I really liked it, but I was disappointed. I was very angry with Sirius' death. I mean she just casually said "Avada Kedavra" and he just kind of fell. I don't fell it did him justice by any means. It was such an important part of the story and I didn't feel like they portrayed it well. My boyfriend, who loves HP but refuses to read the books because he thinks JKR is long winded. :rolleyes: The only book he's read was Prisoner of Azkaban and it was on cd. lol. He came out of that movie full of questions. There was a little boy next to me who kept asking his Dad questions. "Dad, where'd he go? Dad is he dead?" I think it is becoming harder to follow the movies if you haven't read the books.

I haven't read any of the books but I liked the movie. I even went to the midnight showing for it. First time for any movie. Although a lot of my friends tell me that there is a lot of stuff missing.

Add another moviegoer who was a little disappointed. I understand that for editing purposes, everything from the book is not going to be able to fit into a 2hr 18 min movie...but at least (as others have said) get the major points covered (and not "re-written" - what's with Cho being the one who "outed" the DA???)

That said, I'll still buy the movie, and I'm getting ready for the book to come out by re-reading HBP over the next week and a half.

My guess at the reason: It prevents the need to introduce an additional character and provides a reason for Harry and Cho not to end up together without going into the additional Valentine's Day scenes and the like.

I haven't seen the movie and am not a huge fan or anything, but I just wanted to share a little something.

Poor Emma Watson showed her panties to all of America last night on Letterman. :( He little dress was up pretty high when she sat down (why don't stylists ever think about this when women go on talk shows) and she made the fatal mistake of switching the way her legs were crossed. At least she was wearing panties, though...:rolleyes:

I saw when she switched her legs (I saw them move and looked down to see what she was doing) and I didn't see her panties at all.:confused:

I LOVED IT!!!! :D I saw it on IMAX, but I think I should've seen in on a regular screen first; it was irritating to keep cocking my head to see the other side of the screen. I also have quite a headache because of all the scenes where things were spinning. But other than that, it did annoy me how much stuff was missing, but I loved what was there, too. The special effects were awesome and one of my favorite parts was the end when Harry is possessed. Voldy not being able to stay in Harry's body definitely deviated from what we all know the real reason is, but I thought Daniel did an excellent job being possessed, it was very convincing (though he never goaded DD into trying to kill him like he was supposed to).

Well I saw a big white triangle glare out from under the gray dress - don't know what else it could have been...Maybe you didn't notice b/c you weren't looking in that area? (And yes, I realize that means I was looking right at her crotch, but I swear I'm not a pedophile - it was just the right timing!!!! :o)

I saw it last night, and I actually really liked it. Maybe it was a benefit for me that it's been a while since I last read the book, because I didn't get angry about things that were changed or missing. I thought the special effects were good, and I actually had tears in my eyes when that thing happened to Sirius. Maybe after I read book 7, I'll go back and refresh my memory on book 5.

Hmm...well, I was looking at her legs, more around the knee area, so it's possible that I missed it...but I can't see her wearing white underwear with that dress. Black or gray would definitely be safer, but then again, she's just a teenager, she might not know that...

Okay, thinking about this way too much. Back to the thread. ;)

True...but I checked youtube and it's on there and people are mentioning it - so I'm not the only pervert who noticed...:p

I saw the movie today and for the most part I really liked it. Just a few pet peeves though...I'll leave spoiler space, just in case :)

s
p
o
i
l
e
r


s
p
a
c
e



1. I was disappointed that the howler was cut out. I loved that part of the book, but I understood why it was cut, I just wish it hadn't been.

2. Beyond annoyed with the whole Cho 'thing' and the DA. (highlight to read)That was so stupid that they had Cho out the DA, although MysticCat's reasoning does make sense

3. Siruis's death. Hated how it was written in the book (I expected something different, mainly because I read the books after movie #3 came out and Gary Oldman said in an interview that his character died in book 5, so I was expecting it, but more "grandiose"). Hated even more what happened in the movie. (highlight to read the following) Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't Sirius fighting Voldemort in the book. What was up with Bellatrix doing the killing curse on him. That was beyond messed up. GRRR.

4. I was surprised that they didn't "show" Snape leaving Hogwarts and going "undercover" (whatever you want to call it) since that is HUGE in HBP. Him being undercover is the reason he agrees to the 'blood oath' (or whatever it was and I can't pull out HBP because it's back in some box in my gargage, otherwise I would. I should find it before Saturday).

ASUADPi :)

Point #3: It is correct in the movie - that's how it was in the book as well.
Point #4: Snape doesn't go into hiding or undercover after the scene at the Ministry - that's part of the sixth book, so that's probably when we'll see it :)

Actually, the reference to it is at the end of Goblet of Fire. In the hospital wing, after Snape showed Fudge the Dark Mark and Snape and Sirius reluctantly shook hands, Dumbledore said "'Severus . . . you know what I must ask you to do. If you are ready . . . if you are prepared.' 'I am,' said Snape," and with a "good luck" from Dumbledore, he left. Then at Spinner's End, Snape explained his failure to respond immediately to the Dark Mark by telling Narcissa and Bellatrix, "By waiting two hours, just two hours, I ensured that I could remain at Hogwarts as a spy . . . ."

So he is undercover all through both OoP and HBP, but no mention of it is ever made in OoP.

And polarpi is right -- Bellatrix killed Sirius in the book. Voldemort didn't appear until after Harry chased Balltrix up to the atrium.

Gracias!

I actually just found my books (hey it only took my five minutes, I figured it would take days with the amount of boxes in my garage :D)

I guess I have to read the ending of OoTP over again :)

I grabbed HBP, figured I'd read that again as well.

Thanks, MC - I guess I wasn't thinking of "undercover" in that manner :p

Ok, the movie itself (without reading the books) was good...

However, because I am a HUGE HP fan, I was incredibly disappointed. They left out so much, switched facts around (it wasn't Cho who rats out the DA, it was her friend!) and overall, thought they could have done a hell of a lot better.

Things I was mad about....

1. Cho being the snitch

2. Very little done about Occlumency and Snape...along with that, Harry didn't have a chance to really confront Sirius about it like he did in the book

3. I could have swore that Petunia got a howler this time around...what happened?

4. Ron and Hermoine becoming prefects

5. and someone said it earlier....Sirius' detah just didn't go over quite like it did in the book...it was done so.....casually....in the movie. Was kinda looking fo rthe same kinda impact like......maybe Obi Wan dying or Gandalf's 'death' in FotR ...u know?

Sigh...can't wait for midnight on 7/21/07

I saw the movie on saturday and I loved it.

I have to admit at first I didn't really enjoy, because there were a lot of things omitted from the movie. But as I discussed it more with mum (someone who has never read any of the books), it dawned on me that these movies are not really written for the book reader. They are written for those who have never read the books.

The non-reder is only interested in the jist of the story, not the intricate plot points that are in the book. They want the "Coles Notes" version of things. I understand this better now. Yes it's disappointing not to see certain things on the big screen, but they only have so much time.

My only complaint, and like many of you, is the little changes in plot, (i.e. Neville finding the room of requirement, or Cho telling on the DA) in the movie, did upset me, because they were not necessary.

But I think, from a story-telling standpoint in a movie, they probably are necessary.

Movies tell stories differently from books; if they had stuck to the book, the movie would have been at least 6+ hours long and boring because the style of story-telling is different.

Neville (or someone other than Dobby) had to find the Room of Requirement because otherwise, we would have had to go into the whole thing about how Dobby now lives at Hogwarts, something none of the movies has addressed so far. It's cleaner from a movie story-telling to let one of our established characters find the room, and here it coulf be used to develop Neville a little.

Likewise with Cho. As I said before, using Cho to tell on the DA prevents the need to introduce an additional character and provides a reason for Harry and Cho not to end up together without going into the additional Valentine's Day scenes and the like.

I think it would have been better for Harry to have found the room, becasue after all, it was Dobby who showed Harry the room. I don't think it was really necessary to have Neville find the room.

I disagree. It could easily have been "Marietta" who ratted them out. In the scene with with Umbridge giving the students the Veritaserum, one of them could have been Marietta. They wouldn't have to give her lines or really identify who she was. The readers of the books would have figured it out, and those who didn't read the books, would have figured it was just another student.

I guess from a movie standpoint....it was easier making Cho the bad person because trying to explain the relationship they had in the book would have stalled the movie down altho I would have liked ot have seen that done....remember the spell harmonie put on the list?

Maybe. But that's an argument about choice once the decision has made to deviate from the book, not an argument about whether the deviation from the book was "necessary" to begin with, which is what I was responding to.

But then you still have the problem of Harry and Cho. If Marietta Edgecombe is the tattler, then how does the filmmaker tell why Harry and Cho don't work out after the mistletoe kiss? That was a pretty big moment, so it can't just get dropped or sloughed off.

In the book, we see Harry and Cho growing a little closer and we follow Harry's butterflies about it all, but then after the disastrous Valentine's Day date at Madame Puddifoot's, Cho is very hurt and she and Harry basically break up. If the filmmaker puts the Madame Puddifoot scene in, then he also has to give Harry a reason to have to leave and go meet Hermione elsewhere, thereby making Cho hurt and angry. In the book, the reason that Hermione wanted Harry to meet her was so that he could give an interview to Rita Skeeter, which brings in the whole Quibbler story, also not in the movie. Perhaps that story line was left out since the movie version of GoF didn't mention that Skeeter was an illegal animagus, so the filmmaker would have had to come up with reasons why she's no longer working for the daily Prophet as well as why Hermione could get her to write a sympathetic story. You see how it's not hard to get a snowball going.

Under circumstances like these, a filmmaker may find it works much better to let Cho be the tattler and let that betrayal provide the motivation for Harry and Cho to part ways.

Ok, I see your point. But I think it could have worked if we had seen Cho at the DA meetings with Marietta, and then Marietta in the scene with Umbridge and the Veritaserum, and again with Umbridge and when she breaks up the DA meetings. She wouldn't necessarily have to be a major character, but the audience would see she was a friend of Cho's (but not necessarily know that her Character's name was Marietta - because for the non-reader of the books it wouldn't matter), and because of this, Harry no longer likes Cho.

We all know teenagers are illogical, so it would make sense for Harry to no longer like Cho because of what her friend did.

I can see why the writers would have done it that way, but I think my way would make sense as well, and be more true (can I say that?) to the book.

You can indeed say that. :D

Hahaha, yes I suppose I can say whatever I like. I probably should have asked whether or not I was making any sense?

They cut it. She received a howler from DD when she kicked Harry out saying 'remember my last'. I loved that part of the book and was seriously bummed when they cut it. But then again they have been making the Dursley's parts smaller and smaller and smaller since movie one.

Sorry I wasn't clearer. You were indeed making sense, and I meant my response to be taken that way.

I saw it on Saturday and was disapointed about how much was cut. :( I make it a point to not re-read the books before the movies come out so that I can do my best to enjoy the movie.

Honestly the thing that absolutely distracted me the most was that in the opening scene you can clearly see that the actor who plays Dudley Dursley has a real scar in the same spot as Daniel Radcliffe's fake scar. I kept thinking, "Did he always have that?". How bizarre that he would get that scar in that spot!

thats another thing....they kept his scar covered for most of the movie...altho his hair is cut a lot shorter....LOL

I say they make a theater version of the seventh movie, then make one that follows the book to a T and just put that straight to DVD for kooks like us who want everything in there, even if it will be 7 hours long. ;)

Didn't you guys hear the little line that snape dropped in Umbridge's office? (highlight): He pretty much cleared Cho of being the "bad guy" for outing DA. Umbridge summoned him to her office to give her more truth telling serum to use on Harry, Snape said something about her using it on students- including Cho. Everyone in the room looked at Cho like, ohhh ok so you didn't tell on purpose...

Also, there are mutliple interviews saying that sub-plots were left out due to the confusion it would create. In novels, it's rather easy to carry on a sub-plot without confusing the reader. The writer can rely on chapters to separate stories and word usage to ensure that it's absolutely clear. That's pretty hard to convey properly in a movie....

I haven't read the books yet because I hate having to wait for sequential releases, so I plan on starting to read them once the final one comes out this week. However, I have read the detailed outlines on wikipedia haha :o

But that wouldn't have provided a reason for Harry and Cho to break up without going into the whole Valentine's Day thing. They killed two birds with one stone this way, whether the faithful book readers like it or not.

I explained myself slightly better in a subsequent post. In a nutshell, Harry could have started to hate Cho based on what her friend did. It wouldn't be completely far fetched, because we all know how illogical teens can be.

I guess I can see that, but I think that would have actually annoyed me more than just having Cho be the one to out the DA, because either way it's still not true to the book and Harry would just be an idiot.

Ok, so I watched the movie yesterday, and I was pretty much disappointed with some of the same areas.

In regards to Cho and Harry splitting up...I assumed that they were introducing that when Cho was expressing regret over Cedric's death & Hermione spoke on how conflicted she must be. It seemed like a natural and smoother progression to let their relationship falter off in that way rather than as the 'DA outter'.

I also agree with those who noted that a 'random student' other than Cho could have blown the whistle on them. There were lots of 'no name' students that had a line or two during the inital meeting and practices. It could have just as easily been one of them. Plus it would have been fun to see Hermione's spell in action.

Also...I though that Neville was able to see the 'invisible horses'. Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but I thought that was going to be a nice lead in for him to speak on his parents. I'm not really mad at that plot change, but I just thought that it could have worked as well.

I felt that there was stuff missing just from a movie standpoint. If I had never read the books I would have been confused. For instance, none of the previous movies have mentioned centaurs in the forest (that I can remember). If I saw them now...I would be like "who the hell are they?" Also, I don't remember them deciding on the name Dumbledore's Army. If I hadn't read the book, then that would have confused me as well.

No complaints about Sirius's death. I honestly thought that it was pretty lack luster and confusing in the book as well, so it seemed to be appropriately done.

I hated the introduction of Hagrid's brother both in the book and the movie. I hope that he plays a major part in the next book b/c otherwise I will still be shaking my head at that dead end storyline.

Agree with those who missed the lack of a real convo btwn Dumbledore and Harry at the end. Sometimes those conversations tie the whole movie together and provide inspiration going forward.

Loved Luna Lovegood and Prof. Umbridge. They were both excellent. Bellatrix Lestrange was cool, but I wasn't blown away by her.

Firenze was in the first movie, when Hagrid took Harry and the others into the forest for their detention.

That bothered me as well - it made it look stupid when he was just staring blankly (for those who know that he is *supposed* to be able to see them) at the thestrals (but then it did allow for the parents to be mentioned without having to actually go into everything from St. Mungo's :p)

I saw it and I quite liked it. I read the book when it first came out & haven't touched it since, so I forgot a lot of what happened & I think that helped me to enjoy the movie, rather than feeling like, "Hey, the book wasn't like that".

Oh, and Snape basically absolved Cho Chang of responsibility for outting Dumbledore's army, because he said that the last of the truth serum had been used up on Cho Chang, in front of everyone, when Umbridge was giving Harry the gears.

Question: how come Harry wasn't able to see the nestrals before that year at Hogwarts? Even if you've witnessed death (and he did, in infancy), do you have to be a certain age of maturity too? I'm sure JKR explained, but I can't remember.

J.K Rowling says on her site that Harry didn't actually witness the death of his parents. He was in his "cot" and only saw the flash of green light. He did not actually witness death until Cedric was killed. Further, he didn't see them on the way back to the Hogwarts Express during his fourth year because he didn't fully appreciate Cedric’s death. Thus, he couldn’t see them until OotP.

Thanks for clarifying that...that makes a lot of sense.