PDA

View Full Version : Deathly Hallows Trailer



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58

rjblue
07-18-2011, 03:05 AM
I just saw it tonight, with a really great audience. You could have heard a pin drop in the theatre for a good portion of the movie. It was very effective in setting the mood of the movie. I'd read all the spoilers on this thread, so none of the changes from book to movie were jarring to me.

The most important thing that I needed to see in the movie was Snape's role, and that was nearly perfect.

Allskate
07-18-2011, 08:01 AM
I saw the first showing of the movie yesterday morning and the theatre was full.

I haven't read the book since it first came out several years ago and I have a bad memory, so it was easier for me not to keep comparing the movie to the book. With past Potter movies, I found it annoying and distracting if I recently had read the book and was watching the movie.

I really don't think it's possible to fit all of the books into the movies. Not only would the movies be too long, but I think it would get harder for people to follow if they hadn't read the books or seen all the previous movies. One of my friends who came to the movie with me yesterday hadn't read the books and he didn't have much problem following the movie. The most complicated things he needed to understand were the deathly hallows and the horcruxes and they recapped that at the beginning.

I didn't mind that they didn't explain the whole history of the sword. I guess if people didn't see the seventh movie, they wouldn't have understood Harry's flashbacks in this movie, where he realizes that Snape's partronus was the doe and that Snape was the one who left the sword for them to destroy the locket horcrux, but I don't think it would have left people confused. And, yeah, I never thought the sword was supposed to be a horcrux either. The sword was powerful enough on its own. Even if Voldemort didn't realize its full power to destroy horcruxes he would have wanted to make sure Harry didn't get it.

The kids' acting has never been good. It's not like it's gotten worse.

I guess I'm easy. I liked the movie. Harry breaking the elder wand didn't even bother me. It seemed in character and made sense.

Satellitegirl
07-18-2011, 12:34 PM
The kid's acting has improved so much from the first couple of movies, that I guess that isn't something I even noticed. Hermione was the only one that ever annoyed me as far as acting went, and she got a lot better.

MarieM
07-18-2011, 12:52 PM
I saw it saturday, and despite the fact I hated all the changes made to the plot in all movies since the second one, I get why they had to.
The last battle was a bit too much. I prefered the book's version better since it was more fitting with who Harry is at the end.
But anyway, I had a great moment and felt a bit depressed it was the end. No more Potter ! No more Hermione. No more twins.
That's one thing I hated in the movie thought : they didn't spend much time on some of the deaths like Lupin & Tonks.
No mention of their kids either.

But meh, I don't care. The books gave all the details I needed ;)

I so wish they'd done a show like the one with Game Of Thrones, giving more time to know the characters and stay true to the books.

michiruwater
07-18-2011, 04:01 PM
I think the Golden Trio's acting has all improved considerably in the last few films, especially Emma's. I don't have any problem with their acting, actually, I thought they all did a good job. I read a review that stated that the most surprising thing about the films was that all three actors grew up to physically fit the parts, be sufficiently attractive for Hollywood's standards, and sufficient enough actors to pull off the parts from the age of 10 or 11 through now, when the youngest of them is 21. And that really is kind of amazing when you look at it.

FigureSpins
07-18-2011, 04:06 PM
I thought the actors/actresses all did fine. The only actor whose acting I disliked was Gambon as Dumbledore. He always seemed to be pissed off about something, which is not what I envisioned from the books. It must be hard to follow in Richard Harris' footsteps.

Hollywood casts 20-somethings as teenagers, so the kids in this movie were great considering they were really kids!

rfisher
07-18-2011, 04:07 PM
IF you never read the books, the film was OK. I know there are lots of people who haven't read the books and I feel sorry for them. It's good that I didn't read all the changes before going to the film, or I would have just waited for the DVD. :lol: I'm a book purist. :drama:

michiruwater
07-18-2011, 04:14 PM
Clearly :lol: I love the books and have been at all the book midnight release parties, read them about 50 times each, etc., but I also really love movies and it doesn't bother me if they change some things a little (BIG changes would irritate me, but I don't consider any of the changes they made to be BIG changes) in order to make a great film. And I definitely feel this was a great film.

FigureSpins
07-18-2011, 04:38 PM
It's like Jurassic Park: I loved, loved, loved the book but thought the movie was lame. I just went to see the dinosaurs, lol.

Satellitegirl
07-18-2011, 05:55 PM
rfisher, if you're a book purist, might I recommend never watching another adaptation again...lol. There's a reason why they say "Adapted screenplay" and not "Book on Film" ;)

rfisher
07-18-2011, 06:35 PM
:lol: Well, some are OK. I actually enjoyed LOTR even if they did change Arwen Evenstar's role. Some of my LOTR purist friends were appalled, but I didn't mind it so much. And I loved the first HP film. Absolutely loved it. I thought it captured the magic of Hogwarts completely and I never read the book that I don't hear Alan Rickman's soft voice giving that opening line of dialogue in potion's class. I didn't mind the 2nd movie, but they went downhill from the 3rd forward. DH was loads better than the travesty they did with OoTP and HBP. So, it's not all adaptations. :) I don't mind when they cut scenes to fit a two hour time period. I mind when the director/screenwriter thinks their version is better than the original.

Skittl1321
07-18-2011, 06:52 PM
I loved the first movie too- I felt it was like having the book read to me, in a way I imagine wizard picture books might be.

From then on though, I got more and more disappointed. I stopped going to the theatre after #3, I stopped buying them on DVD after 5. I haven't seen 6 or either 7 yet. I'm torn on whether or not to go see the last one. It's my final chance, but after my midnight screening plans fell through, I figured it wasn't meant to be.

Satellitegirl
07-18-2011, 07:47 PM
I mind when the director/screenwriter thinks their version is better than the original.

Yeah, fair enough :). And I'm with you on the first movie. Loved it. I liked how the first two movies really gave you the feeling of all the little nuances that go with being in a castle full of magic, and the movie just had a warm feel to it overall. Of course that was just he beginning before all hell started breaking loose lol.

IceAlisa
07-18-2011, 07:58 PM
I don't mind when they cut scenes to fit a two hour time period. I mind when the director/screenwriter thinks their version is better than the original.

How can you tell when scenes are cut for time vs. the screenwriter considering their version better?

NinjaTurtles
07-18-2011, 07:59 PM
IF you never read the books, the film was OK. I know there are lots of people who haven't read the books and I feel sorry for them. It's good that I didn't read all the changes before going to the film, or I would have just waited for the DVD. :lol: I'm a book purist. :drama:

I understand the frustration regarding being book purist vs. enjoying the films. I'm able to enjoy the films and even appreciate certain aspects unique to them; I've even re-watched them all on many occasions with friends...and not just to mock Barty Crouch's hand movements in GOF. :lol:

However, it's exasperating when a screenwriter takes liberties to service a vision he or she believes is superior to the source material. Adaptation is a very interesting and difficult process, but it doesn't have to be total reinvention. If anything, the goal is to express the true meaning and purpose of the story visually. For me, some of the changes in Part 2 definitely caused the film to fail to meet that goal. Regardless, I still had fun and enjoyed the majority of the movie. :)

Then there are always people like my fiancÚ who can't stand the changes and felt compelled to mutter "this movie ****ing sucks" during the final Harry vs. Voldermort scene. :shuffle: