Since 1997, you’ve been coming to BarnesandNoble.com to discuss everything from Stephen King to writing to Harry Potter. You’ve made our site more than a place to discover your next book: you’ve made it a community. But like all things internet, BN.com is growing and changing. We've said goodbye to our community message boards—but that doesn’t mean we won’t still be a place for adventurous readers to connect and discover.

Now, you can explore the most exciting new titles (and remember the classics) at the Barnes & Noble Book Blog. Check out conversations with authors like Jeff VanderMeer and Gary Shteyngart at the B&N Review, and browse write-ups of the best in literary fiction. Come to our Facebook page to weigh in on what it means to be a book nerd. Browse digital deals on the NOOK blog, tweet about books with us,or self-publish your latest novella with NOOK Press. And for those of you looking for support for your NOOK, the NOOK Support Forums will still be here.

We will continue to provide you with books that make you turn pages well past midnight, discover new worlds, and reunite with old friends. And we hope that you’ll continue to tell us how you’re doing, what you’re reading, and what books mean to you.

Reply
Frequent Contributor
RedRoses2
Posts: 157
Registered: ‎02-01-2007
0 Kudos

Re: HP Movies: What They Leave Out



Beladona_took wrote:
I agree that Harris was a better Dumbledore, but I think Gambon will bring the aspect that's needed for the coming movies. I think Dumbledore has two very different sides to himself:
The first is kind and sofot-spoken, an authority figure in the father sense, sage like and very wise. Harris portrayed this perfectly.
The second side, however, is wise because of experience more than books, cunning, an authority figure in a more "principle" sense, very strong willed and unwilling to back down from his fights (look at when Umbridge and Fudge try to arrest him in his office in OotP!). Gambon can bring this in a way I don't know I would have seen from Harris.
Dumbledore is very sage-like and a strong father figure in the first two books. Books 3-6 he begins to take on a new characteristic. He becomes more a warrior that has come out of retirement to fight the good fight than a wise head of a school.

More than comparing the two actors, I find it amazing that at the same time the books begin to show a different Dumbledore (the beginning of book 3) we actually see a different (no less great at the portrayal, just different) Dumbledore in the movies. I for one love his performance and think Gambon was a perfect fit.




I agree with you. I love both Dumbledore actors, but whenever I go back and watch the first two, I half expect Gambon to still be the actor. I have no idea why. I expect to hear his voice again and to see his face where Harris is. When I see that it's not, I have to remind myself he wasn't always Dumbledore.

I have to say: I loved Harry's dress robes. The Patil twins' robes were imaginative, too. But I also adore what Bellatrix wears. I want that outfit. Maybe this is just me, but the actress who plays Bellatrix is much prettier than I had imagined Bellatrix to be, and I'm not complaining. I like the way she looks in the trailers.

When the Durmstrang students arrived at Hogwarts - and I guess that means the Quidditch World Cup, too - I loved the music that went with it. The performance of the Durmstrang students after the Beaubatons students "showed off" was awesome. Forget the ballet, make way for the young men of Durmstrang! :smileyhappy:
CONSTANT VIGILANCE! - Mad-Eye Moody, coolest Auror ever
Author
GeorgeBeahm
Posts: 23
Registered: ‎03-28-2007
0 Kudos

Re: HP Movies: What They Leave Out

It's really difficult to compress any novel into a screenplay because of time constraints: most movies run 90 minutes, but anything that runs longer becomes an endurance contest for someone sitting in a theater. So you'll find that shorter novels (like Stephen King's novellas of 200 pages) fit nicely within 90 minutes, but Rowling's novels are so long that numerous sub-plots have to be left out; otherwise, the story starts becoming too complicated for some viewers to follow.

Overall, I think all of the Harry Potter movies have been great fun to watch. I especially liked the dark palette of Cuaron. The trailer for the new movie looks spectacular, though, and there's certainl plenty of action to go around!

Things in the Harry Potter universe really heated up with book #5, setting the stage for the final two books.

It's been a great ride, hasn't it? And even after book 7 comes out, well, there's still two more movies to enjoy.
Frequent Contributor
jftapia88
Posts: 474
Registered: ‎02-01-2007
0 Kudos

Re: HP Movies: What They Leave Out


Beladona_took wrote:
I agree that Harris was a better Dumbledore, but I think Gambon will bring the aspect that's needed for the coming movies. I think Dumbledore has two very different sides to himself:
The first is kind and sofot-spoken, an authority figure in the father sense, sage like and very wise. Harris portrayed this perfectly.
The second side, however, is wise because of experience more than books, cunning, an authority figure in a more "principle" sense, very strong willed and unwilling to back down from his fights (look at when Umbridge and Fudge try to arrest him in his office in OotP!). Gambon can bring this in a way I don't know I would have seen from Harris.
Dumbledore is very sage-like and a strong father figure in the first two books. Books 3-6 he begins to take on a new characteristic. He becomes more a warrior that has come out of retirement to fight the good fight than a wise head of a school.

More than comparing the two actors, I find it amazing that at the same time the books begin to show a different Dumbledore (the beginning of book 3) we actually see a different (no less great at the portrayal, just different) Dumbledore in the movies. I for one love his performance and think Gambon was a perfect fit.


have you seen harris in anyhting other than harry potter? i think he would have pulled it off marvelously(sp). the thing is DD is a very modest person. his wise side and his hard side are the same. as i read the part where he takes down the ministry in OotP i didnt imagine him as being any different than usual because he was just as calm as ever and was even making jokes. harris was a much better DD and gambon sucks! when i read the books the DD i imagined was just like the DD harris played. the way alan rickman is the perfect snape, maggie smith is the perfect mcgonagall, and how they have the perfect hagrid. the movies should have stopped after CoS, because after that they became trash. from their failure to adequately introduce characters, leaving out important plot points, and turning everybody into crybabies they have ruined the movie going experience for me.
Julie
Frequent Contributor
RedRoses2
Posts: 157
Registered: ‎02-01-2007
0 Kudos

Re: HP Movies: What They Leave Out



jftapia88 wrote:

Beladona_took wrote:
I agree that Harris was a better Dumbledore, but I think Gambon will bring the aspect that's needed for the coming movies. I think Dumbledore has two very different sides to himself:
The first is kind and sofot-spoken, an authority figure in the father sense, sage like and very wise. Harris portrayed this perfectly.
The second side, however, is wise because of experience more than books, cunning, an authority figure in a more "principle" sense, very strong willed and unwilling to back down from his fights (look at when Umbridge and Fudge try to arrest him in his office in OotP!). Gambon can bring this in a way I don't know I would have seen from Harris.
Dumbledore is very sage-like and a strong father figure in the first two books. Books 3-6 he begins to take on a new characteristic. He becomes more a warrior that has come out of retirement to fight the good fight than a wise head of a school.

More than comparing the two actors, I find it amazing that at the same time the books begin to show a different Dumbledore (the beginning of book 3) we actually see a different (no less great at the portrayal, just different) Dumbledore in the movies. I for one love his performance and think Gambon was a perfect fit.


have you seen harris in anyhting other than harry potter? i think he would have pulled it off marvelously(sp). the thing is DD is a very modest person. his wise side and his hard side are the same. as i read the part where he takes down the ministry in OotP i didnt imagine him as being any different than usual because he was just as calm as ever and was even making jokes. harris was a much better DD and gambon sucks! when i read the books the DD i imagined was just like the DD harris played. the way alan rickman is the perfect snape, maggie smith is the perfect mcgonagall, and how they have the perfect hagrid. the movies should have stopped after CoS, because after that they became trash. from their failure to adequately introduce characters, leaving out important plot points, and turning everybody into crybabies they have ruined the movie going experience for me.




Hey, if they're that bad for you, don't see them. I think Gambon is a great substitute. I haven't seen anything other than Harry Potter with Harris in them, but with that cloak, I find it hard to imagine him running up the stairs in PoA. That red cloak looked like it would make him trip or something. Harris appeared to me as a fragile-looking Dumbledore. I can see Gambon swimming in that cold water in HBP now.

Harris was great, I just can't see him doing some of the things that Gambon does, and I think that Gambon helps Dumbledore seem more human, yet still holds the "I know everything" ideal that Harry has.

Oh, and on something not on topic - Mr. Weasley is Cruella Devil's cronie in a 101 Dalmations! I never knew that! He plays along side Hugh Laurie! I watched it last night, and I never knew that! (the movie with actors, not the cartoon)
CONSTANT VIGILANCE! - Mad-Eye Moody, coolest Auror ever
New User
JD_stalkertwin
Posts: 18
Registered: ‎04-29-2007
0 Kudos

Re: HP Movies: What They Leave Out

Well, I have a prediction. I think that an object mentioned in the second book when harry is in knockturn alley is a horcrux. The book says, " Draco paused to examine a long coil o hangman's rope and to read, smirking, the card propped on a magnificent necklace of opals, Caution: Do Not Touch. Cursed- Has Claimed the Lives of Nineteen Muggle Owners to Date." I think that necklace, though breifly mentioned, is a horcrux.
There is a necklace that is supposedly one in te sixth book, which turns ot to be fake. I think this isthe real one. It would make sense if Voldemort put a curse on a horcrux so it would not be as easily destroyed. And, a killing curse would seem very likely. Muggles could have easily gotten their hands on it after who ever got to it before Dumbledore and Harry released it. In fact, Mr. Borgin, the shop keeper could have been related to the one to steal it. The initials left are R.A.B. He does work in Knockturn alley, which is a dark place and he worships and helps the Malfoys by buying their potions and keeping to the theory of wizard blood being important. He also has many dark things. But, the note says he would be long dead before Voldemort could read his note. So, he must be old. Also, he says he would destroy it as soon as possible, so Borgin or someone else may have killed him before he could destroy it. And, from there, after R.A.B. was killed, if his/her killer didn't take it, then a muggle or so could have gotten hold of it. But, if Borgin or his father or other older relative killed him and then passed it down, then Borgin could have just said not to touch it and made up the killing thing so that no one would want it and it could stay safe and not even hidden, but he may have added nineteen muggles being killed just to say how it is cursed. On the cover of his U.S. edition cover, Harry has something around his neck, but it is covered. Could the thing around his neck possibly be the necklace covered so it would no touh his skin. So that he would not touch it? It is a magnificent neckalce of opals it says also, so it could have been a family heirloom of Lord Voldemort's or could have belonged to one of the four founding fathers of Hogwarts. They don't even show this part in the second movie. If this ends up true, then they messed up again.
Jimmy
New User
JD_stalkertwin
Posts: 18
Registered: ‎04-29-2007
0 Kudos

Re: HP Movies: What They Leave Out

In the fourth movie, they changed the scene for task one to make it more interesting, but there were so many more challenges in the maze from the book that were all left out which, in the book, made it much much better.
And, in the third movie, they change the ending, leaving only harry and sirus to be attacked by dementors. They also make the going back in time thing more interesting. But it doesn't reall matter with the change i don't think. Only leaving Harry, Ron, Hermione, and Proffesor Lupin on the train together when the dementor comes in.
They don't show much of Ginny and Harry either. Ginny seems to have her part in the second and then just sort of dissapear mostly.
Also, they change the beggining of the fourth and don't have them meet draco where he pretty much says that he is happy about what happens and they have harry see Barty Crouch Jr. conjure the Death Mark and he sees him in the dream. I don't really like that they do that. And, they also cut the court scene from in th pensieve and change Dumbledore, causing him to yell at Harry and throw him up against the wall...WTF?!?!
They also, in all the films, leave out the nutty part to Dumbledore.

I could keep going, but i think I should just stop here because you all know the rest.
Jimmy
Frequent Contributor
PattyBNUChick
Posts: 3,319
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: HP Movies: What They Leave Out

JD, you only have to post this once or twice, we read all the posts, we'll find it, don't worry : ) Interesting theory.



JD_stalkertwin wrote:
Well, I have a prediction. I think that an object mentioned in the second book when harry is in knockturn alley is a horcrux. The book says, " Draco paused to examine a long coil o hangman's rope and to read, smirking, the card propped on a magnificent necklace of opals, Caution: Do Not Touch. Cursed- Has Claimed the Lives of Nineteen Muggle Owners to Date." I think that necklace, though breifly mentioned, is a horcrux.
There is a necklace that is supposedly one in te sixth book, which turns ot to be fake. I think this isthe real one. It would make sense if Voldemort put a curse on a horcrux so it would not be as easily destroyed. And, a killing curse would seem very likely. Muggles could have easily gotten their hands on it after who ever got to it before Dumbledore and Harry released it. In fact, Mr. Borgin, the shop keeper could have been related to the one to steal it. The initials left are R.A.B. He does work in Knockturn alley, which is a dark place and he worships and helps the Malfoys by buying their potions and keeping to the theory of wizard blood being important. He also has many dark things. But, the note says he would be long dead before Voldemort could read his note. So, he must be old. Also, he says he would destroy it as soon as possible, so Borgin or someone else may have killed him before he could destroy it. And, from there, after R.A.B. was killed, if his/her killer didn't take it, then a muggle or so could have gotten hold of it. But, if Borgin or his father or other older relative killed him and then passed it down, then Borgin could have just said not to touch it and made up the killing thing so that no one would want it and it could stay safe and not even hidden, but he may have added nineteen muggles being killed just to say how it is cursed. On the cover of his U.S. edition cover, Harry has something around his neck, but it is covered. Could the thing around his neck possibly be the necklace covered so it would no touh his skin. So that he would not touch it? It is a magnificent neckalce of opals it says also, so it could have been a family heirloom of Lord Voldemort's or could have belonged to one of the four founding fathers of Hogwarts. They don't even show this part in the second movie. If this ends up true, then they messed up again.


Frequent Contributor
Beladona_took
Posts: 26
Registered: ‎04-17-2007
0 Kudos

Re: HP Movies: What They Leave Out

"Harris appeared to me as a fragile-looking Dumbledore."

I completely agree. Again, I think he did a great job in the first two movies because in the first two books Dumbledore was a more sedated character, but I don't know that I would have envisioned him being the powerful person he is further into the series. And I don't think that Gambon ever makes Dumbledore appear to lose his calm, I simply think he appears more passionate. And if anything, loud or quiet, Dumbledore is passionate.

But this is just my opinion. I enjoy Gambon and that evolution the movies have gone through. If they dishearten any movie fan as much as claimed, you or they certainly don't have to continue seeing the movies. I personally enjoy the books more than the movies anyway, I just enjoy the films in a different way. I wouldn't waste my time or my money if I didn't like the films or thought the actors were failing in their roles.
Inspired Bibliophile
Psychee
Posts: 7,307
Registered: ‎04-17-2007
0 Kudos

Re: HP Movies: What They Leave Out

Man, I wish everyone could have experienced Harris in his prime! He was jumping and singing and dancing and climbing trees as King Arthur! But that was many many years ago... :smileysad: I miss him!
Frequent Contributor
dcsbelle
Posts: 1,041
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: HP Movies: What They Leave Out

And it's all on DVD anytime you want it!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Psychee wrote:
Man, I wish everyone could have experienced Harris in his prime! He was jumping and singing and dancing and climbing trees as King Arthur! But that was many many years ago... :smileysad: I miss him!


Debbie

Hedwig is not really dead; it was all just a big misunderstanding
Frequent Contributor
jftapia88
Posts: 474
Registered: ‎02-01-2007
0 Kudos

Re: HP Movies: What They Leave Out

[ Edited ]

Psychee wrote:
Man, I wish everyone could have experienced Harris in his prime! He was jumping and singing and dancing and climbing trees as King Arthur! But that was many many years ago... :smileysad: I miss him!


i know man, ppl need to get off harris being a weak DD. as everybody says in the first two books he does DD well. WELL GUESS WHAT: he died before we could see how he would have portrayed DD in the toher movies, whos to say that he wouldnt have been exactly like DD in the books. between harris and gambon i pick harris he at least read the books and knew how DD is supposed to be. gambon is a complete atrosity as DD, he makes DD foolish not more human, and when has DD not seemed human? harris plays DD like he is in the books, so had he been able to play DD in the rest of tha movies i have every confidence that he would have done just as good a job as he did in the 1st two movies. all im saying when i bash gambon, is that he could at least make an effort to be like DD is in the books. from what i have seen of him hes crap, if you dont like to hear the truth im sorry!


to red roses 2:
oh and yeah i have resigned to not watching the movies thank you very much! i went and saw PoA because i didnt know that they were gonna butcher it like they did and i only asw GoF because i had to take my little brother. and unlike some if i pay $8 to sit thru a movie im gonna watch it. im only going to see OotP because again im takin my brother, we decided when the first one came out that we would go and se them all together, so thats what we do, even though i dont like the movies anymore i still go with him.

Message Edited by jftapia88 on 05-04-200702:19 PM

Julie
Frequent Contributor
Bookladt
Posts: 165
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: HP Movies: What They Leave Out



RedRoses2 wrote:


jftapia88 wrote:

Beladona_took wrote:
I agree that Harris was a better Dumbledore, but I think Gambon will bring the aspect that's needed for the coming movies. I think Dumbledore has two very different sides to himself:
The first is kind and sofot-spoken, an authority figure in the father sense, sage like and very wise. Harris portrayed this perfectly.
The second side, however, is wise because of experience more than books, cunning, an authority figure in a more "principle" sense, very strong willed and unwilling to back down from his fights (look at when Umbridge and Fudge try to arrest him in his office in OotP!). Gambon can bring this in a way I don't know I would have seen from Harris.
Dumbledore is very sage-like and a strong father figure in the first two books. Books 3-6 he begins to take on a new characteristic. He becomes more a warrior that has come out of retirement to fight the good fight than a wise head of a school.

More than comparing the two actors, I find it amazing that at the same time the books begin to show a different Dumbledore (the beginning of book 3) we actually see a different (no less great at the portrayal, just different) Dumbledore in the movies. I for one love his performance and think Gambon was a perfect fit.


have you seen harris in anyhting other than harry potter? i think he would have pulled it off marvelously(sp). the thing is DD is a very modest person. his wise side and his hard side are the same. as i read the part where he takes down the ministry in OotP i didnt imagine him as being any different than usual because he was just as calm as ever and was even making jokes. harris was a much better DD and gambon sucks! when i read the books the DD i imagined was just like the DD harris played. the way alan rickman is the perfect snape, maggie smith is the perfect mcgonagall, and how they have the perfect hagrid. the movies should have stopped after CoS, because after that they became trash. from their failure to adequately introduce characters, leaving out important plot points, and turning everybody into crybabies they have ruined the movie going experience for me.




Hey, if they're that bad for you, don't see them. I think Gambon is a great substitute. I haven't seen anything other than Harry Potter with Harris in them, but with that cloak, I find it hard to imagine him running up the stairs in PoA. That red cloak looked like it would make him trip or something. Harris appeared to me as a fragile-looking Dumbledore. I can see Gambon swimming in that cold water in HBP now.

Harris was great, I just can't see him doing some of the things that Gambon does, and I think that Gambon helps Dumbledore seem more human, yet still holds the "I know everything" ideal that Harry has.

Oh, and on something not on topic - Mr. Weasley is Cruella Devil's cronie in a 101 Dalmations! I never knew that! He plays along side Hugh Laurie! I watched it last night, and I never knew that! (the movie with actors, not the cartoon)




Oh my goodness - now that you mention it I actually remember him in the movie. What a laugh!
Frequent Contributor
RedRoses2
Posts: 157
Registered: ‎02-01-2007
0 Kudos

Re: HP Movies: What They Leave Out



jftapia88 wrote:
to red roses 2:
oh and yeah i have resigned to not watching the movies thank you very much! i went and saw PoA because i didnt know that they were gonna butcher it like they did and i only asw GoF because i had to take my little brother. and unlike some if i pay $8 to sit thru a movie im gonna watch it. im only going to see OotP because again im takin my brother, we decided when the first one came out that we would go and se them all together, so thats what we do, even though i dont like the movies anymore i still go with him.

Message Edited by jftapia88 on 05-04-200702:19 PM






Okay, okay, please don't yell at me. I apologize if I offended you.
CONSTANT VIGILANCE! - Mad-Eye Moody, coolest Auror ever
Frequent Contributor
RedRoses2
Posts: 157
Registered: ‎02-01-2007
0 Kudos

Re: HP Movies: What They Leave Out

Also, to Bookladt, yeah I know! It was so cool to find out two actors I actually recognized were in the same movie and sharing most of the same scenes. I love Hugh Laurie - I've seen him in the show House, which is one of my favorite television series, and he is awesome! Plays an amazing git.

What's the name of Mr. Weasley's actor? I never learned it.
CONSTANT VIGILANCE! - Mad-Eye Moody, coolest Auror ever
Frequent Contributor
cjb07
Posts: 41
Registered: ‎01-30-2007
0 Kudos

Re: HP Movies: What They Leave Out



RedRoses2 wrote:
Also, to Bookladt, yeah I know! It was so cool to find out two actors I actually recognized were in the same movie and sharing most of the same scenes. I love Hugh Laurie - I've seen him in the show House, which is one of my favorite television series, and he is awesome! Plays an amazing git.

What's the name of Mr. Weasley's actor? I never learned it.


That's so cool!!! I love those 2!! Speaking of HP actors in other movies..did you all know that gary oldman (sirius) is the Russian hijacker in Air Force One? I just re-wathed that and wa so surprised.
Frequent Contributor
cjb07
Posts: 41
Registered: ‎01-30-2007
0 Kudos

Re: HP Movies: What They Leave Out



cjb07 wrote:


RedRoses2 wrote:
Also, to Bookladt, yeah I know! It was so cool to find out two actors I actually recognized were in the same movie and sharing most of the same scenes. I love Hugh Laurie - I've seen him in the show House, which is one of my favorite television series, and he is awesome! Plays an amazing git.

What's the name of Mr. Weasley's actor? I never learned it.


That's so cool!!! I love those 2!! Speaking of HP actors in other movies..did you all know that gary oldman (sirius) is the Russian hijacker in Air Force One? I just re-wathed that and wa so surprised.


ooh, bad spelling, i apologize. lol
Frequent Contributor
pigwidgeon
Posts: 293
Registered: ‎01-28-2007
0 Kudos

Re: HP Movies: What They Leave Out


RedRoses2 wrote:
Also, to Bookladt, yeah I know! It was so cool to find out two actors I actually recognized were in the same movie and sharing most of the same scenes. I love Hugh Laurie - I've seen him in the show House, which is one of my favorite television series, and he is awesome! Plays an amazing git.

What's the name of Mr. Weasley's actor? I never learned it.




The actor that plays Mr. Weasley is Mark Williams. Even though he isn't a perfect match to Mr. Weasley's description in the books, he's the perfect actor for the part (in my opinion). He has a little more Fred and George in him than the characterization in the books. I also LOVE Hugh Laurie (like some people love Snape). House is one of my most favorite TV shows! Strangely enough, I get all flustered when I hear him speak in his real accent. I saw House before I realized who he was and I expect him to sound American. It throws me for a loop... oops, now I'm off topic. I think the actors cast to play Mr and Mrs Weasley are P-E-R-F-E-C-T.
Frequent Contributor
RedRoses2
Posts: 157
Registered: ‎02-01-2007
0 Kudos

Re: HP Movies: What They Leave Out



pigwidgeon wrote:

RedRoses2 wrote:
Also, to Bookladt, yeah I know! It was so cool to find out two actors I actually recognized were in the same movie and sharing most of the same scenes. I love Hugh Laurie - I've seen him in the show House, which is one of my favorite television series, and he is awesome! Plays an amazing git.

What's the name of Mr. Weasley's actor? I never learned it.




The actor that plays Mr. Weasley is Mark Williams. Even though he isn't a perfect match to Mr. Weasley's description in the books, he's the perfect actor for the part (in my opinion). He has a little more Fred and George in him than the characterization in the books. I also LOVE Hugh Laurie (like some people love Snape). House is one of my most favorite TV shows! Strangely enough, I get all flustered when I hear him speak in his real accent. I saw House before I realized who he was and I expect him to sound American. It throws me for a loop... oops, now I'm off topic. I think the actors cast to play Mr and Mrs Weasley are P-E-R-F-E-C-T.




Mark Williams, okay, Mark Williams, Mark Williams. Must remember that. Mark Williams . . . . .

Yeah, he makes an awesome Mr. Weasley. And the lady who plays Mrs. Weasley does an amazing job, too.

I watched House for some time before I knew that Hugh Laurie was actually British and he was faking an American accent. I didn't know that before, and the only time I had heard him speak like his normal self before 101 Dalmations was some sort of telelvision event where they were awarding stuff for best actor from a so-and-so-show and an actor from the show Scrubs was trying to be funny, ignored the fact that Laurie really was British, then proceeded to fake a British accent. Anyway, yes, off-topic . . . . . .

I love the line "You must know all about Muggles. So tell me, what is the fuction of a rubber duck?" It's hilarious no matter how many times I watch the movie!

Who else thought that the scenes where Harry and Remus were discussing things (patronus lessons, Lily and James, ect.) were places with oddly romantic scenery? First, they talk while standing on a very nice bridge with beautiful folage(sp?) behind and next to it. Then they're taking a lovely stroll through the forest and come to a beautiful river. I really doubt they were searching for Hedwig in addition to discussing anti-Dementor lessons.
CONSTANT VIGILANCE! - Mad-Eye Moody, coolest Auror ever
Inspired Bibliophile
Psychee
Posts: 7,307
Registered: ‎04-17-2007
0 Kudos

Re: HP Movies: What They Leave Out

I think directors of movies choose really great backdrops when they have characters who have to discuss things (rather than do things). It gives the viewer something to look at while they are listening.
Contributor
Kristaren
Posts: 8
Registered: ‎06-14-2007
0 Kudos

Re: HP Movies: What They Leave Out

Can someone tell me, in the POA movie, who Malfoy's additional crony is supposed to be? He has his normal Crabbe & Goyle and then an additional skinny kid - where did he come from?? Was he just an additional random addition or did I miss something while reading....?
Users Online
Currently online: 41 members 246 guests
Please welcome our newest community members: