Posted on 11/17/2001 12:02:14 AM PST by supercat
Since many people have seen or will soon see this film and no doubt want to talk about it, I would think it useful to have a thread where people can talk about the film after having seen it, or at least read the book and thus not have to worry about spoiling any surprises for anyone else. Since the movie has few surprises beyond what's in the book, seeing the book should suffice.
DO NOT READ FUTHER UNLESS YOU HAVE SEEN THE BOOK OR READ THE MOVIE
I'll start the discussion with some random thoughts of my own:
In which book did Howlers appear? I was rather expecting to see some, and there were none. Also, the "rememberall" seemed to get rather short shrift in the film; in the book it was introduced as more than a prop for Harry to chase so as to demonstrate Qwidditch proficiency, though I don't remember exactly it did.
The Sorting Hat was pretty good, though I would have liked to have seen it sort more than one extraneous character into a house other than Slytherin or Griffindor. Indeed, in the movie nobody at all was shown getting sorted into Ravenclaw; that house may as well have not existed.
I seem to recall that in the book, the donor of the invisibility cloak is revealed, and yet in the movie it is not. Cool effect, btw, though with the wonders of chroma-key it's been doable on video for ages.
Is the bathroom in which Hermione was hiding the same one in which Moaning Myrtle appears in #2? Was the special sink for that book one of the ones that got smashed?
While I like the Gothic style of architecture of Hogwarts, I found the appearance of many of the fixtures (bathroom fixtures, Harry's bed near the end, etc.) to be oddly mundane. Since I really can't imagine Hogwarts ordering such equipment from a normal supply house, I would have expected a less-conventionally-manufactured look.
Another part of Hogwarts that looked too 'conventional' was the assortment of paintings on the walls. While there was of course the mandatory shot where all the paintings come to life, in most of the shots where paintings appear they are dull and lifeless. While I can understand that animating the paintings in every shot would have been annoyingly cumbersome, the filmmakers could have used paintings in which the characters had 'wandered off' and been true to Rowling's vision (since IIRC painting characters sometimes got bored and did precisely that).
The denouement seemed like it should perhaps have been brought out more. While a lengthy monologue by Dumbledore probably wouldn't have played out well on screen, a dialogue or conversation among Harry, Dumbledore, and his friends might have helped to wrap things up somewhat better. While a viewer might guess that Dumbledore's trip to London was a ruse, the book makes it quite clear.
BTW, I remember the vines, key-room, and chessboard quite well from the book. Did book #1 also have the room with the seven potions, or was that in book #2? In whichever book has that room, the solution would have been apparent to Harry et al. but not to the reader, since a clue refers to the bottle's shapes, but the reader is not told what shapes of bottles are in what positions (Harry et al. would of course be able to see that).
I think the escape from the vines was probably consistent with the book (don't remember for certain), but was wondering if the paralysis spell might have worked just as well (use it on Ron, not the vines!).
Interesting that Hermione didn't try the 'unlock' spell on the door from the 'key room'. Obviously that spell wasn't the solution to the room, but Ron's failure to unlock the door would hardly suggest that the spell wouldn't work if cast by someone competent.
Anyone else have some more thoughts?
Prisoner of Azkaban, 3rd book
Took Rowling that long to think them up? Oh well, I still think they're cool. Another reason I think I like the third book the best I guess.
The Sorting Hat was pretty good, though I would have liked to have seen it sort more than one extraneous character into a house other than Slytherin or Griffindor. Indeed, in the movie nobody at all was shown getting sorted into Ravenclaw; that house may as well have not existed.
Time...they sorted out of order in addition to skipping most of the people sorted. They were to be sorted in *alphabetical* order. All of it was cut out to save on time.
I appreciate the need to keep things short, but I would have liked to see them spend a couple seconds or so of screen time on each of a few minor characters from other houses. Not the part of them walking to the stage, or waiting for applause, etc. but just enough to show that people were being named to other houses.
Alternatively, if one could put an expository scene just outside the great hall, the naming of people to other houses could happen offscreen in the background audio without feeling too rushed.
Just a thought--no biggie. BTW, slight question of British versus U.S. terminology: all of the first-years were led up the stairs and then led through a door where they were told they would meet their "classmates". In U.S. usage, a first-year student's only classmates would normally be other first-year students. Is the British usage of the term broader?
I seem to recall that in the book, the donor of the invisibility cloak is revealed, and yet in the movie it is not. Cool effect, btw, though with the wonders of chroma-key it's been doable on video for ages.
Yes, Dumbledore revealed himself, but only after Harry dropped the Invisibility Cloak in the topmost tower of the castle. What was he doing there? He had just brought Norbert there so that Ron Weasley's older brother Charlie could have his friends deliever the dragon to a safe place. Possessing a dragon is against Wizarding Law. Harry and Hermione brought the dragon to the tower under the cloak so that Hagrid wouldn't be imprisoned or sentenced to death. Ron wasn't able to help, as he'd been bitten by the dragon, and it's poisonous.
Ah, okay. I remember that I guess. But which sort of beast did Harry ride and save in Azkaban? I remember Hagrid revealing Fluffy's secret in his effort to get a dragon egg, but also that Harry rode some winged beast to reach the tower.
While I like the Gothic style of architecture of Hogwarts, I found the appearance of many of the fixtures (bathroom fixtures, Harry's bed near the end, etc.) to be oddly mundane. Since I really can't imagine Hogwarts ordering such equipment from a normal supply house, I would have expected a less-conventionally-manufactured look.
Yes...well Muggles do come up with the *strangest* things. Bathroom fixtures are one of the more useful things they came up with...fortunately for wizards, the problems of plumbing aren't mundane in nature...or is that unfortunately? ;-)
Yes, well with regard toilets you're probably right. I was expecting more ornate sinks, though. And Harry's bed at the end just seemd out of place to me. But maybe that's just me.
Another part of Hogwarts that looked too 'conventional' was the assortment of paintings on the walls. While there was of course the mandatory shot where all the paintings come to life, in most of the shots where paintings appear they are dull and lifeless. While I can understand that animating the paintings in every shot would have been annoyingly cumbersome, the filmmakers could have used paintings in which the characters had 'wandered off' and been true to Rowling's vision (since IIRC painting characters sometimes got bored and did precisely that).
They appeared perfectly as described in the book. That is why, in the book, it is so surprising when the characters in the painting up and move...and it's surprising when they do so.
The shot where the paintings moved was perfect. My quibble was with the fact that FWIR from the book, the characters in paintings would get impatient if nobody was paying attention to them and sometimes wander off. There were times when the book explicitly mentioned that Harry looked at a painting but there was nobody there. During the times none of the characters are looking at the paintings, it would thus seem logical that many of them would be 'missing' the primary characters.
The denouement seemed like it should perhaps have been brought out more. While a lengthy monologue by Dumbledore probably wouldn't have played out well on screen, a dialogue or conversation among Harry, Dumbledore, and his friends might have helped to wrap things up somewhat better. While a viewer might guess that Dumbledore's trip to London was a ruse, the book makes it quite clear.
What needed to be wrapped up? The ending was altered, the centaurs arguing over Firenz's action, rescuing Harry was cut, saving Hagrid by getting Norbert out of there was cut. But Dumbledore's ending denoument was right out of the book.
Hmm... okay. Well, it seemed like something was cut (what about the specific point I mentioned--did Dumbledore tell Harry his summons to London was a ruse?) I guess more was cut than I realized.
BTW, I remember the vines, key-room, and chessboard quite well from the book. Did book #1 also have the room with the seven potions, or was that in book #2?
Snape's trap. Yes it was completely gutted. It was in the first book. Unfortunately, it was a *logic* riddle, and those just never play to the big screen. Hermione solved the riddle and then went back to see to Ron in the book, while Harry went forward to face off with Voldemort.
Okay. Good to know my memory was sound. I agree with you about logic puzzles often not working in movies, but at least if the viewer could see the bottles he'd have a chance at solving the puzzle (though probably not enough time to do so, rendering the point moot). Of the puzzles they faced, that was probably the one most worthy of elision.
I think the escape from the vines was probably consistent with the book (don't remember for certain), but was wondering if the paralysis spell might have worked just as well (use it on Ron, not the vines!).
Nono...the escape from the vines wasn't consistent with the book either. Hermione recognized the plant...and the relaxation makes the plant kill you more slowly, but it doesn't let you go. Hermione again remembered that the plant likes dark and damp places and decided that it didn't like *fire*. Then she complained that they had no fire to use against it...(She's from a Muggle family and forgot in her rising panic). Ron yells at her, what kind of witch are you?
Hmm... did Ron reminde her of how she put a little fire up Snape's cloak, or did she figure it out, or did she do something else?
Interesting that Hermione didn't try the 'unlock' spell on the door from the 'key room'. Obviously that spell wasn't the solution to the room, but Ron's failure to unlock the door would hardly suggest that the spell wouldn't work if cast by someone competent.
If he hadn't done it right, Hermione would have mentioned it. Give the guy a break though, he's spent the entire school year learning simple stuff like that, he isn't incompetent.
In the book, perhaps not. In the movie, did any of Ron's spells ever work?
Thanks for your responses to my comments. Wish more people were here to discuss. =Resident Harry Potter Expert Extraordianaire=
Chess involves logic, too, and they kept that puzzle. The real reason the potion puzzle was left out was that drinking potions = taking drugs = guaranteed PG-13 rating. Frankly, I'm stunned that Snape's first-day-of-class speech made it in.
Yes, but with the potion puzzle, there would be no action while the puzzle is solved. Far more exciting to have chess pieces get bashed to pieces.
BTW, how did Quirrel get by the chess pieces? Do they reset themselves based upon who's trying to enter?
Thanks for the answers...I had remembered most but you are definately a Potter Fan!
Happy Thanksgiving...but is that merely a Muggles' Holiday...hehehehehhe....guess only for USA Muggles!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.