PDA

View Full Version : Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban



Cinnabarr Rivershell
June 4th, 2004, 08:22 PM
NOTE: This thread may contain spoilers of the movie and book of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.


I saw Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban last night on opening night! I was really looking forward to seeing it, but after the movie I was really dissapointed. It seemed to go by so fast and the ending sucked! Almost every serious moment I felt like laughing. Usually when there is a serious moment in a movie I get into it, but for this movie I found myself laughing and joking with my friends about almost every scene. I liked the first movie and I didn't like the second one too much. And now the third one just seemed...ahh... I don't know, but it didn't seem as magical and interesting. I really liked the third book, but I think they didn't do that good of a job on the third movie. Anyone have any ideas or comments?

LadyBeelze
June 4th, 2004, 10:29 PM
*just came back from watching it*Freak. *shaking with anger* It was horrible! Horrible. The adaption from book to movie was horrible. Everything was wrong. Cut scenes, and a ton of added in scenes to top it off. I'm so disappointed. The first two followed the books pretty close, and this one far from it. *doesn't have time to talk anymore about this* urk..

Rillflag27
June 4th, 2004, 11:51 PM
I haven't seen it. I *might* see it tomorrow if I can convince my dad. The only reason I would want to see it it would be because of Emma Watson ;)

Cinnabarr Rivershell
June 5th, 2004, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by Rillflag27

The only reason I would want to see it it would be because of Emma Watson

Ahhhhh. Emma Watson! I should start a thread about her. :D

Cheesethief
June 5th, 2004, 05:57 AM
ah. my history teacher taught her at the dragon school, a few years back.
and cunard(sp?) is used to small budget mexican films. did he not do "man of the year"? i didnt like how there was that clock, and giant stones, and hagrids bigger hut, and no sir cadogan, and...

LadyBeelze
June 5th, 2004, 10:38 AM
Before i go rant on the bad i do want to take a moument to say what i actually liked about this movie. Buckbeak, the dementors, and harry's patronous were all well done. Espesially the patronous, it was stunning. But that's about all. I was rather amused about the time they went back in time. Pretty well done.

1. Harry gets his firebolt at the end of the movie! *harry opens package and there's one of buckbeak's feathers in it, then harry goes and flies on the broom ending the movie*
2. Only one quiditch match, the one where harry falls off his broom. They don't show them winning the finals!
3. A ton of added in scenes, mostly HUMOR. I mean cutting scenes i can get over but that just ????ed me off.
4. Cedric and Cho where never introduced.
5. Lupin looked rather creepy than um hot as i imagined
6. A hogworts choir with frogs? Uh..
7. While dumbledore kind of resembled the guy that passed away his voice was far off
8. Harry doesn't get caught for throughing snowballs at malfoy (which was mudballs in the book), so they have harry sneak out in the middle of the night seeking petter on the map and then getting his map took away.
9. Lupin's werewolve self could of been better animated..he didn't even resemble something like a wolf..all bald and not properly on his feet.

meh..there were alot of stuff. oh well. =/

LordTBT
June 5th, 2004, 02:15 PM
all of that belongs in spoiler tags. Checkout my review under Flourish and Blotts

Cheesethief
June 5th, 2004, 02:21 PM
6. A hogworts choir with frogs? Uh..
yeah i never saw the teacher before either.

. While dumbledore kind of resembled the guy that passed away his voice was far off
it changed to a scottish accent halfway through!

9. Lupin's werewolve self could of been better animated..he didn't even resemble something like a wolf..all bald and not properly on his feet.
thats cos hes a WEREWOLF.

LadyBeelze
June 5th, 2004, 02:21 PM
It's too late to be put in spoiler tag now though.

Heh

Cheesethief
June 5th, 2004, 02:23 PM
saying somethings spoilerific at the top doesnt justify no spoilers.:mad: id expect better of ye beelze.

LadyBeelze
June 5th, 2004, 02:28 PM
saying somethings spoilerific at the top doesnt justify no spoilers. id expect better of ye beelze.

This thread may contain spoilers of the movie and book of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.

He didn't say i had to put them behind tags.




thats cos hes a WEREWOLF.
I know but he should of had some features of a wolf.

Cheesethief
June 5th, 2004, 02:39 PM
what, like giant teeth, fur, weird legs, a tail? oh yeh...HE DID.

LadyBeelze
June 5th, 2004, 02:48 PM
He was almost bald you call that having fur. And big teeth, alot of animals could have that characistic. And no ears either or tail. Nevermind it doesn't matter. Not gonna spend the whole thread arguing on this.

Cinnabarr Rivershell
June 5th, 2004, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by LadyBeelzebumon

He didn't say i had to put them behind tags.

Correct. I didn't say that spoilers had to be put behind tags because I put up that note at the beginning.

NOTE: This thread may contain spoilers of the movie and book of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.

So Beelze is perfectly correct in not putting them behind tags. Cheese, if we had to put up spoilers in tags then this whole thread would be full of tags and that would get on my nerves as well as others' nerves.


Originally posted by LadyBeelzebumon

He was almost bald you call that having fur. And big teeth, alot of animals could have that characistic. And no ears either or tail.

I most definetly* agree that the werewolf was poorly designed. I remember durring the movie, when Lupin was transforming, that I kept on hoping he would keep transforming because he looked so bad. Has anyone seen the werewolves in Van Hellsing? Now those werewolves were designed beautifully.

Cheesethief
June 8th, 2004, 11:03 AM
yep. but the wolf had ears. i swear.

Chelki Sureshot
June 10th, 2004, 05:08 PM
**head hits the computer keyboard in dismay. Lots of weird boxes show up on the screen. Oops**
Oh. My. Gosh. I don't even know if I WANT to see it now. A choir with frogs. That's just dumb. I'm so disgusted. Why take out parts. Why add ones in? I really don't get it.

Chelki Sureshot
June 10th, 2004, 05:10 PM
Oh, and I made a site where you can talk about the movie. I made it for people from DAB, but it'd be cool to have you guys there. You don't have to mess with spoiler tags. Gohere (http://voy.com/179038/). Please come.

Cheesethief
June 11th, 2004, 12:45 PM
dab, i was going to join it but didnt. looks good though.
liked the site.

Ehar
June 11th, 2004, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by Cinnabarr Rivershell
Originally posted by Rillflag27


Ahhhhh. Emma Watson! I should start a thread about her. :D

I should make a topic about her, being the fan I am :) . And about the movie being terrible adaption, J.K. Rowling said she didn't really want it to stay that close to the book, she wanted something that would capture the feel of the story and she really liked the finished product.

Cinnabarr Rivershell
June 11th, 2004, 07:38 PM
What is J.K. Rowling supose to say? That the movie sucked!
She had to say it was good because if she said anything bad about it then people might not go and see it.

Ehar
June 11th, 2004, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by Cinnabarr Rivershell
What is J.K. Rowling supose to say? That the movie sucked!
She had to say it was good because if she said anything bad about it then people might not go and see it.

Actually J.K. can say whatever she wants about it, WB has no influence over her.

Martin the Warrior
June 11th, 2004, 07:51 PM
A creator speaking out against a movie based upon their work can have a devastating effect on how well that movie does at the box-office (there was a recent uproar among comic book fans when Alan Moore declined to have his name associated with a movie adaptation of his work).

As Rowling undoubtedly receives royalties based upon how well the movie does, she has a vested interest in not speaking out against it and damaging its potential to make money.

Furthermore, (I'd have to pop in the Chamber of Secrets DVD to double check) I believe she was in contact with the script writer for the movies and was able to provide notes in order to make sure nothing added to the movies will directly contradict a major plot point yet-to-be-written. I find it interesting that she wouldn't do the same for Azkaban.

Take from that what you will.

Ehar
June 11th, 2004, 07:55 PM
I believe she was in contact with the script writer for the movies and was able to provide notes in order to make sure nothing added to the movies will directly contradict a major plot point yet-to-be-written. I find it interesting that she wouldn't do the same for Azkaban.

She did do that for PoA, however this time around she let them change things that don't affect the plot lines of future books, unlike with CoS and PS/SS where she wanted the films as true to the text as possible. Also the majority of Harry Potter fans rave about the film.

Cinnabarr Rivershell
June 11th, 2004, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by Me

What is J.K. Rowling supose to say? That the movie sucked! She had to say it was good because if she said anything bad about it then people might not go and see it.

Originally posted by Martin the Warrior

A creator speaking out against a movie based upon their work can have a devastating effect on how well that movie does at the box-office

Thank you MtW for backing me up there.

Glenner
June 12th, 2004, 02:04 PM
I was sorely dissapointed with the movie. Thats all I will say about it for now.

Cheesethief
June 13th, 2004, 11:07 AM
the next one should be better. i hope.