|
|
Post by ponygirl's vapor on Jun 25, 2003 19:05:42 GMT -5
Did anyone else think the movies were pretty corny? Sorcerors Stone more than Chamber of Secrets, but they still were pretty corny in my opinion.
Also who was your favorite actor? I thought Alan Rickman did a pretty good job on being Snape, and so did the person who played Gildorory Lockhart. Also the person who played Prof. McGonagal did a good job. But on the kid actors I though Rupert Grint did the best.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rikku on Jun 25, 2003 19:27:51 GMT -5
I like both movies. Though I thought Chamber of Secrets was better than Sourcerer's Stone.
All the adults do a good job acting. so do the kids. hehe Oliver Wood is SOOOO HOT! and I love the kid who plays Ron. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Shaffuru! on Jun 25, 2003 20:49:36 GMT -5
I believe they were corny. Very much so, in fact. The books are funny! The movies turn the funny jokes (like the "troll bogey" one and others that I can't think of) seem really lame. They made Dumbledore too serious (what happened to "Nitwick! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak!"?) and Harry too thoughtful and mature! And Ron too scared.  The movies don't have the same general feeling as the books do. The jokes are almost nonexistent in the movie and the corniness abounds!  One bone I have to pick is about the basilisk scene in CoS. In the book, they made it perfectly clear that Harry'd never used a sword before, but it wasn't so obvious in the movie. You'd think he'd had lessons or something (Dan probably did, but that's not the point!). I'm sure they could have done something to give the impression that he doesn't duel every second weekend. About the favourite actor in the movie; do I really even have to tell you?  Alan Rickman was by far the best, BUT (no matter how devilishly sexy he is) they could have gotten someone a might younger for the part. Don't get me wrong: I love Sev, and I love Al. But to me they're two separate people/characters and shouldn't be combined. The kids' acting, for the most part, was flat and not good. Truth be told, it sucks and I hate it. But beggars can't be choosers, and I'd rather bad/old actors/actresses than none at all.  Lockhart and Hagrid were perfectly cast, though. |
|
|
|
Post by ponygirl's vapor on Jun 25, 2003 21:19:13 GMT -5
Ahh yes I forgot all about Hagrid! And he was perfect too! Snape is supposed to be 30-ish, how old is Alan?
Quirell did a good job. And Daniel Radcliffe doesnt look to much like HArry. I imagined his hair a little messier, thinner, and some other stuff. I hope the new director does a better job on stuff.
I hope they dont do something awful to Sirius Black, or Lupin.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shaffuru! on Jun 26, 2003 11:15:16 GMT -5
Alan is 57. (I still think he's gorgeous, he just doesn't have the right build or face to play Severus!)
Quirell did do a good job. And your thoughts on Dan as Harry are exactly mine; messier (and maybe a bit longer) hair and a slimmer face (it's too babyish; I always pictured Harry with a very skinny face). The eyes too. They're supposed to be green-- I heard it was extremely important in the books that Harry have his mother's eyes.
I can't wait to see what Oldman and Thewlis do with Black and Lupin. And Timothy Spall as Peter Pettigrew could be interesting, too. Oh! And Pam Ferris is perfect as Aunt Marge! ;D I pictured her [Aunt Marge] looking just like that mean lady in Matilda! It's perfect... ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Shaffuru! on Jun 27, 2003 13:33:12 GMT -5
It doesn't say anywhere in the books that he's supposed to be 30ish. J.K. said he was 35 or 36, though (but never specified in which book he was that age. He could be as old as 41 in OotP [which would make him the same age as Lucius Malfoy, which can't be possible*]). Anyway, I think Alan is a brilliant actor (and a hottie), but he's not right for the part of Snape. Maybe it's the wig that gets me, but he just doesn’t look right.
* I've wanted to share this theory forever (just never had the opportunity)! Lucius Malfoy can't be the same age as Severus. It doesn't agree with the timeline. First of all, in GoF, Mrs Weasley tells Harry that the Whomping Willow was planted in her last year at Hogwarts (her seventh), and we know that the tree was planted in the Marauders' (plus Snape's) first year. That's a six-year difference between Molly and Severus. We also know that Mr Weasley and Mr Malfoy are enemies-- they hate each other. Assuming that Molly Weasley, Arthur Weasley and Lucius Malfoy are the same age, then Severus Snape is 6 years younger than Malfoy. If Lucius is 41 in OotP, that makes Severus 35. He says he's been teaching for 14 years... that would have made him 21 when he started teaching (4 years after Hogwarts).
This theory is fallible (Mr and Mrs Weasley could be different ages or Mr Weasley could be older than Lucius), but it doesn't seem likely to me. Any comments?
|
|
|
|
Post by ponygirl's vapor on Jun 27, 2003 13:56:18 GMT -5
I just read somewhere that said Snape was in his thirty's as well as Lupin and Sirius. It may have been in an interview with JKR.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shaffuru! on Jun 27, 2003 20:22:59 GMT -5
where does it say mr. malfoy is 41? Something someone read out of the Daily Prophet in OotP... lemme see if I can find it... Okay: " ' "... to fair and objective evaluation," said Mr Lucius Malfoy, 41, speaking from his Wiltshire mansion last night.' " page 275, Canadian version of OotP |
|
|
|
Post by Klaus Baudelaire on Jun 27, 2003 22:19:09 GMT -5
So wierd, it logged me out. Whatever, I remember that. It was in the US version also, of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shaffuru! on Jun 27, 2003 23:32:40 GMT -5
So wierd, it logged me out. Whatever, I remember that. It was in the US version also, of course. Of course it was in the US version, too. It wouldn't be the same page number though, that's why I added that. Yeah, it's annoying when the thingy logs you out... Stupid cookies, anyway... |
|
|
|
Post by isadora101 on Jun 28, 2003 15:53:06 GMT -5
I think it would be scary if one time you just picked up a harrypotter tape and found out that it was in a different language  |
|
|
|
Post by Indistinguishable Blob on Jun 28, 2003 19:26:05 GMT -5
Who said they were 20?
|
|
|
|
Post by Shaffuru! on Jun 28, 2003 21:19:00 GMT -5
We did. A couple posts ago we concluded that Lily and James would have had to be 20 when they had Harry.
And I agree, swans. They looked at least 30. Even as old as 40, maybe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fife on Jul 13, 2003 15:49:17 GMT -5
k we want to talk about corniness? gee let's think about the huge wizard chess game in SS and the lines 'NO RON NO!' 'what?' [glow=red,2,300]'ron's going to sacrifice himself!'[/glow] 'no ron you can't!' *burst out laughing* OH THE CORNINESS!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Anne A Gram on Oct 1, 2003 15:45:59 GMT -5
I thought the movies didn't do justice to the books, and special effects were just bad. Have you seen the pictures for PoA? What's with the tattoo on Sirius' chest?
|
|
The movies don't have the same general feeling as the books do. The jokes are almost nonexistent in the movie and the corniness abounds! 
One bone I have to pick is about the basilisk scene in CoS. In the book, they made it perfectly clear that Harry'd never used a sword before, but it wasn't so obvious in the movie. You'd think he'd had lessons or something (Dan probably did, but that's not the point!). I'm sure they could have done something to give the impression that he doesn't duel every second weekend. 
Alan Rickman was by far the best, BUT (no matter how devilishly sexy he is) they could have gotten someone a might younger for the part. Don't get me wrong: I love Sev, and I love Al. But to me they're two separate people/characters and shouldn't be combined.
