuaron is also responsible for the God-awful portrayal by Michael Gambon of Dumbledore, something that has the potential to overwhelm "Half-Blood Prince," given the focus of the story. Gambon's Dumbledore is a cranky old bastard who dresses like he's homeless, screams at students, shakes the shiat out of Harry, and appears to be scared of fire. WTF? Richard Harris wasn't perfect, but he seemed to GET who Dumbledore is: patient, wise, kind, funny, and intimidating to his enemies due to his *potential* power to kick some serious magical ass. He also is described as being a flamboyant and stylish dresser (though, of course, we learned later why that was). Gambon would have been much better cast as some Ministry asshole, like Pius Thicknesse.

I went back and watched Chamber of Secrets and golly is it terrible. Ridiculous number of nods to the first movie ("Hey, rememeber that!" moments), terrible effects, and too many scenes of the kids standing in front of a green screen screaming at the fuzzy woes that befall them.

All of Harry Potter is same same.
I got bored by #3


/book
//movie

Pengfish: I went back and watched Chamber of Secrets and golly is it terrible. Ridiculous number of nods to the first movie ("Hey, rememeber that!" moments), terrible effects, and too many scenes of the kids standing in front of a green screen screaming at the fuzzy woes that befall them.

What bugged me the most about Chamber of Secrets was that they omitted a lot of the scenes involving Justin Finch-Fletchley, including his introduction. Adding those in would have made Harry's speaking Parseltongue to the snake poised to attach Justin that much more powerful, and made Justin's reaction to it ("What are you playing at?!?") fit better with the film. Granted, they added those scenes back in when they're broadcast on TV, but still.

The second movie had much better effects than the first movie. For example, Neville falling off his broom looks so fake, along with the Quidditch scenes. I can't really bring myself around to watch the DVDs of those films, but if they're on TV, I'll stop and watch. They're still God-awful.

/OOTP was my favorite movie and book

opiumpoopy: Genevieve Marie: Read all the books and then I'll bet your opinion is a little different. Your statement makes complete sense if you've only seen the movies, but his character is a lot more complex than it's portrayed.

Hey guys! Girl fight!

awww yeah!!

Marshall_O'Niel: Michael Goldenberg was the screenwriter for 'Order of the Phoenix.' I always got the impression he never bothered to read the book, but had just read notes written by somebody else about the book. Steve Kloves was the screen writer for the first four films, and is now back for the sixth and seventh films. They really should have burned the screenplay done by Goldenberg for 'Order of the Phoenix' - he somehow managed to turn gold into shiat (alchemy, perhaps?), and brought Kloves back sooner, rather what they did.

Five was my favorite book. I was very disappointed with the movie. Looking forward to six in two weeks.

Hetfield: Pengfish: I like Ralph's Voldemort being a little mad and very strange.

There are better ways to sell "mad" and "strange" to the audience than having the villain make seemingly unmotivated gestures and instructing him to move his head like a ballerina from time to time, especially if it's the kind of performance that you dread because you've seen it a thousand times before.

In this case less is more. Compare Ralph Fiennes superficial acting to Lost's Ben Linus or Hannibal Lecter. Their portrayal is far more intense, and far more enjoyable.

Genevieve Marie: I wish they'd made him look less cartoonish.

Me too. I don't really blame Fiennes for that, he's a fine actor. But he clearly got bad instructions for his role as Voldemort.

I think Fiennes has done a very good job in the role. I was very impressed with his performance.

rmatthewware: Marshall_O'Niel: Michael Goldenberg was the screenwriter for 'Order of the Phoenix.' I always got the impression he never bothered to read the book, but had just read notes written by somebody else about the book. Steve Kloves was the screen writer for the first four films, and is now back for the sixth and seventh films. They really should have burned the screenplay done by Goldenberg for 'Order of the Phoenix' - he somehow managed to turn gold into shiat (alchemy, perhaps?), and brought Kloves back sooner, rather what they did.

Five was my favorite book. I was very disappointed with the movie. Looking forward to six in two weeks.

I get the appeal of the fifth book, but if you think whiny, emo, all-caps HARRY was going to translate to film well while keeping the plot moving in that monstrous book, you're delusional. That book is easily the hardest in the series to put on screen, and I thought they performed admirably on the whole.

Grey Street: Cuaron took a lot of artistic license with his film, with some great results and some meh results. I LOVE all of the little details in the background, especially the figures in the paintings, which were spot-on perfect. His exclusion of the origin of the Marauder's Map is pretty inexcusable, though.

The thing that bothered me most about POA was it took all of the magic out of it. It seemed for most of the movie it was just kids in normal clothes doing normal stuff. I don't know why, but them not wearing robes really stood out to me as being distracting.

The books peaked with Goblet of Fire and went very downhill from there. (although POA was pretty bad as well)

Books 6 and 7 were just terrible.

That being said POA was my favorite movie so far (better director = better movie), so the movies obviously should be judged on their own merits.

chimp_ninja: Ridikolous: What's your game?
Kenneth: Boggle!

I'mma eat yo family!

I'm just bummed because I had intended to take the day off with friends and go see the movie and just be a general idiot.

Instead I failed to pay attention to the calendar and scheduled major dental work for that day. I'm sure I won't want to see daylight for at least two weeks, much less sit in a theater with a bunch of other whackos like myself.

/Boo
//Yeah, they'll be getting my money anyway. A couple times.

Dawg47: rmatthewware: Marshall_O'Niel: Michael Goldenberg was the screenwriter for 'Order of the Phoenix.' I always got the impression he never bothered to read the book, but had just read notes written by somebody else about the book. Steve Kloves was the screen writer for the first four films, and is now back for the sixth and seventh films. They really should have burned the screenplay done by Goldenberg for 'Order of the Phoenix' - he somehow managed to turn gold into shiat (alchemy, perhaps?), and brought Kloves back sooner, rather what they did.

Five was my favorite book. I was very disappointed with the movie. Looking forward to six in two weeks.

I get the appeal of the fifth book, but if you think whiny, emo, all-caps HARRY was going to translate to film well while keeping the plot moving in that monstrous book, you're delusional. That book is easily the hardest in the series to put on screen, and I thought they performed admirably on the whole.

The 'whiny, emo, all-caps HARRY' stuff wasn't really the issue. Kloves seems to have a real talent for distilling out the essential components of the story while retaining the right set of quirky details. Goldenberg just doesn't possess the same ability and talent, and I feel it showed. I find the fifth movie hard to watch, and impossible to enjoy. I'm quite pleased the original screenwriter has returned, and am hoping for the best.

I refused to give the brothers Warner my further attention or cash after paying to be immensely disappointed by the first three films in theatres.

My mind would not allow me to NOT notice what was not moved from the books into to the films. Or to notice that characters were given dialogue that didn't belong to them or that didn't exist at all and events were compressed for time (things that I'm aware MUST happen during any book-to-screen transition). I literally just sat there mentally screaming "That didn't happen that way!" And "That scene should have been segued into that scene, not that one!"

I couldn't see the movies as movies and not as perceived-by-me-to-be failures of adaptation of imperfect-but-genuinely-adored text into moving image.

It would be interesting to see what Miyazaki could do with the series (yeah, yeah! It's unlikely. Dreams, ya know?)

...I refuse...

Um, shouldn't this thread have more pics of, oh, say Emma Watson and the girl that played Luna Lovegood, oh, and whoever played Cho, as well? Or is it just me?

The movies have become less faithful and lost a lot of subtlety because the books became much longer and more detailed.

I'm not disappointed with Fiennes as Voldemort, but I do think he should be...colder.

Gambon is a bad choice as Dumbledore. He really doesn't have the gentleness and warmth, or even the twinkle in his eye.

Robert1966: I'm not disappointed with Fiennes as Voldemort, but I do think he should be...colder.

My issue with Voldemort is that he feels inconsequential in the movies.

Sure, everyone goes "ahhhh, Voldemort", and tries to act like he's scary, but whenever he's on screen, he completely loses that characteristic. He's supposed to be the kind of violently horrible person who destroys the lives of anyone who gets in his way not because they got in his way, but solely because it amuses him to do so and now they've given him an excuse. In the books, he comes off like Hannibal Lecter. In the movies, he's more of a Snidely Whiplash. You can tell he's intended to be Evil, but it's so cartoonish and silly it's funny, not scary. It just feels like they spend too much time explaining that he should be scary, rather than actually making him scary.

Well I for one can't wait to see the next 2 movies. From what I've seen so far they're keeping about 95% of the plot points intact, which should make for some very interesting back-pedalling and exposition where other plot snips are concerned





Oh yeah, there is that too...

/Pre-booked tickets for HBP about a month ago