Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince squeeee!
Posted 20 July 2009 - 10:02 PM
Why, oh WHY, was there not more of the titular character? Snape waited his entire gawdamn life to teach Defense Against The Dark Arts and we dont get to see him do so? Every previous movie has shown the DATD post as being integral to the plot and Harry's education, but in this one I don't think a single class of it is shown. I think thats really unfair to a great character. They handled everything else quite well I thought, though they simplified the ending quite a bit. I like that Regulus got mentioned in there, but I guess they rather had to. It's cool that Rawling can take a minor subplot or detail and make it integral to her greater story arc so it cant be taken out.
But yeah, I fucking demand more Snapery. Now! On a brighter note, I like that Malfoy has more to him than sneering at people and being a one dimensional villain.
I like this movie particularly well for one reason: It separates the readers from the movie people. All the movie people will leave fuming about what an awful cunt Snape is, while the book folk point smugly.
This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 20 July 2009 - 10:11 PM
Posted 21 July 2009 - 12:02 AM
So yeah. They wanted to make a movie a year, and they couldn't keep up that pace. Big deal. The series will end with the oldest of the trio being 5 years older than his character, at 22 versus 17.
It sounds like this Harry Potter movie was rushed, and that it sucked, just like the book. I predict the next one will be better, longer, that it will have more and better action, and that it will not be very good, just like the book.
Posted 21 July 2009 - 11:36 AM
Two other omissions that get me and kind of flow together:
Rufus Scrimgeour is absent, meaning that we'll need some kind of set up for the ministry takeover later, also with Fudge stepping down in the last movie, it appears the position was just left vacant. Also, the Ministers For Magic never meet with the Prime Minister. Instead, Voldemorts guys just collapse millennium bridge and then it is never mentioned again by either the wizarding or muggle world. I suppose this is the British stiff upper lip I hear about.
As for the next movie, the current buzz is that Deathly Hallows is going to be split into two films.
This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 21 July 2009 - 11:39 AM
Posted 23 July 2009 - 03:41 AM
The last couple of movies changed things and left things out in ways that would confuse a non-reader. This one yes, changed a lot and left some things out, but did so in a way that left everything explained. And they left out most of the angst-angst-angst non-plot-advancing or character-developing crap that took up 7/8 of the book.
The burning of the Weasley house did come out of left field, though. I'm thinking that their doing that is a way to escape having to do the whole Bill-Fleur wedding in the next installments? I can't think of any other purpose for that scene.
I would have liked more Snape, too. I thought that about the book, too - he's in the title for chrissake. I do disagree about having him go all nutso when Harry calls him a coward, however. I like the movies' version of Snape better than what he evolved into i nthe last few books. In the first few books as well as in all of the movies, he's this calm, collected, dark ambiguous guy that you can really respect as a character, even if you don't know whether he's good or bad. I don't like it when Snape goes all whiny - if he's going to lose his cool, it should be in a way that you respect, like giving the evil eye and growling out a curse... Not by "squealing in a high-pitched voice" or whatever Rowling had him do in book 6.
Of course, I was also disappointed that Snape's entire motivation for helping Dumbledore was because he was obsessed with a dead girl that didn't ever like him that way to begin with. I wonder how the movies' version of Snape will reconcile that little tidbit? Since this awesome version of Snape just really doesn't seem like that type and it just won't fit with the movie adaptation of the character very well.
And yeah, DH will be 2 films. They're still filming now, I think. I do think book 7 would have been hard to squeeze into one film, but I wonder how they're going to fill 2 films with what went on. Unless it's going to be full of all the stuff that was left out of the other 6 films?
This post has been edited by Spoon Poetic: 23 July 2009 - 03:43 AM
Posted 23 July 2009 - 01:19 PM
What I read about a year ago concerning DH was that Rowling wanted all of the details from the book into the final film. This means that she wants even fine details left out of other films to be incorporated in the last film to make an "ultimate finale."
I don't know how that would be done especially when very important events were not filmed in prior movies, only to be exposed in the last movie. I guessing a number of non-readers won't get a lot of things, but loyal fans will eat it up.
Posted 13 August 2009 - 03:24 PM
If they made a 3-hour movie of DH, and cut out and merged stuff as necessary, I think that would work fine. Playing it over two movies would be giving it more attention than it deserves. Honestly: they collect some artifacts, destroy some other ones, and then have a fight where OTHER artifacts do all the work. It's no more complicated than KRULL.
Posted 13 August 2009 - 07:16 PM
Slughorn looked nothing like how he was described in the book though. And I didn't like how Snape revealed his identity when Harry showed little to no interest in the previous owner of his book.
It would be like Luke being trained by an old Jedi that didn't know Anakin/Vader, never told Luke anything about his father, but Vader saying to Luke after beating on him, "Oh and by the way, I'm your dad." I can see Luke replying to that line in a fashion similar to this, "B*tch, stop lyin'!"
I would not have been surprised to see Harry just straight up call Snape a liar at the end of this film... maybe because we got no feeling of mystery about his alter-ego. Surely some minutes could have been used to show Hermione looking up the name and such and trying to piece this mystery together.
And what the crap is up with the Weasley house getting torched?
Posted 13 August 2009 - 09:34 PM
Sparing us, the audience, from a grueling 45 minutes of fluff, and sparing the studio from having to do all those crazy special effects that the wedding and death eater attack would have entailed.
This post has been edited by Spoon Poetic: 13 August 2009 - 09:36 PM
Posted 18 February 2010 - 02:10 AM
This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 18 February 2010 - 07:38 AM
Reason for edit:: removed spambot link