today's your birthday?!Quote:
Originally posted by burns91
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUwOJgOXvXA...%20potter%20gay
Hilarious. The movie comes out today!! On my birthday!! What a great gift to myself - I'm such a nerd...
Printable View
today's your birthday?!Quote:
Originally posted by burns91
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUwOJgOXvXA...%20potter%20gay
Hilarious. The movie comes out today!! On my birthday!! What a great gift to myself - I'm such a nerd...
I don't like it when people are like "omgz they left out so much of the book." A movie about a book should not be compared to its representation of the book... it should be judged more individually. Honestly, if they included everything it would be a minimum of 6 hours. Not very good if you ask me. King kong was like 3-4 hours... (I heard Peter jackson was going to release an "extended edition"!). it was really good as well. But anyways, when they adapt the book to a movie, it is good for them to leave out entire subplots as opposed to plot points of specific plots. The one with Neville and the tortured spider... if you are observant you can realize why he was upset just with the movie. Later in the movie it said something about Crouch torturing the longbottom's by means of the cruciatus curse.
But like... the whole thing with the reporter was kind of unnecessary in the movie. Books are often very complicated and include many subplots and making that into a movie would be very very hard. They did quite a good job for this movie, I think.
PS: Ice... the two older twins were supposed to be the least mature.
I think a movie about a book absolutely must be compared to its original source. Certainly though one needs to consider both the time available within a movie, along with the practicality of representing some of the material. Thus the interpretation and presentation of the book's story, within the context (and confines) of the movie, should be judged; not merely what was missing.Quote:
Originally posted by ataraxis
A movie about a book should not be compared to its representation of the book...
BTW, does it annoy anyone else that sometimes Harry's glasses have lenses in them, and sometimes they don't?
Yeah, and his scar tends to move around, too.Quote:
Originally posted by icedawg
BTW, does it annoy anyone else that sometimes Harry's glasses have lenses in them, and sometimes they don't?
you know that always made me wonder if they were flipping the film thereQuote:
Originally posted by burns91
Yeah, and his scar tends to move around, too.
egg on their face :shakehead2:
Not to mention Harry is supposed to have green eyes. I mean, how hard is it to give a kid contacts?
i'm not sure that any kind of contacts can really work that well with people with brown eyes... can they? perhaps special hollywood contacts do in fact work?Quote:
Originally posted by Amethyst Star
Not to mention Harry is supposed to have green eyes. I mean, how hard is it to give a kid contacts?
i think we've all seen the people who have brown eyes and wear blue or green contacts, giving them that really creepy eye colour. why do they do this? why? damn it's creepy...a good friend should really clue them in. someone in my biology lab wears them and i can't maintain eye contact in a conversation. *shudders*
Dan Radcliffe who plays Harry Potter has blue eyes. So it would be so extremely simple to make them green! Ame, I never understood why they didn't do it for the movies either. It's kind of an important thing in the books. :shakehead2:Quote:
Originally posted by icedawg
i'm not sure that any kind of contacts can really work that well with people with brown eyes... can they?
I have brown eyes normally, but I don't think my contacts look that creepy?Quote:
Originally posted by icedawg
i think we've all seen the people who have brown eyes and wear blue or green contacts, giving them that really creepy eye colour. why do they do this? why? damn it's creepy...a good friend should really clue them in. someone in my biology lab wears them and i can't maintain eye contact in a conversation. *shudders*
http://static.flickr.com/24/61929840_e79fa46ec8.jpg
LMAO :rolllaugh: you look possessed.Quote:
Originally posted by OpheliaBlue
I have brown eyes normally, but I don't think my contacts look that creepy?
http://static.flickr.com/24/61929840_e79fa46ec8.jpg
yes, well clearly ophelia--clearly--you're the exception. *snort*Quote:
Originally posted by burns91+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burns91)</div>oops. my bad. guess i spent so much time being annoyed about the whole glasses thing that i failed to take notice of his eye colour. :wink:Quote:
Dan Radcliffe who plays Harry Potter has blue eyes. So it would be so extremely simple to make them green! Ame, I never understood why they didn't do it for the movies either. It's kind of an important thing in the books. :shakehead2:[/b]
<!--QuoteBegin-ophelia
I have brown eyes normally, but I don't think my contacts look that creepy?
Harry and Ron - more than just friends? Hahaha :rolllaugh:
loLOLolQuote: